In this work, railway ballast will be modelled using clumps of few spheres. Clumps of three spheres do not allow free rotations as clumps of two spheres and are computationally very efficient. Obviously, clumps of spheres lack the angularity of real ballast stones but they are non-convex, which is an important property of ballast, and also allows for interlocking. Clumps of spheres can be arranged to obtain particles with higher or lower “surface roughness”, [46]. Roth and Jaeger [43] and Irazabal et al. [19] describe particles with corrugated surfaces or cavities between overlapped spheres with the expression “geometric friction”, which is also known to affect the packing porosity. In this work, the clump construction aims to generate high geometric friction to compensate, to some extent, the lack of angularity, i.e. sharp edges and corners. Moreover, clumps are not constructed to approximate the shape of ballast stones with respect to the volume error, but to approximate shape descriptors, which are known from previous work, [51]. Details on all clumps constructed in this paper can be found in the supplemental material provided with this work.
The simulations conducted correspond to experiments, where railway ballast was packed in a box of a direct shear tester, and due to the size of the test rig, the gradation curve of the stones was cut off at 40 mm, see [48]. Two sieve sizes remained: 31.5 mm: 34% and 40 mm: 100%. This gives a sieve size ratio of 0.79 and a ratio of small particles to large particles of 0.5. In [9], poly- and bi-disperse assemblies were simulated in uniaxial compression tests. In general, it was seen that larger particles see larger contact forces compared to smaller particles. However, one of the cases considered was similar to the sizes above: a bi-disperse sample with ratio small and large particles of 0.8 and a ratio of numbers small to large of 0.66. [9] stated: “For the assembly with a radius ratio of 0.8, both the particles are seen to participate in the force transmission without much variation”. Therefore, it is concluded that the computationally efficient use of a mono-disperse sample is justified for the given sieve size curve.
Summary of shape analysis
In [51], a shape analysis of the same two types of ballast, Calcite and Kieselkalk, was conducted using 25 stones each for 3D scanning (data openly available, [52]). Well-established shape descriptors, such as elongation, e, flatness, f, sphericity, \(\psi \), convexity index, c, were evaluated. These shape descriptors are defined below in Eq. (1), denoting by L, I, S the longest, intermediate and shortest axes of the particle’s minimum bounding box, V the particle’s volume and A the particle’s surface.
$$\begin{aligned} e&=I/L \end{aligned}$$
(1a)
$$\begin{aligned} f&=S/I\end{aligned}$$
(1b)
$$\begin{aligned} \psi&= \root 3 \of {36 \pi V^2} / A\end{aligned}$$
(1c)
$$\begin{aligned} c&= V(\text{ convex } \text{ hull }) / V(\text{ particle }) \end{aligned}$$
(1d)
Regarding these shape descriptors no difference could be seen between both types of railway ballast: Calcite and Kieselkalk.
Moreover, three different angularity indices were compared in analytic tests, application to scanned data of sharp stones as well as artificially smoothed versions of the scanned stones. Only a newly introduced angularity index gave reasonable results in all considered cases, the scaled Willmore energy. The analysis of angularity always needs to clean scanned meshes from roughness information, which was done via mesh simplification. The calculated angularity values depend strongly on the level of mesh simplification. Thus, a comparison of scans of both types of ballast is possible, but no absolute value for the angularity of the ballast can be obtained. Moreover, clumps of spheres will be used as DEM shapes and here the calculation of angularity makes no sense. For these two reasons, angularity will not be considered in this work.
In Fig. 1 the shape descriptors of the scanned ballast stones are summarised. As no difference could be seen between Calcite and Kieselkalk, the corresponding values are merged. Shown are elongation e and flatness f: Fig. 1a, convexity index c and sphericity \(\psi \): Fig. 1b, volume V and surface area A: Fig. 1c. Figure 1d shows a correlation matrix between the evaluated shape descriptors based on Pearson correlation coefficients. For improved visibility, the correlation of a quantity with itself is not plotted. Pearson correlation coefficients are sensitive to linear relations between two quantities. They range from \(-1\) to \(+1\), where \(-1\) means total negative linear correlation, 0 means no linear correlation and \(+1\) means total positive correlation. Non-linear correlations will be classified as low correlated by the Pearson coefficient. An additional visual inspection showed that this was not the case. The strongest correlation seen in the data is the one of V and A, which is also visible in Fig. 1c. Moreover, the correlation between c and \(\psi \) is moderately established, as seen in Fig. 1b. All other quantities are low or not correlated at all. The shape descriptors and correlations of the ballast stones will be used for the shape modelling later on.
Clump construction principals
To construct a clump, at first one has to chose the number of spheres, which will build the clump. Clumps consisting of two spheres, are able to rotate freely along their longest axis. Moreover, these clumps have always an elongation of \(S/I=1\). Therefore, in this work clumps of three spheres will be considered. They do not allow free rotations and it will be seen later in this section that they can approximate elongation, flatness, convexity and sphericity values of real ballast stones reasonably well. The clumps are described by the three different radii belonging to their sphere members and an overlap parameter p, see Fig. 2. In Fig. 2a, parameter \(p=1\) and the resulting clump has no overlap but includes a hole. Contrasting, in Fig. 2b, p is much smaller than 1, closing the hole in the clump and resulting in high overlap. A compromise is shown in Fig. 2c, where clumps are constructed to intersect in exactly one point with small overlap. As discussed above, in the DEM simulations all particles will have the same size. The clumps are constructed to have all the same longest axis of \(L=30~\hbox {mm}\).
These decisions made, the next step is to find clump shapes with elongation and flatness values similar to those of the measured ballast stones. Using the three sphere radii, \(r_1, r_2, r_3\) and the overlap parameter p, the three axis L, I, S can be computed analytically. To figure out which elongation and flatness values are possible for this type of clump, a small computer script was written, where the sphere radii were varied for four different values of the overlap parameter p. In Fig. 3a the results of the computed elongation and flatness values are shown together with the results of the real ballast stones. The constructed clumps cover the upper right corner of the elongation and flatness plot, but cannot cover the less elongated (more columnar) ballast stones. From the constructed clumps shapes, 20 are chosen for further investigation, named clump set 1. The actual shape of these clumps can be seen in Fig. 3b and their corresponding elongation and flatness values in Fig. 3c. From these shapes also the convexity index c and the sphericity \(\psi \) is evaluated and plotted in Fig. 3d. It is surprising that the (\( \psi , c\)) values of all clumps seem to lie on a straight line. Tests with clumps consisting of more spheres showed the same behaviour. However, this was not considered further in this work. The non-overlapping clump shapes with \(p=1.0\), which include holes, show clearly higher convexity/lower sphericity values than those shapes which include overlapping i.e. \(p=0.75\) or \(p=0.5\). Between the non-overlapping and the overlapping clump shapes a gap can be seen. In this gap lie many of the values calculated from the ballast stones.
In a second step, clump shapes with low overlap and without hole will were constructed, as it is expected that they will fill the already mentioned gap in the (\( \psi , c\)) plot. The three spheres, which build these clumps, do intersect in exactly one point, see Fig. 2c, and aim at a low overlap volume. The resulting clumps are named clump set 2 and their elongation and flatness, convexity index and sphericity as well as their shape can be seen in Fig. 3e–g, respectively. These clumps show similar elongation and flatness values than the clumps chosen before, except that they do not reach flatness values below 0.7. In Fig. 3f they perfectly close the mentioned gap between the clumps with \(p=1.0\) and \(p=0.75\).
In a last step, one clump shape is chosen and overlap parameter p is varied in finer steps to investigate its influence in more detail. Clump number 3 is constructed without overlap (\(p=1.0\)). Keeping the ratio between the three radii \(r_1, r_2, r_3\) fixed, p is varied in the steps \(p=0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5\). The evaluated elongation and flatness values are shown in Fig. 3h, where it shows that all clump shapes are positioned along a straight line starting from clump shape 3. The (\( \psi , c\)) values of these clump span almost over the whole range of the clumps constructed before, as it can be seen in Fig. 3i. The shapes of the clump set 3 are shown in Fig. 3j.
Further shape characterisation
A shape characteristic, which is not considered till now, is particle angularity. Curvature based angularity indices, as considered in [51], do not make sense for clumps of spheres. The spheres have constant curvature and only at the intersecting lines/points a different curvature exist.
To circumvent this problem, the concept of the “clump roughness angle” is introduced to quantify the before mentioned “geometric friction” of a clump. For its computation, two clumps are thought in contact, such that one sphere of the first clump contacts two spheres of the second clump, compare Fig. 4. The enclosed angle, \(\delta _{ijk}\) can be calculated for all nine possible contacts. The clump roughness angle, \(\delta \), is then defined to be the average of these nine values. This concept could be seen as an extension of the roughness angle introduced in [44], where it is used to characterise the wall (modelled by spheres) roughness in a shear flow.
In addition to the clump roughness angle, the clumps are further characterised by the so called “member size difference”, \(s_d\), which is the difference between the maximal and minimal radius of the spheres forming the clump. This quantity is expected to influence the packing behaviour. Fig. 5a shows the clump roughness angles, \(\delta \), over the member size difference”, \(s_d\), evaluated for all 33 constructed clump shapes. It can be seen that the overlap parameter p strongly influences the clump roughness angles \(\delta \). The non-overlapping clumps have a clump roughness angle of 60\(^\circ \) and with decreasing p also \(\delta \) decays. Clumps, which are constructed with the same p have similar \(\delta \) values. The member size difference, \(s_d\), scatters in these groups. It’s extreme values are 0 for clump 28, composed of equi-sized spheres, and 7 mm for clump 20.
For completeness, also the clump volume V and the clump surface area is plotted in Fig. 5b. The clumps are constructed considerably smaller than the ballast stones, investigated in [51]. In the experiments conducted in [48], bigger stones were excluded due to size restrictions of the used test rig. Therefore, the clumps are also constructed smaller and a direct comparison to volume and surface area of ballast stones is not shown.
Figure 5c shows a correlation matrix plot using Pearson correlation coefficients. Again, additional visual inspection ensured that no non-linear correlations were misclassified by the Pearson coefficient. The correlations of the constructed clumps can be compared to the ones of the ballast stones, shown in Fig. 1d. The correlations between c and \(\psi \) as well as between V and A are present for both ballast stones and the constructed clump shapes. The constructed clumps show further strong correlations between V and c, V and \(\psi \), A and f. These additional correlations can be attributed to the clump construction method and the chosen size of L. The quantities \(\delta \) and \(s_d\) are specific shape descriptors for clumps of spheres and thus cannot be compared to the real ballast stones. For these quantities, strong correlations can be seen between \(s_d\) and e, \(\delta \) and c, \(\delta \) and \(\psi \), \(\delta \) and V. This correlation analysis will be useful, when the simulation results discussed later will be linked to the clump’s shape descriptors.