Granular Matter (2017) 19:49

DOI 10.1007/s10035-017-0728-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic

deformations under particle load
Mathias Dratt1 · André Katterfeld2

Received: 29 November 2016 / Published online: 23 June 2017

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Abstract Coupled FEM–DEM simulations enable the direct Dpart Particle distribution, mm
analysis of the load, the deformation and the stresses inside E Young modulus of the steel sheet samples,
machine parts which interact with bulk materials. The N/mm2
analysis of large deformations of elastic parts is interesting as E part Particle young modulus, N/mm2
the deformation will significantly influence the bulk material f Element force vector
behaviour. In this paper a bidirectional coupling method for fp Volume load vector
the FEM software ANSYS Classic and the DEM software h max Transfer height, mm
LIGGGHTS is presented. The coupling algorithm was Im Mass flow rate, t/h
verified and validated using a modified draw down test rig. K Element stiffness matrix
The results from the experimental investigations and the L ELEM Finite element edge length, mm
FEM–DEM simulations are compared. A very good correla- lLMP Measurement positions, mm
tion between experiments and simulations could be found. lout Length of the outlet, mm
m total Bulk material total mass, kg
Keywords DEM · FEM · Coupling · Deformation · pk Vector for the element node loads
Validation · Draw down test p Pressure, N/mm2
t Time, s
telem Element thickness, mm
List of symbols tKL Flap opening time, s
tsample Thickness of the steel sheet samples, mm
A Area, mm2 tsim Simulation time, s
bout Width of the outlet, mm v displacement vector
dk Grain size distribution, mm v Poisson ratio, -
vc Contact velocity, m/s
vexp Maximum deformation during the experi-
This article is part of the Topical Collection on: Understanding mental test, mm
granular media - from fundamentals and simulations to industrial vsim Maximum deformation during the analogues
application.
FEM–DEM simulation, mm
B André Katterfeld tDEM DEM timestep, s
andre.katterfeld@ovgu.de tFEM FEM timestep, s
1
v Average of deformation, mm
IBAF GmbH - Institute for Construction Machinery, Drive
ε Porosity, -
Systems and Materials Handling, Listemannstr 10a, 39104
Magdeburg, Germany μP Coulomb friction coefficient, -
2 μR Rolling friction coefficient, -
Chair of Conveying Technology, Institute of Logistic and
Material Handling Systems, Otto von Guericke University μw,perspex Wall friction coefficient between bulk mate-
Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany rial and Perspex, -

123
49 Page 2 of 15
μw,sample Wall friction coefficient between bulk mate-
rial and steel sheet, -
ρ Material density of the steel sheet beams,
kg/m3
ρb Bulk material density, kg/m3
ϕb,stat Angle of repose, ◦
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation
Nowadays numerical simulation methods have become an
essential engineering tool that is widely used in mechanical
engineering and more and more increasing in the field of bulk
material handling. The Finite Element Method (FEM) is usu-
ally used for the analysis of component deformations due to
external loads. The definition of load assumptions is a diffi-
cult problem, if the complex interaction between machine
components and bulk material should be analysed. Often
highly idealised and simplified load assumptions based on
continuum models are used. The use of the Discrete Element
Method (DEM) is an interesting alternative for this problem
due to its capability to consider the granular behaviour of bulk
materials at particle level. The DEM is used primarily for the
optimisation of bulk material flow problems. However, this
method also allows the determination of the realistic load pat-
terns by detecting the contact forces between the simulated
bulk material and the interacting part. Nevertheless, when
applied alone, the DEM is not capable to consider the defor-
mation of the part. To realize a simulation with both, realistic
load assumptions and deformed machines components, the
coupling between FEM and DEM is necessary.
Different requirements on the developed FEM–DEM
coupling result from the deformability of the machine com-
ponent. If the deformations of the stressed component are
negligibly small, the behaviour of the bulk material is not
significantly influenced. Applications with negligible defor-
mations of the machine components are e.g. chutes, impact
walls, scraper blades etc.. Therefore, it is possible to neglect
the feedback of the component deformations on the entire
bulk material flow. In contrast, the bulk material flow is
significantly influenced for large deformations. A typical
application with large deformations is the load analysis for
idler bearings at a belt conveyor. The idler load depends on
the belt pretension, conveying speed and the belt deflection
due to the bulk load. In this case the deformation of the belt
plays an important role and cannot be neglected [1,2].
The FEM–DEM coupling presented in this paper con-
siders both options. Hence, the coupling should allow the
analysis of (high-) dynamic deformation processes for indus-
trial applications such as scraper or belt conveyors. Beside
the description of the coupling method also the validation of
123
M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld
the coupling is presented in this paper. For the validation, the
load dependent sag of a cantilever beam which is positioned
in the centre of a bulk material stream is measured and sim-
ulated. The comparison of the experimental and simulated
data should prove the developed coupling method.
1.2 Literature review
The amount of papers to the topic of coupled FEM–DEM
simulation is quite limited. Most work focuses on the devel-
opment of an in-house code and implement FEM and DEM
algorithms in one software. This may be sufficient to solve
one problem. But the possibility of a reuse for different appli-
cations is low. The alternative is the coupling of existing
simulation software via specific protocols. Of course, there
is no general coupling interface found in most (commercial)
software packages. Hence, the most general approach is the
indirect data exchange via binary or ASCII files. The advan-
tages of this approach are, that the features and the usability
of existing programs can be used and the coupling strategy
can be applied for different software packages. Hence, this
approach was used for the presented coupling.
One of the most important publications for the direct cou-
pling of DEM and FEM is the pioneering work of Munjiza
[3]. Although the title of Munjizas book “Combined finite-
discrete Element Method” seems to be very close to the topic
of this paper, Munjizas work has a totally different focus.
His aim is to model single or many deformable solids or
solids which can break into many fragments. To allow this,
Munjiza merges “Finite element-based analysis of contin-
ua… with discrete element-based transient dynamics, contact
detection and contact interaction solutions” [3]. Hence, the
Combined finite-discrete Element Method may be used for
the simulation of mining processes like rock blasting or rock
cutting [4,5] or the simulation of structural collapse in earth
quake scenarios [6] and for impact simulations with military
background. However, Munjizas approach cannot be used
for the analysis of the interaction of particles and machine
components.
Papers with the same focus like the presented work are
published by Villard et al. [7], Wellmann and Wriggers [8,9],
Stránský and Jirásek [10] and Michael et al. [11]. These
works describe the interaction of particles with boundary
structures based on coupled FEM–DEM simulations using
in-house codes. Wellmann and Wriggers describe the defor-
mation of a rubber membrane filled with particles under
vertical load and the deformation of a bended shell caused by
the load of a particle bed. The deformation of a membrane
which is in contact with particles is also described by Villard
et al. [7]. Michael et al. [11] uses coupled FEM–DEM simula-
tions for the analysis of the tire behaviour on the ground. The
ground was modeled by a bed of particles. In all mentioned
publications [7–11] the transfer of the contact forces from the
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load
Fig. 1 Coupling strategy.
Calculation cycle of the
FEM–DEM coupling with
ANSYS Classic and
LIGGGHTS visualised on the
example of a loaded fixed beam
DEM simulation to the FE model is realized using equivalent
node forces. But the implementation of the finite elements is
limited to linear triangular shell elements and/or linear tetra-
hedral elements, thus finite elements without midside nodes.
The reason for this limitation is probably the use of planar
triangulated surfaces in most DEM algorithms. Hence, such
a FEM–DEM coupling on equation level requires the same
meshing of the structure in FEM and DEM and therefore,
the use of these basic finite element types. However, it is
very well known that these basic finite element types cause
a relatively stiff behavior of the FE model which will under-
estimate the occurring deformations. Hence, such elements
are rarely used and the more sophisticated FEM codes will
not support their use.
Two commercial DEM programs EDEMTM and Rocky
offer the coupling to FEM (ANSYS Workbench) and prob-
ably the use of more sophisticated finite elements. But these
codes only allow a one-way coupling (unidirectional). Hence,
applications with large deformations of the machine compo-
nent and its influence of the bulk material flow cannot be
simulated.
The FEM–DEM coupling presented in this work allows
a bidirectional coupling as well as the use of state of the art
finite element types with a squared displacement approach.
2 Developed coupling
2.1 General coupling strategy
The general coupling idea is visualised in Fig. 1 on the exam-
ple of the sag calculation of a loaded fixed beam. The main
idea is the data exchange between FEM and DEM simulation
via ASCII files. For better understanding Fig. 2 visualises the
timetable of the coupling.
Page 3 of 15 49
In the first step an extended stl-file is derived from an
arbitrarily meshed part in the FEM program ANSYS Clas-
sic (step in Fig. 2). The stl-file contains beside the actual
triangulated surface elements also the number of the orig-
inal finite element. The extended stl-file can be imported
in the used DEM program LIGGGHTS and defines the
deformable machine component which interacts with the par-
ticles (step in Fig. 2). After a certain time tFEM (which is
a multitude of the much smaller DEM time step tDEM ) the
time averaged contact forces from the particle load on each
wall element are written in an ASCII file marked with the
file extension “*.fem” for the import into the FEM software
(step in Fig. 2). The DEM loads can be assigned to the
right finite element in the FEM program due to submitted ID
of the finite element (step in Fig. 2). A very important task
is the calculation of the node forces based on the load for
each element. This calculation is trivial for primitive meshes
but it requires some additional thoughts if the method should
work for modern shell and volume elements of higher order.
Hence, this issue is addressed in the following subsection.
An unidirectional coupling would end after the calculation
of the deformation in the FEM program (step in Fig. 2).
For a truly bidirectional coupling the new deformed mesh
is exported into a new extended ASCII file (step in Fig. 2).
This time not only the new coordinates of the nodes are trans-
ferred to the DEM but also the interpolated node velocities
which are calculated based on the time step tFEM for each
load step (LS). Hence, the file is saved in the more general
csv-format. The node velocities allow a direct deformation of
the meshed wall structure in LIGGGHTS over time. With
this approach the particles do not loose contact to the walls
and the shear forces (based on an incremental calculation of
the tangential overlap) do not get lost. The coupling cycle
continues with the calculation of the new loads on the mesh
123
49 Page 4 of 15
Fig. 2 Time schedule for the developed FEM–DEM coupling
in the DEM (step in Fig. 2) and the export of a new load
file for the FEM part (step in Fig. 2).
2.2 Calculation of node forces for arbitrarily shaped
meshes
FEM breaks problems down to small elements that are con-
nected at nodes and solves them individually. In applications
that model thin walled components in three-dimensions the
use of shell elements is preferred. This special type of ele-
ment unites the membrane stiffness of membrane elements
as well as the bending stiffness of plate elements [12,13].
Typical examples of these elements are three-dimensional
square 6-node triangle and 8-node rectangle elements. The
term square relates to the polynomial degree of the shape
function of the element type that describes the deformation
of those elements. Compared to linear elements this type has
extra nodes in the middle of its sides that allows adapting
the edges to a square function. The increase in the degrees
of freedom results in higher accuracy of the results while
keeping the number of elements low [14].
To develop a realistic coupling approach, it is important to
identify the corresponding elements in the finite and discrete
element simulations. To verify this, the finite element mesh
with its element nodes I to L is transferred into an stl-format.
By breaking the 8-node rectangle elements into a pair of tri-
angle areas it is guaranteed that the derived areas are planar,
which is needed by the DEM contact laws. The same happens
for 6-node triangle elements that are transferred into a trian-
gular area. If the FEM mesh is mixed and contains rectangle
and triangle elements together, it is important to verify that
one pair of triangle stl-areas is corresponding to one rectan-
gle element and a single triangle element to only one triangle
stl-area. This is ensured by exporting the element number
as additional information in the stl-file. Figure 3 shows the
basic principal of the DEM–FEM coupling in the case of the
ith 8-node rectangle element and its related pair of derived
123
M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld
triangle areas. The vectors resulting from the contact forces
of particles and walls FID(n) and FID(n+1) is summed up to
the load vector Fi . This is not needed for the corresponding
area of a triangle element; its load vector results directly from
the contact force. As published by Dratt in 2010 [1,15], the
contribution of the global x, y and z-components of the load
vector is assigned to equivalent node forces. The required
weighting factors are related to the used finite element types
(line, surface, or volume elements) and the degree of poly-
nomial of their shape functions.
The node displacements of a 8-node rectangle element are
described by the following eight shape functions Eqs. (1)–
(3) used with dimensionless, natural coordinates ξ and η in a
range of ξ, η = ± 1. These equations correspond to the unit
displacement functions of the 8-node master square as shown
on the right side of Fig. 3 on which every 8-node rectangle
element is mapped with Cartesian coordinates. This helps to
avoid changing shape functions used for multiple element
geometry in the Cartesian coordinate system [14].
1
Nk (ξ, η) = − (1 + ξk ξ ) (1 + ηk η)
4
(1 − ξk ξ − ηk η) für k = I, J, K , L (1)
1  
Nk (ξ, η) = (1 + ξk ξ ) 1 − η2 für k = N , P (2)
2
1 
Nk (ξ, η) = 1 − ξ 2 (1 + ηk η) für k = M, O (3)
2
The shape function can be summed as a matrix as shown in
Eq. (4):
 
NI 0 NJ 0 NK 0 NL 0 NM 0 NN 0 NO 0 NP 0
N= .
0 NI 0 NJ 0 NK 0 NL 0 NM 0 NN 0 NO 0 NP
(4)
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load Page 5 of 15 49

Fig. 3 a Basic principal of the DEM–FEM coupling by using a 8-node rectangle square and a 6-node triangle element. b Structure of a 6-node
master triangle and a 8-node master square

According to Bathe [16], the elastic potential of a general 

P

finite element is given by Eq. (5): p= pk Nk (ξ, η) = N · pK mit k = I . . . P. (7)

k=I

1 T Derived from the volume loads the general form of the force

= v Kv − vT f. (5)
2 vector is:

In Eq. (5) v is the node displacement vector, f is the element  z 2 y2 x2
force vector and K is the element stiffness matrix. The con- fp = N N · pK dV =
T
NT N · pK dx dy dz. (8)
tribution of the elements weight is the force vector resulting (V ) z 1 y1 x1
from the volume load fp .
The boundaries and differential of the volume integral in
 Eq. (8) is positioned in the Cartesian coordinate system while
fp = NT p dV (6) the shape function approach Eqs. (1) and (3) is in natural ξ-
(V ) η-coordinates. The coordinate’s transformation is completed
using the reduced two-dimensional Jacobi-matrix:
According to Bathe [16], the load p is interpolated using    ∂y

∂x
the shape function approach and results in the vector for the J11 J12 ∂ξ ∂ξ
J= = ∂x ∂y . (9)
element node loads pk : J21 J22 ∂η ∂η

123
49 Page 6 of 15
Fig. 4 Assignment of the resulting nodal forces for corner, midside and shared nodes. a Regular arranged FE-mesh; b mixed FE-mesh
The differential dz corresponds to the constant imaginary
element thickness telem . The transformation relation results
according to Betten [14] as the determinant of the reduced
Jacobi-matrix:
dV = dx dy telem = telem detJ dξ dη. (10)
The force vector fp resulting from the volume load of the
weight of the element results in natural ξ-η-coordinates from
the relationship:
1 1
fp = NT N · pK telem detJ dξ dη. (11)
−1 −1
By solving the integral Eq. (11) a constant value of −1/12 is
calculated for the corner nodes I to K and 1/3 for the midside
nodes M to P as shown in Fig. 3a. These weight factors can
be applied for elements in the shape of a square, a rectangle
and a parallelogram and can be adapted directly for three
dimensions. The same approach can be used to calculate the
weight factors for the 6-node triangle elements, only the inte-
gration boundaries have to be changed according to Fig. 3b.
The factors are 1/3 for the midside nodes M, N , P and 0 for
the corner nodes I, J and K . The extension of the calcula-
tions over the whole model takes the neighbouring relations
of nearby elements with shared nodes into account. If a node
belongs to several elements then as a first step the x-, y-, and
z-load vectors of the element are calculated and multiplied
123
M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld
by the weight factors. The equivalent node forces are then
summed and applied to the nodes. This is shown in Fig. 4.
Based on the preceding analysis we now describe, how
to find the weight factors for distorted, planar 8-node rect-
angle elements as shown in Fig. 5. Plane element surfaces
require all nodes I…P to be in the x-y-plane and the midside
nodes M…P are on a direct connection line of the corner
nodes I…L. Using an imaginary element thickness of telem
and a constant material density ρelem the determinate of the
Jacobi-transformation matrix will not result in a constant
value, but rather in a polynomial in relation to ξ, η that has to
be included in the integration of the element areas, as show
in Eq. (11). The weight factors are always referenced to the
x-y-coordinates so they cannot be directly adapted for three
dimensions. For this reason, a calculation of the weight factor
is needed that is independent of the shape function.
If such an element is loaded with a volume force fp , having
a constant element thickness telem and a density ρelem and is
mounted in the centre of gravity it has to be in balance. In that
case the potential Πi for the element is calculated following
the principal of the elastic potential at an extreme, in this
case the minimum, according to Mueller [12]. In the current
situation the boundary conditions for the centre of gravity of
the area Si(I...P) in relation to the individual areas is given by
the following geometric relation:
1
Ai(IMSP) + Ai(NKOS) = Ai(MJNS) + Ai(OLPS) = Ai , (12)
2
1
Ai(MNSP) + Ai(OPNS) = Ai(PMSO) + Ai(NOSM) = Ai . (13)
2
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load Page 7 of 15 49

Fig. 5 Context of the areas Ai(k) in comparison to the centre of gravity of an element Si(I...P) of a planar, distorted 8-node square element

From these relations, it follows that, if the sum of opposite factors of the master triangle stay the same since the relation
individual areas Ai(k) is half of the area Ai of the planar between the individual areas and the element area is consis-
distorted 8-node element, then the sum of the weight fac- tent. When an element is wrapped or has curved sides the
tors must be −2/12 for the corner nodes I…L and 2/3 for sub area relations are used automatically as an approxima-
the midside nodes M. . .P as in the master square to ensure tion. The error that occurs from this approximation correlates
equilibrium. to the element size and can be pushed under 1% using a well-
This statement allows the determination of the weight fac- conditioned FE-mesh.
tors Wi(j,k) for the planar distorted 8-node element using the
relation of the single areas Ai(k) . Wi(j,k) is the weight factor
of the ith element and the jth component (x, y or z), at the
3 Verification
node position k = I..P.
A simple test case of a fixed beam under constant load was
1 1 
P
used to verify the coupling algorithms. As shown in Fig. 1,
N I · pk Nk detJ dξ dη · the load was generated by a particle bed. The results of the
−1 −1 k=I
coupled simulations were compared to the analytical calcu-
⎧ ⎡ 1 1 ⎤⎫−1
⎨P   
P ⎬ lations using a 1st order approach assuming small deforma-
⎣ N k · pk Nk detJ dξ dη⎦ tions. The dimensions of the beam were chosen as 1000 ×
⎩ ⎭ 100×100 mm (L×W×H). The well-known material param-
k=I −1 −1 k=I
  eters for mild steel are applied. In a first step the constant area
1 Ai(NKOS)
= Wi(j,I) = − (14) load of p = 0.005 N/mm2 was applied to the FE mesh with
6 Ai(IMSP) + Ai(NKOS) an element edge length of L ELEM = 50 mm which was also
1 1 
P the diameter Dpart of the monodisperse particle bed. The
N M · pk Nk detJ dξ dη · comparison of the simulated and analytically calculated
−1 −1 k=I maximum sag of the beam showed a difference of less
⎧ ⎡ 1 1 ⎤⎫−1 than 1%. The difference could be explained by the uneven
⎨P   
P ⎬ load distribution of the randomly generated particle bed.
⎣ N k · pk Nk detJ dξ dη⎦
⎩ ⎭ Less than 0.01% difference could be reached, if a parti-
k=I −1 −1 k=I
  cle bed with a cubical structure was generated above the
2 Ai(OPSN) beam.
= Wi(j,M) = (15)
3 Ai(MNSP) + Ai(OPSN) Further, the influence of the ratio between the element
edge length and the particle diameter was investigated by
The weight factors in Eqs. (14) and (15) left for the nodes a series of simulations with varying ratio. In [17] could
I and M are derived from the relation for the nodes given be shown, that a ratio range of Dpart /L ELEM = 1/8. . .40
in Eq. (11) and the total element area Ai and match with the did not cause significant differences in the simulated sag.
results calculated using the sub areas Ai(k) on the right. If The difference to the analytical result was still less than
using planar distorted 6-node triangle elements the weight 0.01%.

123
49 Page 8 of 15
Fig. 6 Modified draw down
test rig for validation tests
4 Validation
In addition to verification tests based on the analysis of the
static sag of a fixed beam, dynamic validation tests with
large deformations were undertaken. The test results were
compared with analogous bidirectional FEM–DEM simula-
tions. For the experimental validation tests a modified draw
down test rig was used (Figs. 6, 7, 8). The test rig combines
material flow and deformation analysis by the determina-
tion of the load dependent sag of a cantilever beam which is
positioned in the centre of a bulk material stream. The aim
of the validation experiment was the prove of the coupling
method for further use in industrial application. The main
aim was not to increase the physical or theoretical under-
standing of what is happening in the impact zone of the
cantilever beam. Therefore, only some general comments
will be made on the fundamental characteristics of the flow
regime.
The following test procedure was used. A bulk material is
filled through the hopper into the upper chamber of the draw
down test rig. The outlet-length can be defined by using two
hand-slides below this chamber (Fig. 7, left). The width of
123
M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld
the outlet has a constant value of bout = 100 mm defined by
the inner dimension of the upper chamber. The length of the
outlet can be varied from lout = 0 to 500 mm. Thus, the mass
flow rate Im can be changed. Once the outlet-dimension is
defined and the filling process is completed, a flap-system
below the hand-slides can be opened (Fig. 7, right). After the
opening, the bulk material is flowing through the outlet into
the lower chamber.
The lower chamber can be completely removed from the
test rig and includes a firmly connected measuring frame
(Fig. 8). The frame can also be removed from the lower cham-
ber after unlocking the screw connections. The frame consists
of two transverse supports which are movable in z-direction.
The upper transverse support is used to fasten a steel sheet
sample as the cantilever beam. The lower transverse support
below the sample is equipped with a laser-optical sensor,
which is additionally movable in x-direction. The measuring
range of 200 mm is shown in Fig. 8 as a solid line passing
the steel sheet sample.
The steel sheet deflects when the bulk material impacts
it. The deformation depends on the dimensions of the sam-
ple, especially the thickness tsample , the young modulus E,
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load
Fig. 7 Left Hand-slides and
outlet; Right flap-system
Fig. 8 Lower chamber with integrated measuring frame
the incoming mass flow rate Im and the contact velocity vc
as a result of the falling height h max . The deformation of
the sample is being measured over the entire duration of the
experimental test with a laser-optical sensor. In addition, for
an optical evaluation the tests were recorded with a high-
speed camera.
For the validation tests four steel sheet samples with
different thicknesses tsample = 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2 mm were
used. The falling height was set to h max = 360 mm and
is defined by the distance between the lower edge of the
flap-system and the upper edge of the steel sheet sam-
ple. The outlet length was set to lout = 40 and 100 mm.
The deformation measurement was undertaken for two posi-
tions lLMP = 60 and 100 mm from the outer edge of the
samples.
Three different cohesionless bulk materials were used for
the validation tests (Fig. 9): plastic granulate, wheat and
potash granulate. The bulk material parameters were deter-
mined experimentally. The angle of repose ϕb,stat can be
Page 9 of 15 49
measured directly after the tests by measuring the slope of
the material which remains in the upper chamber.
The calibration of the DEM parameters was done in a first
step using the angles of repose ϕb,stat in the upper cham-
ber (Fig. 10). For this, the static Coulomb friction μP and
rolling friction μR of the particles were varied. In an addi-
tional second calibration step the mass flow rates Im was
used for the fine adjustment of the friction parameters. Im
was measured during the validation experiments as well as
in a simulated parameter study of the discharge behaviour
in the upper chamber. The second calibration step was
necessary because the deformation of the steel sheets depends
directly on the values of the incoming mass flow rates. Hence,
it is essential not only to achieve the same angle of repose
but also to achieve a comparable mass flow rate similar to
the experiments.
For the particle distribution Dpart , the real grain size dis-
tributions dk of all bulk material samples were used. The
following Table 1 summarizes all experimental bulk mate-
123
49 Page 10 of 15 M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld

Fig. 9 Bulk material samples. a Plastic granulate; b wheat; c potash granulate

Fig. 10 Bulk material samples in the upper chamber of the validation angle of repose after opening of the flap-system, g–i evaluation of the
test rig. Left Plastic granulate; middle wheat; right potash granulate; angle of repose after experimental test, j–l evaluation of the angle of
a–c Starting situation with even bulk material surface, d–f left and right repose after DEM simulations

123
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load Page 11 of 15 49

Table 1 Summary of all DEM

Properties/bulk material Plastic granulate Wheat Potash granulate
parameters for the coupled
FEM–DEM simulation Contact model Hertz Mindlin no slip. Rolling friction model according to an adopted
elastic plastic spring dashpot model according to Wensrich et al. [18]
Bulk density,ρb [kg/m3 ] 577 743 971
Angle of repose, ϕb,stat [◦ ] 26 26 36
Uniformly distributed particle size, 3.8…5.3 3.0…5.0 2.5…6.0
Dpart [mm]
Porosity, ε [−] 0.385 0.402 0.487
Wall friction coefficient,μw,sample 0.148 0.215 0.208
[−] (bulk material vs. steel sheet)
Wall friction coefficient, 0.22 0.26 0.183
μw,perspex [−] (bulk material vs.
Perspex)
Bulk material mass, m total [kg] 13 6 10
Coulomb friction, μP [−] 0.12 0.17 0.5
Rolling friction, μR [−] 0.3 0.18 0.3
Particle young modulus, E part [Pa] 1e8
Poisson ratio, ν [−] 0.3
DEM timestep, tDEM [s] 2.5e − 5 and 1.0e − 5

rial parameters and the calibrated DEM particle parameters
for the coupled FEM–DEM simulation.
The system parameters of the test rig were directly used
for the simulation model. In the DEM simulations, all wall
surfaces of the test rig were considered. For the FEM, it
is only necessary to consider the cantilever beam modelled
out of shell or volume elements. The FEM simulation is exe-
cuted as a transient analysis (time integration). The following
Table 2 summarizes all system parameters of the test rig and
the used FEM parameters.
To highlight the most important validation results the
tests configuration wheat, steel sheet thickness of tsample =
Table 2 Summary of all system and FEM parameters for the coupled
FEM–DEM simulation
Description
Falling height, h max [mm]
Outlet length, lout [mm]
Measurement positions, lLMP [mm]
Flap opening time, tKl [s]
Thickness of the steel sheet samples, tsample [mm]
Dimension of the steel sheet samples, L × W
[mm]
Area of locked DOF’s on the steel sheet samples,
L × W [mm]
Young modulus, E[N/mm2 ]
Poisson ratio, ν [−]
Material density, ρ [kg/m3 ]
Element edge length, L ELEM [mm]
FEM timestep, tFEM [s]
0.75 mm, outlet length lout = 40 mm and a measurement
position of lLMP = 60 mm are used. The results of the laser-
optical measurement and the modelled displacement of the
cantilever beam are presented in Fig. 11.
In Fig. 11 several characteristic points – can be iden-
tified in the measurement data. Fig. 12a–f shows a sequence
of images from the high-speed camera which assigns the real
behaviour of the experiment and the simulation to the char-
acteristic points. Peaks in the experimental data result from
falling particles which cross the laser for a very short time.
The characteristic points can be interpreted as follows:
1. After t = 0.2 s the flap-system is completely open. The
first particles contact the cantilever beam at t = 0.25 s
(compare point in Figs. 11, 12a). The initial mass flow
Value
rate (t = 0. . .0.5 s) is significantly higher than the mass
360 flow rate in steady state (t = 0.5. . .1.5 s). The reason
40/100 for this is an initial bulk material reservoir between the
60/100 hand-slides and the flap-system.
0.2 2. After the opening of the flap-system the initial bulk mate-
0.75/1/1.5/2 rial reservoir forms a kind of “bulk material drop” which
340 × 100 results in an initial impulse when hitting the steel sheet.
This causes the maximum deformation during the whole
60 × 100 test of vexp = −52.8 mm at t = 0.32 s . The simulation
shows almost the identical max. deformation at this time
185.000 (vsim = −54.3 mm).
0.3 3. The abrupt reduction of the mass flow rate at t =
7850 0.42 s causes a swing back of the steel sheet sample in
10 experiment and simulation results . At this point a
0.001 slightly lower deformation in the simulation can be
recognised.

123
49 Page 12 of 15
Fig. 11 Comparison of the
deformation data from the
experimental test and the
FEM–DEM simulation with
wheat (m total = 6 kg), a steel
sheet sample thickness of
tsample = 0.75 mm, an outlet
length of lout = 40 mm and a
measurement position of
lLMP = 60 mm
4. The constant mass flow rate in steady state from t =
0.5 to 1.5 s causes an almost constant deformation of
the steel sheet sample . The average deformation in
experiment and simulation is almost identical (approx.
v = −26 mm).
5. After t = 2 s a large part of the bulk material has
left the upper chamber. The mass flow rate and the
resulting deformation of the steel sheet sample is reduced
non-linearly until t = 4.5 s . The real and simulated
deformation curves are approximately equal.
6. The final deformation state at t = 4.5 s is only influ-
enced by the bulk material resting on the steel sheet
sample. At this point a very good correlation between
the results of the experimental test and the simulation
can be found too.
The deformation curves in Fig. 11 as well as the synchronized
image sequences in Fig. 12 show a very good correlation
between the experimental test and the coupled simulation.
It is obvious, that the sag of the cantilever beam is strongly
dependent on the impacting mass. The good correlation of
experimental data and simulation can be explained by the
following reasons:
1. The observed “free fall and impact” problem demand
the conservation of momentum in the coupled simula-
tion approach. Due to the correct data exchange between
DEM and FEM this fundamental physical law is fulfilled.
The developed coupling algorithm works for arbitrary
meshed geometries and can be universally used.
123
M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld
2. The mass flow rate of the particle stream is almost identi-
cal in experiment and simulation. This requires the right
chose of the micromechanical properties of the DEM
particles. The proper calibration of these parameters
is a very important prerequisite in any DEM simula-
tion. Obviously, the used calibration procedure and the
resulting DEM parameters allow a realistic simulation of
the particle behaviour.
3. The deformation speed is mainly dependent on the initial
impulse and requires a minimum coupling time step of
tFEM = 1e − 3 s. Such a coupling time step allows
the consideration of the true interaction of steel sheet
and bulk material stream. With typical DEM time steps
of tDEM = 1e − 5...2.5e − 5 s this results in a ratio
tFEM /tDEM of 40…100.
Figure 13 shows a more detailed look inside the material
stream in the moment of the highest sag at t = 0.32 s ( ).
To show the particle behaviour inside the stream, a slice of
particles with a slice thickness of two times the maximum
particle diameter in the x-z-plane is shown. The impact zone
is relatively dense packed with particles (Fig. 13a). The par-
ticle stream falls with a velocity of 3 m/s onto the beam. The
influence of air resistance as well as fluidisation effects can
be neglected due to the low velocities and the relatively large
particles. The falling particles in the stream do not hit the
beam directly. They hit the layer of particles which is dammed
on the beam. The dammed particle layer show lower veloci-
ties of less than 1 m/s. While the particles in the zone directly
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load Page 13 of 15 49

Fig. 12 Comparison of
high-speed camera images from
the experimental test and
analogue FEM–DEM simulation
results for wheat (m total = 6 kg),
a steel sheet sample thickness of
tsample = 0.75 mm, an outlet
length of lout = 60 mm and the
measurement position of
lLMP = 60 mm

123
49 Page 14 of 15
Fig. 13 Particle behaviour in the impact zone during the highest sag
of the beam at t = 0.32 s ( ). A slice of particles with a thickness
of 2 × Dmax in the x-z-plane is shown. The magnitude of the particle
below the impact zone have a relatively high rotational speed,
the most particles in direct contact with the beam wall have a
reduced rotational speed (Fig. 13c). Hence, the particle slide
and roll along the beam (Fig. 13b+c).
5 Conclusion
The presented article has shown that coupled simulations
based on the Finite and Discrete Element Method sig-
nificantly improves the quality of the analysis of bulk
material handling processes with significant deformations
of machine parts. This is possible due to the more real-
istic consideration of the complex load patterns resulting
from the contact between the bulk material and the machine
parts.
The validation shows a very good correlation between
experimental and simulated results. Although the described
experiments and simulations where mainly undertaken to
prove the coupling algorithm, some fundamental observa-
tions could be made. The sag of the cantilever beam with a
given thickness is mainly influenced by the impacting mass
of the material stream. Hence, the mass flow rate of the mate-
rial stream determines the sag. The good correspondence of
experiment and simulation proves that the developed cou-
pling method fulfils the required conservation of momentum.
One reason for the fulfillment of this fundamental physi-
cal law is the proper implementation of the data exchange
between DEM and FEM, especially the developed coupling
algorithm including the derivation of the node forces in
the FEM part which allows the use of arbitrary meshed
geometries. Another reason for the good correlation between
123
M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld
velocity is shown by particle colour (a) or coloured arrows (b) to allow
an understanding of the general flow regime. In (c) the rotational speed
of the particles is shown via the particle colour
experiment and simulation is the correct calibration of the
DEM parameters. The used calibration procedure considers
the angle of repose as well as the discharge time. The right
calibration allowed the simulation of a realistic mass flow
rate at the outlet of the upper chamber and also the realis-
tic micromechanical behaviour of the particles in the impact
zone.
Hence, the developed FEM–DEM coupling between
ANSYS Classic and LIGGGHTS can be used for a
realistic analysis of the interactions between bulk materi-
als and machine parts [2] also for high-dynamic deformation
processes. The validated coupling algorithm can be used for
the simulation of industrial applications in e.g. material han-
dling. With this simulation approach the virtual development
process of bulk solid handling equipment can be improved.
Design variants can be easily analysed regarding the required
strength and reliability.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the German Ministry of
Research and Education for the financial support of the research project
“SimBa” (01 IS 13 006 A).
References
1. Katterfeld, A., Dratt, M., Wheeler, C.A.: Coupling ANSYS and
PFC3D for the simulation of the conveyor belt deflection. In: Con-
tinuum and Distinct Element Numerical Modeling in Geomechan-
ics, Proceedings of the 2nd International FLAC/DEM Symposium.
Itasca Consulting Group, Melbourne (2011)
2. Dratt, M., Katterfeld, A., Wheeler, C.A.: Determination of the
bulk flexure resistance via coupled FEM–DEM simulation. In:
Bulk Solids Handling, no. 3, pp. 50–58. WoMa Media, Clausthal-
Zellerfeld (2015)
Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic deformations under particle load
3. Munjiza, A.: The Combined Finite-Discrete Element Method, 1st
edn. Wiley, Chichester (2004)
4. Labra, C., Rojek, J., Oñate, E.: Adaptive discrete/finite element
coupling for rock cutting process simulations. In: Munjiza, A. (ed.)
Discrete Element Methods. Simulations of Discontinua: Theory
and Applications, pp. 428–433. Queen Mary University, London
(2010)
5. Rojek, J., Oñate, E.: Multiscale analysis using a coupled dis-
crete/finite element model. Interact. Multiscale Mech. 1(1), 1–31
(2007)
6. Lu, X., Lin, X., Ye, L.: Simulation of structural collapse with cou-
pled finite element-discrete element method. In: Yuan, Y., Cui, J.,
Mang, H. A. (eds.) Computational Structural Engineering, pp. 127–
135. Springer, Shanghai (2009)
7. Villard, P., Chevalier, B., Le Hello, B., Combe, G.: Coupling
between finite and discrete element methods for modeling of earth
structures reinforced by geosynthetic. Comput. Geotech. Elsevier
36, 709–717 (2009)
8. Wellmann, C., Wriggers, P.: A coupled 3D discrete-finite element
method for the simulation of granular materials and their interaction
with solid structures. In: Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and
Mechanics (PAMM), vol. 8, pp. 10353–10354. Wiley, Weinheim
(2008)
9. Wellmann, C., Lillie, C., Wriggers, P.: A coupled discrete-finite ele-
ment method modeling the interactions of granular materials and
solid structures. In: 8th Word Congress on Computational Mechan-
ics (WCCM8), 5th European Congress on Computational Methods
in Applied Science and Engineering (ECCOMAS 2008), Venice
(2008)
Page 15 of 15 49
10. Stránský, J., Jirásek, M.: Open source FEM–DEM coupling. In:
18th International Conference Engineering Mechanics, pp. 1237–
1251, Svratka (2012)
11. Michael, M., Vogel, F., Peters, B.: XDEM–FEM coupling of the
intersections between a tire tread and granular terrain. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. Elsevier 289, 227–248 (2015)
12. Müller, G., Groth, C.: FEM für Praktiker Band 1: Grundlagen, 8th
edn. Expert Verlag, Renningen (2007)
13. Klein, B.: Grundlagen und Anwendungen der Finite Elemente
Methode im Maschinen- und Fahrzeugbau, 7th edn. Vieweg Verlag,
Wiesbaden (2007)
14. Betten, Josef: Finite Elemente für Ingenieure 1&2. Springer, Hei-
delberg (1997)
15. Dratt, M., Katterfeld, A., Wheeler, C.A.: Prediction of belt deflec-
tion by coupling of FEM and DEM simulations. In: Bulk Solids
Handling, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 380–384. Vogel Business Media,
Würzburg (2010)
16. Bathe, K.-J.: Finite-Elemente-Methoden, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
(2009)
17. Dratt, M.: Kopplung von FEM- und DEM-Simulationen zur
Analyse der Gut-Bauteil-Interaktion in der Fördertechnik. Otto-
von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, PhD Thesis (2016)
18. Wensrich, C.M., Katterfeld, A.: Rolling friction as a technique for
modelling particle shape in DEM. Powder Technol. 217, 409–417
(2012)
123