Loading-dependent microscale measures control bulk properties in granular material: An experimental test of the stress-force-fabric relation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bulk behavior of granular materials is tied to its mesoscale and particle-scale features: Strength properties arise from the buildup of various anisotropic structures at the particle-scale induced by grain connectivity, force transmission, and frictional mobilization. More fundamentally, these anisotropic structures work collectively to define features like the bulk friction coefficient and the stress tensor at the macroscale and can be explained by the stress-force-fabric (SFF) relationship stemming from the microscale arrangement of the forces and fabric. Although the SFF relation has been extensively verified by discrete numerical simulations, a laboratory realization has remained elusive due to the challenge of measuring both normal and frictional contact forces. In this study, we analyze experiments performed on a photoelastic granular system under four different loading conditions: uniaxial compression, isotropic compression, pure shear, and annular shear. During these experiments, we record particle locations, contacts between particles, and normal and frictional forces to measure the particle-scale response to progressing strain. We experimentally assess the SFF relation across multiple loading conditions in a two-dimensional photoelastic granular system. We track microscale measures like the packing fraction, average coordination number, and average normal force, along with angular distributions of the interparticle contacts and the interparticle forces. We then track the anisotropy in the angular distributions of contacts and forces and connect these particle-scale anisotropies to bulk behavior using the SFF relation. The SFF relation provides compact expressions for both the stress tensor and the bulk friction coefficient in terms of fabric and force anisotropies. Our results demonstrate that these expressions accurately capture the bulk stress and friction across different loading histories, validating the predictive power of the SFF framework. Additionally, we test the assumption that contact and force anisotropies contribute equally to load transmission in our granular packings and show that this assumption is sufficient at large strain values and can be applied to areas like rock mechanics, soft colloids, or cellular tissue where force information is inaccessible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".