Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208 – 229

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Granular material flows – An overview

Charles S. Campbell ⁎
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1453, USA
Received 6 June 2005; received in revised form 19 August 2005

Abstract

The paper attempts to give a critical overview of the field of granular flow with attention both to the history and the underlying physics that
govern the field. It starts with a discussion of the basic transport mechanisms in a granular flow. It continues with a discussion of contact
mechanics – the way that individual particles see each other mechanically. It then discusses the historical limiting regimes of granular flow, the
Quasistatic and the Rapid-Flow regimes. Finally, it concludes with a review of the Elastic picture of granular flow, which both unifies the
Quasistatic and Rapid regimes and fills in the intervening space. It shows that the rheological behavior of granular systems changes with system
scale constraints, and, in particular, that the materials behave differently under controlled-stress and controlled-concentration conditions. The
Elastic model defines an entire flowmap of granular flow and thus allows one to place boundaries on where the Quasistatic and Rapid-Flow
models (sometimes called kinetic theory models) are something of a red herring and cannot be applied to common granular flows.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Transport mechanism; Quasistatic regime; Rapid-Flow regime; Granular flow

1. Introduction
Under the correct conditions, a granular solid can flow like a
fluid. This was probably first recorded be Lucretius (ca. 98–
55 B.C.), who wrote “One can scoop up poppy seeds with a
ladle as easily as if they were water and, when dipping the ladle,
the seeds flow in a continuous stream,” (quotation taken from
Jacques [1]). As long as there has been mining and agriculture,
man has attempted to exploit the flowability of granular solids
to ease handling and storage problems. In particular, the ability
of gravity to drive a granular flow, as noted by Lucretius, greatly
simplifies and provides a cost-free mechanism of transport. As a
result, the most common granular handling devices, chutes and
hoppers, are gravity-driven flows. Yet the design of granular
systems is still something of a black art, in part because even the
most basic flow mechanisms of granular materials are not well
understood. In fact, science has not identified the set of material
properties that control the flow behavior.
For the purposes of this article, a granular solid is taken to be
a collection of discrete solid particles. In general the spaces
between the particles are filled with an interstitial fluid, usually
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: campbell@usc.edu.
0032-5910/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2005.12.008
air. However, it will be assumed herein that the particles are
large and heavy in the sense that they are immune to effects of
the interstitial fluid. For the most part we will also ignore
cohesion between particles; cohesion arises from surface forces
or related phenomena such as liquid bridges, both of which act
on the surface area and thus can generally be neglected for large
particles with small surface area to volume ratios. Note that
these requirements collectively define what is meant by “large”
although those criteria cannot yet be quantitatively defined by a
set of dimensionless parameters.
This paper grew out of a long lecture given to the Ohio State
summer course on Powder Technology. It is an attempt to put
the state of knowledge of granular flows into perspective. It is
not intended to be a review article, in the sense that I am not
trying to mention every paper written on the subject, but instead
attempt to hit the highpoints and give a critical and balanced
view to the whole subject.
2. Internal force transmission
The unique features of granular material arise from the
manner in which force is internally transmitted. In continuum
mechanics this is represented by a stress tensor τ, each
component of which τij represents the force in the i-direction
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Fig. 1. The two mechanisms of internal momentum transport. (a) Contact
transport: Here momentum crosses the imaginary surface (the dashed line) as the
result of the contact force Fc which can be thought of as transporting momentum
between the centers of the particles along the vector l. (b) Streaming transport:
Here the momentum of the particles is carried across the imaginary surface due
to the random motion of the particles in a manner analogous to the transport of
momentum in the kinetic theory of dilute gases.
on a surface with outward pointing normal unit vector in the j
direction. There are two internal modes of stress transmission.
The first or Contact Stress, τc is due to force transmission across
interparticle contacts. Thus a force Fc applied at a contact can be
thought of as being transmitted in the direction of the vector
l that connects the centers of mass of the two particles involved.
(The length of l is the distance between the particle centers.)
When averaged 〈 〉 over time and volume, this yields the
Contact stress tensor:
t c ¼ hF c li ð1Þ
(If the forces are transmitted collisionally, this is sometimes
called the Collisional Stress tensor). This is shown schemati-
cally in Fig. 1a. Note that Fc need not point in the direction of l;
when coupled with the fact that the averaging volume must be
larger than a particle (and not allowed to shrink to infinitesimal
size as in standard continuum mechanics), this means that the
contact stress tensor need not be symmetric. Any symmetry is
balanced by gradients in a couple-stress tensor that governs the
transmission of torques internal to the material (see [2]).
If the particles are moving, there will be some degree of
internal momentum transport due to the motion of an individual
particle as it moves relative to the bulk material, carrying its
momentum with it as illustrated in Fig. 1b. If u′ represents the
velocity of that relative motion, then one defines a Streaming
Stress Tensor τs analogous to the Reynolds stress tensor in
turbulent flow.
t s ¼ qp vhu Vu Vi ð2Þ
Here ρp is the density of the solid material and ν is the “solid-
fraction” or solid concentration, the fraction of a unit volume
occupied by the particles (so that ρpν is the bulk density of the
solid phase). The streaming stresses will only be significant at
small concentrations when contacts are infrequent and in cases
where the random particle velocity u′ is large.
Common granular flows, such as hoppers, chutes and
landslides are densely packed with solid concentrations well
above 50% by volume. It is possible to obtain flows at a small
concentration, but they are limited to high-speed laboratory
shear cells, computer simulations and perhaps the rings of
Saturn. As such, the contact stresses will dominate and the
streaming stresses can usually be neglected.
209
3. Contact forces
In a dense granular flow, forces are largely generated by
interparticle contacts. The contact forces are how the particles
“see” one another mechanically. Imagine the two spherical
particles shown in Fig. 2. As long as linear elasticity applies,
the normal force on the contact will proportional to EAε, E is
the Young's modulus, A is the contact area and ε is the local
strain. The strain, ε = δ/ L where δ is the depth of the contact
deformation (the distance the contact has been compressed)
and L is an appropriate length scale. For the contact between
two spheres shown in Fig. 2, note that the contact area A is
the zero on the unloaded contact to the left and increases
when the particles are pressed together as on the right. The
fact that both the area A and the strain ε, change
simultaneously as the particle is deformed, leads to non-
linearity of the contact response.
In 1882, Hertz [3] derived an elastic solution for the contact
between bodies. The solution is not exact as often thought, but
contains an implicit assumption that the square root of the
contact area is small compared to both the local radius of
curvature and the overall dimensions of the body. The normal
force exerted on a contact between two bodies of local curvature
R is:
4 E
fn ¼ R1=2 d3=2 ð3Þ
3 1  m2
(from Johnson [4]), where E is the Young's modulus, and υ is
Poisson's ratio. This corresponds to a normal stiffness:
dfn E
k¼ ¼ 2R1=2 d1=2 ð4Þ
dd 1  m2
Substituting for δ from (2), one can write the stiffness in terms
of fn.

2=3
E
k ¼ 61=3 R1=3 fn1=3 ð5Þ
1  m2
Fig. 2. A schematic of the contact between two spheres of radius R generated by
the application of a force F. Here A is the area of the contact and δ is the
deformation. As shown the deformation is greatly exaggerated.
210 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Now Bathurst and Rothenburg [5] derived the bulk elastic
modulus of a random granular material from the contact
stiffness and showed that:
k
Ebulk ~f ðnÞ
R be explained if the particles initially interact across near-conical
where n is the coordination number. (The coordination number
is the number of contacts between a particle and its neighbors; it
appears in the bulk modulus since the larger the number of
contacts on a particle, the larger the number of contacts
available to resist an applied force and, consequently, the stiffer
the material.) Note first that the bulk modulus depends on the
stiffness, not directly on the modulus E of the material that
makes up the particles because it is through the stiffness than the
particle see one another elastically. While the stiffness is linearly
dependent on E, it also depends on R, the local radius of
curvature and thus depends on the geometry of the contact.
The bulk modulus in Eq. (6) makes it possible to use the
soundspeed in a static granular material as p a way to probe ffi the
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
contact stiffness. The soundspeed
pffiffiffi varies as E bulk =q bulk and is
thus proportional to k . Fig. 3 shows the soundspeed as a
function of the confining pressure p, applied to uniform-sized
stainless steel spheres arranged in a regular face-centered cubic
packing (which, being nearly spherical, smooth and placed in an
ordered arrangement, is about as nice a granular material as is
available). Data are taken from Goddard [6], who in turn took
the data from Duffy and Mindlin [7].
The pressure p, which is applied to the bulk assembly, must
be balanced by the forces on individual particle contacts. From
Eq. (5) one expects the stiffness k to vary as the cube root of the
normal force on the contact fn1/3, and thus to the cube root of the
pressure, p. Thus the soundspeed should go as p1/6. As Fig. 3 is
a log–log plot, this means that the sound speed as a function of
pressure should have a slope of 1/6, represented by the solid
lines. Fig. 3 shows that this is true only at large confining
pressures. Surprisingly at low pressures the soundspeed varies
as p1/4, and only assumes the p1/6 predicted for Hertzian
contacts for large pressures. Working backwards through the
above calculation, this would imply that the stiffness varies as
Fig. 3. The sound speed as function of hydrostatic confining pressure in an FCC packing of 1/3 in. diameter steel balls with low tolerance (○, ±50 × 10− 6 in.) and high
tolerance (▵, ±10 × 10− 6 in.). The solid lines have a slope of 1/6, indicative of a Hertzian contact while the dashed lines have a slope of 1/4, indicative of a conical
contact. From Goddard [6] based on the data of Duffy and Mindlin [7].
fn1/2 or is linearly proportional to the deformation δ. That is
behavior reminiscent of the interaction between the point of a
conical contact and a surface. (Conical contacts are non-
Hertzian because they have zero radius of curvature at the
ð6Þ point.) Goddard [6] pointed out that the observed behavior can
asperities on the surface, thus accounting for the conical
behavior at low pressures. As the pressure increases, the
asperities are compressed until the spherical surfaces of the
particles come into direct contact eliciting a Hertzian response.
Goddard also presents a model that encompasses both limits and
the transitional region between. There have been attempts to
explain this behavior in terms of an increase in the coordination
number n with pressure (e.g. Makse et al. [8]) and such an
increase has been observed (see for example, Potapov and
Campbell [9]), but the Duffy and Mindlin data used materials
carefully assembled in an FCC packing so that the coordination
number was fixed. It is a bit surprising to find a significant effect
of asperities on high tolerance stainless steel balls, but if
examined on a small enough scale, any surface will exhibit
some asperities. One can only expect more severe behavior
from common granular materials and indeed soundspeed
measurements in sands by Richart and coworkers [10,11] (See
also [6]) show a pressure dependence more characteristic of
conical contacts.
All of the above results indicate a purely elastic contact.
Different behavior can be expected if the material yields
plastically under the application of the contact force. Analyses
of Hertzian contacts with plastic yielding performed by Walton
[12] and Thornton [13] show that, as the load on a contact is
increased, beyond an initial period of elastic behavior, the
normal force fn, varies nearly linearly with δ, indicating a nearly
constant normal stiffness k. However, the unloading follows a
different curve, again nearly linear, but with a steeper slope,
indicating a larger but still constant k. (This last means that the
force drops to zero before the particle centers are separated by
the sum of their radii. Physically, this occurs because the plastic
deformation leaves a flat indentation in the surface of the
particles so that they lose contact early.) This bi-linear behavior
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229 211

lead to the “latched-spring” contact model used in many
computer simulations starting with Walton and Braun [14].
In addition, the result of many successive contacts on a
particle surface may work harden or in other ways evolve the
character of the surface. For example, in one of the earliest
(1918) studies of impact behavior, Raman [15] observed that
repeatable results could only be achieved if the surfaces of the
particles were polished between experiments – presumably
removing any plastic damage and work hardening of the
surface. Thus, each contact can change the local surface
properties so that the properties on the surface may change with
both position and time.
All of the above discussion involves only the normal force
on the contact. As a result of interparticle friction, each contact
will also experience a tangential force which will evolve even
more dramatically with its history. Mullier et al. [16] showed
that, when a contact is loaded tangentially until it reaches “gross
sliding” (when the surfaces of the two particles slip relative to
one another), the effect of gross sliding is to shear off asperities
from the particle's surface, thus changing its frictional
properties. Mullier et al. found that the behavior before gross
sliding could be well described by the complex theory of
Mindlin and Deresiewicz [17], but not the behavior following
gross sliding. Presumably, this occurs because the removal of
the asperities during gross sliding changes the surface friction
coefficient (Mindlin and Deresiewicz assume the friction
coefficient remains unchanged throughout the process).
4. Quasistatic or slow-flow theories
Granular flow modeling began with the 1773 paper by
Coulomb [18] who first described the yielding of granular
materials as a frictional process. He was not interested in flow,
per se, but in the prediction of soil failures for Civil Engineering
applications. As such, the onset of failure in the soil, usually
meant that the structure collapsed; compared to such a
catastrophe, the subsequent motion of the soil, that part that
interests those of us working on granular flows, was of little
interest.
The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is usually expressed in
the form:
sV c þ r tan/ ð7Þ
Here c represents the cohesion of the material (for this paper, the
particles are assumed to be large and dry so that c is assumed to
be zero.), σ is the normal stress, τ is the shear stress, and ϕ is the
“friction angle”. When τ = c m σ tan ϕ, the material yields and
begins to flow. The two constants c and ϕ are assumed to be
material properties that are measured in standard shear cell tests.
Coulomb yield, could be used to construct a plastic yield
criterion, and only the adoption of a flow rule was required to
employ the methods of metal plasticity to granular flow. As a
result, it is not necessary to consider the behavior on the level of
individual particles (as in Eqs. (1) and (2)), but the material can
be treated as a continuous plastic solid. The general principles
and governing equations are laid out in Sokolovski [19].
The problem is further simplified by the idea of a “Critical
State”, the observation that a shearing granular material will
approach a “critical” concentration, νc, i.e. the fraction of a unit
volume filled with solid material, whose value depends only on
the applied load and is again assumed to be a material property.
(The critical state concept is probably due to Casagrande [20]
and is explored in detail in Schofield and Wroth [21].) This is
shown schematically in Fig. 4. Fig. 4a shows a representative
plot of the approach of a soil towards the critical concentration.
A material that is “under-consolidated” (i.e. starting with a
concentration below the critical concentration νc) will increase
its concentration as it sheared until it reaches the critical value.
Conversely, an “over-consolidated” material will decrease its
concentration as it sheared until it reaches the critical
concentration. As slow granular flows usually involve large
shear strains, it is reasonable to assume that the material is
shearing at the critical concentration. Fig. 4b shows the
dependence of the critical concentration on the applied stress
σ. Note that the critical concentration is nearly constant over a
wide range of σ, and only increases at large σ. The increase in νc
at large σ can be attributed to the compressibility of the
particles. At large applied stress, the solid particles are

Fig. 4. A schematic illustration of the critical stress concept. (a) Demonstrates how the overall concentration approaches the critical concentration νc, at large total
shear, γt. An over-consolidated material starts above the critical concentration while an under-consolidated material starts below the critical concentration, yet both
collapse to νc at large strains. (b) The variation of the critical concentration with applied stress σ. Note that the critical concentration is nearly constant at small loadings
and increases only for very large loadings when the applied stress is large stress is large enough to compress the particles.
212 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229

second great work in granular flow – which showed that beyond

a certain height the weight of a bed within a bin is supported by
friction on the sidewalls. Thus, the pressure on the bottom of the
bin is independent of bed depth. As that pressure controls the
flowrate through the orifice, the flowrate is depth-independent.)
But the techniques suffered from mathematical problems of
applying boundary conditions and the flowrate predictions
could have been better. Jackson [22] examines this in some
detail.
A likely source of the problems, is the assumption that ϕ is a
constant material property. Fig. 5 shows measurements of tanϕ
in two dimensional hopper flow simulation by Potapov and
Campbell [27]. In it, tanϕ can be seen to vary by more than a
factor of 3, violating the fundamental assumptions of quasistatic
flow theory. This variation of tanϕ can explain the discrepancies
between the theory and experiment. However, it is not
understood why tanϕ changes, as simple shear simulations on
similarly constituted materials indicate that tanϕ is a constant at
small shear rates (e.g. [28]).

Fig. 5. A contour diagram of the apparent friction coefficient, tanϕ, from a two- 4.1. The “frictional” nature of granular materials
dimensional simulation of a hopper with a 60° angle and a polydisperse granular
material, from Potapov and Campbell [27]. The annotations max and min
indicate the areas where tanϕ takes its maximum and minimum values,
Eq. (8) indicates that tanϕ is the ratio of shear to normal
quantitative values of which are written at the bottom of the plot. Note that tanϕ forces in the material and thus can be understood as an apparant
is far a constant, but changes by a factor of more than three. friction coefficient. Recently, it has become popular to refer to
quasistatic flows as “frictional”. However, this is misleading as
compressed together due to solid deformation at the contact the internal behavior of the material is not what one would
points and are squeezed into the interparticle pore space. But for classically call “frictional”.
a wide range of smaller loadings, the critical concentration is
independent of the applied stress. In many soil mechanics
applications, the applied stress can be large, (for example
beneath a large building). But in most granular flows, the
applied stresses are relatively small and as the total strains are
large, it is reasonable to assume that the flow is incompressible
and fixed at the critical concentration, νc.
These plasticity-derived techniques have been used widely in
soil mechanics to predict the failures of soils below foundations
and structures such as retaining walls and earthen dams. There
were also problems that became apparent. For example, the first
versions of these theories predict the material would continu-
ously expand with shearing and never approach a critical state
(e.g. [22]).
When extended to study granular flows, this technique has
had partial success in predicting the flow from hoppers (e.g.
Jenike and Shield [23], Davidson and Nedderman [24], and
Brennen and Pearce [25]). As that material flows within the
hopper, it is assumed that the material is always yielding so that:
s ¼ r tan/ ð8Þ
everywhere within the hopper. Furthermore, as the material
experiences large shear strains, it is always assumed to be at the
critical concentration, υc, and it is treated as incompressible.
There were many successes of these theories. In particular they
showed that the flowrate from a hopper was independent of the
depth of material, a characteristic that makes sand hourglasses Fig. 6. A photoelastic image of the force chains generated in the two-
an easily built method of timekeeping. (This is a direct dimensional shear cell of Howell et al. [29,30]. Here, the inner cylinder is
reflection of the 1895 analysis of Janssen [26] – perhaps the rotating counter-clockwise to force the particles together into chains.
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
To see this requires understanding how the particles interact
inside a granular material. Fig. 6 shows a photoelastic picture of
the interparticle forces inside a two-dimensional shear cell
[29,30]. For the photoelastic technique, the brightness of the
light surrounding a contact point is proportional to the force on
the contact. This allows the force distribution within the
material to be visualized. Notice that the forces are not evenly
distributed throughout the material, but are concentrated in
“Force Chains” (e.g. [31–33]). These are quasi-liner structures
that support the bulk of the internal stress within the material.
(Note that many of the interparticle contacts are unloaded, or
nearly unloaded.) In a shearing material, these force chains are
dynamic structures. When the material shears, particles are
pushed together to form the chains. After it is formed, the chain
will be rotated slightly by the shear motion, but will quickly
become unstable and collapse.
While observing failure within a granular material, it was
noticed that the failure occurs along narrow planes within the
material. This lead to a picture of two blocks of particles sliding
over one another as shown in Fig. 7a. That picture evokes the
standard model of sliding friction and thus accounts for the
Mohr–Coulomb behavior (7). However, the slip planes are not
true planes of infinitesimal thickness, instead are zones on the
order of ten particles across called “shear bands”. Inside the
shear band, the particles exist within force chains such as those
seen in Fig. 6. However, these still behave globally in a
“frictional” manner, in the sense that the shear and normal
stresses are related. Consider the idealized force chain in a
simple shear flow, shown in Fig. 7b. Note that the x- and y-
direction forces, Fx and Fy, are related by the force F acting
along the chain. Eq. (1) gives,
 
sxy Fx ly
¼   ð9Þ
syy Fy ly
where lx and ly are the x- and y-direction components of the
vector l connecting the centers of the contacting particles. Thus
Fig. 7. The source of the “frictional” nature of granular materials: (a) the
standard view that the material deforms as large blocks that interact frictionally
and slip occurs along slip planes within the material, thus interacting in a true
frictional manner, (b) the forces are generated by the compression of Force
Chains. As by Eq. (1), the contact stresses are generated as averages of these
forces, one can see that the ratio of shear to normal stress will be related to the
ratio of Fx to Fy, which are related through F and the angle of the chain. As the
chain angles do not vary dramatically, this results in an apparent frictional
behavior.
213
the stress ratio τxy/τyy, which in a non-cohesive material is the
apparent friction coefficient or tanϕ, is related to the ratio Fx/Fy,
which depends only on the geometry of the force chain. As
chains form in the direction best suited to resist the applied
forces, and as they collapse before they have rotated to any
significant degree, their geometry is roughly fixed and
controlled by the applied force. Thus it is not surprising that
quasistatic flows demonstrate a friction-like response. However,
this response is not the result of frictional sliding as shown in
Fig. 7a, but a result of the internal structure of force chains
shown in Fig. 7b.
Interestingly, Rapid Granular Flow theories, which will be
described in the next section, also predict that the bulk friction
coefficient τxy/τyy is a constant, (e.g. Lun et al. [34]), although
experiments (e.g. [35]) and computer simulations (e.g. [36])
show it to be a weak function of the solid fraction ν. (The ν
dependence is attributed to internal microstructure development
[37,38]). As the concentration increases, the particles arrange
themselves in a regular order that allows the material to shear at
a large concentration. That structure restricts the orientations of
the available contacts between particles, the vector l in the
contact stress tensor in Eq. (1) and thus affects the relative
magnitude of the stress tensor components.) This occurs
although there are no long duration solid–solid contacts in
Rapid Flows and thus, like Quasistatic flows, no true frictional
behavior. Thus Quasistatic and Rapid Flows are equally,
frictional flows.
5. Collisional or rapid granular flows
Bagnold [39] was the first to try and model a granular
material from the point of view of individual particles. He
imagined particles of radius d and density ρp at a solid
concentration ν, in a shear flow with shear rate γ. (From here on,
it is assumed that γ is the magnitude of the gradient of x-
direction velocity u that points in the y-direction within a simple
shear flow. In common notation, γ = du/dy.) The stress tensor
must then vary as:
sij ¼ f ðm;qp ;d;gÞ ð10Þ
As ν is already dimensionless, the Buckingham Pi theorem
allows only one other dimensionless parameter:
sij
¼ fij ðmÞ ð11Þ
qp d 2 g2
or
sij ¼ fij ðvÞqp d 2 g2 : ð12Þ
This is Bagnold's famous result indicating that the stresses
should vary as the square of the shear rate γ. Bagnold justified
the result with a simple model in which the first γ controlled the
degree of momentum exchange between particles and the
second power of γ reflected the collision rate or the number of
momentum exchanges per unit time. The stresses then reflect
the internal momentum transport due to interparticle collisions.
This is a valid interpretation of Eq. (12), but the equation itself is
214 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
a result entirely of dimensional analysis and is completely
independent of any underlying model. In other words, any
model that uses the same dimensional quantities in Eq. (10), will
yield a result in the form of Eq. (12). Bagnold justified his
results with experiments performed on a suspension of particles
in a shear cell, but a recent re-examination of that data, Hunt et
al. [40], throws doubt on the interpretation of the experimental
results.
5.1. The granular temperature
Bagnold's picture of the individual granules moving in a
shear flow invariably brings comparison with the motion of
molecules in the kinetic theory of gases. Furthermore,
interparticle collisions will induce random velocities that are
reminiscent of the thermal motion of molecules. The magnitude
of these fluctuating velocities is called the “granular tempera-
ture”.
1   1  2   2   2  
T ¼ j u V2 j ¼ uV þ vV þ wV ð13Þ
3 3
Notice that this is related to the trace of the streaming stress
tensor described in Eq. (2).
1
T¼ Traceðt s Þ ð14Þ
3qv
As the streaming stresses arise from unsteady velocities, it
should not be surprisingly that there is this close connection
between τs and the granular temperature. The concept of a
granular temperature was first introduced by Ogawa [41].
If one takes the granular temperature as the exact analogue of
the molecular temperature in the kinetic body theory, then one
can use the formalisms of kinetic theory, for example the
Chapman–Enskog method (e.g. [42]), to derive a set of
governing equations for granular flow. From these ideas came
the field of “Rapid Granular Flows”. As in the kinetic theory, it
assumes that the granules interact by instantaneous collisions
and that all transport rates are governed by the granular
temperature. As will be shown, both of these are problematic
assumptions. But central to the whole issue is the granular
temperature, which will be examined here in some detail.
Just like the stresses in Eqs. (1) and (2), granular temperature
is produced by a collisional mechanism (schematically shown
in Fig. 8a) and a streaming mechanism (Fig. 8b). The collisional
mechanism is the most intuitively obvious. Because of the
geometry of the impact, any collision between particles will act
to randomize the impact velocity, thus converting the mean
motion of the flow into granular temperature. The streaming
mechanism (Fig. 8b) results from the motion of a particle
relative to a velocity gradient.
Consider the streaming mechanism illustrated schematically
in Fig. 8b. Imagine a particle that starts in a high velocity region
of the flow and imagine also that its random motion has a
component moving parallel to the velocity gradient, towards the
lower velocity regions of flow. In the time before its next
collision, the difference the between the mean flow velocity at
its original and current positions appears as granular temper-
Fig. 8. The two modes of granular temperature production: (a) collisional mode;
(b) streaming mode.
ature. While a product of the mean flow field, this appears as a
random velocity, because on the average, for every particle that
moves downwards in the velocity gradient – producing a
positive “random” velocity – another moves upwards –
producing a negative “random” velocity. Although the gener-
ated velocities are random in sign, they are not random in
direction. This mechanism only produces “random” velocity
components in the direction perpendicular to the velocity
gradient, which is usually the direction of the mean flow
velocity (here, the x-direction). Thus the granular temperatures
are large in the mean flow direction. This results in normal-
stress differences, with the largest normal-stresses in the flow
direction; at low concentrations, the flow direction temperature,
can be several times larger than in the other directions.
Naturally, the streaming mechanism dominates at a small
concentrations while the collisional mechanism dominates at
large concentrations.
As described above, granular temperature is only produced
by velocity gradients. There are other mechanisms of granular
temperature production. For example, shock waves, such as
those produced in vibrated granular flows can generate granular
temperature [9,43]. In multiphase flows, interactions between
particles and the interstitial fluid can also generate granular
temperature. However, this paper will only consider shear-
induced temperatures.
Granular temperature is one of the most confusing concepts
in granular flow. Typically, when granular temperature is
measured, it is assumed to be a measure of the unsteady
components of velocity. But granular temperature reflects the
velocity fluctuations on top of the mean velocity, and if the
mean velocity is itself unsteady, then one must be careful to
separate the unsteady mean velocity from the granular
temperature. To clarify these issues, one must understand the
role of granular temperature in kinetic theory modeling. There,
the temperature drives the transport rate in the two principal
modes of internal transport. Granular temperature provides the
relative velocity that drives particles together to collide,
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229 215

Unlike molecular systems, the interactions between macro-

scopic granules are inelastic. Hence the energy reflected in the
granular temperature is continually being dissipated away to
heat and must be re-supplied from the mean flow energy. As
both temperature generation mechanisms described in Fig.
8 derive from the shear motion, the granular temperature is
created by shear work. Thus rapid granular flows follow an
energy flow pattern shown in Fig. 9. Driving forces, e.g. gravity
or the motion of walls and other boundaries are converted into
the kinetic energy of the mean flow, which is converted to
granular temperature through shear work, and from there to
sensible heat through inelastic collisions or another dissipation
mechanism such as air drag. However, most rapid flow theories
only assume collisional dissipation. And, as collisions are
assumed to be instantaneous, the dissipation is represented as a
coefficient of restitution, ε, the ratio of the approach to recoil
velocities in the center of mass. Since granular temperature is
produced by shear work one might expect a relationship
between the shear rate γ and the magnitude of the granular
temperature. As given in Eq. (13), the granular temperature T
has units of (velocity)2. Thus a convenient dimensionless
scaling of the granular temperature and shear rate is the
parameter

dg
S¼ ð15Þ
T 1=2
Fig. 9. The energy flow pattern in a rapid granular flow (after Campbell [53]). first proposed by Savage and Jeffrey [44]. Measurements of S via
the computer simulations of Campbell [36] and comparison with
the predictions of Lun et al. [34] are shown in Fig. 10. The
general trend of the simulation data is predicted by the Lun et al.
resulting in the collisional transport mode (the contact stresses
in Eq. (1)). Also, granular temperature causes the diffusive
particle mixing that results in the streaming mode of transport
(Eq. (2)). Both arise because the granular temperature
generates relative motion between particles. But if the mean
flow is unsteady (for example, particles resting on a surface
that is gently vibrated with accelerations well below 1 − g), all
the particles will move together with the same unsteady
motions. But that unsteadiness does not drive relative motion
between particles and is thus not a granular temperature. A
slightly more confusing case is fluid turbulence, in which
particles may become entrained in turbulent eddies. As all the
particles within a given eddy move with the same mean, if an
unsteady mean, velocity, the turbulence does not generate
interparticle collisions and, in that sense, is not a granular
temperature. On the other hand, the eddies do induce
streaming transport of the particle momentum and, in that
sense, the turbulence acts like a granular temperature. In other
words, the unsteady motion in an eddy is only partially a
granular temperature as it generates streaming stresses but no
collisional stresses. Also, when two eddies collide the
difference in velocity between the eddies will induce collisions
between particles in different eddies, and will generate
collisional stresses. Thus, it is almost impossible to quantifi-
Fig. 10. The parameter S = dγ/T1/2 relating the magnitude of the granular
ably the portion of turbulence that fills the role of a granular temperature and shear rate as a function of the solid concentration, v. The lines
temperature. In general, it is difficult, if not impossible, to are the predictions of Lun et al. [34]. While the symbols are from the computer
determine the granular temperature in unsteady systems. simulations: (from Campbell [36], used with permission).
216 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229

theory, although the simulations are frictional while the theory

ignores friction. (Particle surface friction also dissipates energy;
this allows a simulation to produce steady state temperatures at
an otherwise elastic ε = 1.) There are a few interesting features
here. The first is that over most of the range of solid fractions ν, S
is of order 1. This means that the relative particle velocities
induced by the mean shear dγ, is of the same order as that
produced by the granular temperature T1/2. Also note that the
value of S generally decreases as the coefficient of restitution
increases, reflecting the fact that that the larger ε, the smaller the
dissipation rate and thus the larger the granular temperature
produced by a given shear rate. Perhaps the most striking feature
is that S → 0 as ν → 0, indicating that at small solids
concentration, the granular temperature becomes infinite. This
can be understood by first noting that, at small concentrations,
the stresses are largely generated by the streaming mechanism
(Eq. (2)) so that in a simple shear flow with flow in the x-
direction and the velocity gradient in the y-direction, the granular
temperature is generated by the shear work, τxyγ = ρρν b u′ν′ N γ ∼ ν
and is directly proportional to the solid fraction ν. The dissipation
of the granular temperature occurs through collision. The Fig. 11. The ratio of the x- and y-direction temperatures, Tx/Ty . Note the
probability of a collision is proportional to finding two particles anisotropy at small ν (after [36]).
in contact, and at small concentrations, where the position of one
particle has little effect on the position of any other particle, the
probability of finding a particle at any location is proportional to ν; 5.2. Rapid granular stresses
thus the probability of finding two particles in contact is
proportional to ν2, so that the collision rate (and the dissipation Rapid granular flows provide a forum in which it is possible
rate) are proportional to ν2. Consequently, the ratio of granular to observe the interplay between the collisional stresses (Eq. (1))
temperature production to dissipation ∼ν/ν2 ∼ 1/ν and becomes and streaming stresses (Eq. (2)). (This is largely because the
infinite as ν → 0. Thus, the granular temperature becomes infinite flow will be in the rapid regime whenever the concentration is
as ν → 0. Note that this only occurs because collisions are assumed small enough that streaming stresses become significant.) Fig.
to be the only dissipation mechanism. If there are other ways of 12 shows the dimensionless shear stresses, scaled as in Eq. (11),
dissipating energy (air-drag for example), this limit would not generated in a simple shear flow. Note that the simulation data
appear. In fact, there are no documented observations of this limit asymptotes to ∞ both as ν → 0 and as ν approaches a “random
other than in computer simulations. close pack” (the concentration of a randomly assembled volume
It should also be noted that, unlike the thermodynamic of spheres) at ν ≈ 0.64. The latter limit occurs because in a
temperature, the granular temperature is not isotropic. This random close pack, the particles are in intimate contact and the
should be obvious because the streaming mechanism of collision rate is approaching ∞; thus this asymptote occurs as a
temperature generation (Fig. 8b) only generates temperature singularity in the contact stress tensor (Eq. (1)). It is also a
in the direction perpendicular to the velocity gradient. Fig. 11 byproduct of the rigid particle assumptions that lie at the heart of
shows the ratio of Tx and Ty the x- and y-direction temperatures, rapid flow ideas; because the particles cannot deform, it would
from Campbell [36]. Note that at small ν, where the streaming require an infinite stress to shear a material near the random
mode of temperature generation is largest, Tx/Ty is significantly close pack. But the singularity would disappear for real particles
larger that unity reflecting the streaming generation of x- with finite elastic moduli, as by deforming their shape, the
direction temperature. But at large ν, where the collisional mode particles can be forced to shear at any concentration. In addition,
dominates, Tx/Ty is near unity indicating the more isotropic the stresses demonstrate a singular behavior as ν → 0. This is a
temperatures produced collisionally. Note also that the reflection of the fact that the granular temperature becomes
coefficient of restitution ε has a strong effect, with the largest infinite in that limit (as seen in Fig. 10). As the granular
anisotropies appearing at the smallest ε. The larger dissipation temperature is closely related to the streaming stresses, obvious
at the smaller ε reduces the collisional generation of temperature from Eq. (14), the stresses demonstrate the same asymptotic
and thus enhances the relative importance of the streaming behavior as the granular temperature.
mechanism, leading to larger temperature anisotropies. Note
that while higher order kinetic theories can produce normal 5.3. Rapid granular flow models
stress differences [46,47], they are strictly only valid in the limit
ν → 0; furthermore, they predict that the differences are The formalisms of gas kinetic theory can be used to derive a
functions only of the inelasticity and are independent of the set of equations for granular flow if the particles are assumed to
concentration. be rigid. In turn, the rigid particle assumption implies that all
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Fig. 12. The dimensionless shear stress in a rapid flow from computer
simulation. The open symbols are from the rough particle simulations [36]. The
solid symbols are from smooth particle simulations [45]. The lines are
predictions of rapid flow theory [35] (after [36]).
contacts occur instantaneously. Thus, there is vanishing
probability of multiple simultaneous contacts and only binary
contacts need be considered. From there, kinetic theory
formalisms yield a set of Navier–Stokes like equations. This
should not be surprising as the same formalism applied to gases
also yield the Navier–Stokes equations. While there are minor
variations between theories, the basic equations are:
Conservation of mass:
Dqm
þ qmjdu ¼ 0
Dt
Conservation of momentum:
Du
qm ¼ jpðq;m;T ;eÞ þ jdðgðq;m;T ;eÞjuÞ
Dt
Conservation of granular energy (granular temperature):
DT
qm ¼ jdðaðq;m;T ;eÞjT Þ þ s:ju  Cðq;m;T ;eÞ:
Dt
In this last equation, α is the conductivity, τ : ∇u is the
temperature production by shear work, and Γ is the dissipation
by inelastic collisions. Haff [48] gave a wonderful heuristic
analysis that through dimensional analysis gives a set of scaling
laws for the various constitutive coefficients. As the pressure
has units of (mass)/(length-time2):
p ¼ qfp ðm;eÞT
217
As the viscosity η has units of (mass)/(length-time), one can
write the viscosity as:
g ¼ qdfg ðm;eÞT 1=2 ð20Þ
Following the same ideas, the conductivity of the granular
temperature is:
a ¼ qdfa ðm;eÞT 1=2 ð21Þ
and the dissipation is:
qfC ðm;eÞ 3=2
C¼ T ð22Þ
d
Where fp, fη, fα and fΓ are unknown functions of the
dimensionless, concentration ν, and coefficient of restitution,
ε, that must be determined from experiment or analysis.
There are several problems that should be immediately
apparent with this formulation. The most obvious is that the
range of applicability of rapid flow theory is limited. Note that
from Eq. (17), the solid phase stresses are viscous in nature.
Thus systems such as hoppers cannot be modeled by rapid flow
theory. A key feature of hoppers is the frictional support of
material by the vertical walls of the bin (the effect explained by
Janssen [26]). A viscous material produces no forces unless the
material is in motion and can thus provide no such support. As
Janssen's frictional support appears in static materials, it cannot
be modeled the type of viscous material predicted by rapid-flow
theory. There have been attempts to add a frictional response to
rapid flow models, most notably Johnson et al. [49,50]. But
these are ad hoc models based on self-contradictory assump-
tions as they are formed by simply adding a rapid-flow model,
based on instantaneous collisions, to a frictional model, based
on long duration contacts.
Also, the gas kinetic theory on which rapid-flow models is
based, assumes that the molecular collisions are elastic in the
sense that they do not dissipate energy. In converting the theory
to granular materials, the inelasticity of granular impacts is
largely accounted for by the granular energy Eq. (18). But one
ð16Þ
must compute integrals over a velocity distribution functions in
order to compute the constitutive relationships, (19–22) and the
methods for computing the distribution function restrict the
system to “nearly elastic particles”, roughly ε=0.9 and above.
ð17Þ This severely limits the materials that may be modeled with
these methods.There is also a more subtle problem. Notice that
all of the constitutive laws in (19–22) obtain their rates through
the granular temperature T. This implicitly assumes that the
magnitude of the thermal velocities (T1/2) is much larger than
ð18Þ the relative velocities induced by the shear (dγ). In terms of Fig.
10 this means that S ≪ 1, which is only observed at extremely
small solid concentrations. However, Fig. 10 shows that over
most of the range of solid concentrations, S ≈ 1, indicating that
dγ ∼ T1/2. Thus, the mean shear and the temperature are equally
important in driving the relative motion between particles, the
collision rate, and thus the transport rates in a rapid granular
flow. As the kinetic theories depend only on the temperature to
govern transport, they most likely to either underpredict the
ð19Þ transport rate or overpredict the granular temperature.
218 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Furthermore, as the relative velocities induced by the shear rate
are only in the direction perpendicular to the velocity gradient,
this introduces anisotropies in the angular distribution of
collisions about a particle (as measured by Campbell and
Brennen [37]). Interestingly, the collisional anisotropy was
included in the earliest, albeit incomplete, rapid flow models,
Savage and Jeffrey [44] and Jenkins and Savage [51], which
only considered contact stresses. To include streaming stresses,
required modifying the velocity distribution function, which
proved intractable if the collisional anisotropy was included. As
the theories predict that S ≈ 1 (Fig. 10), they are not self-
consistent in that their predictions conflict with their implicit
assumptions. Goldhirsch [52] cites Sela and Goldhirsch's [47]
comparison with normal stress difference data as evidence that
this effect is unimportant; but this argument is not applicable as
the comparison is done at ν = 0, the only point where the Sela
and Goldhirsch calculation is valid. There, Fig. 10 shows S ≈ 0
(T = ∞) so, of course γd ≪ T1/2, and, while there may be
collisional anisotropy due to the anisotropic granular temper-
ature, there will be no shear-induced collisional anisotropy
under the conditions of the Sela and Goldhirsch analysis.
Finally, at the heart of all kinetic theories is the
assumption of Boltzmann's “Stosszahlansatz” or molecular
chaos, that there are no correlations in the velocities or
positions of colliding particles. This is troubling because
common granular flows occur at such large concentrations
that any given particle will interact many times with its
neighbors and it is likely their velocities will be strongly
correlated. In addition, the aforementioned microstructures
[37,38] correlate the relative positions of particles. Thus true
molecular chaos is unlikely in real granular systems although
it is difficult to estimate the degree of error introduced by this
assumption.
In 1990, I wrote a review article on the field of rapid granular
flows [53]. The article ended with a list of “Pressing Concerns”
designed to push the field towards more realistic systems and it
is worth a paragraph to comment on the progress of the last 15
years. The concerns were: Material properties, Microstructure,
Non-spherical particles, Non-uniform particle size and segre-
gation, Interstitial fluid effects and Solid/Fluid behavior of
granular systems. However, it should have been obvious, even
in 1990, that the first 3 topics would be almost intractable, either
because they complicated the collision integrals from which the
constitutive properties are derived or because they violate the
assumptions of molecular chaos. For example, even simple
properties such as a stick–slip surface friction make a
discontinuity in the collision integrals; as a result, friction is
only approximately incorporated in Rapid-Flow theories
through a tangential coefficient of restitution. Also, friction
dissipates energy and as discussed above, if the energy
dissipation is large enough, it may be possible to accurately
assess the velocity distribution function. Like the collisional
anisotropy, the development of internal microstructure affects
the contact angle between particles and it is difficult to include
in the kinetic theories, partially because of the complications to
the collision integrals and partially because it violates the
Stosszahlansatz. Non-round particle shapes bring the particle
orientation into the problem, which similarly complicates the
notion of molecular chaos.
Rapid-Flow theory has been used to generate models for
binary mixtures, pioneered by Jenkins and Mancini [54].
Kinetic theory based models of segregation have also been
developed, but the results are quite mixed (see the review of
Ottino and Khakhar [55]). Being probabilistic models, they
agree well with probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations, but the
agreement breaks down if compared against more realistic
deterministic simulations. Some degree of agreement could be
had only if the granular temperature is used as a fitting
parameter. Khakhar et al. [56] argue that this is due to a
breakdown in the underlying kinetic theory, in that the frictional
dissipation is so large. But if kinetic theory assumptions
breakdown in determining the granular temperature, it is
difficult to argue that the same assumptions work well in
predicting segregation within the same flow. Besides, if the
theory cannot handle frictional particles, then it can handle no
realistic materials.
Much of the recent effort in the areas of rapid granular flow
or kinetic theory have been directed towards issues that are of
largely academic interest, either because of unrealistic assump-
tions or because they are only of interest at small particle
concentrations that are never found outside the laboratory.
These include items such as the “cooling” of homogeneously
thermalized granular “gas” (first introduced by Haff [48]) which
can of course never be found in reality because there is no way
to create a homogeneously thermalized granular gas. Some of
the higher order kinetic theories (e.g. Sela and Goldhirsch [47])
are valid only in the ν → 0 limit and thus inapplicable to any
realistic granular flow. The development of “inelastic micro-
structure”, a clustering instability, first observed by Hopkins and
Lounge [57] has received much attention. At low concentra-
tions, particles are observed to not be homogeneously
distributed but to form higher concentration clusters surrounded
by regions that are near voids. But this has little effect for the
large concentrations of common granular flows, simply because
the particles are already so tightly packed, there is no room for
the clusters and voids to grow. (It is somewhat inappropriate to
even refer to these disordered clusters as “microstructures”, as
that name implies an ordered “structure” of particles; as a result,
these are often confused, e.g. Goldhirsch, [52], with the ordered
high concentration microstructures that strongly affect the
relative magnitude of the stress tensor components [37,38].)
In fact, much of the progress has been negative in the sense
that we are learning that more and more granular systems
cannot be described by rapid-flow theory. For example, many
models have been developed that use rapid granular flow ideas
to model the solid phase stresses in multiphase systems (one of
the “Pressing Concerns” from Campbell [53]) mostly in gas-
fluidized systems (e.g., [58–60]). But direct measurements in
fluidized beds [61] show that they cannot be modeled by kinetic
theory [62,63]. The transition from solid-like to fluid-like
behavior, such as is seen at the boundaries of funnel flows in
hoppers (the last Pressing Concern) has been shown not to be
the phase change suggested by Campbell [53], but instead
occurs outside the realm of rapid granular flows as a quasistatic-
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
like failure [64,65]. And even vibrated beds, at least those of
commercially significant depth, cannot be described by kinetic
theory [66].
6. Elastic granular flows
Recently, Campbell [28,67,68] has been able to unify the
various granular flow theories and, in particular, fill in the gap
between the quasistatic and rapid flow regimes, and draw
complete flowmaps for shearing granular materials. The
missing link was to include the elastic properties of the particles
into the models – in effect to put the solid back into granular
solids. The principle quantity is the interparticle stiffness k, as it
governs how particles “see” one another mechanically and, as
mentioned previously, determines the bulk elastic properties of
the granular material. It requires the exercise of little
imagination to see the importance of the stiffness to the
rheology of dense granular flows. At the large concentrations of
common granular flows, particles are locked into force chains,
such as those seen in the shear cell in Fig. 6. Assuming that the
walls the cell are rigid, then the degree of compression of the
force chains and thus the deformation of each contact, is
determined only by the need for the material to shear at a given
concentration. Thus, if each particle in Fig. 6 was removed and
replaced with one with, say, twice the stiffness, the forces on
each contact and thus the contact stresses would double. As the
streaming stresses are insignificant at such large concentration,
this means that the stresses are proportional to the contact
stiffness.
Now imagine a high-concentration granular material, with
the forces distributed in force chains, undergoing shear at
constant volume. The shear will force particles together to form
the chain, cause the force chain to rotate until it becomes
unstable and collapses. As the chain rotates, it will want to dilate
the bulk material, but is prevented from doing so by the constant
volume constraint; instead, the rotation compresses the chain
and generates an elastic response. If Δ is the overall
deformation of the chain, then the deformation of each contact
is δ = Δ/N = Δd/L where N = L/d is the number of contacts in a
chain of length L composed of particles with characteristic size
d. Thus the force F = kδ = kΔd/L. The generated stress τ ∼ F/
d2 ∼ k/d. Hence an appropriate dimensionless scaling for the
stress in the regime is τd/k. Note that following the above
argument, τd/k ∼ F/kd = δ/d; that is, τd/k can be interpreted as the
particle deformation δ represented as a fraction of the particle
diameter, d.
Campbell [28] divided the entire granular flow field into two
broad regimes the Elastic and the Inertial. The Elastic regimes
encompass all flows in which force is transmitted principally
through the deformation of force chains for which the natural
stress scaling is τd/k. Continuing from the above arguments,
follow a force chain through its life cycle. The chain will form
when particles are driven together by the shear rate γ and thus
the rate of chain production is proportional to γ. The chain then
rotates and is compressed. The degree of compression and thus
the force generated in the chain is determined by the necessity
of meeting the constant volume constraint; hence the magnitude
219
of the force is independent of the shear rate. But the chain
rotates at a rate ∼ γ and eventually become unstable and self-
destructs. Thus, the lifetime of the chain is proportional to 1/γ.
Consequently, the product of (formation − rate) × (lifetime) for a
chain is γ-independent and because the force generated is also
γ-independent, The stresses generated are quasistatic. This is
the Elastic–Quasistatic regime. It is the same as the old
Quasistatic regime; the word Elastic is added to indicate that it
is a subregime of the global Elastic regime.
But at high shear rates, the elastic forces in the chain must
absorb the inertia of the particles that are gathered in the chain,
requiring an extra force required to accelerate the particles in the
chain so that it rotates at a rate proportional to the shear rate.
Thus, even though the particles are locked in force chains, the
forces generated must reflect the particle inertia. The force F
generated in the chain must have the form F = a + bγ where a is
the baseline elastic force and bγ is the inertial augmentation.
Still the (formation − rate) × (lifetime) of the chain is γ-
independent so that the resultant stresses τ ∼ F ∼ a + bγ increase
linearly with the shear rate. (This is shown in Campbell [67].)
Naturally, there will be some inertial effect throughout the
Elastic regime, but for a wide range of flows, bγ ≪ a and the
flows appear quasistatic. However, when bγ becomes of the
same the same order as a, i.e. the inertial forces become of the
same order as the elastic forces, the flow transitions into the
Elastic–Inertial regime in which the forces are linearly
proportional to the shear rate γ.
The ratio of elastic to inertial effects is govern by a
dimensionless parameter:
k
k⁎ ¼ ð23Þ
qd 3 g2
Note that k / (ρd3γ2) = (τ / ρd2γ2) / (τd / k) and is thus the ratio of
Bagnold's inertial to the elastic stress scalings. A similar
parameter was first proposed by Babic et al. [69]. Campbell [28]
gives several interpretations for this parameter, but the most
useful is that k⁎ represents (d / δi)2 where δi is degree of
deformation expected from the impact by a particle moving at
the shear velocity, dγ, making k⁎ a measure of inertially induced
deformation, much as (τd/k) is a measure of elastic deformation.
As such the value of k⁎ reflects the relative effects of elastic to
inertial forces, i.e. in principle at large k⁎ elastic forces dominate
and at small k⁎, inertial forces dominate.
Fig. 13 shows the dimensionless normal stress, scaled
elastically as τyyd/k plotted against the stiffness parameter. The
plot is marked to show the division into the Elastic–Quasistatic
and Elastic–Inertial regimes, which are differentiated solely by
the fact that the stresses are independent (Elastic–Quasistatic)
or dependent (Elastic–Inertial) on the shear rate γ, and thus on
the parameter k / (ρd3γ2). As expected, the flow transitions from
Elastic–Quasistatic to Elastic–Inertial as the shear rate
increases, (k/(ρd3γ2) decreases). Each point was taken for
three particle diameters and as many as three stiffnesses and
thus each point represents up to 9 overlapping points illustrating
the robustness of the scaling. These data are for a single solid
fraction ν = 0.6, which lies below a random close-pack
220 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229

Fig. 13. The dimensionless normal stress τyyd/k, as a function of the stiffness parameter k/(ρpd3γ2), showing the separation into the Elastic–Quasistatic and Elastic–
Inertial regimes. This data was taken in shear flow simulations with constant stiffness at a concentration v = 0.6 and particle surface friction μ = 0.5 (after [28]).

concentration; hence, these stresses are a byproduct of the shear
flow. In the absence of shear, the particles need not to be in
contact and no stress would be generated. Note that the
dissipation rate reflected through the coefficient of restitution ε,
is only of importance for the smallest k / (ρd3γ2) (or the largest
shear rates, γ), making these flows very different from Rapid
Flows in which the granular temperature is critically dependent
on the dissipation rate. (This should be apparent from the strong
effect of the coefficient of restitution in Fig. 12.)
Fig. 14 shows the effect of the particle surface friction
coefficient μ on the dimensionless normal stress, τyyd / k. While
μ has only a weak effect on the shear to normal stress ratio τxy /
τ yy (the bulk friction coefficient), it has a major effect on the
normal stresses [28]. The μ = 0.1 data in Fig. 14, appears to go
zero at large k / (ρd3γ2), but actually the values are about two
orders of magnitude smaller than the corresponding points for
μ = 0.5. At μ = 0.1, force chains are weak and the flow
transitions from Elastic to Inertial behavior. The Inertial
regime encompasses flows where force chains cannot form
and the momentum is transported largely by particle inertia as in
Rapid-Flow theory (although as shall be shown, inertial
behavior does not necessarily mean a Rapid Flow). In Inertial
flows, the stresses are independent of the stiffness k and the
natural scaling is the Bagnold scaling τ / ρd2γ2.
But notice that the μ = 0.1 data in Fig. 14, is only Inertial at
large k/(ρd3γ2) and transitions back to Elastic–Inertial behavior
as γ increases (as k/(ρd3γ2) is reduced). This leads to the ironic
conclusion that Inertial flows occur at only small shear rates. It
also implies that increasing the shear rate can compel the
formation of force chains at lower concentrations than one might
normally expect. This can be understood from an alternate
interpretation of k / (ρd3γ2), in particular that k / (ρd3γ2) ∼ 1

Fig. 14. The effect of the particle surface friction coefficient μ on the dimensionless normal stress τyyd/k, as a function of the stiffness parameter k / (ρd3γ2) for a fixed
concentration, ν = 0.6. Surprisingly, the surface friction has a strong effect on the normal stress because it affects the strength of force chains. In fact, for μ = 0.1, the flow
transitions from Elastic to Inertial behavior at large k / (ρd3γ2) (after [28]).
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229 221

(γTbc)2 where Tbc is the binary contact time, the duration of a
contact between two freely colliding particles. (Physically, this
last can be thought of as the ratio of 1 / γ, the time scale relevant
to how quickly particles are drawn together by the shear flow, to
Tbc, a scale characteristic of how quickly the elastic contact
forces push the particles apart). In other words, at small k /
(ρd3γ2), the shear rate is driving particles together at rates
comparable to those at which the elastic forces are driving them
apart, so that at large shear rate, force chains may form at smaller
concentrations than in relatively quiescent systems.
The stresses for Elastic Flows, dominated by force chains,
naturally scale as τd / k. Thus, if an Inertial Flow, for which the
scaled stress τ / ρd2γ2 is independent of k/(ρd3γ2), is plotted on
an elastically scaled log–log plot, τyyd/k vs. k/(ρd3γ2), the
inertial flows should plot with a slope of − 1. At the same time if
an Quasistatic–Elastic flow, τd/k = const., were plotted on an
inertially scaled plot τyy/ρd2γ2 vs. k/(ρd3γ2), it would have a
slope of 1. Fig. 15 shows plots of the normal stress τyy, for
various solids concentrations with both scalings. It is easy to
distinguish the Elastic and Inertial regimes in each figure.

Fig. 15. Normal stress data for a variety of solid concentrations, ν. (a) Elastic scaling, τyyd / k: here Elastic–Quasistatic flows plot as flat lines and Inertial flows plot with
a slope of − 1. (b) Inertial Scaling, τyy/ρd2γ2: Here Inertial flows plot as horizontal lines and Elastic–Quasistatic flows have a slope of 1. In all cases, the surface friction
μ = 0.5 (after [28]).
222 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
But notice in Fig. 15 that the change from elastic to inertial
behavior occurs quite abruptly with as little as 1% change in
concentration. At large k/(ρd3γ2), the flow is elastic at ν = 0.59,
but inertial at ν = 0.58. And that change is accompanied by huge
changes in stress. At k/(ρd3γ2) = 107, the stress changes by more
than two orders of magnitude from Elastic flow at ν = 0.59, to
the Inertial flows at ν = 0.58. This reflects the fact that the elastic
force chains can support much larger forces than can particle
inertia. Notice also that for each concentration shown, the flow
behaves elastically for small k/(ρd3γ2) even those that behave
inertially at large k/(ρd3γ2), demonstrating once again that high
shear rates can force a transition from Inertial to Elastic–
Inertial behavior.
For the constant stiffness models used here, the binary
contact time Tbc is a fixed constant. In other words, for any
collision between two particles, the contact time must be exactly
Tbc. The only way that a contact can endure for a longer time is
if, during the contact period, one or more additional particles
make contact with one of the colliding particles and prevents
them from moving apart. On the other hand, if particles are
locked in force chains, each particle is interacting simulta-
neously with, at least, its near neighbors in the chain and the
contact will endure for the lifetime of the chain: as force chains
are created, rotated and destroyed by the shear, the inverse shear
rate 1 / γ, is a characteristic time of the chain lifetime. Thus,
another property that can be used to probe the flow is the
average contact time, tc. If the ratio, tc/Tbc = 1, the particles are
interacting collisionally, i.e., it is a rapid flow. On the other
hand, if tc/Tbc ∼ 1/γ(∼[k / (ρd3γ2)]1/2), the flow is dominated by
force chains, i.e. it is an Elastic flow. Fig. 16 shows tc / Tbc for
the same data plotted in Fig. 15. It is easy to see the Elastic
behavior as the points line up with slope 1/2. The points
corresponding to inertial behavior deviate from the slopping
lines. But note that for all the data shown, tc/Tbc N 1. Thus even
the Inertial flows are not Collisional – they are not Rapid
Flows. Instead, they are dominated by conditions in which
Fig. 16. The ratio of the average contact time to the binary contact time, tc / Tbc as a function of the stiffness parameter, k / (ρd3γ2). The data is from the same set shown
in Fig. 15 (after [28]).
many particles are interacting simultaneously. This means that
the Inertial regime is divided into two sub-regimes, Inertial–
non-Collisional and Inertial–Collisional (the Rapid-flow
regime).
Thus granular flows can be divided into two global regimes,
Elastic and Inertial. The Elastic regime is dominated by force
chains and is divided into the Elastic–Quasistatic regime and
the Elastic–Inertial regime depending on whether there is a
noticeable dependence of the stresses on the shear rate. Both
Elastic subregimes have the same physical underpinnings and it
is difficult to draw a precise division between the two. The
Inertial regime, which is free of force chains and had has
stresses that scale with the square of the shear rate, can be
divided into the Inertial–non-Collisional regime and the
Inertial–Collisional (or Rapid-Flow) regime depending on
whether the dominant particle interaction is binary collision.
Campbell [70] examines the confinement of a contact by
infinitely chains of surrounding particles (a non-collisional
case) and found that as long as the chain is unloaded, the
confinement only the extended the contact time by a few
percent. Thus, one can conclude that tc/Tbc must be almost
exactly one for the flow to be truly collisional. With this
information one can draw the entire flowmap encompassing all
the regimes of granular flow, such as that shown in Fig. 17.
There are several interesting features of this figure. Note that
it is generally assumed that, at small shear rates, a flow will
behave quasistatically, and that by increasing the shear rate, one
will eventually end up in the Rapid-Flow regime. But his flow
map shows that picture to be false. If one starts in the Elastic–
Quasistatic regime and increases the shear rate (decreasing k /
(ρd3γ2)) at a fixed ν, one eventually reaches Elastic–Inertial
behavior. The Rapid-Flow, or that matter any of the Inertial
flow regimes, will never be reached except by reducing the
concentration. This makes sense because at such large
concentrations, there will always be force chains, and increasing
the shear rate will not make them go away. Thus at constant
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Fig. 17. A flowmap showing the division into the four sub-regimes as a function of the concentration ν, and the stiffness parameter, k/(ρd3γ2). The data are for μ = 0.5
(after [28]).
volume, one cannot leave the Elastic regimes by changing the
shear rate, one can only cause transitions between Elastic–
Quasistatic and Elastic–Inertial behaviors.
Also note that Rapid-Flows (the Inertial–Collisional regime)
ironically appear at low-shear rates, so that, in effect, Rapid-
Flows are the least rapid of the flow regimes. Starting with a
Rapid Flow, and increasing the shear rate at constant ν, one
progresses through Inertial–non-Collisional flow and finally to
Elastic–Inertial flow. This transition reflects the phenomena
discussed earlier that very large shear rates can force particles
together at a rate comparable to the time it takes the elastic
forces to break them apart, making it possible to form force
chains at remarkably small concentrations if the shear rate is
large enough.
But most granular flows do not occur at fixed concentration.
Common granular flows such as chutes and hoppers, as well as
landslides, all have a free surface. Thus the stress level is
controlled by an overburden of material. But the concentration
is not fixed because the materials are free to expand toward the
free surface as needed to balance the applied stress. The
concentration may vary slightly, even immeasurably so, but it
still may have an important effect on the rheological behavior.
Thus it is possible that the behavior of stress-controlled systems
is different from those for which the concentration is controlled.
There are indicators of this from the long history of soil
mechanics. There it is common to perform “drained” and
“undrained” test on water-saturated soil samples – which
demonstrate remarkably different behaviors even when per-
formed on the same soil samples. In a drained test the water is
allowed to leak out as the material is sheared, while in undrained
test, the water is confined within the sample. The significance is
that the water is a nearly incompressible fluid and if the pore-
space is filled with water (i.e. the soil is saturated), then the
water keeps the volume of the sample from changing. In such
cases, an applied load can be supported by a combination of the
223
pressure on the granular contacts and the pressure in the water.
In a drained test, the water is allowed to leak out, so that all the
forces are supported across the particle contacts. And therein
lies a possible difference between controlled-stress and
controlled-volume systems. In controlled-stress systems, the
material must, through the action of elastic and/or inertial
forces, support the applied load under all conditions; at small
shear rates, even a small applied stress forces particles into
contact, and form force-chains. Under controlled volume, it is
possible for the stress to fall by orders of magnitude with a small
concentration change, as seen in the transition from Elastic to
Inertial behavior at large k/(ρd3γ2), because there is nothing to
force the particles into contact.
Fig. 18 shows the dependence of the solid concentration ν,
on the dimensionless applied stress τ0d/k, and the stiffness
parameter k/(ρd3γ2). Remember that τ0d/k represents the
deformation of a particle as a fraction of its diameter. Thus,
the large concentrations seen at large τ0d/k are simply a
reflection of the compressibility of the particles; i.e. at τ0d/
k = 0.1, the particles are pressed until their centers are 10%
closer together. Note that for a range of the stiffness
parameter, the concentration is independent of k/(ρd3γ2).
This is Casagrande's critical state behavior illustrated in Fig.
2. Then one by one, starting with the smallest k/(ρd3γ2) (the
largest shear rates), the lines diverge from the critical state
line. The line marked “Low-Stress Critical state Concentra-
tion” is particularly interesting. It shows that there is a range
of τ0d/k and k/(ρd3 γ2 ) for which the concentration is
independent of either parameter. This is partially because
the stresses are too small to cause a noticeable change in the
concentration; for example one would expect an insignificant
change in concentration between τ0d/k = 10− 3 (0.1% defor-
mation) and τ0d/k = 10− 6 (0.0001% deformation). And at the
same time, the shear rate is too small (k/(ρd3γ2) is too large)
for the inertia of the particles to support the applied load.
224 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Fig. 18. The relationship between the solid concentration ν, applied stress, τ0d/k, and k⁎ = k/(ρd3γ2) in a stress-controlled simulation with μ = 0.5 (from Campbell [68],
reprinted with permission).
One interesting correspondence between controlled stress
and controlled volume flows is that the Low-Stress Critical
State concentration in controlled stress flows corresponds to the
bounding concentration between the Elastic–Quasistatic–
Elastic and Inertial regimes in controlled-volume flows. This
makes sense, if one thinks of the transition as the minimum
concentration at which force chains can form without help from
the particle inertia. Thus in controlled volume flows, it
represents the transition between flows with and without force
chains, that is between Elastic and Inertial Flows. In controlled-
stress flows, it represents the minimum concentration that can
support the applied load without inertial help. But this will turn
out to be one of the few correspondences between controlled-
volume and stress flows. And indeed the difference makes itself
apparent even here. As it is possible to create elastic structures
with a wide range of concentrations (Fig. 17 shows elastic
behavior as low as ν = 0.45), the first appearance of inertial
effects in controlled-stress flows – the first deviation from the
low-stress critical state line – does not correspond to the
disappearance of force chains, only the first sign of inertial
support. Thus, it is an Elastic–Quasistatic/Elastic–Inertial
transition instead of the Elastic–Quasistatic/Inertia–non-Col-
lisional transition seen in controlled volume tests. Hence,
although the transitions occur at the same concentrations in
controlled-stress and volume, they are physically distinct
transitions.
In controlled-stress flows, the magnitude of all the stresses
are more or less fixed by the applied stress τ0. It is not possible
to examine, say the effect of strain-rate γ on the stresses,
because the magnitude of the stress is fixed by τ0 and changing
γ will only change the concentration. Thus indirect means are
used to determine the flow-regime by making analogies to the
observations made in controlled-volume flows. For example,
the deviation from critical state behavior in Fig. 18 is taken as
one indicator of Elastic–Quasistatic to Elastic–Inertial behav-
ior. (Another indicator can be found from changes in the ratio of
shear to normal stresses.) And as in Fig. 16, contact time data is
used to determine the transition to Inertial behavior. (See [68]
for details.)
This allows flowmaps, like that in Fig. 19, to be drawn for
controlled-stress flows. (Note that vertical ordinate in Fig. 19 is
the dimensionless applied stress, τ0d/k, instead of the solid
fraction, ν used in Fig. 17.) The behavior is very different from
the controlled volume case in Fig. 17. Most noticeable is that
collisional flows are found at small k/(ρd3γ2) instead of at the
large k/(ρd3γ2) in Fig. 17. This means that increasing the shear-
rate causes the expected transition from Elastic–Quasistatic →
Elastic–Inertial → Inertial flows, nearly the opposite of what is
seen at constant volume. Here one sees this behavior because
the increased shear rate causes changes, often small changes, in
the concentration. One might also notice that there are no
Inertial–non-Collisional flows delineated in Fig. 19. The data
[68] indicate that the transition from Elastic–Inertial to
Inertial–Collisional behavior occurs very rapidly in controlled
stress flows. The Inertial–non-Collisional regime is very
narrow and can only be observed in a few isolated cases.
In addition, Elastic–Inertial behavior appears over a much
wider range of k/(ρd3γ2) at constant stress, than at constant
volume. This is also easy to understand. Remember that
Elastic–Inertial flows appear when the inertial forces become
comparable to the elastic forces. At constant volume, the
elastic forces are generally so large that it takes very large
shear rates to generate comparable inertial forces. But under
controlled stress, the magnitude of the elastic force at zero
shear rate, is the applied load and can be as large or small as
desired. Hence at small applied loads, it is easy for the inertial
forces to become of the same order as the elastic forces and
thus possible to have Elastic–Inertial behavior at relatively
small shear rates. For the fixed concentration data in Campbell
[28] at ν = 0.6, Elastic–Inertial behavior was observed for k/
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
Fig. 19. A flowmap of controlled-stress granular flows. The particle coefficient of restitution, ε = 0.7 and particle surface friction, μ = 0.5 (from Campbell [68], reprinted
with permission).
(ρd3γ2) b 104 which, for 1 mm sand (which Campbell [68]
estimates to correspond to about k = 1.5 × 104 N m− 1), required
about 775 s− 1 of shear – an unrealistically large shear rate
indicating that Elastic–Inertial behavior will never be observed
for sand under controlled-volume conditions. (However, 2-mm
plastic beads should assume elastic inertial behavior at a more
accessible, γ = 10 s− 1.) But that is not so for the stress-
controlled studies shown here. For example, Fig. 19 indicates
that for μ = 0.5 and τ0d/k = 10− 5 (ten particles deep), Elastic–
Inertial behavior can first be observed k/(ρd3γ2)∼5 × 107 or
about γ = 14 s− 1 in 1 mm sand-like materials. The reason for
this is obvious from the underlying physics. Elastic–Inertial
behavior occurs when the inertial forces are of the same order
as the elastic forces. In fixed-concentration flows [28], the
magnitude of the elastic forces were dictated by the
requirement that the particles undergo shear at the large
concentrations where force chains form. Reducing the
concentration to the point that the force chains disappeared
eliminates the elastic forces and the stresses drop by orders of
magnitude; this is possible because the concentration was
independent of the stresses generated. In constant-stress flows,
as long as the shear rate is small enough, force chains can
always form even for very small applied stresses, simply
because if the inertia effects are small, force chains are the only
method available to the balance the applied load. And for small
applied stresses, the corresponding elastic forces are small and
it only takes a small shear rate to generate inertial forces that
are comparable to the elastic forces, pushing the flow into the
Elastic–Inertial regime. As a result, Elastic–Inertial behavior
is much more accessible in controlled stress flows. Further-
more, under controlled stress, when progressing from Elastic–
Quasistatic to Inertial behavior, the flow must always go
through an intermediate Elastic–Inertial regime.
One advantage of having complete flowmaps, is that one
can set bounds on that various flows regimes. For example,
225
the maps indicate why rapid granular flows are seldom
observed. Fig. 19 indicates that, for τ0d/k = 10− 5 (which
corresponds to an overburden of a 10-particle-deep layer), the
flow becomes collisional at k/(ρd3γ2) = 106. Continuing with
the 1 mm sand numbers, this corresponds to a very large shear
rate of about 100 s− 1. This is similar to the minimum shear
rates observed for larger glassbeads in 10 particle deep shear
cell experiments [71]. Now, Campbell [68] points out that the
transition shear rate should scale with particle diameter as
γd = 0.1 m s− 1. While there are no direct experiments to
compare these numbers to, Wang and Campbell [71] found
from measurements on three sizes of glassbeads, that their
minimum achievable shear rates were somewhat higher at
γd = 0.34 m s− 1 (requiring a minimum of about 340 s− 1 of
shear for 1 mm particles). Deeper depths would require even
larger shear rates and while such shear rates can be obtained in
laboratory shear cells and computer simulations, they are not
found in practice. One should note that these limiting shear
rates are relatively insensitive to the particle stiffness. Going to
a softer material would decrease k and with it k/(ρd3γ2),
pushing the system towards an inertial flow, but at the same
time would proportionally increase τ0d/k, pushing the system
away from inertial behavior, so that, from Fig. 19, a change in
k is unlikely to cause a change in flow regime. While high
speed laboratory shear cells can achieve the hundreds of
inverse seconds of shear rate required to achieve Rapid Flow,
shear rates in the hundreds of inverse-seconds, will not be
found in any common granular flows, such as chutes and
hoppers, all of which are gravity driven. One might argue that
under reduced gravity conditions, say on the Moon or Mars,
smaller shear rates are required. While this is certainly true,
reducing gravity also reduces the driving force for the bulk
motion and reduces the available shear rates proportionally.
Hence, reducing gravity does not make rapid flows any more
accessible.
226 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
7. Conclusions
This paper is an attempt to summarize what is currently
known about granular material flows. It began with a
discussion of basic transport mechanisms. It then goes on to
discuss contact laws and points out that real contact behavior
is much more complex than Hertz and Hertz–Mindlin models.
This was followed by a discussion of the two limiting granular
flow models, the Slow-Flow or Quasistatic model, and the
Rapid-Flow or Collisional model. It finally describes the
Elastic model, which, by including particle elasticity, allows
the entire flowmap for granular flow to be drawn, including
the Quasistatic and Rapid-Flow regions and the area in
between.
The Quasistatic models were derived from metal plasticity
theory using a Mohr–Coulomb frictional yield condition. As
applied to granular flows, these generally assume that the
friction angle ϕ (tanϕ is the apparent friction coefficient of
the material) is a constant material property, and that the
material is in the critical-state and thus behaves incompres-
sibly with the density fixed at the critical-state concentration.
While there are mathematical problems in using these models,
particularly in the application of boundary conditions, they
have been used to model hoppers and are able to predict the
qualitative features of hopper flow and the predicted flow
rates are in the same ballpark as experiments. The deviations
may be attributed to the aforementioned problems in
boundary conditions, etc., but simulations of hopper flow
suggest that the error lies in the assumption of a constant
friction angle ϕ. It is not yet understood why ϕ changes
within the hopper.
The Rapid-Flow models that have been so popular in the
last few decades, are also derived using models from another
branch of science, in this case the kinetic theory of gases.
They assume that the granules behave like molecules and, to
apply kinetic theory ideas, assume that the particles interact by
instantaneous collision. Superimposed on the velocity field is
another field quantity, the granular temperature representing
the random, thermal-like, kinetic energy of the particles.
Because the particle collisions dissipate energy, the granular
temperature must be continually re-supplied from the energy
of the mean flow field through the mechanism of shear work.
The granular temperature is assumed to control all the
transport rates within the granular material; in particular, the
pressure and all the internal normal stresses are proportional to
the granular temperature. However, there is a problem with
this assumption; as the granular temperature is produced
through shear work, it has roughly the same magnitude as the
square of γd, the shear rate times the particle diameter. Thus,
the transport rates are equally controlled by the shear rate as
by the granular temperature. As such, Rapid-Flow theory is
not self-consistent with its basic assumptions. Also, just as
kinetic theory derives the equations of fluid motion, rapid flow
theory predicts a viscous-like response from a granular
material, meaning that rapid-flows cannot demonstrate any
of the solid-like properties (such as Janssen's frictional
support) commonly associated with bulk granular material.
But the largest problem with the rapid flow theory is that huge
granular temperatures are required to support any reasonable
overburden of material. And as the granular temperature
derives from the shear rate, huge shear rates are required to
produce enough pressure to support even small overburdens of
material. Estimates of the required granular temperature
derived from the Elastic models, and by the limited
experimental evidence that is available, indicate that rapid
flows are unobtainable outside of high-speed laboratory shear
cells and gravity-free computer simulations.
Surprisingly, despite its 27-year history, as of this writing,
there have been no other attempts to validate the fundamental
assumptions of rapid granular flow theory – a long silence that,
in itself, speaks volumes. Monte Carlo simulations provide and
thus assume rapid flow behavior; they cannot be used to probe
its limits. Neither can rigid particle (or event-driven) computer
simulations, such as those used to derive Figs. 10–12, as they
likewise, presuppose a collisional flow. As it stands, Rapid Flow
is a theory in search of an application as steadily, more and more
systems are shown not to be rapid flows. In addition to the fact
that common granular flows cannot generate large enough shear
rates to enter the rapid flow regime, there have also been direct
measurements of the particle forces in bubbling fluidized beds,
indicate that they cannot be modeled by kinetic theory ideas
[61–63]. Even vibrated beds, at least those of commercial
depth, several hundred to thousands of particle deep, cannot be
thermalized and are not rapid flows [66]. After 27 years, it is not
outrageous to ask for some verification of the Rapid-Flow
theories. Thus, it probably best to abandon rapid-flow studies, at
least until a practical application for the results of the theory can
be found.
By including the particle stiffness – which governs how
particles see each other mechanically and thus governs the
elastic properties of the bulk material – it is possible to draw
out the entire flowmap that connects the Quasistatic and
Rapid-Flow regimes, at least for simple granular materials.
Flows are divided into two global regimes, the Elastic and the
Inertial. Elastic flows are dominated by force chains and the
stresses scale directly with the interparticle stiffness as τd/k.
which is interpreted as the elastic contact deformation as a
fraction of the particle diameter. This regime is further
subdivided into the Elastic–Quasistatic (the old Quasistatic
regime) and the Elastic–Inertial regimes, depending on
whether the shear rate significantly affects the magnitude of
the stresses. The relative magnitude of inertial and elastic
effects are governed by a parameter, k⁎ = k/(ρd3γ2), interpreted
as the inverse-square elastic deformation on a contact due
solely to the particle inertia, again as a fraction of the particle
diameter. Inertial Flows are free of force chains and internally
transmit force by interparticle inertia and the stresses scale
with the Bagnold scaling, τ/ρd2γ2. They can also be divided
into two flow regimes, the Inertial–non-Collisional for which
many particles interact simultaneously, and the Inertial–
Collisional regime (the old Rapid-Flow regime), where
particles interact by binary collisions.
Somewhat surprisingly the rheological behavior appears to
change with system-scale constraints, in particular whether the
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
concentration is determined by controlling the volume of the
system or by controlling the applied stress. This has a direct
analog in drained and undrained tests on water-saturated soils. It
is generally assumed that at small shear rates, the behavior is
quasistatic and, by increasing the shear rate, will eventually
become rapid. However, that behavior was only observed under
controlled-stress conditions. For controlled-volume flows, there
is no path between quasistatic and rapid flows, except by
decreasing the density. By simply varying the shear rate, one
can only move between Elastic–Quasistatic and Elastic–
Inertial flows or between Elastic–Inertial and Inertial flows
depending on the specified concentration. Surprisingly, Rapid
Flows (Inertial–Collisional flows) appear only at small shear
rates under controlled volume conditions; increasing the shear
rate forces particles into force chains and causes a transition to
Elastic–Inertial behavior. In controlled-stress flows, the volume
can change to balance the applied stress. Thus starting with a
quasistatic flow and increasing the shear rate, one can end up
with a rapid flow, because the transition brings about a slight
increase in volume.
At this point, one can only speculate whether the elastic
effects can explain the variation in tanϕ seen in the hopper flow
plots shown Fig. 5. Campbell [53] shows that the apparent
friction coefficient τxy/τyy (the equivalent of tanϕ in simple
shear), decreases with k/(ρd3 γ2), throughout the Elastic–
Inertial regime and becomes constant in the Elastic–Quasistatic
regime. An examination of the data of Babic et al. [69],
indicates that effect is even more severe for two-dimensional
disc flows such as those used in the hopper simulations in Fig. 5.
Thus, if the hopper flow were in the Elastic–Inertial regime, this
indicates that tanϕ should increase with shear rate. This is
consistent with Fig. 5 as the largest tanϕ are found in the hopper
throat where the shear rates are the largest, and the smallest tanϕ
are in the bin section where the shear rate is small. But the
sensitivity to system-scale constraints may provide another
possible explanation. A hopper flow is far from a simple shear
flow and it may not be possible to directly apply simple shear
results to hoppers.
It is interesting that the elastic properties of the particles do
not appear in either the quasistatic or rapid flow theories. But
remember that both quasistatic and rapid-flow modeling were
based on the formalisms derived from other branches of science,
of metal plasticity and kinetic theory respectively, and neither
formalism allows the introduction of elastic properties. For
quasistatic theory, all that is required is a yield surface and a
flow rule. In rapid flow theory, particle interactions are assumed
to be instantaneous collisions and thus assume a infinitely rigid
solid with no allowance for finite elasticity. Thus, it would be
most difficult, if not impossible to adapt these theories to
include elastic effects.
8. Some lessons
As noted in the Introduction, this paper was derived from a
lecture given to the summer Powder Technology class at Ohio
State. Hence, it is appropriate to highlight some important
lessons learned in the course of the paper.
227
8.1. Rigid sphere models are inapplicable to dense systems
Dense systems interact by force chains and transmit force
along the chain by elastically deforming the interparticle
contacts. The elasticity of the particles is intrinsically important
to the internal processes of the system. Such systems cannot be
modelled as rigid spheres and any such model would be missing
essential physics. Also, contrary to intuition, granular materials
are, in the bulk, quite soft. This is evidenced in their sound
speed which is of the order of 100 m s− 1, roughly 50 times
slower than the soundspeed in their constituent solid material,
and indicates that the bulk granular material has an apparent
elastic modulus, more than three orders of magnitude smaller
than its constituent solid.
8.2. Particle surface friction is essential to modelling dense
systems
Fig. 14 shows that the simple act of removing surface
friction can cause a transition between an Elastic and Inertial
flow regime. Friction is vital to the strength of force chains
and force chains are essential for the Elastic flow regimes.
Thus, while it is convenient to remove surface friction in
many analyses or computer simulations, it is removing
essential physics from the problem and will lead to erroneous
behavior. At the same time, the importance of surface friction
may be dwarfed by the importance of particle shape. Angular
particles have a greater tendency to lock together and will
thus both more easily form force chains and form stronger
force chains. The effect of particle shape has yet to be
explored in detail. However, results on frictional spheres have
some value. One can at least buy frictional spherical particles;
frictionless particles, spherical or otherwise do not appear in
nature.
8.3. Dense flows are not “frictional”
This was dealt with in detail in the text, but is worth
repeating here. While it is true that slow granular flows (and for
that matter rapid flows) appear frictional because in the bulk, the
ratio of shear to normal stress is a constant, it is not a result of
solid–solid friction. Instead the frictional behavior of dense
granular materials is a reflection of the evolution of the force
chain structure.
8.4. All important granular flows are dense
This is not so much an observation of this paper, as much as
an observation of real life. Hoppers, reasonably deep chute
flows and even commercial scale vibrated boxes, all operate in a
near packed state.
8.5. Rapid Flows are seldom, if ever encountered outside the
laboratory
This has also been dealt with in great detail above, but
deserved repeating here if only because the scarcity of rapid
228 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
granular flows is the physical reason behind the last lesson,
that all important flows are dense. Simply put, the shear rates
obtained in common flows cannot generate enough granular
temperature to support the material at small concentrations,
leaving all flows in or near the Elastic regimes.
8.6. System-scale constraints can affect the rheological
behavior
This is reflected in the different rheological behaviors
observed for controlled-volume and controlled stress flows as
well in the difference between drained and undrained tests in
soil mechanics. There may be many other system constraints of
importance that are yet to be found.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Professor L. S. Fan for
inviting me to give the lecture that inspired this article and for
his hospitality while I was at Ohio State.
References
[1] D. Jacques, Sands, Powders, and Grains: An Introduction to the Physics of
Granular Materials, Springer, New York, 2000.
[2] C.S. Campbell, Boundary interactions for two-dimensional granular flows:
Part I. Flat boundaries, asymmetric stresses and couple stresses, J. Fluid
Mech. 247 (1993) 111–136.
[3] H. Hertz, Über die Berürung fester elasticher Körper, J. Reine Angew.
Math. 92 (1882) 156–171.
[4] K.L. Johnson, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1985
452 pp.
[5] R.J. Bathurst, L. Rothenburg, Micromechanical aspects of isotropic
granular assemblies with linear contact interactionss, J. Appl. Mech. 55
(1988) 17–23.
[6] J.D. Goddard, Nonlinear elasticity and pressure-dependent wave speeds in
granular media, Proc. R. Soc. 430 (1990) 105–131.
[7] J. Duffy, R. Mindlin, Stress–strain relations and vibrations of a granular
medium, J. Appl. Mech. 24 (1957) 585–593.
[8] H.A. Makse, N. Gland, D.L. Johnson, L.M. Schwartz, Why effective
medium theory fails in granular materials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999)
5070–5073.
[9] A.V. Potapov, C.S. Campbell, Propagation of elastic waves in deep
vertically shaken particle beds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4760–4763.
[10] B.O. Hardin, F.E. Richard, Elastic wave velocities in granular soils, J. Soil
Mech. Found. 94 (1963) 27–42.
[11] F.E. Richart, R.D. Woods, J.P. Hall, Vibration of Soils and Foundations,
Prentice Hall, New York, 1970.
[12] O.R. Walton, Numerical simulation of inelastic, frictional particle–particle
interactions, in: M.C. Roco (Ed.), Particulate Two-Phase Flow, Butter-
worth-Heinemann, Bouston, 1993.
[13] C. Thornton, Coefficient restitution for collinear collisions of elastic
perfectly plastic spheres, J. Appl. Mech. 64 (1997) 383–386.
[14] O.R. Walton, R.L. Braun, Viscosity and temperature calculations for
shearing assemblies of inelastic, frictional disks, J. Rheol. 30 (1986)
949–980.
[15] C.V. Raman, The photographic study of impact at minimal velocities,
Phys. Rev. 12 (1918) 442–447.
[16] M. Mullier, U. Tuzun, O.R. Walton, A single-particle friction cell for
measuring contact frictional-properties of granular materials, Powder
Technol. 65 (1991) 61–73.
[17] R.D. Mindlin, H. Deresiewicz, Elastic spheres in contact under varying
oblique forces, J. Appl. Mech. 20 (1953) 327–344.
[18] C.A. Coulomb, Essai sur un application de règles de maximis et minimis à
quelques problèmes de staique relatifs à l'architecture, Mém. Math. Phys.
Acad. R. Sci., Paris 7 (1773) 343–382.
[19] V.V. Sokolovski, Statics of Granular Media, Pergammon Press, 1965.
[20] A. Casagrande, Compaction Tests and Critical Density Investigations in
Cohesionless Materials for Franklin Falls dam, U.S. Engineer Corps,
Boston District, 1938.
[21] A. Schofield, P. Wroth, Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1968, 310 pp.
[22] R. Jackson, Some mathematical and physical aspects of continuum models
for the motion of granular materials, in: R.E. Meyer (Ed.), Theory of
Dispersed Multiphase Flow, Academic Press, New York, 1983,
pp. 291–337.
[23] A.W. Jenike, R.T. Shield, On the plastic flow of Coulomb solids beyond
failure, J. Appl. Mech. 26 (1959) 599–602.
[24] J.K. Davidson, R.M. Nedderman, The hour-glass theory of hopper flow,
Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 51 (1973) 29–35.
[25] C. Brennen, J.C. Pearce, Granular material flow in two-dimensional
hoppers, J. Appl. Mech. 45 (1978) 43–50.
[26] H.A. Janssen, Versuche über getreidedruck in silozellen, Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing.
39 (1895) 1045–1049.
[27] A.V. Potapov, C.S. Campbell, Computer simulation of hopper flows, Phys.
Fluids, A Fluid Dyn. 8 (1996) 2884–2894.
[28] C.S. Campbell, Granular shear flows at the elastic limit, J. Fluid Mech. 465
(2002) 261–291.
[29] D.W. Howell, R.P. Behringer, C.T. Veje, Fluctuations in granular media,
Chaos 9 (1999) 559–572.
[30] D.W. Howell, R.P. Behringer, C.T. Veje, Stress fluctuations in a 2D
granular Couette experiment: a continuous transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26
(1999) 5241–5244.
[31] A. Drescher, G. De Josselin de Jong, Photoelastic verification of a
mechanical model for the flow of a granular material, J. Mech. Phys. Solids
20 (1972) 337–351.
[32] P.A. Cundall, O.D.L. Strack, A discrete numerical model for granular
assemblies, Geotechnique 29 (1979) 47–65.
[33] D.M. Mueth, H.M. Jaeger, S.R. Nagel, Force distribution in a granular
medium, Phys. Rev., E 57 (1998) 3164–3169.
[34] C.K.K. Lun, S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffrey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for
granular flow: inelastic particles in Coutte flow and slightly inelastic
particles in a general flowfield, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223–256.
[35] S.B. Savage, M. Sayed, Stresses developed by dry cohesionless granular
materials in an annular shear cell, J. Fluid Mech. 142 (1984) 391–430.
[36] C.S. Campbell, The stress tensor for simple shear flows of a granular
material, J. Fluid Mech. 203 (1989) 449–473.
[37] C.S. Campbell, C.E. Brennen, Computer simulation of granular shear
flows, J. Fluid Mech. 151 (1985) 167–188.
[38] C.S. Campbell, The effect of microstucture development on the collisional
stress tensor in a granular flow, Acta Mech. 63 (1986) 61–72.
[39] R.A. Bagnold, Experiments on a gravity-free dispersion of large solid
particles in a Newtonian fluid under shear, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A 225
(1954) 49–63.
[40] M.L. Hunt, R. Zenit, C.S. Campbell, C.E. Brennen, Revisiting the 1954
suspension experiments of R.A. Bagnold, J. Fluid Mech. 452 (2002) 1–24.
[41] S. Ogawa, Multitemperature theory of granular materials, Proc. US–Japan
Seminar of Continuum–Mechanical and Statistical Approaches in the
Mechanics of Granular Materials, 208, Gakujutsu Bunken Fukukai, Tokyo,
1978.
[42] S. Chapman, T.G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform
Gases, third editionCambridge University Press, 1970.
[43] A. Goldshtein, M. Shapiro, C. Gutfinger, Mechanics of collisional motion
of granular materials: Part III. Self-similar shock-wave motion, J. Fluid
Mech. 316 (1996) 29–51.
[44] S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffrey, The stress tensor in a granular flow at high shear
rates, J. Fluid Mech. 110 (1981) 255–272.
[45] O.R. Walton, R.L. Braun, Stress calculations for assemblies of inelastic
spheres in uniform shear, Acta Mech. 63 (1986) 73–86.
[46] I. Goldhirsch, N. Sela, Origin of normal stress differences in rapid granular
flows, Phys. Rev., E 54 (1996) 4458–4461.
 C.S. Campbell / Powder Technology 162 (2006) 208–229
[47] N. Sela, I. Goldhirsch, Hydrodynamic equations for rapid flows of smooth
inelastic spheres, to Burnett order, J. Fluid Mech. 361 (1998) 41–74.
[48] P.K. Haff, Grain flow as a fluid-mechanical phenomenon, J. Fluid Mech.
134 (1983) 401–430.
[49] P.C. Johnson, R. Jackson, Frictional–collisional constitutive relations for
granular materials with applications to plane shearing, J. Fluid Mech. 176
(1987) 67–93.
[50] P.C. Johnson, P. Nott, R. Jackson, Frictional–collisional equations of
motion for particulate flows and their applications to plane shearing, J.
Fluid Mech. 210 (1990) 501–535.
[51] J.T. Jenkins, S.B. Savage, A theory for the rapid flow of identical, smooth,
nearly elastic particles, J. Fluid Mech. 130 (1983) 187–202.
[52] I. Goldhirsch, Rapid granular flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35 (2003)
267–293.
[53] C.S. Campbell, Rapid granular flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 22 (1990)
57–92.
[54] J.T. Jenkins, Mancini, Kinetic theory for binary mixtures of smooth, nearly
elastic, spheres, Phys. Fluids, A Fluid Dyn. 1 (1989) 2050–2057.
[55] J.M. Ottino, D.V. Khakhar, Mixing and segregation of granular materials,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32 (2000) 55–91.
[56] D.V. Khakhar, J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Ottino, Mixing and segregation of
granular materials in chute flows, Chaos 9 (1999) 594–610.
[57] M.A. Hopkins, M.Y. Lounge, Inelastic microstructure in rapid granular
flows of smooth disks, Phys. Fluids, A Fluid Dyn. 3 (1991) 47–57.
[58] J.L. Sinclair, R. Jackson, The effect of particle–particle interactions on the
flow of gas and particles in a vertical pipe, AIChE J. 35 (1989) 1473–1486.
[59] J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, A bubbling fluidization model using kinetic theory
of granular flow, AIChE J. 36 (1990) 523–538.
[60] D.L. Koch, A.S. Sanagni, Particle pressure and marginal stability limits for
a homogeneous monodisperse gas-fluidized bed: kinetic theory and
numerical simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 400 (1999) 229–263.
229
[61] K. Rahman, C.S. Campbell, Particle pressures generated around bubbles in
gas-fluidized beds, J. Fluid Mech. 455 (2002) 103–127.
[62] C.S. Campbell, Granular flows and gas fluidization, in: U. Arena, R.
Chirone, M. Miccio, P. Salatino (Eds.), Fluidization, vol. XI, ECI NY,
2004, pp. 21–36.
[63] C.S. Campbell, Granular flows and gas fluidization, Int. J. Chem. React.
Eng. 2 (2004) 1 http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/P1.
[64] Y. Zhang, C.S. Campbell, The interface between fluid-like and solid-like
behavior in two-dimensional granular flows, J. Fluid Mech. 237 (1992)
541–568.
[65] C.S. Campbell, The transition from fluid-like to solid-like behavior in
granular flows, in: C. Thornton (Ed.), Powders and Grains 93: 2nd
International Conference on Micromechanics of Granular U.K. Media,
Birmingham, July 12th–16th, 1993, pp. 289–294.
[66] S. Klongboonjit, The Effect of Particle Elasticity on the Convection in
Deep Vertically Shaken Particle Beds, PhD thesis, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, 2005.
[67] C.S. Campbell, Elastic granular flows, Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2 (2004) 2
http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/P2.
[68] C.S. Campbell, Stress controlled elastic granular shear flows, J. Fluid
Mech. 539 (2005) 273–297.
[69] M. Babic, H.H. Shen, H.T. Shen, The stress tensor in granular shear flows
of uniform, deformable disks at high solids concentrations, J. Fluid Mech.
219 (1990) 81–118.
[70] C.S. Campbell, A problem related to the stability of force chains, Granul.
Matter 5 (2003) 129–134.
[71] D.G. Wang, C.S. Campbell, Reynolds' analogy for a shearing granular
material, J. Fluid Mech. 244 (1992) 527–546.