1

A numericaI and experimentaI study of the

base pressure distribution beneath a
stockpiIe
J. Ai, J.F. Chen, J.M. Rotter and J.Y. Ooi
Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, Joint Research Institute for Civil
and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland, U.K.





Abstract
Stockpiles are common for storage of bulk solids in many industrial sectors. One
interesting phenomenon is that there is a significant dip of the base pressure beneath the
apex of the pile which may have significant implications in the design of stockpile
facilities and related support structures. This paper presents a numerical and experimental
study of this phenomenon. Experiments have been conducted to measure the base
pressure distribution under a stockpile formed with iron ore pellets and significant central
stress minimum was revealed. Continuum analysis using the finite element method (FEM)
was conducted to simulate the stress distribution in the test pile. It showed the critical
importance of progressive pile development and nonlinear constitutive models. To
investigate the underlying mechanisms further, simulations using the discrete element
method (DEM) were conducted, which related well to the FEM predictions and revealed
key aspects of the inter-particle force patterns. Both the FEM and DEM predictions made
good agreement with test results, revealing new key features of the mechanics of such
piles.

- Granular pile, pressure dip, contact orientation, discrete element
modelling, finite element modelling, experiment
2
Introduction
Storage and handling of granular materials is essential to many industries [1].
Many different bulk solids are commonly stored in open stockpiles in very large
quantities, particularly in mining industry. The shape of stockpiles is typically
conical (Fig. 1), but can be prismatic, depending on the method of placement. The
design of a gravity reclaim system underneath a stockpile requires knowledge of
the base pressure distribution. The counter-intuitive finding that there is a
significant central pressure minimum beneath the apex of the pile can have
significant implications for the design of the support structure of the stockpile and
the reclaim facilities. This pressure dip phenomenon has been extensively
studied by both the physics and the engineering communities in the last few
decades. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the fundamental mechanics.
Many mathematical models of this seemingly simple system have been developed
based on different assumptions, but they often lead to contradictory results. A
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon remains elusive. Good reviews
of existing analytical, numerical and experimental studies of this problem can be
found in Savage [2, 3], Cates et al. [4] and Atman et al. [5].
This paper describes the key findings from an extensive study of this phenomenon,
including stockpile experiments with mini iron ore pellets, continuum analysis
using the finite element method (FEM) aided by a progressive layering scheme,
and a particle scale investigation employing the discrete element method (DEM).
The FEM analysis studied the influence of constitutive relations adopted in the
computations and explored whether a continuum treatment is capable of
reproducing the sandpile phenomenon. The main part of this paper employs the
DEM method to investigate the particle scale behaviour arising from the sandpile
formation and attempts to establish whether there is an agreement between the
particle-scale information arising from DEM with the continuum prediction
arising from FEM. Based on this study, we propose that mobilisation of base
friction during the formation of the pile is a key factor in relation to the internal
arching mechanism which leads to the pressure dip phenomenon.
3

Fig. 1 A typical industrial stockpile
ConicaI piIe experiments
The experimental study involved a series of granular pile tests to investigate
several factors that researchers have speculated would affect the base pressure
distribution. These factors include base deflection, construction method (pouring
jet dimension, pouring flow rate and dropping height), and particle shape and size
variation. The tests using a concentrated pouring jet onto a rigid base are
described below to show the nature of the sandpile phenomenon and to compare
with the numerical results. The full results of the stockpile tests can be found in
[6].
The conical pile tests involved nearly spherical mini iron ore pellets which had a
very rough surface. The pellets were relatively uniform in size, with a mean
diameter of d
p
=3.0mm and a size range of 2.5<d
p
<3.8mm for 10% to 90% passing
in particle size analysis by dry sieving. Their bulk density measured in control
tests was in the range of 2260 and 2370 kg/m
3
, giving a relatively uniform state
that is insensitive to packing. The internal friction angle ( ) measured in a Jenike
shear test was 34.
Relatively large laboratory granular pile experiments were conducted in which the
base pressure was measured using Askegaard free-field pressure cells which have
been widely used to observe pressures in granular media [e.g. 7, 8]. The pressure
cells were carefully placed at fixed positions along a radial line on a flat wooden
base (t=20mm) which was in turn laid on a rigid concrete floor. The stockpile was
constructed by pouring particles from a narrow jet with a radius R
j
=16mm located
centrally at 674mm above the base (Fig. 2a).
The progressive development of the base pressure during the pile formation
process was measured. Figure 2b shows the measured final pile surface profile
4
(right vertical axis) and the mean base pressure distribution (left vertical axis) for
five repeat tests. The measured surface profile had a mean angle of repose of
=29 with a coefficient of variation CoV=2.3% and a mean pile radius of
R
p
=554mm with CoV=2.6%. A clear and significant pressure dip was evident in
every individual test and the measurements show a high degree of repeatability
with small scatter. The scatter is indicated in Figure 1 as one standard deviation.
The measured base pressure profile with a central dip and a maximum pressure at
a radius of r 0.3R
p
is very similar in form to that reported by Vanel et al. [9] for a
smaller sand pile and that by McBride [10] for a much larger gravel pile.
Rj
Surface profile description:
transition from constant
slope to parabolic crown
Pressure profile
description
height Hp
Pmax
Pdip
Rdip
Pile base radius Rp
Pouring jet

0
55
110
165
220
275
330
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Normalized radius r/R
Vertical pressure profile
Surface profile

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Vertical base pressure in a conical mini-iron ore pellets pile. a)
Description of stockpile surface and base pressure profile; b) vertical base
pressure from 5 tests
The evolution of the base pressure profile recorded during the formation of one
pile is shown in Figure 3. Each measurement represents the average pressure on
the pressure cell (cell diameter = 75mm = 25d
p
= 0.14R
p
). The measured pressure
is consequently slightly higher than the actual value when the pressure cell is
located at a dip but lower when it is located at a peak. A clear pressure dip started
to emerge from an early stage and appeared to increase with the progressive build-
up of the pile. The pressure at the centre relative to the peak pressure at each
instant gradually reduced and the position of the peak pressure gradually moved
outwards. The first two sets of measurements cannot be used to infer the pressure
pattern, as the spacing of the cells is too wide relative to the small size of the pile
at that stage.
5
The results support the widely stated proposition that an arching effect arising
from the formation process causes a significant part of the weight of the solid in
the central zone to be transferred gradually to the outer zones. The pressure dip
phenomenon has been shown to be a repeatable and robust phenomenon when the
stockpile is constructed on a rigid flat base by concentrated jet deposition.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Normalised radius r/R
p


Fig. 3 Evolution of vertical base pressure
during a test
Fig. 4 Sketch of incremental
construction for stockpile (FE mesh
with 5 construction layers N
cl

=5)
Finite eIement (FE) prediction
Even though the pressure dip phenomenon has generally been attributed to an
arching effect, it is yet to be clearly understood how the flow and deformation of
the solid result in such an arching mechanism. Very few studies have numerically
modelled stockpiles using continuum methods such as the FEM. This is because
classical FEM analysis applied to a complete pile using elasto-plastic constitutive
models cannot easily predict the central pressure dip, as first reported by Savage
[2, 3]. Although some more recent FE simulations that implemented more realistic
construction histories have successfully predicted a pressure dip [5, 11-15], they
differ considerably in the construction calculation procedure, constitutive models
and the predicted distribution of plastic strain, as reviewed by Ai [16].
The conical pile test described above was modelled here using the FEM. The
pellets were modelled using two material constitutive models: linear elastic with
Mohr-Coulomb perfectly-plastic (LEMC) model and stress-dependent elastic with
6
Mohr-Coulomb perfectly-plastic (PDEMC) model. The base was assumed to be
ideally rough (all base nodes were restrained vertically and horizontally). The
effect of construction history was explored by modelling the progressive
formation of the pile [16, 17]. This was achieved by discretising the final
geometry of the pile into many layers and then activating each layer sequentially
in the FE analysis, starting from the bottom layer. Figure 4 shows a sketch of the
incremental construction, where different construction layers are denoted by
alternate dark and light grey layers. It is important to note, however, this
incremental numerical process ignores the dynamic process of particle impacting,
flowing and avalanching during the deposition process. It allows us to explore
whether this dynamic effect is important in the dip formation.
The measured geometry and internal friction angle of the test pile ( =29,
R
p
=554mm, =34) were adopted in the FE analysis. The density of the pellets
was chosen as the minimum value (2260kg/m
3
) from the control tests. This is a
reasonable assumption because the particles in a stockpile undergo avalanching
during the formation process, leading to a relatively loose packing, and the
stresses in the stockpile are small compared with those in the control tests. The
pellets were also assumed to have a Poissons ratio =0.3 and dilation angle
=20 as no test data were available. The tested pellets were dry and non-
cohesive, but a small value of cohesion c=1.0Pa was adopted to avoid numerical
difficulties at very low stresses. For the PDEMC material model, the stress
dependent secant modulus was evaluated based on simple deduction using
confined compression tests of pellets and Australian and Eurocode Standards [18,
19]:
0
E Kp E
s
(1)
where E
s
is the secant modulus; p is the mean stress; and E
0
is the initial modulus.
The values of K and E
0
were estimated to be 100 and 0.02 MPa respectively. For
the LEMC material model, the elastic modulus of the pellets was chosen as 2.0
MPa, which was estimated from the confined compression tests and the average
mean stress in the final stockpile. The influence of these elastic and plastic
parameters has been explored in a parametric investigation [16].
7
Figure 5 compares the predicted base pressure distribution from the two material
models with the experimental data. A very shallow dip was predicted by the linear
elastic-plastic LEMC model but a much deeper dip closer to the experimental
observations was predicted by the stress dependent elastic-plastic PDEMC model.
The significant effect of the stress dependent elastic properties on the size of the
dip suggests that stress dependent elasticity plays a crucial role in the pressure dip
phenomenon.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalised radial position
Hydrostatic
LEMC
PDEMC
Expt.

Fig. 5 Vertical base pressure: FEM predictions versus experimental observations
(N
cl
=40)
The natural question that follows is to ask how the stress dependent elastic
stiffness assumption gives rise to a much improved prediction in this FEM
computation. Figure 6 shows the predicted plastic zones in the pile for the two
models, first at an intermediate stage and then at completion of the construction
process. Both constitutive models predicted that the solid undergoes plastic
yielding at the intermediate stage, followed by unloading to an elastic state as
further solid was laid above. The stress dependent PDEMC model predicted
plastic zones along the instantaneous top sloping surface which moved
progressively with subsequent layers, akin to a layer of solid under shear failure
associated with avalanching. The resulted state consists of an elastic inner core
surrounded by superficial plastic layers. It may be noted that such a pattern is
qualitatively similar to those found in earlier solutions of admissible stress field
that contain a pressure dip [20-23]. On the other hand, the LEMC model predicted
a central conical plastic zone at the apex of the cone away from the bottom
8
boundary. The PDEMC model also predicted larger elastic zones in the final state
than the LEMC model, which may be partially linked to the larger pressure dip
predicted. Further investigation of the effect of plastic yield progression may
provide further insight into the mechanics.

a) b)
Fig. 6 Plastic zone at middle stage (upper) and final stage (lower), note the
darker zones represent solids under active yielding. a) LEMC; b) PDEMC
Michalowski and Park [23] suggested that base frictional shears can play an
important role in the internal arching behaviour of the pile. Figure 7 shows the
base shear predicted by the two models. The form of the base shear distribution
for both models is as expected: increasing from zero at the axis of symmetry
(r/R
p
=0) to a peak value and then decreasing to zero at the outer edge of the pile
(r/R
p
=1). However it is significant that the PDEMC model predicted a much
greater rate of increase of shear from the centre (at r/R
p
=0), reaching the peak at a
smaller radius than the LEMC model. This observation supports the proposition
that a greater rate of base shear mobilisation beneath the apex in the PDEMC
model amplifies the arching effect and moves the vertical forces away from the
centre, resulting in a greater pressure dip.
9
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalised radial position
PDEMC
LEMC

R
j

H
dep

R
p

H
p


Fig. 7 FEM predicted base shear in
right hand half pile (N
cl
=40)
Fig. 8 Setup of DEM model to model
precisely the physical test
The FEM results presented above suggest that: a) an elastic-plastic model aided
by the progressively layering modelling scheme can predict a plausible base
pressure distribution with a central pressure dip; b) a constitutive model with
pressure dependent modulus produces a significantly enhanced dip, bringing it
closer to the experimental observations; c) there is a correlation between the
development of the base shear, plastic zones in the pile and the pressure dip
formation. The FEM calculations have provided a useful insight into the
relationship between constitutive model assumptions and numerical predictions
that adopt incremental construction. The next investigation used particle scale
modeling to seek further evidence for these observations based on continuum
predictions.
Discrete eIement (DE) prediction
The DEM [24, 25] has become a popular tool for simulating particulate systems
because it is capable of particle scale studies in which the packing structure of the
assembly is observable and can be traced throughout the time history. Extensive
DEM simulations have been conducted in this study to investigate the pressure dip
phenomenon. Due to the high computational cost associated with DEM, the test of
a small scale two dimensional pile with 3,000 binary sized photoelastic circular
disks conducted by Zuriguel et al. [26] was chosen for this modeling, instead of
the 3D conical pile tested by the authors. The calculations were performed using
10
PFC2D [27]. A Hertz-Mindlin no-slip contact model with damping and a
frictional slider in the tangential direction [28] was adopted. A rolling resistance
model was employed through a User Written C++ [27] to achieve a stable pile
matching the experimentally observed angle of repose [16]. Figure 8 shows the
setup of the DEM model. Particles were randomly generated in a shallow pipe
located at a fixed height of H
dep
= 570mm above a rigid horizontal base. A pile was
formed by allowing the generated particles to fall and accumulate on the base.
DEM computations from two particle generation schemes are compared here:
concentrated deposition using a jet radius R
j
=16mm and distributed deposition
with particles randomly falling over the full width of the pile. These two particle
deposition modes correspond respectively to the localised-source procedure and
raining procedure adopted in sandpile experiments by Vanel et al. [9] and Geng et
al. [29]. A full description of the model and parameters used in the calculations
can be found in Ai [16].
Base pressure distribution
Figure 9 shows the progressive development of the normal base pressure that was
averaged from 100 random DEM piles formed with a concentrated jet. When
small scale piles with limited number of particles are modeled using DEM [e.g.,
30, 31], many discrete runs are indispensible to overcome the large random
fluctuations in evaluated pressure profiles [16]. To transform the discrete particle
contact forces into local base pressures, a running average scheme was used to
determine the global profile. The averaging length L
av
for each stage was set at 1/8
of the pile radius. Figure 9 reveals a clear pressure dip that develops at an early
stage, consistent to the experimental observation in the conical stockpile tests
described above. The peak of the base pressure distribution at 1s is slightly higher
than that at 2s because the influence of the impact is more significant when the
pile is very small.
11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Distance from center d (m)
10s
6s
5s
4s
3s
2s
1s

Fig. 9 Evolution of normal base pressure averaged from 100 DE piles [running
average length L
av
= 1/8R
p
(t)]
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalised distance from centre d/R
p
Conc. -N
Dist. -N
Conc. -T
Dist. -T
L
av
= 10d
p
min

Fig. 10 Base pressures from different construction histories
Figure 10 shows the base pressures distributions at pile completion and compares
the outcomes of concentrated deposition (localised-source procedure) and
distributed deposition (raining procedure). The horizontal coordinate was
normalised by the pile radius R
p
, and the base pressures by the hydrostatic vertical
pressure at the centre: the integrated force due to vertical pressure is then unity in
both cases.
12
The effect of the deposition method on the base pressure distribution in sandpile
experiments has been reported before [e.g. 9, 29]. Distributed deposition
produced no pressure dip but concentrated deposition did. The DEM results in
Fig. 10 show a convincing match to this finding. Further, the base shear profiles
(Fig. 10) show that concentrated deposition produces a much steeper slope near
the centre, indicating a higher rate of base shear development in the core of the
pile, This feature was already identified in the continuum FEM prediction. We
therefore propose that the faster development of base shear in the core region is
the mechanism that causes arching, resulting from the avalanches occurring under
concentrated deposition, by contrast with the in-situ placement of particles in
horizontal layers from distributed deposition.
ProbabiIity distribution of contact and contact force orientations
Since forces in a sandpile are carried by particles through contacts, the
macroscopic features discussed above (layer pattern and base pressures), should
be reflected at the particle scale. This pair of DEM predictions, using two
different particle deposition modes, and giving base pressure predictions with and
without the pressure dip, provides an excellent opportunity to probe the
underlying particle scale mechanism of the pressure dip phenomenon.
The DEM predicted granular pile shape and the force chain network for the two
construction histories is shown in Figure 11. The thickness of the force chain
markers is proportional to the contact force. Distributed deposition clearly
produces a steeper pile. The force chains in the central zone near the base also
appear to be closer to vertical after distributed deposition, reducing the base shear
mobilization. This corresponds to the base shear pattern found in the FE
calculations.

a) b)
Fig. 11 Force chain network. (a) Concentrated deposition; (b) distributed
deposition
13
It has been suggested that contact network anisotropy may be closely related to
the pressure dip under a pile [e.g., 32, 33]. Since each particle contact is frictional
in nature, the contact orientation differs from the associated contact force
orientation, depending on the magnitude of the tangential contact force. The
difference between these two angles indicates the mobilised friction angle at each
contact. Here, the orientation of each contact (
c
) and contact force (
cf
) is defined
as shown in Figure 12. The treatment of Geng et al. [29] was used to evaluate the
probability distribution of the orientation of contacts P(
c
) and contact forces
P(
cf
) independently for the left and right halves of the pile. The probability
distributions P(
c
) and P(
cf
) for different zones in the right half are shown in
Figures 13 and 14 respectively.
c

cf

270
c
1

c
2

180
0
90
(gravitational direction)

Fig. 12 Definition of orientations
The contact orientation in the core region is significantly affected by the
construction history (Figure 13a). For distributed deposition, the distribution is
almost symmetrical about the vertical (gravitational) direction and contains high
concentrations of contacts at 0, 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300 due to a
significant development of crystalline packing. For concentrated deposition, the
contact orientation in the core region does not contain these sharp spikes and is
more random in nature with preferred orientations in the 105150 region and
the corresponding 285330 since each contact is always in pair. In the surface
region (Figure 13b), the contact orientation distribution is not affected by the
construction history and is very similar to that observed in the core region for
concentrated deposition.
The contact force orientation distributions from the two construction histories are
compared in Figure 14. Again, the two cases are little different in the surface
14
region, but differ significantly in the core region. After distributed deposition,
the sharp concentration of the contact orientations in the six directions is not
present in the contact force orientation. Inter-particle friction is mobilised to
produce contact force orientations principally aligned vertically despite the six
preferred directions in the contact orientations. The results show that the
deposition history has a strong influence on the contact and contact force
orientations in the core zone, which are highly correlated with the base shear
development and pressure dip phenomena.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Core
Conc. dep.
Dist. dep.
c

(a)
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
Surface
c

Conc. dep.
Dist. dep.

(b)
Fig. 13 Distribution of contact orientations for concentrated and distributed
deposition. a) core region; b) surface region
15
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Conc. dep.
Dist. dep.
Core
cf

a)
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Conc. dep.
Dist. dep.
cf
Surface

b)
Fig. 14 Distribution of contact force orientations for concentrated and distributed
deposition. a) core region; b) surface region
ConcIusions
This paper has presented a summary of key findings from an extensive study of
the pressure dip phenomenon in a granular stockpile. Conical pile experiments
using mini iron ore pellets showed a robust and repeatable base pressure
distribution with a significant central pressure dip. Both continuum analysis using
the finite element method (FEM) and particle scale discrete analysis using the
discrete element method (DEM) have been conducted and compared with
16
experimental observations.
The FEM investigation has shown that an elastic-plastic model aided by a
progressively layering pile construction modelling scheme can reproduce the
pressure dip. A material model that includes the pressure dependence of the
elastic modulus has been shown to significantly enhance the magnitude of the dip,
bringing it much closer to experimental observations. The DEM study has
revealed that the deposition history has a strong effect on the formation of the
pressure dip and the contact and contact force orientations in the core zone.
Distributed deposition produces almost symmetrical contact orientation
distributions about the vertical and no pressure dip is found, whilst concentrated
deposition results in inclined contact orientation distributions and a pressure dip.
Both the FEM and DEM investigations have revealed that there is a close
relationship between the development of base frictional shears and the pressure
dip. A larger pressure dip is associated with a rapid base shear development near
the pile centre. This is further linked to the particle scale behaviour of the pile in
the central zone, shown by the contact orientation and contact force orientation
distributions.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support from the EPSRC (grant GR/T23541) and the
Scottish Funding Council for the Joint Research Institute with the Heriot-Watt
University which is a part of the Edinburgh Research Partnership in Engineering
and Mathematics (ERPem). The first author was further supported by a University
of Edinburgh Scholarship. The mini iron ore pellets were provided by LKAB
Group, Sweden. The authors are grateful to Dr Z. Zhong for his assistance in the
conduct of the experiments and to Dr I. Zuriguel, Prof. T. Mullin, Prof. R.P.
Behringer and Dr Geng for many helpful discussions on this topic.
References
1. Nedderman, R.M.: Statics and kinematics of granular materials. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1992)
2. Savage, S.B.: Problems in the statics and dynamics of granular materials. In: Powders and
Grains 97. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands (1997)
17
3. Savage, S.B.: Modeling and granular material boundary value problems. In: Physics of
Dry Granular Media. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998)
4. Cates, M.E., J.P. Wittmer, J.P. Bouchaud, and P. Claudin: Development of stresses in
cohesionless poured sand. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences (Series A), 1998(1747), p. 2535-2560 (1998)
5. Atman, A.P.F., P. Brunet, J. Geng, G. Reydellet, P. Claudin, R.P. Behringer, and E.
Clment: From the stress response function (back) to the sand pile 'dip'. European
Physical Journal E, 17(1), p. 93-100 (2005)
6. Ooi, J.Y., J. AI, Z. Zhong, J.F. Chen, and J.M. Rotter: Progressive pressure measurements
beneath a granular pile with and without base deflection. In: Structures and granular
solids: from scientific principles to engineering applications. J.F. Chen, J.Y. Ooi, and J.G.
Teng, Editors, CRC Press, London, p. 87-92 (2008)
7. Askegaard, V.: Design and application of stress and strain cells with small measuring
errors. NDT international, 14(5), p. 271-277 (1981)
8. Askegaard, V.: Three component pressure cells for steel model silo, Report S.8817.
Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (1989)
9. Vanel, L., D. Howell, D. Clark, R.P. Behringer, and E. Clment: Memories in sand:
Experimental tests of construction history on stress distributions under sandpiles. Physical
Review E, 60(5), p. R5040-5043 (1999)
10. McBride, W.: Base pressure measurements under a scale model stockpile. Particulate
Science and Technology, 24(1), p. 59-70 (2006)
11. Al Hattamleh, O., B. Muhunthan, and H.M. Zbib: Predictions of stress dip in granular
heaps using multi-slip formulation. In: Powders and Grains 2005: Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Micromechanics of Granular Media. Stuttgart, Germany
(2005)
12. Anand, L. and C. Gu: Granular materials: constitutive equations and strain localization.
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48(8), p. 1701-1733 (2000)
13. Modaressi, A., S. Boufellouh, and P. Evesque: Modeling of stress distribution in granular
piles: Comparison with centrifuge experiments. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of
Nonlinear Science, 9(3), p. 523-543 (1999)
14. Tejchman, J. and W. Wu: FE-calculations of stress distribution under prismatic and
conical sandpiles within hypoplasticity. Granular Matter, 10(5), p. 399-405 (2008)
15. Jeong, H.Y.: Numerical simulation of stresses under stockpiled mass over ground with or
without a loadout tunnel (Ph.D. thesis). The University of Western Ontario (2005)
16. Ai, J.: Particle scale and bulk scale investigation of granular piles and silos (PhD thesis).
College of Science and Engineering, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (2010)
17. Jeong, H.-Y. and I.D. Moore: Calculations for central stress minimum under sand piles
using continuum analysis. ZAMM, 90(1), p. 65-71 (2010)
18. AS3774-1996: Australian Standard: Loads on bulk solids containers. Association of
Australia, Sydney (1996)
19. EN1991-4: Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures. In: Part 4 - silos and
tanks. CEN, Brussels (2006)
20. Cantelaube, F., A. Didwania, and J. Goddard: Elasto-plastic arching in two dimensional
granular heaps. Physics of Dry Granular Media, p. 15-26 (1998)
18
21. Didwania, A., F. Cantelaube, and J. Goddard: Static multiplicity of stress states in
granular heaps. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 456(2003), p. 2569-2588 (2000)
22. Samsioe, A.: Stresses in downstream part of an earth or a rock fill dam. Geotechnique, 5,
p. 200-223 (1955)
23. Michalowski, R.L. and N. Park: Admissible stress fields and arching in piles of sand.
Geotechnique, 54(8), p. 529-538 (2004)
24. Cundall, P.A. and O.D.L. Strack: Discrete numerical-model for granular assemblies.
Geotechnique, 29(1), p. 47-65 (1979)
25. Yu, A.B.: Discrete element method: An effective way for particle scale research of
particulate matter. Engineering Computations, 21(2/3/4), p. 205-214 (2004)
26. Zuriguel, I., T. Mullin, and J.M. Rotter: Effect of particle shape on the stress dip under a
sandpile. Physical Review Letters, 98(2), p. 028001 (2007)
27. Itasca: PFC2D/3D. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (2004)
28. Tsuji, Y., T. Tanaka, and T. Ishida: Lagrangian numerical-simulation of plug flow of
cohesionless particles in a horizontal pipe. Powder Technology, 71(3), p. 239-250 (1992)
29. Geng, J., E. Longhi, R.P. Behringer, and D.W. Howell: Memory in two-dimensional heap
experiments. Physical Review E, 64(6), p. 060301 (2001)
30. Matuttis, H.G.: Simulation of the pressure distribution under a two-dimensional heap of
polygonal particles. Granular Matter, 1(2), p. 83-91 (1998)
31. Zuriguel, I. and T. Mullin: The role of particle shape on the stress distribution in a
sandpile. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, 464(2089), p. 99-116 (2008)
32. Snoeijer, J., T. Vlugt, M. van Hecke, and W. van Saarloos: Force network ensemble: A
new approach to static granular matter. Physical Review Letters, 92(5), p. 54302 (2004)
33. Luding, S.: Stress distribution in static two-dimensional granular model media in the
absence of friction. Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related
Interdisciplinary Topics, 55(4), p. 4720-4729 (1997)