Wide shear zones and the spot model: Implications from the split-bottom geometry

European Physical Journal E

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 73-78

  Woldhuis, E ^a   Tighe, B P ^a   Van Saarloos, W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COUETTE CELLS; DIFFERENT GEOMETRIES; DRIFT TERMS; GRAIN DIAMETERS; GRANULAR FLOWS; LENGTH SCALE; MOHR COULOMBS; OPPOSING FLOWS; QUASI STATICS; SHEAR ZONES; SLIP LINES; SPOT DIAMETERS; STRESS AND STRAIN RATES; TWO-DIMENSIONAL;

CONFINED FLOW; FREE VOLUME; GRANULAR MATERIALS;

STRAIN RATE;

EID: 63149114700     PISSN: 12928941     EISSN: 1292895X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1140/epje/i2008-10418-0     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. R.M. Nedderman, Statics and Kinematics of Granular Materials (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
2. GDR MiDi, Eur. Phys. J. E 14, 367 (2004).
3. W.A. Beverloo et al., J. Chem. Eng. 15, 260 (1961).
4. A.W. Jenike, Bulletin No. 108, Utah Eng. Expt. Station, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (1961).
5. I.S. Aranson, L.S. Tsimring, Phys. Rev. E 64, 020301 (2001).
6. L. Bocquet, J. Errami, T.C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 184301 (2002).
7. P. Jop, Y. Forterre, O. Pouliquen, Nature 441, 727 (2006).
8. M.Z. Bazant, Mech. Mat. 38, 717 (2006).
9. C.H. Rycroft, M.Z. Bazant, G.S. Grest, J.W. Landry, Phys. Rev. E 73, 051306 (2006).
10. K. Kamrin, M.Z. Bazant, Phys. Rev. E 75, 041301 (2007).
11. K. Kamrin, C.H. Rycroft, M.Z. Bazant, Modeling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 15, S449 (2007).
12. P. Sollich, F. Lequeux, P. Hébraud, M.E. Cates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2020 (1997).
13. P. Sollich, Phys. Rev. E 58, 738 (1998).
14. M.L. Falk, J.S. Langer, Phys. Rev. E 57, 7192 (1998).
15. A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 195503 (2002).
16. C. Maloney, A. Lematre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 01600 (2004).
17. E. Bouchbinder, J.S. Langer, I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 75, 036107 (2007).
18. D. Fenistein, M. van Hecke, Nature 425, 256 (2003).
19. D. Fenistein, J.-W. van de Meent, M. van Hecke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 094301 (2004).
20. D. Fenistein, J.-W. van de Meent, M. van Hecke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 118001 (2006).
21. X. Cheng, J.B. Lechman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 038001 (2006).
22. T. Unger, J. Kertész, D.E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 178001 (2005).
23. M. Depken, W. van Saarloos, M. van Hecke, Phys. Rev. E 73, 031302 (2006).
24. M. Depken, J.B. Lechman, M. van Hecke, W. van Saarloos, G.S. Grest, Euro. Phys. Lett. 78, 58001 (2007).
25. In the approximation, the stress boundary conditions are not really properly satisfied, most obviously at the bottom slice. Our approximation is motivated by the results of Unger et al. [22], who find that loading at the boundaries of the rigid regions, rather than compressions or tractions appearing as body forces within a slice, is the dominant effect in determining the position of the shear zone. As explained in the beginning of this section, we do not attempt to correct these shortcomings here as a proper treatment will not alter our conclusions concerning the qualitative features of the shear zones implied by equation (1).
26. Recent simulations by Bazant and co-workers have also confirmed co-axiality to hold in many cases (M. Bazant, private communication).
27. This possibility was brought to our attention in particular by K. Kamrin, private communication.
28. M. Bazant, private communication.