Cil, M. B. et al.

(2013)

Ge otechnique Letters 3, 1315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.13.00004

Discussion: 3D assessment of fracture of sand particles using discrete element method

M. B. CIL*, K. A. ALSHIBLI*, G. R. MCDOWELL { and H. LI {

ICE Publishing: all rights reserved

CONTRIBUTION BY G. R. MCDOWELL AND H. LI The article by Cil & Alshibli gives each agglomerate a single bond strength, which is taken from a normal distribution of mean 475 MPa and standard deviation 150 MPa (Cil & Alshibli, 2012). This gives a coefficient of variation of 0?32. The authors stated that particle size and packing density of spherical sub-particles have minor effects on the behaviour of the agglomerate but have not quantified this, nor have they quantified the effect of the orientation of the agglomerate on the strength of the agglomerate for a single bond strength. If there is no effect, then one would expect the strength of the agglomerate to be proportional to the (single) bond strength. The coefficient of variation for the agglomerate strengths should therefore be the same as that for the bond strengths and equal to 0?32 (this assumes the geometry at failure is the same for each single bond strength, which will certainly be the case if failure occurs at the same strain, but this additional complication is ignored here and it is assumed that the geometry at failure is approximately unchanged). The average agglomerate strength is 118?43 MPa. This would give a standard deviation in agglomerate strength of 0?32 6 118?43 5 37?89 MPa. Figure 3 of the original paper is reproduced here as Fig. 6, with a normal distribution with a mean of 118?43 MPa and standard deviation of 37?89 MPa plotted in the figure along the authors Weibull DEM fit line. The normal distribution fit is a better fit to the authors DEM data than their proposed Weibull distribution. This demonstrates that, in this case, it is not necessary or relevant to try and fit the data with a Weibull distribution and that the distribution of strengths is a result of the allocated normal distribution of single bond strengths. AUTHORS REPLY We thank Professor McDowell and Mr Li for their valuable comments and criticism. It was mentioned in the original paper (Cil & Alshibli, 2012) that the minimum diameter of the spherical sub-particles, the bonding strength between spherical sub-particles, the fabric and shape of the agglomerate were altered to capture the variation in tensile strength of single-particle crushing observed in laboratory experiments. The tested silica sand particles were fairly uniform (0?60?85 mm diameter) and sub-spherical to spherical in shape. Yet laboratory singleparticle crushing experiments exhibited a significant variation in the tensile strength. Such variation might be
Manuscript received 9 January 2013; accepted 9 January 2013. Published online at www.geotechniqueletters.com on 1 February 2013. * Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA { University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

attributed to structural defects, crystal structure orientation, particle shape or particleplaten interaction. To reproduce such a complex system using an agglomerate of bonded spheres within the framework of the discrete element method (DEM), the authors incorporated the influence of the parameters mentioned above. The effects of the parameters mentioned by McDowell and Li were quantified by conducting a series of simulations by varying a specific model parameter. The influence of particle size was examined by changing the minimum radius (Rmin) while maintaining a constant radius ratio of Rmax/Rmin to preserve the same agglomerate structure. Fabric is defined by the size (radius) and location of the sub-spheres that were used to generate the agglomerate. Two agglomerates with the same number and particle size distribution of sub-spheres (i.e. same packing density or void ratio) will have different fabrics if the coordinates of the sub-spheres change within the agglomerate. The influence of particle size is given in Table 2, which shows that it has a relatively small standard deviation and coefficient of variation (cv). Changing the fabric of the agglomerate will influence the distribution of force chains within the agglomerate. Therefore, we believe it unnecessary to change the
Table 2. Effect of particle size, fabric and void ratio (or packing density) on the tensile strength of agglomerates Tensile strength: MPa Minimum radius, Rmin: mm 0?02 0?03 0?04 0?05 0?06 Mean, m Standard deviation, sd Coefficient of variation, cv Agglomerate fabric Fabric 1 Fabric 2 Fabric 3 Fabric 4 Fabric 5 m sd cv Void ratio, e 0?47 0?54 0?61 0?72 m sd cv 124?49 116?31 134?30 133?12 126?54 126?95 7?27 0?06 101?15 126?54 114?69 121?24 95?55 111?83 13?16 0?12 106?59 117?57 111?93 101?90 109?50 6?75 0?06

13

14

Cil, Alshibli, McDowell and Li

Digitised DEM data 3 Weibull distribution fit line 2 Normal distribution fit line 1 ln [ln(1/Ps)] Weibull distribution fit R2 = 0.918

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Normal distribution fit R2 = 0.921

lns

Fig. 6. The comparison of Weibull distribution fit and normal distribution fit of digitised DEM simulations

orientation of the agglomerate in this case since the fabric changes from one agglomerate to another. This has an effect equivalent to changing the orientation of an agglomerate without changing its fabric. The influence of fabric on the tensile strength of agglomerate was examined by changing the seed of the random number generator in PFC3D. An agglomerate with a porosity of 0?35 (void ratio of 0?54) was generated and used in the simulations. The effect of packing density was also investigated by varying porosity values between 0?32 and 0?42, which correspond to void ratios of 0?47 to 0?72, respectively. The results (listed in Table 2) clearly demonstrate that packing density

has a minor effect on the tensile strength of the agglomerate and that the fabric does influence its tensile strength. The contributors state that the distribution of strengths is a result of the allocated normal distribution of single bond strengths. We disagree with this comment since it ignored the influence of other mentioned factors and simplified a highly complex and non-linear model based on single bond strength. To further investigate the effect of only changing the single bond strength, we conducted a series of DEM simulations on agglomerates with identical particle size distribution of sub-spheres, fabric, shape and packing density while changing the single bond strength

4 Lab tests DEM published in original paper DEM using bond strength = 475 150 MPa Lab tests fit line Weibull distribution fit for DEM results Fit line for DEM using bond strength = 475 150 MPa Normal distribution fit DEM using bond strength = 475 150 MPa y = 3.93 17.94 R2 = 0.970 Normal distribution fit suggested by contributors y = 4.02 18.16 R2 = 0.968 2 Weibull distribution fit for DEM y = 3.30 16.10 R2 = 0.921 4

0 ln [ln(1/Ps)]

Lab tests fit y = 3.26 16.06 R2 = 0.938

6 3 4 lns 5 6

Fig. 7. Comparison of Weibull and normal distribution with laboratory and previous DEM results

Discussion: 3D assessment of fracture of sand particles using discrete element method according to a normal distribution with a mean of 475 MPa and standard deviation of 150 MPa. The results of the analysis are depicted in Fig. 7, which demonstrates that changing only the single bond strength is insufficient to reproduce the Weibull modulus and match strength variation in experimental measurements, and that it is necessary to incorporate other parameter effects in the analysis. We agree with the contributors comment that the normal distribution fit line yields a fit as good as the

15

Weibull distribution as demonstrated by the fit lines shown in Fig. 7. However, it is not enough to change only the single bond strength to match experimental measurements. REFERENCE
Cil, M. B. & Alshibli, K. A. (2012). 3D assessment of fracture of sand particles using discrete element method. Ge otechnique Lett. 2, No. 3, 161166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.12.00024.