| Literature DB >> 30532652 |
Bettina Suhr1, Stefan Marschnig2, Klaus Six1.
Abstract
Railway ballast is an angular and coarse material, which demands careful DEM modelling and validation. Particle shape is often modelled in high accuracy, thus leading to computational expensive DEM models. Whether this effort will increase the DEM model's overall prediction quality will also vitally depend on the used contact law and the validation process. In general, a DEM model validated using different types of principal experiments can be considered more trustworthy in simulating other load cases. Here, two types of railway ballast are compared and DEM model validation is conducted. Calcite and Kieselkalk are investigated under compression and direct shear test. All experimental data will be made openly accessible to promote further research on this topic. In the experiments, the behaviour of Calcite and Kieselkalk is surprisingly similar in the direct shear test, while clear differences can be seen in the stiffnesses in the compression test. In DEM modelling, simple particle shapes are combined with the Conical Damage Model contact law. For each type of ballast, one set of parameters is found, such that simulation and experimental results are in good accordance. A comparison with the simplified Hertz-Mindlin contact law shows several drawbacks of this model. First, the model cannot be calibrated to meet both compression and shear test results. Second, the similar behaviour in shear testing but differences in compression cannot be reproduced using the Hertz-Mindlin model. For these reasons, the CDM model is considered the better choice for the simulation of railway ballast, if simple particle shapes are used.Entities:
Keywords: DEM simulation; Model validation; Particle contact modelling; Railway ballast
Year: 2018 PMID: 30532652 PMCID: PMC6245121 DOI: 10.1007/s10035-018-0843-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Granul Matter ISSN: 1434-5021 Impact factor: 2.652
Fig. 1Test rig. Shown are the steel loading plate on top of the specimen, the load cell, the hydraulic load arm and the four position sensors
Fig. 2Gradation curves of the used two types of ballast. The gradation cut of at 40 mm, is shown in the included axes for both ballast types
Fig. 3Sketch of applied load levels in compression test over time
Fig. 4Results of five independent compression tests for the two types of ballast
Fig. 5Median of the time-shifted results of compression tests for the two types of ballast
Fig. 6Results of direct shear tests conducted with normal loads , 20, 30 kN for the two types of ballast
Fig. 7Direct comparison of direct shear tests conducted with normal loads , 20, 30 kN for the two types of ballast. Median of measurements are shown
Fig. 8Wear and edge breakage after the after direct shear test with kN
Fig. 9DEM model of direct shear test
Material parameters used for the simulation of both types of ballast
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calcite | 60 | 0.2 | 0.45 | 600 | 0.0154 | 2822.2 |
| Kieselkalk | 30 | 0.2 | 0.45 | 280 | 0.0098 | 2660.0 |
| steel box | 200 | 0.28 | 0.2 | – | – | 7833.34 |
Fig. 10Comparison between experimental results (median) and simulation results (median) for the compression and the direct shear test using the parameter values specified in Table 1
Comparison of experimental and simulated compression test. Calculated slopes B of both curves and relative error of vertical path
| exp | sim |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calcite | 346 | 356 | 0.00015 |
| Kieselkalk | 272 | 244 | 0.00018 |
Comparison between experimental and simulated dilation in the direct shear test using the angle of dilation and the relative error in vertical displacement
|
| exp | sim |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Calcite | |||
| 10 kN |
|
| 0.16 |
| 20 kN |
|
| 0.16 |
| 30 kN |
|
| 0.68 |
| Kieselkalk | |||
| 10 kN |
|
| 0.18 |
| 20 kN |
|
| 0.09 |
| 30 kN |
|
| 0.15 |
Comparison between experimental and simulated shear behaviour using the secant bulk friction angle and the relative error in shear force
|
| exp | sim |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Calcite | |||
| 10 kN |
|
| 0.15 |
| 20 kN |
|
| 0.12 |
| 30 kN |
|
| 0.15 |
| Kieselkalk | |||
| 10 kN |
|
| 0.19 |
| 20 kN |
|
| 0.12 |
| 30 kN |
|
| 0.09 |
Fig. 11Comparison between simulations with Hertz-Mindlin and CDM model for Calcite