Compaction of Granular Columns under Thermal Cycling

Haiyang Lu; Houfei Yuan; Xinyu Ai; Yujie Wang; Yuxuan Luo; Zelin Liu; Zhikun Zeng; Zhuan Ge

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Compaction of Granular Columns under Thermal Cycling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Container expansion, not grain heat response, drives thermal compaction.

desk verdict Plausible answer to an open question for column geometry, but the central causal claim rests on an amplitude comparison rather than a control, and the aging claim is underdetermined by the fits. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13434 v1 pith:PIV27T2H submitted 2025-01-23 cond-mat.soft

Yuxuan Luo , Haiyang Lu , Xinyu Ai , Zelin Liu , Houfei Yuan , Zhuan Ge , Zhikun Zeng , Yujie Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords granularcompactionthermalcyclingdifferentialexpansioncyclicshearagingdynamicsglassyrelaxationglassbeadssandpackings

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Periodic heating and cooling compacts columns of glass beads and sand, and this paper sets out to identify what physically causes that compaction. By tracking the top surface of the grains and a marker on the container wall over roughly 200 thermal cycles, the authors show that the container expands several times more than the grains do, so the wall imposes a small cyclic shear on the packing. They argue that this wall-driven shear, rather than the grains' own thermal response, is the primary compaction mechanism in their system. The compaction curves are then compared with three relaxation models, and the logarithmic form describes them best, which places thermal-cycling compaction alongside the slow aging dynamics observed in glassy systems and weakly tapped granular piles. The result matters because it gives thermal effects in soils, silos, and slopes a concrete mechanical channel: differential expansion of the boundary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the differential thermal expansion between the container and the grains, converted into a mechanical drive by the geometry of the heated pipe. A marker fixed near the top of the pipe is tracked with the same camera that records the granular surface; its periodic rise and fall, fit by a single exponential in each heating and cooling stage, gives the container deformation and yields an estimate of the expansion coefficient that matches the known value for the pipe material. Comparing that deformation with the observed grain-column height change isolates the wall-imposed shear from the grains' own thermal expansion, and the ratio $\Delta h_m/(2h_{\mathrm{heat}})$ defines the shear amplitude per cycle that the compaction curves are then plotted against.

What would settle it

Measure internal particle motion or local container strain during one thermal cycle, for example with X-ray imaging or embedded sensors along the column's height. If compaction persists in a container whose expansion matches the grains, or if grains far from the wall compact as much as those at the wall, the wall-shear mechanism would be ruled out; conversely, if a nonuniform temperature profile produces localized deformation instead of distributed shear, the inferred shear amplitude would not be the controlling parameter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in these experiments, differential thermal expansion between the container and the grains is what drives compaction during thermal cycling. Because the pipe material's expansion coefficient is at least three times that of the grains, the heated section of the pipe lengthens and shortens by roughly 1.3 mm each cycle while the granular column changes height by a comparable amount, far more than the ~0.3 mm expected from particle thermal expansion alone. The authors interpret this as the wall imposing a cyclic shear on the packing, with amplitude estimated as $\Delta h_m/(2h_{\mathrm{heat}})\approx 6.5\times10^{-4}$. They show that the resulting compaction is slower for polydisperse sand than for monodisperse glass beads, speeds up as the temperature swing $\Delta T$ grows, and is best captured by a logarithmic relaxation law, which they read as evidence that the system is aging in a glassy sense under weak perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on assuming that the single marker's motion represents uniform expansion of the whole 1 m heated pipe, and that this expansion is transmitted to the grains as a homogeneous cyclic shear rather than being absorbed by local slip, bending, or a nonuniform temperature field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If wall-driven shear is the cause, then the compaction rate depends directly on the container's expansion coefficient and geometry, not just on the grains' thermal properties.
Larger temperature swings produce larger shear amplitudes and shorter relaxation times, so cyclic amplitude, not temperature level alone, controls the approach to steady state.
The logarithmic relaxation under thermal cycling places this compaction in the same slow-aging class as weakly tapped granular piles.
Polydisperse sand compacts more slowly and discontinuously than monodisperse glass beads, consistent with small particles rearranging through gaps in a more hindered process.
Engineering predictions for silos and soil slopes should account for boundary expansion as an active mechanical driver, not only for grain-scale thermal response.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the mechanism is correct, building the same column in a container with a matched thermal expansion coefficient should nearly eliminate compaction; this is a direct test the paper does not perform.
Because temperature is read at a single bottom sensor, the real expansion profile may be nonuniform; the reported shear amplitude may be an average or upper bound, and the compaction rate could vary along the column.
The aging analogy suggests testable frequency dependence: changing the heating and cooling rates while keeping the amplitude fixed should change the effective number of relaxation cycles, which would distinguish thermal cycling from simple cyclic shear protocols.
For real geological settings, the result implies that the thermal expansivity of the surrounding soil, rock, or structure may matter more than the soil grains themselves, potentially reordering how thermal collapse and landslide triggers are modeled.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you care about granular compaction under weak perturbations. The paper gives a clean, plausible answer to an open question for this geometry: in a tall column, thermal-cycling compaction is driven primarily by differential thermal expansion between the container and the grains, not by intrinsic grain response. That attribution is genuinely new for this setup, and the experimental work is careful—marker tracking, image processing, and validation of the pipe expansion coefficient against a standard value. The comparison of three relaxation models (KWW, double-exponential, logarithmic) is also thorough as a fitting exercise, and the preference for logarithmic aging matches the weak-tapping literature.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The mechanism claim rests on one marker displacement and one temperature sensor. The inferred shear amplitude assumes the pipe expansion is uniform over the heated length and that this wall motion is actually transmitted to the bulk as cyclic shear. No internal strain or particle motion is measured. A control using a low-expansion container would settle whether container dilation is primary, and I think that is the missing experiment. As it stands, the ~1.5 mm column height change versus ~0.3 mm estimated grain thermal expansion makes the extrinsic mechanism dominant, but not proven. The paper wisely says 'in our system,' which limits the claim, but the conclusions in the abstract and introduction lean harder on causality than the evidence supports.

The aging claim is also softer than the text suggests. The MSE for logarithmic and double-exponential fits are comparable; choosing logarithmic because double-exponential has too many parameters is a post-hoc selection, and there are no error bars or repeated runs. That said, the logarithmic form is consistent with existing weak-tapping data, so the direction is reasonable even if the discrimination is weak.

Overall, this is a solid, honest experimental study that advances a specific question. It deserves a serious referee, though the referee should push for a control experiment and error analysis. I would bring it to a reading group as a good example of how to frame a mechanism claim with limited direct evidence, and I would cite it if I were working on thermal effects in granular columns.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of compaction in vertical granular columns (monodisperse glass beads and polydisperse sand) subjected to repeated thermal cycling with temperature differences of 20–50°C over about 200 cycles. The authors track both the granular column height and the deformation of the polyvinyl chloride (VC) container via an optical marker, and they convert height data into volume-fraction relaxation curves. These curves are fitted with Kohlrausch–Williams–Watts, double-exponential, and logarithmic functions. The paper's central claims are (i) that differential thermal expansion between the container and the grains primarily induces compaction through cyclic shear, and (ii) that the compaction dynamics display logarithmic aging behavior similar to weakly tapped granular materials or glassy systems.

Significance. If the mechanism claim is established, the work would clarify an important open question in thermally driven granular compaction: whether compaction is dominated by extrinsic container effects (cyclic wall shear) or by intrinsic grain-level thermal ratcheting. The experimental design has notable strengths: long-duration measurements over ~200 cycles, several temperature amplitudes for the glass-bead system, a comparison of two grain types, and an independent check of the inferred pipe expansion coefficient against the standard value. The comparison of three relaxation models is a useful quantitative step. However, the two central inferences—the shear mechanism and the logarithmic-aging interpretation—are supported only indirectly, and several load-bearing assumptions need to be tested or substantially qualified before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section III.A, Fig. 3] The mechanism claim relies on comparing the granular column height change (~1.5 mm), the marker displacement (~1.3 mm), and the estimated grain thermal expansion (~0.3 mm). This comparison assumes that the marker displacement measured at one axial position, combined with a single temperature sensor at the bottom of the pile, is representative of a uniform expansion of the entire 1 m heated pipe, and that this expansion is transmitted to the bulk as a homogeneous cyclic shear of amplitude γ = Δh_m/(2l_heat) ≈ 6.5×10^-4. Neither internal strain fields nor wall–grain relative displacements are measured, so γ quantifies possible wall deformation rather than the shear actually imposed on the packing. A nonuniform temperature profile or boundary-localized slip would break the inferred link between container expansion and bulk compaction, and intrinsic grain-level thermal ratcheting (as in Refs. 14–16) is not excluded by an amplitude comparison alone. The manuscript should add a direct probe of wall–grain motion, a control experiment using a low-expansion container, or explicitly reframe the conclusion as one plausible interpretation rather than the demonstrated primary mechanism.
[Section III.B, Fig. 5(b)] The selection of the logarithmic fit as 'the most appropriate' rests on MSE values that are comparable for the double-exponential and logarithmic models, with no error bars, repeated runs, or parameter uncertainties. The statement that the double-exponential form 'introduces too many fitting parameters' is not a quantitative model-selection criterion. Since the aging interpretation and the analogy with weak tapping depend directly on this choice, the current analysis does not establish that thermal-cycling compaction follows logarithmic aging rather than a double-exponential relaxation. Please provide repeated experiments, parameter confidence intervals, residuals, or an information-theoretic comparison such as AIC/BIC.
[Figs. 2, 4, and 5(a)] Each reported compaction curve appears to be a single realization, and the relaxation times shown in Fig. 5(a) are extracted from single fits. Without repeated packing preparations or an estimate of run-to-run variability, the trends claimed for τ as a function of ΔT and the differences between fitting models cannot be meaningfully assessed. The paper should include repeat measurements or at least a clearly stated uncertainty estimate for the fit parameters.

minor comments (4)

[Equation (3)] The displayed logarithmic fitting function is garbled and difficult to read; the parentheses and division structure should be re-typeset so that the functional form is unambiguous.
[Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous OCR-type and typographical errors, including 'Vlatinum Vt100' (likely 'platinum PT100'), 'C oltage: 220C; Vower' (likely 'Voltage: 220 V; Power'), missing degree units in the temperature range, and 'Colume fractions' in the Fig. 4 caption. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Section II, Fig. 3(b) inset] The text says the marker height variations follow a single exponential during heating and cooling, but the displayed formula is incomplete; please provide the complete fitting expression and the fitted time constants.
[Section II] The initial granular height is given as 1.14 m and the marker position as 1.08 m, with the explanation that the packing height 'slightly exceeds' the marker to avoid visual occlusion. This is confusing: if the packing covers the marker, how is the marker tracked? Please clarify the geometry and camera field of view.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mechanism claim is an evidence-based inference, and the compaction fits are independent of the container-expansion hypothesis.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central mechanism claim (differential thermal expansion of the container drives compaction through small-amplitude cyclic shear) is inferred from an amplitude comparison: the measured reversible column-height variation (~1.5 mm) is compared with the marker displacement (~1.3 mm) and with the estimated particle-dilation contribution (~0.3 mm) in Sec. III.A. The marker data also provide an external consistency check by yielding alpha ~ 4.3e-5 K^-1, which matches the standard VC value; this is an external benchmark, not an input recycled as a prediction. The compaction curves are then fitted with KWW, double-exponential, and logarithmic forms in Sec. III.B; the fits are not used to select or construct the data, and the fitting parameters are not derived from the container-expansion hypothesis. The choice of the logarithmic fit as most appropriate is based on MSE and parameter count, not on a prior commitment to aging dynamics. Some cited references are from the same group (e.g., Refs. [19], [24], [34]), but they support background analogies and image-processing conventions rather than the load-bearing causal claim. The main vulnerability of the paper is evidential rather than circular: the conversion of measured pipe expansion into shear strain transmitted to the bulk is assumed, not directly measured, and no control with a low-expansion container is reported. That is a correctness/evidence gap, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism claim relies on interpreting displacement measurements without direct measurement of internal strain, temperature field, or density profile. The aging claim relies on curve fits with multiple free parameters and a model-selection step. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

KWW fit parameters (phi_f, tau, beta) = not reported in the text
Used to characterize relaxation; tau is reported in Fig. 5(a) without uncertainties.
Double-exponential fit parameters (A1, A2, tau1, tau2) = not reported in the text
Two relaxation timescales are claimed; values are not tabulated or given error bars.
Logarithmic fit parameters (phi_f, Delta_phi, tau, B) = not reported in the text
Log fit is preferred by the authors; tau is reported in Fig. 5(a) without uncertainties.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The granular packing is spatially homogeneous, so the volume fraction equals the total grain volume divided by the column volume computed from a single top-height measurement.
Invoked in Section III.B when converting height h to volume fraction; neglects wall friction and density gradients.
domain assumption The temperature measured by the sensor at the bottom of the pile represents the temperature of the entire granular column, and the heated 1 m pipe section expands uniformly.
Invoked in Section II (sensor placement) and Section III.A (computation of pipe expansion and shear amplitude).
domain assumption The cyclic height variation of the pile is the sum of reversible thermal expansion and irreversible compaction, and the reversible part is dominated by wall motion rather than grain expansion.
Invoked in Section III.A to infer the shear mechanism from the relative magnitudes of pile height change (~1.5 mm), marker movement (~1.3 mm), and estimated grain expansion (~0.3 mm).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compaction of Granular Columns under Thermal Cycling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIV27T2H

@misc{pith2026250113434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compaction of Granular Columns under Thermal Cycling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIV27T2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13434}
}

read the original abstract

Granular materials undergo compaction under periodic temperature fluctuations, leading to various engineering and geological phenomena from landslides to silo compaction. Although thermal effects on granular materials have been extensively studied in soil mechanics and geology, the underlying physical mechanisms remain unclear. This study investigates the compaction dynamics of granular materials subjected to thermal cycling using monodisperse glass beads and polydisperse sand packings. We demonstrate that differential thermal expansion between the container and the grains drives compaction through shear in our experimental systems. We quantify compaction dynamics using three established fitting models: Kohlrausch-Williams-Watts (KWW), double-exponential, and logarithmic functions. Our results reveal that granular materials exhibit slow relaxation processes in response to weak perturbations, displaying aging dynamics similar to those observed in glassy systems. These findings provide insights into fundamental mechanisms of granular compaction with broad implications for geological and engineering applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

V. G. de Gennes, Granular matter: a tentative view, Rev. Mod. Vhys. 71, S374 (1999)

work page 1999
[2]

H. M. Jaeger, S. R. Nagel, and R. Behringer, Granular solids, liquids, and gases, Rev. Mod. Vhys. 68, 1259 (1996)

work page 1996
[3]

H. B. Manbeck, Vredicting thermally induced pressures in grain bins, Transactions of the ASAE 27, 482 (1984)

work page 1984
[4]

Zheng et al., Responses to air temperature and soil moisture of growth of four dominant species on sand dunes of central Inner Mongolia, J

Y . Zheng et al., Responses to air temperature and soil moisture of growth of four dominant species on sand dunes of central Inner Mongolia, J. Vlant. Res. 121, 473 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

A. F. Rotta Loria and J. B. oulibaly, Thermally induced deformation of soils: A critical overview of phenomena, challenges and opportunities, Geome. Ener. Envir. 25, 100193 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

Nadim, O

F. Nadim, O. Kjekstad, V. Veduzzi, . Herold, and . Jaedicke, Global landslide and avalanche hotspots, Landslides 3, 159 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Lisowski et al., ompaction of chopped material in a mini silo, Biomass and Bioenergy 139, 105631 (2020)

A. Lisowski et al., ompaction of chopped material in a mini silo, Biomass and Bioenergy 139, 105631 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

S. H. He, H. F. Shan, T. D. Xia, Z. J. Liu, Z. Ding, and F. Xia, The effect of temperature on the drained shear behavior of calcareous sand, Acta.Geotech. 16, 613 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 34 references

[9]

W. W. Ng, S. H. Wang, and . Zhou, C olume change behaviour of saturated sand under thermal cycles, Geotech. Lett. 6, 124 (2016)

2016
[10]

Sittidumrong, A

J. Sittidumrong, A. Jotisankasa, and K. hantawarangul, Effect of thermal cycles on volumetric behaviour of Bangkok sand, Geome. Ener. Envir. 20, 100127 (2019)

2019
[11]

Y . Van, J. B. oulibaly, and A. F. Rotta Loria, An experimental investigation challenging the thermal collapse of sand, Geotechnique 74, 296 (2022)

2022
[12]

Y . Van, D. Seo, M. Rivers, X. Gong, G. Buscarnera, and A. F. Rotta Loria, Microscopic insights into thermal cycling effects in granular materials via X -ray microtomography, Granular Matter 26, 98 (2024)

2024
[13]

K. hen, J. ole, . onger, J. Draskovic, M. Lohr, K. Klein, T. Scheidemantel, and V. Schiffer, Vacking grains by thermal cycling, Nature 441, 38 (2006)

2006
[14]

Divoux, H

T. Divoux, H. Gayvallet, and J. Géminard, reep Motion of a Granular Vile Induced by Thermal ycling, Vhys. Rev. Lett. 101, 148303 (2008)

2008
[15]

Canel and E

L. Canel and E. lement, Vressure screening and fluctuations at the bottom of a granular column , Eur. Vhys. J. B 11, 525 (1999)

1999
[16]

Blanc and J

B. Blanc and J. Géminard, Intrinsic creep of a granular column subjected to temperature changes, Vhys. Rev. E. 88, 022201 (2013)

2013
[17]

Kou et al., Granular materials flow like complex fluids, Nature 551, 360 (2017)

B. Kou et al., Granular materials flow like complex fluids, Nature 551, 360 (2017)

2017
[18]

Nicolas, V

M. Nicolas, V. Duru, and O. Vouliquen, ompaction of a granular material under cyclic shear, Eur. Vhys. J. E. 3, 309 (2000)

2000
[19]

Y. Yuan, Z. K. Zeng, Y. Xing, H. F. Yuan, S. Y . Zhang, W. Kob and Y. J. Wang, From creep to flow: Granular materials under cyclic shear, Nat. ommun. 15, 3866 (2024)

2024
[20]

Richard, M

V. Richard, M. Nicodemi, R. Delannay, V. Ribiere, and D. Bideau, Slow relaxation and compaction of granular systems, Nat. Mater. 4, 121 (2005)

2005
[21]

J. B. Knight, . G. Fandrich, . N. Lau, H. M. Jaeger, and S. R. Nagel, Density relaxation in a vibrated granular material, Vhys. Rev. E. 51, 3957 (1995)

1995
[22]

Nowak, J

E. Nowak, J. B. Knight, M. L. Vovinelli, H. M. Jaeger, and S. R. Nagel, Reversibility and irreversibility in the packing of vibrated granular material, Vowder Technol. 94, 79 (1997)

1997
[23]

Arceri, F

F. Arceri, F. V. Landes, L. Berthier and G. Biroli, A Statistical Mechanics Verspective on Glasses and Aging, arXiv:2006.09725 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (17 June 2020)

2006 arXiv
[24]

Zhang, Z

S. Zhang, Z. Zeng, H. Yuan, Z. Li, and Y . J Wang, Vrecursory arch-like structures explain the clogging probability in a granular hopper flow, ommun. Vhys. 7, 202 (2024)

2024
[25]

Williams and D

G. Williams and D. . Watts, Non-symmetrical dielectric relaxation behaviour arising from a simple empirical decay function,Trans. Faraday Soc. 66, 80 (1970)

1970
[26]

Xia et al., The structural origin of the hard -sphere glass transition in granular packing , Nat

J. Xia et al., The structural origin of the hard -sphere glass transition in granular packing , Nat. ommun. 6, 8409 (2015)

2015
[27]

Barker and A

G. Barker and A. Mehta, Cibrated powders: structure, correlations, and dynamics, Vhys. Rev. A 45, 3435 (1992)

1992
[28]

Barker and A

G. Barker and A. Mehta, Transient phenomena, self-diffusion, and orientational effects in vibrated powders, Vhys. Rev. E. 47, 184 (1993)

1993
[29]

Mehta, Real sandpiles: dilatancy, hysteresis an d cooperative dynamics, Vhysica A 186, 121 (1992)

A. Mehta, Real sandpiles: dilatancy, hysteresis an d cooperative dynamics, Vhysica A 186, 121 (1992)

1992
[30]

Mehta, R

A. Mehta, R. J. Needs, and S. Dattagupta, The Langevin dynamics of vibrated powders, J. Stat. Vhys. 68, 1131 (1992)

1992
[31]

E. R. Nowak, J. B. Knight, E. Ben -Naim, H. M. Jaeger, and S. R. Nagel, Density fluctuations in vibrated granular materials, Vhys. Rev. E 57, 1971 (1998)

1998
[32]

Boutreux, V

T. Boutreux, V. G. de Gennes, ompaction of granular mixtures: a free volume model, Vhysica A 244, 59 (1997)

1997
[33]

avagna, Supercooled liquids for pedestrians, Vhys

A. avagna, Supercooled liquids for pedestrians, Vhys. Rep. 476, 51 (2009)

2009
[34]

Xing et al., Origin of critical state in sheared granular materials, Nat

Y. Xing et al., Origin of critical state in sheared granular materials, Nat. Vhys. 20, 646 (2024). FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of the experimental setup , with the camera capturing the area within the blue frame. (b) Raw image (left) and binarized image (right) of a monodisp...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

V. G. de Gennes, Granular matter: a tentative view, Rev. Mod. Vhys. 71, S374 (1999)

work page 1999

[2] [2]

H. M. Jaeger, S. R. Nagel, and R. Behringer, Granular solids, liquids, and gases, Rev. Mod. Vhys. 68, 1259 (1996)

work page 1996

[3] [3]

H. B. Manbeck, Vredicting thermally induced pressures in grain bins, Transactions of the ASAE 27, 482 (1984)

work page 1984

[4] [4]

Zheng et al., Responses to air temperature and soil moisture of growth of four dominant species on sand dunes of central Inner Mongolia, J

Y . Zheng et al., Responses to air temperature and soil moisture of growth of four dominant species on sand dunes of central Inner Mongolia, J. Vlant. Res. 121, 473 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [5]

A. F. Rotta Loria and J. B. oulibaly, Thermally induced deformation of soils: A critical overview of phenomena, challenges and opportunities, Geome. Ener. Envir. 25, 100193 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Nadim, O

F. Nadim, O. Kjekstad, V. Veduzzi, . Herold, and . Jaedicke, Global landslide and avalanche hotspots, Landslides 3, 159 (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Lisowski et al., ompaction of chopped material in a mini silo, Biomass and Bioenergy 139, 105631 (2020)

A. Lisowski et al., ompaction of chopped material in a mini silo, Biomass and Bioenergy 139, 105631 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

S. H. He, H. F. Shan, T. D. Xia, Z. J. Liu, Z. Ding, and F. Xia, The effect of temperature on the drained shear behavior of calcareous sand, Acta.Geotech. 16, 613 (2021)

work page 2021