Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/powder-technology

The correlation between the pre-consolidation and Instantaneous Yield

Locus (IYL) of bulk solids
Michael J. Carr a, *, Alan W. Roberts a, b, Peter W. Robinson a, Timothy J. Donohue b,
Craig A. Wheeler a
a
Centre for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies (CBSPT), The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
b
TUNRA Bulk Solids (TBS), The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• A revised mathematical representation

between the pre-consolidation and
Instantaneous Yield Locus (IYL) is
presented.
• Developed methodology allows for esti­
mation of adhesion present within bulk
material samples.
• Modified Hvorslev surface presented to
depict bulk material adhesion in respect
to compaction.
• Good correlation of predicted and
experimentally measured adhesion
values was found.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The storage and transportation of bulk materials has seen a continuous increase in demand with the evolution of
Jenike shear test renewable energy systems and modern society. The extraction of minerals such as iron ore, copper, nickel,
Bulk material bauxite, and lithium is leading to the exploitation of previously abandoned mine sites as well as ore bodies that
Compaction
may have been disregarded. This demand necessitates more efficient systems to transport these bulk commodities
Adhesion
Instantaneous Yield Locus
from the mine site to the export terminal or end user. The design of new bulk material handling systems typically
Hvorslev surface requires the measurement of the bulk material strength, commonly determined using a Jenike direct shear tester.
Initially, these measurements were used for the design of free-flowing bulk commodities, such as grain in storage
silos or granaries. Over more recent decades, Jenike direct shear measurements have been used for the deter­
mination of the flow properties of problematic bulk materials which show cohesive characteristics. Specifically,
this testing is used to define the flow function of a bulk material, the relationship between the material strength
and major principle stress, which is subsequently used in the design of material handling systems.
This paper provides a mathematical relationship between the pre-consolidation and the Instantaneous Yield
Locus (IYL) of a bulk material sample under Jenike direct shear testing conditions. When the voidage between
the particles is considered, this relationship becomes critical in defining the stress states of a bulk material
sample. By understanding these stress conditions, further insight into the tensile forces which lead to problematic
material behaviours can also be gained. This becomes increasingly important when low consolidation

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: michael.j.carr@newcastle.edu.au (M.J. Carr).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2023.118952
Received 12 September 2022; Received in revised form 17 August 2023; Accepted 30 August 2023
Available online 31 August 2023
0032-5910/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.J. Carr et al.
applications, such as transfer chutes, are considered as this leads to blockages and therefore downtime and lost
revenue within a mining operation results. To further gain an understanding of the tensile forces acting within a
bulk material sample, inter-particle adhesion tests are compared with predicted values which are determined
using the outlined mathematical relationship.
1. Introduction
During the transportation of a bulk material, flow is initiated when
the bulk material shears on itself and yields. This shear can be further
categorised into internal shear and boundary shear, which are influ­
enced by the walls (boundary) of the bulk material handling equipment.
Although bulk materials deform and dilate when they flow, they will
have similar stresses to those found in solids. The stresses found in bulk
materials will have different stresses for different cutting planes, similar
to solid materials. Using the well-established Mohr stress circle theory,
the following equations can be used to determine the elemental stresses
for different planes.
σ2 + σ1 σ2 − σ1
σα = + cos(2α)
2 2
σ2 − σ1
τα = sin(2α)
2 defined if at least two numerical values are determined [8].
where: σ1 is the major principal stress [Pa].
σ 2 is the minor principal stress [Pa].
τα is the shear stress acting on the bulk material [Pa].
σ α is the normal stress acting on the bulk material [Pa].
α is the stress angle acting on an arbitrary plane [◦ ].
The use of the Mohr stress circle gives a graphical representation of
the theory for bulk materials, which was initially used in the work of
Jenike [1–3] and then further developed by Nedderman [4], where a
failure analysis was used to analytically determine the stress states of
granular bulk material samples under different loading conditions.
Nedderman [4], assumed an ideal Coulomb material which enabled the
formation of a yielding criterion to describe the way a granular material
fails. This analysis incorporated the work undertaken by Rankine [5] in
1857, which described the stress conditions in soils at a state of plastic
equilibrium. This body of work is typically referred to as Rankine’s
theory of earth pressure, which describes the stress conditions in a soil
element where the failure of the soil occurs once plastic equilibrium has
been reached. Over more recent decades, Jenike direct shear measure­
ments have been used for the determination of the flow properties of
problematic bulk materials which show cohesive characteristics [6,7].
To further establish the stress conditions found in both non-cohesive
and cohesive bulk materials, these stress values are typically plotted on a
normal stress and shear stress diagram, as shown in Fig. 1. The principal
stresses, σ1 the major principal stress and σ 2 the minor principal stress,
occur when no shear stresses are present. When both principal stresses
Fig. 1. Yield Loci for consolidated bulk material (Roberts, 1998).
Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952
are given, the Mohr stress circle is well-defined [4]. In the case of a
simple uniaxial compression test, both the horizontal and vertical planes
have no shear stresses present. For this particular case, the vertical stress
is the major principal stress, σ 1 , as this will be much greater than the
horizontal stress which is the minor principal stress, σ 2 , which occurs at
an active stress state.
A fascinating phenomenon to occur within bulk materials is the
ability of shear stresses to occur whilst the bulk material is not under
load. Unlike a Newtonian fluid which will yield a zero radius Mohr circle
when at rest (since there are stress states for all loading conditions,
including at rest for a bulk material) the state of stress cannot be
completely described by a single numerical value [8]. For the determi­
nation of the shear strength characteristics of a bulk material for
(1) different loading conditions, it is possible for the minor principal stress,
σ 2 , to have different values for the same major principal stress, σ 1 . From
this, it can be determined that the Mohr stress circle will only be clearly
(2)
Once a major principal stress is defined, the Instantaneous Yield
Locus (IYL) can be plotted, representing the instantaneous consolidation
condition. The IYL lies tangential to the major Mohr semi-circle passing
through σ1 and σ2 . To fully define the IYL, a smaller Mohr semi-circle,
which lies through the origin and the Unconfined Yield Strength, σ c ,
will also lie tangential to the IYL [9], as shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, if
the IYL is linearly extrapolated to the shear stress axis, the amount of
cohesion, τo , is determined.
The work of Jenike [1–3] which has been further developed by
Nedderman [4], Roberts [9] and Schulze [8], shown above, has
demonstrated the impact of stresses acting in bulk materials, and their
importance on the design of bulk material handling systems. More
recently, work conducted by Schulze [10,11] has provided insight into
alternative testing methods that consider a Schulze ring shear tester,
that allows for the determination of flow functions for cohesive mate­
rials. This is attributed to the limited travel possible in a Jenike Shear
Test. Another issue related with Jenike direct shear tests is the inability
to measure the shear plane vertical stresses. A solution to this issue is
outlined in the work of Shimada et al. [12]. Additionally, preliminary
shear, main shear and repeated shear are described in the work of Ueda
et al. [13].
Once the bulk material sample is consolidated for both Jenike direct
shear and ring shear testers, the sample is sheared until steady-state flow
is obtained. Steady state flow is defined as continuous deformation of
the bulk material sample without volume change, while the stresses at
the boundary of the specimen remain constant [14,15]. In practice
however, the steady state flow of cohesive powders can be difficult to
determine, as fluctuations often result [15–17]. To investigate this, work
conducted by Roeck et al. [18] have considered extensions to a true
biaxial shear tester that was used to allow a view of the surface of the
powder sample by use of a CCD camera. This work determined that
different pre-compaction procedures did not influence the formation of
steady-state flow.
The effect of particle size and cohesion powder yielding and flow has
been undertaken in the work of Shi et al. [19]. This work considers the
characterisation of bulk material samples using a wide range of shear
testing methods. These include the Jenike direct shear tester, the ELE
direct shear tester, the FT4 powder rheometer and the Schulze ring shear
tester. In this study, shear stress and cohesion values are compared for a
range of normal stresses. Cohesion is defined as the shear resistance of
the bulk material under zero normal stress, differing from adhesion
being defined as the tensile force between particles under no shear load.
2
M.J. Carr et al.
There are numerous methods for the estimation of adhesion given a
yield locus of the material. This is typically determined based on a linear
extrapolation of the yield locus to the point of zero shear. More recently,
the work of Carr et al. [20] has shown a parabolic extrapolation of the
yield locus has resulted in a more reasonable estimation of adhesion.
The correlation of the pre-consolidation of a bulk material sample
and the yield locus is critical to ensure the bulk material sample is tested
at the critical compaction state. If a sample is either over or under
consolidated, this can lead to inaccurate yield locus determination
resulting in results which inaccurately represent the characteristics of
the bulk material sample. This research presents a correlation between
the pre-consolidation and yield locus to ensure the compaction state of
the material is determined more effictively. This correlation has been
further developed to consider the relationship between the stresses
acting on a bulk material and how this changes when the voidage and
bulk density are considered. This work is summarised in the following
section.
2. Hvorslev-Roscoe yield surface
The initial work of Coulomb [21] in 1776 hypothesized that soils fail
along a ruptured plane. It was further reported by Roberts [22] in 1882
that the weight of granular materials measured at the base of a bin
reduced with an increase in material head height. This was attributed to
wall effects supporting the granular material. To further develop this
theory, Janssen [23] used a continuum approach and experimental
validation to demonstrate the results of wall effects supporting the
granular material. In 1885, the work of Reynolds [24] determined that
all compacted bulk materials expand as they are sheared and will
continue to expand until failure occurs, which is typically referred to as
dilation.
The combination of the results produced by Coulomb and Reynolds
can be used to form a three-dimensional stress-strain-porosity diagram,
which can be referred to as the Hvorslev diagram [25] . This was further
developed by Roscoe et al. [26], where a failure surface is produced by
plotting the Instantaneous Yield Loci (IYL) and the porosity of the
granular material forming a failure surface. Fig. 2 illustrates this failure
surface in the p, q and w domain, corresponding to σ (normal stress), τ
(shear stress) and ε (voidage) respectively. The initial work of Hvorslev
[25] is represented as the Hvorslev surface (right of the critical state
Fig. 2. Hvorslev yield surface (modified from Roscoe et al., 1958).
3
Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952
line), and the work of Roscoe et al. [26] is represented as the Roscoe,
Schofield and Wroth surface (left of the critical state line).
Hvorslev [25] conducted tests under a compressive regime where the
tensile stress conditions were not considered. This led to the surface of
Fig. 2 having an edge at the σ = 0 plane which can be interpreted as a
tension cut-off. To expand further on this, Roscoe et al. [26] considered
the consolidation of soil samples, where the changes in the voidage
between the particles was observed. Samples were subjected to changing
stresses within a tri-axial tester where the relationship of the critical
state line to voidage between particles was observed.
Dividing the Hvorslev surface, seen in Fig. 2, into the two defined
segments on either side of the critical state line, leads to two different
phenomena occurring within the bulk material. When the right segment
is considered, the material fails under shear, while in the left segment
consolidation of the material occurs provided that sufficient normal
stresses are present. The critical state line is formed by joining the points
where the Effective Yield Locus (EYL) intersects the major Mohr semi-
circle tangentially at different voidage, ε, conditions. The correspond­
ing yield surface is a result of projecting a series of yield loci that
correspond to different consolidation loads (voidage between the par­
ticles). This is described in detail by Roberts [9].
To further expand on the work of Hvorslev [25] and Roscoe et al.
[26] a yield surface was considered with the bulk density, ρbulk , and
voidage, ε, between the particles of the bulk material. For an increase in
the bulk density of a bulk material, an associated decrease in the voidage
between the particles is experienced [27] . Additionally, with an in­
crease in the bulk density, an associated increase in the strength of the
bulk material can be seen and is shown in Fig. 3. By considering the bulk
density for the yield surface, an assumption into the way the tensile
strength curve would correlate to the above theories was gained. It could
be identified that for low bulk densities, the particles are generally
loosely packed with low tensile strength. However, for high bulk den­
sities, the particles are packed together more closely, where small
changes in the bulk density lead to large changes in the tensile strength
[27] .
To gain an understanding of the tensile strength of a bulk material, it
is important to consider the compaction state of the sample when un­
dertaking Jenike direct shear measurements. Theoretical models exist
that aim to define the tensile strength curve outlined in Fig. 3, which
estimates the amount of adhesion present within a bulk material. Recent
work by Carr et al. [20] has shown that estimated adhesion values can be
compared to experimentally measured adhesion using an inter-particle
adhesion tester (explained in detail by Ashton et al. [28] and Plinke
et al. [29]). When the consolidation state of the inter-particle adhesion
measurements is considered, the most appropriate comparison to the
Jenike direct shear measurements is using the pre-consolidation of the
sample. This can be attributed to both testing methods not being sub­
jected to any form of shear stress during the initial pre-consolidation
phases and is regarded as an equivalent stress state. These equivalent
Fig. 3. Consolidation yield surface (Ashton et al., 1965).
M.J. Carr et al. Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952

stress states are critical when comparing the predicted adhesion values,
outlined in the work of Carr et al. [20], to experimentally measure
adhesion using an inter-particle adhesion tester. Due to this, it is
essential to determine a mathematical relationship between the pre-
consolidation and the Instantaneous Yield Locus (IYL) of a bulk mate­
rial sample under Jenike direct shear testing conditions. This forms the
novel aspect of this research.
3. Instantaneous Yield Locus consolidation stress conditions
are considered. These failure stresses form the IYL where a linear fit will
be assumed. Additionally, extrapolation of the IYL to the intersection
point of the shear stress axis gives the cohesion. Once the IYL and pre-
consolidation point are defined, the relationship between both can be
solved. Solving for the pre-consolidation point and the IYL, the radius of
both lines must be equal, i.e. rt = rp as shown in Fig. 4. Firstly, the
equations of Line 1 and Line 2 are given using:
σT
yLine 1 = τo + σT tanφt yLine 2 = b − (1)
tanφt

The stress conditions that arise within a bulk material sample during Solving for the intersection point of Line 1 and Line 2, the tangent
a Jenike direct shear test are of critical importance. An understanding of point of the IYL and major Mohr circle, yields:
the relationship between the pre-consolidation condition and the failure btanφt − τo tanφt btan2 φt − τo tan2 φt
shear stress is essential to fully determine the compaction state of the σT = 2
τT = + τo (2)
1 + tan φt 1 + tan2 φt
sample. The determination of the IYL and corresponding Mohr circles in
relation to the pre-consolidation stress is shown in Fig. 4. The pre- where: b is the intersection point on the shear stress axis [Pa].
consolidation normal stress, σp , can be regarded as the compaction Using Line 2, the centre of the major Mohr circle, σ ave , occurs when
state of the sample. This will have an equivalent compaction state and no shear stress will be acting, i.e. at τ = 0. The centre can therefore be
therefore stress state when the Jenike direct shear measurements and determined as:
inter-particle adhesion measurements are considered. Once the pre-
consolidation normal stress, σp , has been applied to the Jenike direct σ ave = btanφt (3)
shear tester, the sample is sheared until a steady state value is obtained. To solve for the only unknown, b, the equation for equidistance
The pre-consolidation shear stress, τp , gives a point (shown in Fig. 4) that points can be used, i.e.:
must lie on the major Mohr circle and below the IYL. This can be √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
attributed to the sample not yielding during the pre-shear phases of the (σ T − σave )2 + τT 2 = (σ P − σave )2 + τP 2 (4)
Jenike testing regime.
Once the sample has been pre-sheared, the shear-to-failure stage For simplification purposes, the following constants are used:
commences. This is undertaken for a range of normal stresses, where
typically a minimum of five stresses below the pre-consolidation stress

Fig. 4. Schematic of Instantaneous Yield Locus showing pre-consolidation stress condition.

4
M.J. Carr et al. Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952

tanφt τo tanφt
K= L= (5)
1 + tan2 φt 1 + tan2 φt
M=
tan2 φt
N=
τo tan2 φt
2
1 + tan φt 1 + tan2 φt
Solving Eq. (4) using the values above results in a quadratic equation
which can be solved for, b, using the quadratic equation:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
− C2 ± C2 2 − 4C1 C3
b= (6)
2C1
where:
C1 = K 2 − 2Ktanφt + M 2 (7)
C2 = 2Ltanφt − 2KL − 2MN + 2τo M + 2σP tanφt (8)
C3 = L2 − 2τo N + N 2 + τo 2 − σP 2 − τP 2 (9)
The major principle stress, σ 1 , and the minor principle stress, σ2 , are
determined using:
σ 1 = btanφt + rt σ 2 = btanφt − rt (10)
The radius of the major Mohr circle, rt , is determined using:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
rt = σ ave 2 − 2σave σP + σP 2 + τP 2 (11)
By relating the pre-consolidation stress to the IYL and the major
principle stress, σ1 , an understanding of the stress state within the bulk
material sample can be gained. Furthermore, by considering the pre-
consolidation state of the sample in the Jenike direct shear test, equiv­
alent stress states occur when the inter-particle adhesion tester
(explained in detail by Ashton et al. [28] and Plinke et al. [29]) is
considered. These equivalent stress states are essential when comparing
the predicted adhesion values (outlined in the work of Carr et al. [20]) to
experimentally measured values using an inter-particle adhesion tester,
as outlined in Section 5.
4. Adhesive strength voidage surface model
Following the previous discussion, the presented methodology can
also be applied to the theory of Hvorslev [25] and Roscoe et al. [26] by
considering the voidage between the particles of the bulk material. It
was outlined in Section 2 that if a yield surface was considered with the
bulk density, ρbulk , and voidage, ε, between the particles of the bulk
material, an increase in the bulk density of a bulk material would occur
when an associated decrease in the voidage between the particles is
experienced [27] . The original work of Hvorslev [25] and Roscoe et al.
[26] assumed a tension cut-off where the linear interpolation of the IYL
to the shear stress axis was used. To consider the adhesion present in
powders, the work of Ashton et al. [27] determined the yield loci of
lithopone via measurements using a Jenike Direct Shear tester and a
tensile testing apparatus developed at Warren Spring Laboratory [28],
from which the inter-particle adhesion tester presented in the work of
Carr et al. [20] was developed. The results of the yield locus measure­
ments were found to conform to the following:
( )n
τ σ
= +1 (1)
CJDST T detail by Ashton et al. [28] and Plinke et al. [29]) will be undertaken in
where: τ is the shear stress [Pa].
n is the shear index, known to vary between 1 and 2.
CJDST is the cohesion from the Jenike direct shear tester [Pa].
σ is the normal stress [Pa].
T is the tensile strength from the tensile tester [Pa].
The equation above can be explained in terms of a simple model,
where it is assumed that if the stresses present in the bulk material
sample remain below a critical level, it deforms elastically according to
Hooke’s law for both compressive and tensile stresses [30]. It was also
determined that in general, the shear index, n, is independent of the bulk
density of any given bulk material at any given particle size and distri­
bution [27] . It was further observed that a correlation between the
shear index and Jenike’s classification of the “flowability of solids” could
be shown. The shear index, n, can be classified as 1 for a free-flowing
material and up to 2 for very cohesive bulk materials. It will be appro­
priate to identify that when n = 1, Coulombs equation (τ = μσ + CJDST ),
results which is used extensively in soil mechanics. For a hypothetical
case of a perfectly free-flowing bulk material where CJDST and T are zero,
the shear stresses at failure will be proportional to the normal stresses
[27] .
The extrapolation of the measured yield loci of the lithopone into the
ρ − axis as presented in the work of Ashton et al. [27] results in a
yielding surface similar to Fig. 3. The tensile strength curve is shown to
be asymptotic to the ρ − axis at low bulk densities and a constant value is
found at higher bulk densities. It could be identified that for low bulk
densities, the particles are typically “loosely packed” with a low tensile
strength. However, for high bulk densities, the particles are packed
together more closely, where small changes in the bulk density lead to
large changes in the tensile strength [27] . Although the methodology
proposed by Ashton et al. [27] was able to establish a yielding surface
that included the adhesive nature of the tested powders, assumptions
about the shear index were still required. By using the application of a
parabolic profile tangential to the intersection point of the IYL at the
shear stress axis (where the amount of cohesion, τo is found) and having
its vertex intersecting in the tensile component (negative value) on the
normal stress axis a yielding surface (shown in Fig. 5) can be produced.
This surface is directly formulated from results obtained using a Jenike
direct shear tester.
If the surface in Fig. 5 is compared to the existing theory of Hvorslev
[25] and Roscoe et al. [26] the consolidation strength curve, critical
state line and yield loci remain the same, and the Roscoe, Schofield and
Wroth surface (shown in blue) remain unmodified. If the Hvorslev sur­
face (shown in green) is considered, it has been proposed by the authors
that there is a reduction in the area of this surface compared with the
original theory of Hvorslev [25] . This reduction will be a result of the
yield locus only being considered to the point of tangency of the small
Mohr semi-circle. This point can now be defined as the Unconfined State
Line when extrapolated into the voidage, ε, direction (shown in Fig. 5).
Looking to the left of the unconfined state line, the Adhesive and
Cohesive Surface (shown in red) is produced which is based off the
assumption presented in the work of Carr et al. [20] of a parabolic
profile.
The use of a tensile testing apparatus, such as the one developed at
Warren Spring Laboratory [28], for the determination of the inter-
particle adhesion of a sample during the calculation of the yield locus
results in the potential for experimental error. This error depends on the
experience level of the user and the reproducibility of measurements,
where it can be difficult to reach the critical consolidation of the sample.
By using a parabolic assumption, the need for an experienced operator is
negated as the measurement of the yield loci points in the Jenike direct
shear testercan be quite reproducible in relation to the consolidation of
the sample as explained in ASTM D 3080 [31] . The comparison between
the estimated adhesion using the theoretical model of Carr et al. [20]
and measured results from an inter-particle adhesion tester (explained in
the subsequent section.
5. Experimental results and discussion
Once the mathematical relationship between the pre-consolidation
and the Instantaneous Yield Locus (IYL) of a bulk material sample has
been determined, the adhesion may be estimated. This is completed
using the methodology presented in the work of Carr et al. [20] . This
methodology considers a simplified parabolic estimation that is

5
M.J. Carr et al.
Fig. 5. Hvorslev yield surface incorporating assumed profile for adhesion and cohesion.
tangential to the intersection point of the IYL at the shear stress axis
(where the amount of cohesion, τo is found) and have its vertex inter­
secting in the tensile component (negative value) on the normal stress
axis. For completeness, the linear extrapolation of the IYL has also been
included to show the influence of simply assuming the IYL to be linear
without any consideration of the stress states of the bulk material. Both
of these estimations are compared to the experimental measurements
using an inter-particle adhesion tester explained in detail by Ashton
et al. [28] and Plinke et al. [29] . Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the comparison
of the measured adhesion data from an inter-particle adhesion tester and
the estimation from the extrapolation of the IYL for two iron ore sam­
ples; Iron Ore A (IOA) and Iron Ore B (IOB) respectively. Due to the
commercial sensitivity of these samples, both samples were tested on a
deidentified basis. From these figures it is shown that the linear esti­
mation of the yield locus results in an overprediction of the adhesive
stress, approximately double that of the experimental results. This is
Fig. 6. Adhesion estimation for linear and parabolic profiles in comparison to inter-particle adhesion testing for IOA.
6
Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952
compared to the parabolic estimation which provides good agreement.
When Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 are considered, it can be shown that the
assumption of a simplified parabolic estimation is significantly closer to
the measured data than the existing linear extrapolation, which is shown
to overestimate the adhesion. This becomes much more significant, with
increasing consolidation stress for both cases. It is important to note that
repeats of the experimental measurements and visual checks of the
failure zone are undertaken for each measurement. Typically, five suc­
cessful repeat measurements are undertaken for each consolidation
pressure where visual checks are recorded with each measurement. It
can be shown that by considering the compaction state of the bulk
material when undertaking Jenike direct shear measurements it is
possible to predict the adhesion of problematic bulk materials.
Furthermore, when the consolidation state of the inter-particle adhesion
measurements is considered, the most appropriate comparison to the
Jenike direct shear measurements is using the pre-consolidation of the
M.J. Carr et al.
Fig. 7. Adhesion estimation for linear and parabolic profiles in comparison to inter-particle adhesion testing for IOB.
sample. This can be attributed to both testing methods not being sub­
jected to any form of shear stress during the initial pre-consolidation
phases, and to be regarded as an equivalent stress state.
6. Concluding remarks
This paper has presented a mathematical relationship between the
pre-consolidation and the Instantaneous Yield Locus (IYL) of a bulk
material sample under Jenike direct shear testing conditions. To gain an
understanding of the tensile strength of a bulk material, it was deter­
mined that consideration must be given to the compaction state of the
sample when undertaking measurements. A method for determining the
adhesive properties of problematic bulk materials can be undertaken
using inter-particle adhesion measurements. When these measurements
are considered, the most appropriate comparison to the Jenike direct
shear measurements is using the pre-consolidation of the sample. This
can be attributed to both testing methods not being subjected to any
form of shear stress during the initial pre-consolidation phases, and to be
regarded as an equivalent stress state. The determined mathematical
relationship between the pre-consolidation and the Instantaneous Yield
Locus (IYL) allows for the determination of the stress states present
within a bulk material sample under Jenike direct shear testing condi­
tions. From this, the determination of the Hvorslev yield surface which
also considers the tensile component (negative value) on the normal
stress axis can be produced, as shown in Fig. 5. This surface can be
directly formulated from results obtained using a Jenike direct shear
tester only.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Michael J. Carr: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original
draft. Alan W. Roberts: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis. Peter W. Robinson: Methodology, Writing – review &
editing, Validation. Timothy J. Donohue: Conceptualization, Method­
ology, Formal analysis. Craig A. Wheeler: Writing – review & editing,
Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Michael J. Carr reports a relationship with The University of New­
castle that includes: employment. Alan W. Roberts reports a relationship
with The University of Newcastle that includes: employment. Peter W.
Robinson reports a relationship with The University of Newcastle that
includes: employment. Timothy J. Donohue reports a relationship with
TUNRA Bulk Solids that includes: employment. Craig A. Wheeler reports
7
Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952
a relationship with The University of Newcastle that includes:
employment.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Australian Research Council
(ARC) Research Hub for Advanced Technologies for Australian Iron Ore
(Grant Number: IH130200031) and our industry partners for the
financial support and assistance that has been provided for this research
project.
References
[1] A.W. Jenike, Storage and Flow of Solids, Bulletin. No. 123 of the Utah Engineering
Experimentation Station, Vol. 53, No. 26:22770, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
United States, 1964.
[2] A.W. Jenike, P.J. Elsey, R.H. Woolley, Flow properties of bulk solids, in:
Proceedings, American Society for Testing Materials vol. 60, 1960, pp. 1168–1181.
[3] A.W. Jenike, Gravity Flow of Bulk Solids, Bulletin. No. 108 of the Utah Engineering
Experimentation Station, Vol. 53, No. 26:22770, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
United States, 1961.
[4] R. Nedderman, Statics and Kinematics of Granular Materials, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1992, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511600043.
[5] W.M.J. Rankine, On stability on loose earth, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Part I
(1857) 9–27.
[6] L. Brendel, D. Kadau, D.E. Wolf, M. Röck, M. Morgeneyer, J. Schwedes, Cohesive
powders: Steady state flow and boundary conditions, in: Powders and Grains 2005,
Two Volume Set, CRC Press, 2005, pp. 591–596.
[7] M. Morgeneyer, L. Brendel, J. Schwedes, Compaction of bidisperse cohesive
powders, Granul. Matter 10 (2008) 295–299, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-
008-0090-6.
[8] D. Schulze, Flow Properties of Powders and Bulk Solids, Springer – Verlag, Berlin,
Germany, 2008.
[9] A.W. Roberts, Basic Principles of Bulk Solids, Storage, Flow and Handling, Centre
for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies. The University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW, Australia, 1998.
[10] D. Schulze, Powders and Bulk Solids – Behavior, Characterization, Storage and
Flow, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York – Tokyo, 2021.
[11] ASTM Standard D6773: Standard shear test method for bulk solids using the
Schulze ring shear tester, ASTM International, www.astm.org.
[12] Y. Shimada, T. Kawata, S. Matsusaka, Analysis of constant-volume shear tests
based on precise measurement of stresses in powder beds, Adv. Powder Technol.
29 (6) (2018) 1372–1378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2018.02.033.
[13] M. Ueda, Y. Shimada, S. Matsusaka, Stress analysis of powder beds using constant-
volume and constant-load shear tests: characterization by repeated shearing and
application to quasi-steady load shearing, Adv. Powder Technol. 33 (8) (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2022.103713.
[14] J. Schwedes, Consolidation and flow of cohesive bulk solids, Chem. Eng. Sci. 57
(2002) 287–294.
[15] L. Brendel, D. Kadau, D.E. Wolf, M. Röck, M. Morgeneyer, J. Schwedes, Cohesive
powders: Steady state flow and boundary conditions, in: Powder and Grains 2005
vol. 1, A.A. Balkema, Leiden, 2005, pp. 569–573.
M.J. Carr et al.
[16] M. Morgeneyer, Mechanische Eigenschaften kohäsiver Schüttgüter, Universität
Braunschweig FB Maschinenbau, 2004.
[17] M. Morgeneyer, L. Brendel, Z. Farkas, D. Kadau, D.E. Wolf, J. Schwedes, Can one
make a powder forget its history?, in: Paper presented at 5th International
Conference for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids, Budapest, 2003,
12.118/12.124.
[18] M. Röck, M. Morgeneyer, J. Schwedes, L. Brendel, D.E. Wolf, D. Kadau,
Visualization of shear motions of cohesive powders in the true biaxial shear tester,
Part. Sci. Technol. 26 (1) (2007) 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/
02726350701759233.
[19] H. Shi, R. Mohanty, S. Chakravarty, R. Cabiscol, M. Morgeneyer, H. Zetzener, J.
Y. Ooi, A. Kwade, S. Luding, V. Magnanimo, Effect of particle size and cohesion on
powder yielding and flow, KONA Powder Particle J. 35 (2018) 226–250, https://
doi.org/10.14356/kona.2018014.
[20] M.J. Carr, A.W. Roberts, C.A. Wheeler, A revised methodology for the
determination of bulk material cohesion and adhesion, Adv. Powder Technol. 30
(10) (2019) 2110–2116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2019.06.025.
[21] C.A. Coulomb, Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a
quelques problemes de statique, relatifs a l’architecture, in: Memoires de
Mathematique de l’Academie Royale de Science 7, 1776. Paris, France.
[22] I. Roberts, Determination of the vertical and lateral pressures of granular
substances, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 36 (1882) 225–240.
Powder Technology 429 (2023) 118952
[23] H.A. Janssen, Tests on grain pressure silos, Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher
Ingenieure 35 (1895) 1045–1049.
[24] O. Reynolds, On the dilatancy of media composed of rigid particles in contact,
Philos. Mag. 20 (1885) 469–481.
[25] M.J. Hvorslev, On the Physical Properties of Distributed Cohesive Soils,
Ingeniorvidensk. Skr, 1937, p. 45.
[26] K.H. Roscoe, A.N. Schofield, C.P. Wroth, On the yielding of soils, Geotechnique 8
(1958) 22–53.
[27] M.D. Ashton, D.C.H. Cheng, R. Farley, F.H.H. Valentin, Some investigations into
the strength and flow properties of powders, in: Proceedings of the British Society
of Rheology, University of Nottingham, 1965, pp. 206–218.
[28] A.D. Ashton, R. Farley, F.H.H. Valentin, An Improved Apparatus for Measuring the
Tensile Strength of Powders, Journal Scientific Instruments vol. 41, IOP Publishing
Limited, Bristol, United Kingdom, 1964, pp. 763–765.
[29] J. Plinke, J.D. Prigge, K. Williams, Development of New Analysis Methods for the
Characterization and Classification of Wet and Sticky Ores, Powder Technology
vol. 294, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2016, pp. 252–258.
[30] J.L.R. Orband, D. Geldard, Direct Measurement of Powder Cohesion Using a
Torsional Device, Powder Technology vol. 92, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
1997, pp. 25–33.