مهندسی سازه و ساخت

مهندسی سازه و ساخت

مطالعه اثر زبری سطح مشترک بر رفتار برشی سیستم خاک دانه‌ای-سازه با استفاده از شبیه‌سازی سه‌بعدی به روش اجزای منفصل

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 استادیار، گروه مهندسی ژئوتکنیک و حمل و نقل، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، آب و محیط زیست، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد، گروه مهندسی ژئوتکنیک و حمل و نقل، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، آب و محیط زیست، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مهندسی ژئوتکنیک و حمل و نقل، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، آب و محیط زیست، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
رفتار برشی سطح مشترک خاک – سازه نقش مهمی در برآورد ظرفیت باربری سازه‌های ژئوتکنیکی مانند شمع‌ها، دیوارهای حائل، مهاری‌ها و سامانه‌های خاک مسلح ایفا می‌کند و زبری نسبی سطح سازه در تماس با خاک، یکی از عوامل بسیار مؤثر بر این رفتار است. در مطالعه حاضر، به بررسی اثر زبری نسبی بر رفتار برشی سطح مشترک خاک – سازه پرداخته می‌شود. از آنجاکه مطالعات گذشته عموماً بر رفتار ماکروسکوپیک این سطح متمرکز بوده‌اند، این پژوهش به بررسی رفتار برشی تماسی خاک‌های دانه‌ای از دیدگاه میکروسکوپیک می‌پردازد. برای این منظور، آزمایش برش سطح مشترک تحت بارگذاری مونوتونیک با مقادیر مختلف زبری نسبی سطح تماس (Rn=0, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2) به‌صورت سه‌بعدی با روش اجزای منفصل‌ شبیه‌سازی می‌شود. در این روش، از ذرات کروی برای شبیه‌سازی دانه‌های خاک، مدل تماسی خطی برای ارتباط بین آن‌ها و مقاومت چرخشی برای لحاظ نمودن مجازی اثر شکل ذرات استفاده می‌شود. برای نمایش هندسه‌ سطح زبر سازه در تماس با خاک دانه‌ای، الگوی دندانه‌دار استاندارد به‌کار گرفته می‌شود. برای مطالعه رفتار برشی تماسی، پارامترهای ماکروسکوپی مانند تنش برشی، زاویه اصطکاک و کرنش حجمی و پارامترهای میکروسکوپی مانند پوکی، عدد تماسی، زنجیره نیروها و نحوه جهت‌گیری تماس‌ها بررسی می‌شوند. نتایج نشان می‌دهند زمانی‌که پارامتر زبری نسبی صفر و سطح سازه کاملاً صاف است، رفتار نمونه کشسان – مومسان کامل است و ناحیه برشی در نمونه تشکیل نمی‌شود. با افزایش زبری نسبی تا مقدار بحرانی، تنش برشی و زاویه اصطکاک بیشینه در سطح مشترک با شیب تندی افزایش می‌یابند و پس از آن تغییرات اندک است. با افزایش زبری نسبی از ۵/۰ به ۲، مقاومت برشی بیشینه ۵۰ کیلوپاسکال و کرنش حجمی ۲۹۵ درصد افزایش می‌یابند. ضخامت ناحیه برشی تحت تاثیر زبری نسبی سطح سازه قرار دارد و با افزایش زبری نسبی از ۵/۰ به ۲، از D50۱/۲ به D50۵۳/۴ و به میزان ۱/۴ میلی‌متر افزایش می‌یابد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Investigation of the Effect of Interface Roughness on the Shear Behavior of a Granular Soil-Structure System Using 3D DEM Simulation

نویسندگان English

Babak Ebrahimian 1
Aidin Kahbasi 2
Seyed Ali Mirkhani 3
1 َAssistant Professor, Department of Geotechnical and Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University (SBU), Tehran, Iran
2 Graduate M.Sc. Student, Department of Geotechnical and Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Geotechnical and Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

The shear behavior of soil-structure interfaces plays a crucial role in estimating the bearing capacity of geotechnical structures such as retaining walls, anchors, piles, and reinforced soil systems. One key factor influencing the shear behavior of the soil-structure interface is the relative roughness of the structure’s surface in contact with the adjacent soil body. In the present study, the effect of relative roughness on the shear behavior of the soil-structure interface is investigated. For this purpose, a three-dimensional (3D) interface shear box test is simulated under monotonic loading, with varying surface roughness (Rn = 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2) of the bottom bounding structure. Numerical analyses are conducted using the discrete element method (DEM). In this approach, spherical particles are used to simulate soil grains, a linear contact model is applied to represent the interaction between them, and rotational resistance is considered to virtually account for the effect of particle shape. A standard sawtooth pattern is employed to represent the rough surface geometry of the bounding structure in contact with the granular soil. To calculate the thickness of the shear zone, the average particle displacement and porosity distribution are used. DEM results show when the relative roughness is zero and the structure's surface is completely smooth, the sample exhibits a perfectly elastic-plastic behavior, and no shear zone forms along the interface. As the relative roughness increases, the shear stress and peak friction angle at the interface rise sharply until reaching a critical surface roughness value, beyond which changes are minimal. With an increase in relative roughness from 0.5 to 2, the peak shear resistance increases by 50 kPa, and the volumetric strain increases by 295%. The shear zone thickness also increases from 2.1D50 to 4.53D50 (4.1 mm), as relative roughness rises from 0.5 to 2.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Soil-structure interaction
Surface roughness
Shear strength
Interface shear test
Granular soil
Discrete element method
[1] Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., & Alsaleh, M. I. (2012). Modeling shear localization along granular soil–structure interfaces using elasto-plastic Cosserat continuum. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 49(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.09.005
[2] Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., & Alsaleh, M. I. (2017). Modeling interface shear behavior of granular materials using micro-polar continuum approach. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 30(1), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00161-017-0588-4
[3] Wang, P., Yin, Z., Zhou, W., & Chen, W. (2021). Micro-mechanical analysis of soil–structure interface behavior under constant normal stiffness condition with DEM. Acta Geotechnica, 17(7), 2711–2733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01374-8
[4] Wang, R., Ong, D. E. L., Peerun, M. I., & Jeng, D. (2022). Influence of surface roughness and particle Characteristics on Soil–Structure Interactions: A State-of-the-Art Review. Geosciences, 12(4), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences12040145
[5] Tejchman, J. (1997). Modelling of shear localisation and autogeneous dynamic effects in granular bodies. Publication Series of the Institute for Soil Mechanics and Rock Mechanics. 140, 1-335. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1571698599493386880
[6] Dejong, J. T., White, D. J., & Randolph, M. F. (2006). Microscale observation and modeling of Soil-Structure interface behavior using particle image velocimetry. Soils and Foundations, 46(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.46.15
[7] Ebrahimian, B., & Bauer, E. (2011). Numerical simulation of the effect of interface friction of a bounding structure on shear deformation in a granular soil. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 36(12), 1486–1506. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1059
[8] Bauer, E., & Ebrahimian, B. (2021). Investigations of granular specimen size effect in interface shear box test using a micro‐polar continuum description. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 45(17), 2467–2489. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3273
[9] Dove, J., Bents, D., Wang, J., & Gao, B. (2006). Particle-scale surface interactions of non-dilative interface systems. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(3), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.01.002
[10] Punetha, P., Mohanty, P., & Samanta, M. (2017). Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct shear test. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
[11] Samanta, M., Punetha, P., & Sharma, M. (2018). Effect of roughness on interface shear behavior of sand with steel and concrete surface. Geomechanics and Engineering, 14(4), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.14.4.387
[12] Alidadi, S. , Alipour, R. , & Shakeri, M. (2022). Fractures in non-homogeneous rockfill materials from a micromechanics perspective. Journal of Hydraulic Structures, 8(2), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.22055/jhs.2022.41574.1225
[13] Alidadi, S., Alipour, R., & Shakeri, M. (2022). Influence of rockfill particle breakage on long-term settlement of embankment dams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering, 176(4), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.21.00005
[14] Ebrahimian, B., & Alsaleh, M. I. (2023). Modeling isochoric and non-isochoric deformations in a polar elasto-plastic material. Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, 51(7), 4007-4031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15397734.2021.1949344
[15] Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., & Alsaleh, M. I. (2019). A numerical study on interface shearing of granular Cosserat materials. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 25(13), 2337–2369. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1627249
[16] Ebrahimian, B., Alsaleh, M. I., & Kahbasi, A. (2021). Comparative FE-studies of interface behavior of granular Cosserat materials under constant pressure and constant volume conditions. Archives of Mechanics, 73(5-6), 421-470. http://doi.org/10.24423/aom.3726
[17] Potyondy, J. G. (1961). Skin friction between various soils and construction materials. Géotechnique, 11(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1961.11.4.339
[18] Martinez, A., Frost, J. D., & Hebeler, G. L. (2015). Experimental study of shear zones formed at Sand/Steel interfaces in axial and torsional axisymmetric tests. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 38(4), 20140266. https://doi.org/10.1520/gtj20140266
[19] Hebeler, G. L., Martinez, A., & Frost, J. D. (2015). Shear zone evolution of granular soils in contact with conventional and textured CPT friction sleeves. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(4), 1267–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0767-6
[20] Porcino, D., Fioravante, V., Ghionna, V., & Pedroni, S. (2003). Interface Behavior of Sands from Constant Normal Stiffness Direct Shear Tests. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1520/gtj11308j
[21] Sharma, M., Samanta, M., & Sarkar, S. (2017). Laboratory study on pullout capacity of helical soil nail in cohesionless soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 54(10), 1482–1495. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0243
[22] Zhao, C., Zhang, R., Zhao, C., Wang, W., & Wang, Y. (2021). A three-dimensional evaluation of interface shear behavior between granular material and rough surface. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 49(2), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1520/jte20180749
[23] Brumund, W., & Leonards, G. (1973). Experimental study of static and dynamic friction between sand and typical constuction materials. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 1(2), 162–165. https://doi.org/10.1520/jte10893j
[24] Feng, S., Liu, X., Chen, H., & Zhao, T. (2017). Micro-mechanical analysis of geomembrane-sand interactions using DEM. Computers and Geotechnics, 94, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.08.019
[25] Chen, W., Zhou, W., & Santos, J. a. D. (2020). Analysis of consistent soil–structure interface response in multi–directional shear tests by discrete element modeling. Transportation Geotechnics, 24, 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100379
[26] Guo, J., Wang, X., Lei, S., Wang, R., Kou, H., & Wei, D. (2020). Effects of groove feature on shear behavior of Steel-Sand interface. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2020, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9593187
[27] Zhou, W., & Yin, Z. (2022). Practice of Discrete Element Method in Soil-Structure Interface Modelling. Springer Nature, 260 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0047-1
[28] Kishida, H., & Uesugi, M. (1987). Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus. Géotechnique, 37(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.1.45
[29] Farhadi, B., & Lashkari, A. (2015). Study on the influence of roughness on the strength and volume change behaviors of sand-steel interfaces. Experimental Research in Civil Engineering, 2(3), 35-45.
[30] Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., & Alsaleh, M. I. (2012). FE simulation of shear localization along granular soil–structure interfaces using micro-polar elasto-plasticity. Mechanics Research Communications, 39(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2011.10.001
[31] Uesugi, M., & Kishida, H. (1986). Frictional resistance at yield between dry sand and mild steel. Soils and Foundations, 26(4), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.26.4_139
[32] Frost, J., DeJong, J., & Recalde, M. (2002). Shear failure behavior of granular–continuum interfaces. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 69(17), 2029–2048. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0013-7944(02)00075-9
[33] Hu, L., & Pu, J. (2004). Testing and modeling of soil-structure interface. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(8), 851–860. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2004)130:8(851
[34] Zhu, H., Zhou, W., & Yin, Z. (2017). Deformation mechanism of strain localization in 2D numerical interface tests. Acta Geotechnica, 13(3), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-017-0561-1
[35] Martinez, A., & Frost, J. D. (2017). The influence of surface roughness form on the strength of sand–structure interfaces. Géotechnique Letters, 7(1), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.16.00169
[36] Jing, X., Zhou, W., Zhu, H., Yin, Z., & Li, Y. (2017). Analysis of soil‐structural interface behavior using three‐dimensional DEM simulations. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 42(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2745
[37] Su, L., Zhou, W., Chen, W., & Jie, X. (2018). Effects of relative roughness and mean particle size on the shear strength of sand-steel interface. Measurement, 122, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.03.003
[38] Zhang, N., & Evans, T. M. (2018). Three-dimensional discrete element method simulations of interface shear. Soils and Foundations, 58(4), 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.05.010
[39] Wang, H., Zhou, W., Yin, Z., & Jie, X. (2019). Effect of grain size distribution of sandy soil on shearing behaviors at Soil–Structure Interface. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 31(10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002880
[40] Han, F., Ganju, E., Prezzi, M., & Salgado, R. (2019). Closure to “Effects of interface roughness, particle geometry, and gradation on the sand–steel interface friction angle” by Fei Han, Eshan Ganju, Rodrigo Salgado, and Monica Prezzi, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145(11). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002172
[41] Jing, X., Zhou, W., & Li, Y. (2017). Interface direct shearing behavior between soil and saw-tooth surfaces by DEM simulation. Procedia Engineering, 175, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.011
[42] Grabowski, A., Nitka, M., & Tejchman, J. (2020). 3D DEM simulations of monotonic interface behaviour between cohesionless sand and rigid wall of different roughness. Acta Geotechnica, 16(4), 1001–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01085-6
[43] He, X., Xu, H., Li, W., & Sheng, D. (2020). An improved VOF-DEM model for soil-water interaction with particle size scaling. Computers and Geotechnics, 128, 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103818
[44] Huang, X., O’Sullivan, C., Hanley, K. J., & Kwok, C. Y. (2014). Discrete-element method analysis of the state parameter. Géotechnique, 64(12), 954–965. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.14.p.013
[45] Wang, P., & Yin, Z. (2022). Effect of particle breakage on the behavior of soil-structure interface under constant normal stiffness condition with DEM. Computers and Geotechnics, 147, 104766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104766
[46] Wang, J., Gutierrez, M. S., & Dove, J. E. (2007). Numerical studies of shear banding in interface shear tests using a new strain calculation method. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 31(12), 1349–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.589
[47] Huang, W., Huang, L., Sheng, D., & Sloan, S. W. (2014). DEM modelling of shear localization in a plane Couette shear test of granular materials. Acta Geotechnica, 10(3), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-014-0348-6
[48] Zhu, H., Nguyen, H., Nicot, F., & Darve, F. (2016). On a common critical state in localized and diffuse failure modes. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 95, 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2016.05.026
[49] Liu, Y., Liu, H., & Mao, H. (2018). The influence of rolling resistance on the stress-dilatancy and fabric anisotropy of granular materials. Granular Matter, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-017-0780-z
[50] Zhao, S., Evans, T. M., & Zhou, X. (2018). Shear-induced anisotropy of granular materials with rolling resistance and particle shape effects. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 150, 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.06.024
[51] Ai, J., Chen, J., Rotter, J. M., & Ooi, J. Y. (2010). Assessment of rolling resistance models in discrete element simulations. Powder Technology, 206(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2010.09.030
[52] Dong, Y., Fatahi, B., Khabbaz, H., & Zhang, H. (2018). Influence of particle contact models on soil response of poorly graded sand during cavity expansion in discrete element simulation. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 10(6), 1154–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.03.009
[53] Cui, L., & O’Sullivan, C. (2006). Exploring the macro- and micro-scale response of an idealised granular material in the direct shear apparatus. Géotechnique, 56(7), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.7.455
[54] Lommen, S., Schott, D., & Lodewijks, G. (2013). DEM speedup: Stiffness effects on behavior of bulk material. Particuology, 12, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2013.03.006
[55] Ng, T. (2006). Input parameters of discrete element methods. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 132(7), 723–729. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(2006)132:7(723
[56] Cerato, A., & Lutenegger, A. (2006). Specimen size and scale effects of direct shear box tests of sands. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 29(6), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1520/gtj100312
[57] Wang, J., Dove, J. E., Gutierrez, M. S., & Corton, J. (2005). Shear deformation in the interphase region. Powders and grains, 747-750. https://doi.org/10.1201/noe0415383486
[58] Oda, M. (1972). The mechanism of fabric changes during compressional deformation of sand. Soils and Foundations, 12(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.12.1
[59] Yin, Z., & Chang, C. S. (2011). Stress–dilatancy behavior for sand under loading and unloading conditions. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 37(8), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1125
[60] Satake, M. (1982). Fabric tensor in granular materials. In IUTAM-Conference on Deformation and Failure of Granular Materials, 63-68. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1571980075689604736
[61] Barreto, D., O’Sullivan, C., Zdravkovic, L., Nakagawa, M., & Luding, S. (2009). Quantifying the evolution of soil fabric under different stress paths. AIP Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3179881
[62] Lü, X., Ma, Y., Qian, J., & Huang, M. (2019). Discrete-element simulation of scaling effect of strain localization in dense granular materials. International Journal of Geomechanics, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0001443
[63] Alshibli, K. A., & Hasan, A. (2008). Spatial variation of void ratio and shear band thickness in sand using X-ray computed tomography. Géotechnique, 58(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.58.4.249
[64] Wang, J. (2006). Micromechanics of Granular Media: A Fundamental study of Interphase systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia tech. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27216
[65] Martinez, A., & Frost, J. (2016). Particle‐scale effects on global axial and torsional interface shear behavior. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 41(3), 400–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2564

  • تاریخ دریافت 02 آبان 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 06 بهمن 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 22 اسفند 1403