05.03.2014 Views

Strona 2_redak - Instytut Agrofizyki im. Bohdana Dobrzańskiego ...

Strona 2_redak - Instytut Agrofizyki im. Bohdana Dobrzańskiego ...

Strona 2_redak - Instytut Agrofizyki im. Bohdana Dobrzańskiego ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

65<br />

J.R. Johanson, who has been working with Jenike since 1958, summarized<br />

the deficiencies of shear cell technique in the article of 1992 [77]. One of the<br />

major problems with using the shear cell is that during shear, shear force<br />

concentrates at the front of the shear cell. Both shear force and vertical force are<br />

applied non-uniformly to the sample. According to Johanson, at best the results<br />

represent average stress conditions typically varying from a near zero stress up to<br />

the max<strong>im</strong>um applied. One of early innovations was applying the shear stress<br />

through both the top cover and the upper ring. This helps distribute the shear<br />

stress but applies a torque to the top disc. This results in concentration of vertical<br />

force at the front of the test cell. The non-uniform stresses in the shear cell also<br />

cause the major principal stress to be undefined. This undefined direction of<br />

principal stresses results in variable “steady state” consolidation and the frequent<br />

scatter in the measured failure values of shear stresses. The Jenike method<br />

indirectly measures the material unconfined yield strength and as such, requires<br />

several test points to establish the yield locus and its accompanying Mohr circle<br />

representing the unconfined yield strength. The variations in consolidation stress<br />

state as well as physical differences from sample to sample cause scatter in the<br />

data points. Objections as cited after Johanson and alike st<strong>im</strong>ulated numerous<br />

researchers to look for more s<strong>im</strong>ple methods of examination of flowability. These<br />

methods will be treated in a wider extent in chapter 12.<br />

9. COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION<br />

9.1. Theories of dry friction<br />

Friction is a set of phenomena taking place in the contact area between two<br />

bodies in relative displacement that cause resistance to motion. The measure of<br />

friction is the resultant tangential force acting during relative displacement of the<br />

two bodies. The earliest researchers of friction explained this effect by the<br />

necessity of rising of one of the bodies on the asperities of the other body (Perent,<br />

1704; Euler, 1748 following Hebda and Wachal [62]). In this approach, the<br />

coefficient of friction was equal to the angle of inclination of individual asperity.<br />

The first wider examinations of friction were performed by Guillaume Amontons. In<br />

the publication of 1699 this author formulated two laws of friction that had been<br />

forgotten after being formulated by da Vinci in 15 th century. The relationship 7 1,<br />

where N is normal force, T is tangential force, is coefficient of friction, is known as<br />

the Amontons low of friction and in some applications is used up till now [25].<br />

A different point of view was presented by Desaguliers in 1724 [62]. This<br />

author indicated that smooth surfaces of metals or other substances may be polished

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!