2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10346-019-01238-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling rockfall impact with scarring in compactable soils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It confirms the intuition, that soil impacts of faster projectiles dissipate more energy as they generally penetrate further into the soil for equivalent soil conditions than smaller rocks. This is owing to the fact, that the compressibility of the impacted soil is limited to a velocity-dependent maximal penetration depth 44 . This maximal penetration depth is dependent on soil composition and impact configuration, meaning larger and faster rocks produce larger scars upon impact.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It confirms the intuition, that soil impacts of faster projectiles dissipate more energy as they generally penetrate further into the soil for equivalent soil conditions than smaller rocks. This is owing to the fact, that the compressibility of the impacted soil is limited to a velocity-dependent maximal penetration depth 44 . This maximal penetration depth is dependent on soil composition and impact configuration, meaning larger and faster rocks produce larger scars upon impact.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The initial rock orientation was the only varying input parameter. The same soil conditions as well as the same time step (0.002 s) was employed for both the explicit and the implicit scheme [17]. Figure 5 visualizes the maximal kinetic rock energy of the simulation ensemble of the thousand trajectories using the statistic mode of RAMMS::ROCKFALL for the explicit scheme and for the new implicit scheme (Figs.…”
Section: Idealized Inclined Slopementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reader is referred to Lu et al (Lu et al 2018) for a detailed comparison of the pros and cons of these two methods. The implementation of the non-smooth mechanics modelling for rockfall on an arbitrary slope was addressed elsewhere (Leine et al 2014;Lu et al 2019). The main aspect will only be shortly presented in the following sections.…”
Section: Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The contact detection routine is distinguished into two paths: DCT (Direct Contact Test) and SAT (Separating Axis Test), depending on the spherical or nonspherical rock shape. The interaction between a rock and a tree stem is considered as hard contact (Leine et al 2014;Lu et al 2019), preventing the rock from further penetrating into the tree stem; thus the energy dissipation of the rock caused by the uprooting and the swaying of tree stem/crown is not incorporated. In order to efficiently identify collisions between non-spherical rocks and tree stems, a global contact detection phase is in general required by performing AABB (Axis Aligned Bounding Box) tests (Lu et al 2012).…”
Section: Rock-tree Contact Detection Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%