Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Frictional Contact Network in Dense Suspension Flow

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that when particles resist gear-like rolling, load-bearing force chains remain stable without orthogonal side chains, which is why rough suspensions jam at lower densities.

desk verdict A useful first network-level look at rolling-friction suspensions, but the central stability claim is an interpretation, not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22747 v1 pith:2IR6DT7D submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.soft

Shweta Sharma , Abhishek Sharma , Abhinendra Singh This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords shearthickeningfrictionalcontactnetworkrollingfrictionforcechainsanalysishubs-and-spokesmodeljammingdensesuspensions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Dense suspensions of hard particles can suddenly thicken and even jam under shear when contacts become frictional, and this paper asks how the force network changes when particles resist not just sliding past each other but also rolling over each other, as rough or faceted particles do. Using 2D simulations and a network-coarsening analysis, the authors claim that particles with both sliding and rolling friction form long, straight, sparsely branched force chains that are mechanically stable without the side (orthogonal) support that sliding-only networks require. If this picture is right, it explains why rough particles shear-thicken and jam at noticeably lower packing fractions: fewer particles are needed to carry the load. It also implies that macroscopic rheology alone does not fix the microscopic force network, since suspensions with the same viscosity can transmit stress through very different structures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hubs-and-spokes coarsened contact network, a graph built from simulation snapshots in which particles are nodes and frictional contacts are edges. Nodes are classified by local frictional coordination: rattlers (zero contacts), terminals (one), spokes (two), and hubs (three or more), and the graph is coarsened by removing spokes so that each remaining edge is a force chain terminated by hubs or terminals. Two scalar metrics carry the argument: edge length $L$, the number of intermediate connections along a chain, and edge linearity $\lambda$, the average cosine of the angles between consecutive particles in the chain. Their trends with friction coefficients distinguish branched sliding-only networks from long, straight, weakly branched sliding-and-rolling networks.

What would settle it

Repeat the same sliding-and-rolling simulations up to the jammed state, then delete every contact that is not on a chosen primary force chain (removing all orthogonal support), apply a small shear perturbation, and check whether the chain stays load-bearing; if the chain buckles and the packing loses rigidity, the claim that orthogonal support is unnecessary collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a new mechanical-stability picture for frictional contact networks in suspensions of rough particles. In the sliding-only case the authors reproduce the established picture of Cates et al.: primary force chains run along compression and need secondary chains roughly orthogonal to them, otherwise the chains would buckle; correspondingly the network is highly branched with many hubs and short edges. For particles with both sliding and rolling constraints, the paper claims the opposite: rolling resistance locks contacts so that particles must rotate as a glued solid body, force chains become linear and longer, orthogonal support is not required for stability, and the network has fewer hubs, more rattlers, and less branching. This reduction in required load-bearing particles is presented as the mechanism behind the lower discontinuous-shear-thickening and jamming volume fractions observed for rough or faceted particles, and the same-viscosity, different-network result is offered as evidence that mean-field models miss mesoscale physics.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that longer, straighter force chains with fewer hubs truly mean the chains are stable without side support; the simulations measure chain shape and network topology, but do not directly test whether a chain would buckle if its orthogonal contacts were removed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rough or faceted particles reach discontinuous shear thickening and shear jamming at lower packing fractions because long linear chains require fewer load-bearing particles.
  • Mean-field models that only track the fraction of frictional contacts cannot capture stress transmission: systems equally far from their jamming point can have different networks and thus different mesoscale mechanics.
  • The rolling-friction network picture predicts that rough suspensions should show straighter, longer force chains and more rattlers than smooth ones at equivalent distance from jamming, which microstructural experiments could check.
  • The same network-coarsening method can be carried to 3D and to other flowing amorphous systems such as emulsions and gels where constraints on particle motion are used to tune bulk response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the stability picture holds, particle-surface engineering that raises rolling resistance should be able to lower jamming density without increasing contact number, giving a design knob for thickening and jamming behavior distinct from sliding friction.
  • A natural testable extension is to measure the hub fraction and chain-linearity distribution in confocal or rheo-imaging experiments on rough colloids; the paper predicts longer, straighter chains and more rattlers than in smooth-particle suspensions at the same jamming distance.
  • One consequence the authors only hint at: rolling-friction networks, needing no orthogonal support, may be less fragile in the sense of Cates et al., so the shear-jammed state of rough suspensions could respond differently to a reversal or perturbation of the shear direction than sliding-only jammed states.
  • Because the simulations are 2D, out-of-plane buckling is absent; in 3D, orthogonal support might reappear through a different mechanism, which would qualify where the claim applies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 2D simulation results for dense suspensions with stress-activated sliding and rolling friction, comparing the frictional contact network (FCN) formed with sliding constraints only ({μs,0}) with that formed with sliding and rolling constraints ({μs,μr}). Bulk rheology (CST versus DST/SJ), frictional coordination numbers, and hubs-and-spokes network metrics (fractions of hubs, terminals, rattlers, spokes, edge length L, and edge linearity λ) are reported as functions of stress and friction coefficients. From the observations of fewer hubs, more rattlers, and longer, more linear edges in the rolling-friction case, the authors propose that rolling friction stabilizes long, straight force chains that do not require orthogonal support, in contrast to the Cates et al. picture, and that this mechanism explains the lower jamming volume fractions seen for rough/faceted particles.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would provide a concrete microstructural mechanism for the experimentally observed reduction of DST and SJ volume fractions with particle roughness, going beyond the scalar Wyart-Cates mean-field picture. The network characterization of the rolling-friction regime is novel, and the metrics are measured directly from simulation output rather than fitted to the conclusion, which is a strength. However, the load-bearing mechanical assertion—that linear chains without orthogonal support are stable—is inferred from static topological metrics in a dynamic steady state and is not tested against buckling, perturbation, or force-balance criteria. The data are consistent with the proposed picture, but they do not demonstrate it; the recommended revision should close this gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [Contact network analysis and Discussion] The central claim that particles with both sliding and rolling constraints do not require orthogonal support for mechanical stability is not directly tested. The evidence is topological (fewer hubs, more rattlers, longer edges, higher linearity) in a dynamic steady state in which contacts continuously form, break, and reform; no perturbation experiment, no force-chain lifetime/persistence statistic, and no buckling or force-balance check on individual chains is presented. The sentence 'We assume that this affects the length of the force chains' indicates that the link between the observed network metrics and force-chain geometry is assumed at that point, and the closing 'We await experimental guidance' concedes that the proposed stability picture is not yet established. I recommend adding a direct test, such as tracking the temporal persistence of long linear chains, applying a controlled perturbation and measuring buckling, or checking whether the rolling-friction network remains rigid when orthogonal contacts are removed.
  2. [Methods (coarsened network) and edge length definition] The edge length L is defined on the coarsened graph after removing all nodes with exactly two frictional contacts, which makes longer edges a partly topological consequence of reduced branching: with fewer hubs, paths between hubs and terminals are longer by construction. The increase of L with μr is therefore not independent evidence that rolling friction stabilizes longer force chains. Please report a measure that does not condition on hub/terminal endpoints, such as the geometric end-to-end length of connected frictional clusters or the number of particles in a chain, and quantify the linearity-length correlation separately for the sliding-only and sliding-and-rolling regimes.
  3. [Rheology, coordination number, and microstructure] The comparison between the two types of constraints is made at different packing fractions (φ=0.78 for the sliding-only case and φ=0.7 for the sliding-and-rolling case) under the assertion that the states have the same distance from their respective jamming points, φ_J^{μs,μr}−φ. However, φ_J^{μs,μr} is reported only for the limiting cases {0,0}, {∞,0}, and {∞,∞} (Fig. 1); values for the finite combinations used in Figs. 3–4 are not given. Without these values, the claim that the observed network differences are not simply proximity-to-jamming effects is not established.
  4. [Fig. 4] The network metrics in Fig. 4 are presented without error bars or a statement of the number of independent steady-state snapshots over which they were averaged. Because the steady state is explicitly dynamic, time-averaged fractions and distributions need accompanying statistical uncertainty to establish that the differences between the μs and μr sweeps are significant; this is especially relevant where a trend is described as absent (e.g., edge linearity in Fig. 4e).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The question 'What is the mechanically stable configuration of particles with both sliding constraints?' should read 'with both sliding and rolling constraints'.
  2. [Methods (edge length and linearity)] The definitions of L and λ are ambiguous: N is used both for the total number of particles and for the number of spokes in an edge, and λ=1/(N−2)Σcosθ_i is undefined for edges with fewer than three spokes; please define all quantities explicitly.
  3. [Contact network analysis, paragraph before Fig. 4g] The sentence 'Thus far, the analysis indicates that the number of hubs and particles that do not participate in the friction network (rattlers) increases with μr' contradicts Fig. 4h, which shows the hub fraction decreasing with μr; the sentence should state that hubs decrease.
  4. [Conclusions] Reference [48] appears as '[48?]' in the sentence on manipulating bulk response; please correct the citation.
  5. [Full text quality] The provided manuscript contains duplicated passages and a stray header 'PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 124, 248005 (2020)'; the final version should be checked for such formatting artifacts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the network metrics are measured directly from simulation snapshots, not fitted to the conclusion; the orthogonal-support claim is an interpretation flagged by the authors as awaiting experimental confirmation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: simulate dense suspensions with sliding-only or sliding-plus-rolling constraints using an established model [9,12]; compute hub/terminal/rattler fractions, edge length, and linearity from the simulated frictional contact networks; and interpret the differences as a new mechanical-stability picture. No equation or parameter used to produce the central claim is fitted to the claim itself. The lower jamming volume fraction for rolling friction is an output of the simulations, and the network statistics are independent measurements of the same steady states; explaining one simulation output by another is correlation, not circularity. The line 'We assume that this affects the length of the force chains' is a hypothesis that the subsequent edge-length analysis tests, not an input assumed as a conclusion. The sentence in the Conclusions 'We await experimental guidance in confirming our picture of mechanical stability' explicitly marks the orthogonal-support claim as a proposal; this is an evidentiary limitation, not a circular step. The self-citations [9,12] supply the simulation method (rolling-friction torque implementation) and are peer-reviewed, externally validated models; the present network analysis is newly computed and is not equivalent to those references. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on simulation output from the authors' own prior rolling-friction model, on a network-coarsening scheme chosen in this paper, and on a hand-selected comparison between systems at different packing fractions. No new physical entities are postulated, and the only fitted numbers are the jamming fractions carried over from earlier work.

free parameters (5)
  • hub threshold Z >= 3
    Network-analysis convention labeling particles with three or more frictional contacts as hubs; shapes all downstream metrics and is not derived from physics.
  • friction coefficients μs and μr = μs swept in {0.2, 0.5, 1, 10} at μr=0; μr swept in {0, 0.2, 0.5, 1} at μs=1
    Model inputs varied to probe constraint strength; selected by hand, not fitted to reproduce the conclusion.
  • critical load force F0 (stress scale σ0)
    Sets the stress scale for friction activation; an input parameter of the contact model, not fitted here.
  • jamming fractions φ_J used for distance-from-jamming comparison = 0.6477, 0.5702, 0.3648 from Fig. 1 (prior work)
    Fitted to η_r = (1-φ/φ_J)^-2 in the underlying model study; used to argue the two compared systems are at comparable distance from jamming.
  • 2D-to-3D packing fraction mapping = φ_2D=0.78 maps to φ_3D≈0.56; φ_2D=0.7 maps to φ_3D≈0.5
    Hand-chosen scaling from the authors' prior 2D/3D comparison; justifies comparing the two simulation sets as 3D 0.56 and 0.50.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The simulated model, combining lubrication forces, linear-spring contacts, and critical-load Coulomb friction with a rolling torque, captures the essential mechanics of shear thickening in dense suspensions.
    Invoked throughout: all results are simulation output from this model, with implementation details in the authors' prior work (refs 9 and 12).
  • domain assumption A two-dimensional monolayer simulation represents three-dimensional suspension behavior when the packing fraction is scaled according to the jamming fraction.
    Stated explicitly in the 'Simulating dense suspensions' section, citing the authors' prior 2D/3D scaling study (ref 33).
  • ad hoc to paper Removing all degree-2 nodes and measuring edge linearity as the average cosine of turning angles preserves the mechanically relevant force-chain structure.
    Introduced in this paper as the hubs-and-spokes method; no independent validation establishes that linearity is equivalent to buckling resistance.
  • domain assumption Cates and co-workers' orthogonal-support picture is the correct mechanical baseline for sliding-only frictional networks.
    Adopted from ref 25 and used as the contrast against which the new rolling-constraint stability picture is defined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frictional Contact Network in Dense Suspension Flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IR6DT7D

@misc{pith2026250522747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frictional Contact Network in Dense Suspension Flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IR6DT7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22747}
}
read the original abstract

Dense particulate suspensions often exhibit a dramatic increase in viscosity in response to external deformation. This shear thickening behavior has been related to a transition from lubricated, unconstrained pairwise motion to a frictional contact network (FCN) at high stresses. Here, we study the characteristics of the FCN formed during shear thickening to investigate the role of constraints, emphasizing the impact of resistance to gear-like rolling. We contrast the FCN formed by sliding friction alone with that formed by particles with sliding and rolling constraints. Particles with sliding constraints only form a highly interconnected network with primary force chains in the compressive direction, which requires orthogonal support from other force chains. However, orthogonal support is not required for mechanical stability when particles have both sliding and rolling constraints. In addition, the force chains appear linear and longer, reducing the jamming volume fraction for rough/faceted particles. Finally, we propose a novel mechanical stability picture for rough/faceted particles with sliding and rolling constraints, which is crucial for understanding the flow behavior of real-life suspensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22747 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Jamming and constraints. (a) Different types of con ηr ¼ð1 − ϕ=ϕfμs;μrg J Þ−2, where ϕf0;0gJ ¼ 0.647 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quick starch guide: A perspective on shear thickening in dense non-Brownian suspensions

    cond-mat.soft 2025-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A perspective review arguing that stress-activated constraints between particles, captured by the Wyart and Cates model, explain both ideal and realistic shear thickening flows, while leaving transients and polydisper...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Shear thickening of concentrated suspensions: Recent developments and relation to other phenomena

    Jeffrey F Morris. Shear thickening of concentrated suspensions: Recent developments and relation to other phenomena. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 52:121–144, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Denn and Jeffrey F

    Morton M. Denn and Jeffrey F. Morris. Rheology of non-Brownian suspensions.Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng., 5(1), 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Cates and Matthieu Wyart

    Michael E. Cates and Matthieu Wyart. Granulation and bistability in non-Brownian suspensions.Rheologica Acta, pages 1–10, 2014. 10

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Morris, and Morton M

    Romain Mari, Ryohei Seto, Jeffrey F. Morris, and Morton M. Denn. Shear thickening, frictionless and frictional rheologies in non-Brownian suspensions.Journal of Rheology, 58(6):1693–1724, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A constitutive model for simple shear of dense frictional suspensions.Journal of Rheology, 62(2):457–468, 2018

    Abhinendra Singh, Romain Mari, Morton M Denn, and Jeffrey F Morris. A constitutive model for simple shear of dense frictional suspensions.Journal of Rheology, 62(2):457–468, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Rheology of dense granular suspensions.J

    ´Elisabeth Guazzelli and Olivier Pouliquen. Rheology of dense granular suspensions.J. Fluid Mech., 852, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    From yielding to shear jamming in a cohesive frictional suspension.Physical Review Letters, 122(9):098004, 2019

    Abhinendra Singh, Sidhant Pednekar, Jaehun Chun, Morton M Denn, and Jeffrey F Morris. From yielding to shear jamming in a cohesive frictional suspension.Physical Review Letters, 122(9):098004, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Rheology discussions: The physics of dense suspensions.Journal of Rheology, 64(6):1501–1524, 2020

    Safa Jamali, Emanuela Del Gado, and Jeffrey F Morris. Rheology discussions: The physics of dense suspensions.Journal of Rheology, 64(6):1501–1524, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    de Pablo, and Heinrich M

    Abhinendra Singh, Christopher Ness, Ryohei Seto, Juan J. de Pablo, and Heinrich M. Jaeger. Shear thickening and jamming of dense suspensions: The “roll” of friction.Physical Review Letters, 124:248005, Jun 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Matthieu Wyart and Michael E. Cates. Discontinuous shear thickening without inertia in dense non-Brownian suspensions. Physical Review Letters, 112:098302, Mar 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Shear thickening regimes of dense non-Brownian suspensions.Soft Matter, 12(3):914–924, 2016

    Christopher Ness and Jin Sun. Shear thickening regimes of dense non-Brownian suspensions.Soft Matter, 12(3):914–924, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Stress-activated constraints in dense suspension rheology.Physical Review Fluids, 7(5):054302, 2022

    Abhinendra Singh, Grayson L Jackson, Michael van der Naald, Juan J de Pablo, and Heinrich M Jaeger. Stress-activated constraints in dense suspension rheology.Physical Review Fluids, 7(5):054302, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    B. M. Guy, M. Hermes, and W. C. K. Poon. Towards a unified description of the rheology of hard-particle suspensions. Physical Review Letters, 115:088304, Aug 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Constraint-based approach to granular dispersion rheology.Physical Review Letters, 121(12):128001, 2018

    B M Guy, JA Richards, DJM Hodgson, E Blanco, and W C K Poon. Constraint-based approach to granular dispersion rheology.Physical Review Letters, 121(12):128001, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Lootens, Henri van Damme, Y

    D. Lootens, Henri van Damme, Y. H´ emar, and P. H´ ebraud. Dilatant flow of concentrated suspensions of rough particles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:268302, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Rheological state diagrams for rough colloids in shear flow.Phys

    Lilian C Hsiao, Safa Jamali, Emmanouil Glynos, Peter F Green, Ronald G Larson, and Michael J Solomon. Rheological state diagrams for rough colloids in shear flow.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(15):158001, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Jamming distance dictates colloidal shear thickening.Physical Review Letters, 127(15):158002, 2021

    Shravan Pradeep, Mohammad Nabizadeh, Alan R Jacob, Safa Jamali, and Lilian C Hsiao. Jamming distance dictates colloidal shear thickening.Physical Review Letters, 127(15):158002, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    The role of rolling resistance in the rheology of wizarding quidditch ball suspensions.Journal of fluid mechanics, 974:A36, 2023

    Enzo d’Ambrosio, Donald L Koch, and Sarah Hormozi. The role of rolling resistance in the rheology of wizarding quidditch ball suspensions.Journal of fluid mechanics, 974:A36, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ramakrishna, Michele Zanini, Nicholas D

    Chiao-Peng Hsu, Shivaprakash N. Ramakrishna, Michele Zanini, Nicholas D. Spencer, and Lucio Isa. Roughness-dependent tribology effects on discontinuous shear thickening.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Experimental synthesis and characterization of rough particles for colloidal and granular rheology.Curr

    Lilian C Hsiao and Shravan Pradeep. Experimental synthesis and characterization of rough particles for colloidal and granular rheology.Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Interparticle hydrogen bonding can elicit shear jamming in dense suspensions.Nat

    Nicole M James, Endao Han, Ricardo Arturo Lopez de la Cruz, Justin Jureller, and Heinrich M Jaeger. Interparticle hydrogen bonding can elicit shear jamming in dense suspensions.Nat. Mater., 17(11):965, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Tuning interparticle hydrogen bonding in shear-jamming suspensions: Kinetic effects and consequences for tribology and rheology.J

    Nicole M James, Chiao-Peng Hsu, Nicholas D Spencer, Heinrich M Jaeger, and Lucio Isa. Tuning interparticle hydrogen bonding in shear-jamming suspensions: Kinetic effects and consequences for tribology and rheology.J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 10(8):1663–1668, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Hidden hierarchy in the rheology of dense suspensions.MRS Communications, 13(6):971–979, 2023

    Abhinendra Singh. Hidden hierarchy in the rheology of dense suspensions.MRS Communications, 13(6):971–979, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Sliding or rolling? characterizing single-particle contacts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03329, 2024

    Simon Scherrer, Shivaprakash N Ramakrishna, Vincent Niggel, Chiao-Peng Hsu, Robert W Style, Nicholas D Spencer, and Lucio Isa. Sliding or rolling? characterizing single-particle contacts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03329, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. E. Cates, J. P. Wittmer, J.-P. Bouchaud, and P. Claudin. Jamming, force chains, and fragile matter.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:1841–1844, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Morris, and Morton M

    Ryohei Seto, Romain Mari, Jeffrey F. Morris, and Morton M. Denn. Discontinuous shear thickening of frictional hard-sphere suspensions.Physical Review Letters, 111:218301, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Thomas, Abhay Goyal, Deshpreet Singh Bedi, Abhinendra Singh, Emanuela Del Gado, and Bulbul Chakraborty

    Jetin E. Thomas, Abhay Goyal, Deshpreet Singh Bedi, Abhinendra Singh, Emanuela Del Gado, and Bulbul Chakraborty. Investigating the nature of discontinuous shear thickening: Beyond a mean-field description.Journal of Rheology, 64(2):329– 341, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    K-core analysis of shear-thickening suspensions

    Omer Sedes, Hernan A Makse, Bulbul Chakraborty, and Jeffrey F Morris. K-core analysis of shear-thickening suspensions. Physical Review Fluids, 7(2):024304, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Fluctuations at the onset of discontinuous shear thickening in a suspension.Journal of Rheology, 64(2):309–319, 2020

    Omer Sedes, Abhinendra Singh, and Jeffrey F Morris. Fluctuations at the onset of discontinuous shear thickening in a suspension.Journal of Rheology, 64(2):309–319, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Interaction network analysis in shear thickening suspensions.Physical Review Fluids, 5(3):034307, 2020

    Marcio Gameiro, Abhinendra Singh, Lou Kondic, Konstantin Mischaikow, and Jeffrey F Morris. Interaction network analysis in shear thickening suspensions.Physical Review Fluids, 5(3):034307, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Structure and dynamics of force clusters and networks in shear thickening suspensions.Physical Review Letters, 129(6):068001, 2022

    Mohammad Nabizadeh, Abhinendra Singh, and Safa Jamali. Structure and dynamics of force clusters and networks in shear thickening suspensions.Physical Review Letters, 129(6):068001, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Topological insights into dense frictional suspension rheology: Third order loops drive discontinuous shear thickening.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02062, 2025

    Alessandro D’Amico, Sidong Tu, and Abhinendra Singh. Topological insights into dense frictional suspension rheology: Third order loops drive discontinuous shear thickening.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02062, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Scalability of graph neural network in accurate prediction of frictional contact network in suspensions.Soft Matter, 2025

    Armin Aminimajd, Joao Maia, and Abhinendra Singh. Scalability of graph neural network in accurate prediction of frictional contact network in suspensions.Soft Matter, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Flow induced rigidity percolation in shear thickening suspensions

    Abhay Goyal, Nicos S Martys, and Emanuela Del Gado. Flow induced rigidity percolation in shear thickening suspensions. Journal of Rheology, 68(2):219–228, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    11 Minimally rigid clusters in dense suspension flow.Nature Physics, pages 1–7, 2024

    Michael van der Naald, Abhinendra Singh, Toka Tarek Eid, Kenan Tang, Juan J de Pablo, and Heinrich M Jaeger. 11 Minimally rigid clusters in dense suspension flow.Nature Physics, pages 1–7, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Network analysis of particles and grains

    Lia Papadopoulos, Mason A Porter, Karen E Daniels, and Danielle S Bassett. Network analysis of particles and grains. Journal of Complex Networks, 6(4):485–565, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Extraction of force-chain network architecture in granular materials using community detection.Soft Matter, 11(14):2731–2744, 2015

    Danielle S Bassett, Eli T Owens, Mason A Porter, M Lisa Manning, and Karen E Daniels. Extraction of force-chain network architecture in granular materials using community detection.Soft Matter, 11(14):2731–2744, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Force chain buckling, unjamming transitions and shear banding in dense granular assemblies.Philosophical Magazine, 87(32):4987–5016, 2007

    A Tordesillas. Force chain buckling, unjamming transitions and shear banding in dense granular assemblies.Philosophical Magazine, 87(32):4987–5016, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    Evolution of functional connectivity in contact and force chain networks: Feature vectors, k-cores and minimal cycles.Comptes Rendus

    Antoinette Tordesillas, Patrick O’Sullivan, David M Walker, et al. Evolution of functional connectivity in contact and force chain networks: Feature vectors, k-cores and minimal cycles.Comptes Rendus. M´ ecanique, 338(10-11):556–569, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    Topological evolution in dense granular materials: a complex networks perspective.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 47(5):624–639, 2010

    David M Walker and Antoinette Tordesillas. Topological evolution in dense granular materials: a complex networks perspective.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 47(5):624–639, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    P. A. Cundall and O. D. L. Strack. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies.Geotechnique, 29:47–65, 1979

    1979

  34. [42]

    Revisiting date and party hubs: novel approaches to role assignment in protein interaction networks.PLoS computational biology, 6(6):e1000817, 2010

    Sumeet Agarwal, Charlotte M Deane, Mason A Porter, and Nick S Jones. Revisiting date and party hubs: novel approaches to role assignment in protein interaction networks.PLoS computational biology, 6(6):e1000817, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Robust prediction of frictional contact network in near-jamming suspensions employing deep graph neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18743, 2025

    Armin Aminimajd, Joao Maia, and Abhinendra Singh. Robust prediction of frictional contact network in near-jamming suspensions employing deep graph neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18743, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Force chains and networks: wet suspensions through dry granular eyes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03144, 2019

    Rangarajan Radhakrishnan, John R Royer, Wilson C K Poon, and Jin Sun. Force chains and networks: wet suspensions through dry granular eyes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03144, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Revealing the frictional transition in shear-thickening suspensions.Proc

    C´ ecile Clavaud, Antoine B´ erut, Bloen Metzger, and Yo¨ el Forterre. Revealing the frictional transition in shear-thickening suspensions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., pages 5147–5152, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Bimodal character of stress transmission in granular packings.Phys

    Farhang Radjai, Dietrich E Wolf, Michel Jean, and Jean-Jacques Moreau. Bimodal character of stress transmission in granular packings.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80(1):61, 1998

    1998

  39. [47]

    Quint, Yaouen Fily, and J

    Silke Henkes, David A. Quint, Yaouen Fily, and J. M. Schwarz. Rigid cluster decomposition reveals criticality in frictional jamming.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:028301, Jan 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Toughening colloidal gels using rough building blocks.Nature Communi- cations, 14(1):5309, 2023

    Florence J M¨ uller, Lucio Isa, and Jan Vermant. Toughening colloidal gels using rough building blocks.Nature Communi- cations, 14(1):5309, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Contact tribology also affects the slow flow behavior of granular emulsions

    Marcel Workamp and Joshua A Dijksman. Contact tribology also affects the slow flow behavior of granular emulsions. Journal of Rheology, 63(2):275–283, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    The role of friction in the yielding of adhesive non-brownian suspensions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07958, 2019

    James A Richards, Ben M Guy, Elena Blanco, Michiel Hermes, Guilhem Poy, and Wilson C K Poon. The role of friction in the yielding of adhesive non-brownian suspensions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07958, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. W. Lees and S. F. Edwards. The computer study of transport processes under extreme conditions.J. Phys. C., 5(15):1921, 1972

    1921

  44. [52]

    Morris, and Morton M

    Romain Mari, Ryohei Seto, Jeffrey F. Morris, and Morton M. Denn. Nonmonotonic flow curves of shear thickening suspensions.Physical Review E, 91(5):052302, May 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Microstructural description of shear-thickening suspensions

    Abhinendra Singh, Jeffrey F Morris, and Morton M Denn. Microstructural description of shear-thickening suspensions. In EPJ Web of Conferences, volume 140, page 09023. EDP Sciences, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Particle scale anisotropy controls bulk properties in sheared granular materials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00653, 2024

    Carmen L Lee, Ephraim Bililign, Emilien Az´ ema, and Karen E Daniels. Particle scale anisotropy controls bulk properties in sheared granular materials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00653, 2024. 12 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION In this section we provide details about effect of slid...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.