2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2016.11.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of particle shape on breakage of recycled construction and demolition aggregates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
1
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
25
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…is study showed that the breakage ratios approach 0.32 under cuboidal face, cylindrical end, and cylindrical side impacts and that the breakage ratios approach 0.18 under cuboidal edge, cuboidal corner, and cylindrical corner impacts; the authors insisted that the reason for these phenomena is that the difference in loading area makes the difference in the wall forces that work on agglomerates. According to the investigation of Afshar et al [13], the breakage strength of bulky construction particles (sphericity varies from 0.8 to 0.84) is higher than that of elongated construction particles (sphericity varies from 0.7 to 0.74); thus, the bulky particles have a lower degree of breakage under the same compression conditions and they consume a higher energy density to have the same fragmentation results as the elongated particles. In a recent study by Yan et al [14], it was observed that the difference in rock shape and impact angle can result in a great difference in loading mode and breakage results for reinforced concrete slabs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…is study showed that the breakage ratios approach 0.32 under cuboidal face, cylindrical end, and cylindrical side impacts and that the breakage ratios approach 0.18 under cuboidal edge, cuboidal corner, and cylindrical corner impacts; the authors insisted that the reason for these phenomena is that the difference in loading area makes the difference in the wall forces that work on agglomerates. According to the investigation of Afshar et al [13], the breakage strength of bulky construction particles (sphericity varies from 0.8 to 0.84) is higher than that of elongated construction particles (sphericity varies from 0.7 to 0.74); thus, the bulky particles have a lower degree of breakage under the same compression conditions and they consume a higher energy density to have the same fragmentation results as the elongated particles. In a recent study by Yan et al [14], it was observed that the difference in rock shape and impact angle can result in a great difference in loading mode and breakage results for reinforced concrete slabs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e samples were washed and air-dried; the mass of the dry samples was 55-1082 g (Figure 1). [10,11,13,14]. e formula of sphericity is given by…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The other method is to properly ignore the near-boundary area through the particle dilation process of the SDEM. It is concluded from existing literature [10,11,31] that the breakage is mainly caused by tensile failures inside the particle. Therefore, the exact values of boundary displacement may not be crucial for particle fragmentation, and the analysis of Cauchy principal values for the particles is deemed unnecessary.…”
Section: Avoid the Near-boundary Singularitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The third and fourth condition, Eqs. (31) and (32), are introduced to examine a particle's loading magnitudes and loading history to only improve the computational efficiency. They do not affect the results of the simulation.…”
Section: Criteria For the Evaluation Of Sub-particle Stressmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Particle shape has well-known effects on the characteristics of granular soils including packing density (Cho et al 2006;Shin and Santamarina 2013;Zheng and Hryciw 2016) and fabric (Maeda et al 2010;Turner et al 2016;Zhao and Zhou 2017), and also can have significant effects on mechanical properties like compressibility (Rousé et al 2008;Shin and Santamarina 2013;Gong and Liu 2017), shear modulus (Cho et al 2006;Shin and Santamarina 2013), shear strength (Varadarajan et al 2003;Guo and Su 2007;Rousé et al 2008;Yang and Wei 2012;Shin and Santamarina 2013;Yang and Luo 2015;Xiao et al 2019), dilation (Guo and Su 2007;Yang and Luo 2015;Xiao et al 2019), susceptibility to liquefaction (Tsomokos and Georgiannou 2010;Yang and Wei 2012; and Luo 2015), particle breakage during shearing (Afshar et al 2017;Cavarretta et al 2017), and failure mode during shearing (Alshibli et al 2017). Particle shape may also affect the hydraulic conductivity of granular soils (Côté et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%