2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11665-011-9844-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Discrete-Particle Versus Continuum-Based Computational Investigation of Soil Response to Impulse Loading

Abstract: Two representative soil models are compared and contrasted within two transient nonlinear dynamics computational analyses. The first soil model is representative of a discrete-particle group of models, while the other is a typical continuum-type consolidated-soil model. The two computational analyses involved: (a) the case of a soil slug impacting a rigid flat surface and (b) the case of detonation of a mine shallow buried in soil and the interaction of the resulting gaseous detonation products, mine fragments… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An example of a prototypical soil unit cell is displayed in Figure 6; (ii) Next, the unit cell is subjected to volumetric compression, and the particle contact stiffness k and the contact damping coefficient c are varied in a systematic manner (while holding the inter-particle friction coefficient at a constant level of µ ¼ 0.15 (Grujicic et al, 2008a, b)) until a good match is obtained between the experimentally measured (for prairie sand containing high level of silt and clay) pressure vs density and the computed pressure vs density functional relations. More details of this procedure can be found in our recent work (Grujicic et al, 2011a). This procedure yielded k ¼ 4 GN/m, c ¼ 0.0 MN s/m, and µ ¼ 0.15.…”
Section: Ijsi 71mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An example of a prototypical soil unit cell is displayed in Figure 6; (ii) Next, the unit cell is subjected to volumetric compression, and the particle contact stiffness k and the contact damping coefficient c are varied in a systematic manner (while holding the inter-particle friction coefficient at a constant level of µ ¼ 0.15 (Grujicic et al, 2008a, b)) until a good match is obtained between the experimentally measured (for prairie sand containing high level of silt and clay) pressure vs density and the computed pressure vs density functional relations. More details of this procedure can be found in our recent work (Grujicic et al, 2011a). This procedure yielded k ¼ 4 GN/m, c ¼ 0.0 MN s/m, and µ ¼ 0.15.…”
Section: Ijsi 71mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, the unit cell is subjected to volumetric compression, and the particle contact stiffness k and the contact damping coefficient c are varied in a systematic manner (while holding the inter-particle friction coefficient at a constant level of m ¼ 0.15 (Grujicic et al, 2010b(Grujicic et al, , 2011a)) until a good match is obtained between the experimentally measured (for prairie sand containing high level of silt and clay) pressure vs density and the computed pressure vs density functional relations. More details of this procedure can be found in our recent work (Grujicic et al, 2013b).…”
Section: Military Vehicle Hull Floorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather, through the proper selection of the stiffness constants of the normal and tangential contact springs, particle stiffness is accounted for implicitly. Also, soil-particle fracture processes are not considered (explicitly or implicitly) since they are associated with minor energy absorption/dissipation effects and, as shown in our prior work (Grujicic et al, 2011), do not significantly affect the computational results.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%