Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

An efficient technique for generating homogeneous

specimens for DEM studies
M.J. Jiang, J.M. Konrad*, S. Leroueil
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4
Received 3 December 2002; received in revised form 7 May 2003; accepted 12 May 2003

Abstract
A new technique, designated as the Multi-layer with Undercompaction Method (UCM), capable of generating homogeneous
specimens for DEM studies is presented herein. The specimen are compacted in several layers using undercompaction criteria based
on average planar void ratio. The proposed approach was compared to other available methods and was proven to generate very
homogeneous specimens provided a nonlinear average undercompaction criterion was used. Furthermore, the UCM method was
efficient for a variety of density conditions ranging from very loose to dense states.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Distinct element method; Homogeneity; Numerical simulation; Specimen generation

1. Introduction can be controlled, it is ideal for understanding the fun-

Natural soils consist of particles, macropores, micro-
pores, pore fluids (air, water, others), assembled with
interparticle bonding to form a fabric. The behaviour of
natural soils is complex and difficult to describe ade-
quately by conventional non-linear elastic models or
elasto-plastic models. In order to gain some insight into
the behaviour of these soils, micro-mechanics may
prove helpful.
In the past, two approaches were used to study parti-
cle interaction using micromechanics. The first one uses
laboratory experiments on natural sand or rods to
observe the changes in the contact distribution within
the specimen [1,2], or in shear bands [3]. Problems with
laboratory experiments are apparent: inability to pre-
pare exact replicates of the physical system, difficulty to
observe the microstructural response of the grain
arrangement under undrained loading, i.e. with pore
water generation [4]. The second approach simulates the
soil using the Distinct Element Method (DEM) as pro-
posed by Cundall et al. [5,6]. DEM is able to monitor
the evolution of internal stresses and contact behaviour
in a non-destructive manner. It also facilitates sample
reproducibility. Since external stresses and stress paths
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-418-656-3878; fax: +1-418-656-
2928.
E-mail address: jean-marie.konrad@gci.ulaval.ca (J.M. Konrad).
0266-352X/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0266-352X(03)00064-8
damental behaviour of given particle assemblages dur-
ing any type of loading and it may be used to develop
and validate constitutive relationships for soils.
Since the pioneering work carried out more than two
decades ago [5,6], DEM has proven to be a useful tool
that was applied in many fields, such as fluid dynamics
and particularly soil mechanics. A general overview was
presented in reference [7] on the application of DEM to
granular media. Research work in DEM related to soil
mechanics can be mainly grouped into the following
areas:
1. Static behaviour of granular media using differ-
ent particle shapes: disks [8]; 2-D elliptical or oval
shaped particles [9]; angular elements [10]; disk-
clusters [11]; disks with rolling resistance [12]; 3-D
spheres [13,14]; 3-D ellipsoids [15]. These studies
were performed with elastic contact laws based on
Hertzian theory for 3-D codes, while linear-elastic
contact laws were used in 2-D codes.
2. Clay behaviour in compression using slate-
shaped particles and considering repulsive force
between particles [16], including mechanism of
macro-anisotropy and micro-anisotropy in
cohesive soils [17]; or viscous creep behaviour of
soil by considering interparticle sliding with both
viscous and frictional component for the contact
laws [18].
580 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
3. Strain localisation of granular materials during
shear using disk shaped particles [19–22] and
disks with a rolling resistance [23].
4. Dynamic behaviour and liquefaction of regularly-
packed disk assemblies [24,25] and randomly-
packed disk assemblies using the ‘‘quasi-pore
pressure’’ method [26,27].
Except for the works on granular soils by a few
researchers [28], all other DEM analyses were carried
out on densely-packed granular specimens. Peculiar
behaviours of natural soil, as well as liquefaction and
static collapse in loose sand, are areas of great interest
for the geotechnical engineers. Because current techni-
ques used for generating specimens hardly result in
homogeneous loose/medium specimens, as will be
shown below, the first task before studying peculiar
behaviours of natural soil and liquefaction phenomena
in granular media was to develop an efficient technique
to generate homogeneous loose/medium specimens for
DEM studies.
In this paper, different techniques for DEM sample
generation are studied, especially with respect to sam-
ple homogeneity. A new DEM technique, referred to
as the multi-layer with undercompaction method
(UCM), is proposed to generate homogeneous speci-
mens for DEM studies. The paper also discusses the
adequacy of various undercompaction criteria includ-
ing that proposed in the literature [29] and introduces
a new criterion especially useful for DEM sample
generation.
2. Current techniques
Load is sustained in an assembly of particles through
contact between particles. Particle data (shape, position,
size, density, number, grain size distribution,velocity of
particles. . .) and contact data (particles in contact,
force, position, number of contact. . .) are the two types
of input data to consider for the analysis of any par-
ticle assembly under different loading conditions but
also for generating a specimen. Four different techni-
ques are available for specimen generation: (1) Fixed
Point Method; (2) Expansion Method; (3) Isotropic-
compression Method; (4) Modified Isotropic-compres-
sion Method. Method (1) is a simple method generally
used to validate DEM codes. Methods (2) and (3)
generate essentially dense specimens, and method (4)
has been recently used in DEM studies to produce
loose specimens.
2.1. Fixed point method
Particle and contact data are obtained from two
approaches:
(a) Visual observations and laboratory testing
(photos, density, normal stiffness),
(b) theoretically derived data for regularly-packed
ideal cases, such as simple cubic systems.
Method (a) was used by some researchers, especially
in the primary stage of DEM development to compare
simulated DEM results with experimental observations.
For example, Ref. [30] introduced DEM numerical
simulation on simple shear tests on two specimens and
their study showed that DEM simulations were in a
good agreement with the actual test results. Method (b)
is often used to verify theories and/or DEM codes (2-D
or 3-D).
2.2. Isotropic-compression method
First introduced by Cundall et al. [5,6], it has been
used to generate dense specimens in DEM studies. In
this method,
(a) All particles are randomly positioned in a large
area (volume) in such a manner that no overlap/
contact force is developed between any two
particles.
(b) Interparticle friction coefficient is set to very
small values so that interparticle sliding is per-
mitted resulting in a dense packing of the parti-
cles. Boundary walls are then moved inward, or a
consolidation pressure is applied on the bound-
aries. This, in turn, allows particles to move so
that the liquid-like particle assembly can be
compacted into an even denser state. The process
continues until a target void ratio or stress state is
achieved at equilibrium.
(c) Interparticle friction coefficient is then reset to
representative values in order to carry out the
numerical simulation under any given loading
conditions.
While this method is very effective in generating dense
specimens, uniformity due to boundary effects may not
be achieved. This may even be worse for loose to med-
ium-dense specimens. Furthermore, equilibrium can
only be attained with pressure boundaries when the
specimen reaches a dense state.
2.3. Expansion method
In step (a) of Method (2), when a particle is randomly
positioned, it cannot overlap any other neighbour par-
ticle which is already in place. If a particle overlap
occurs, the position of the particle will be changed
slightly to meet the requirement. Furthermore, if after
several position changes, the requirement is still not
satisfied, the particle will be removed. This method
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
needs therefore a rather large area to form the specimen
with the desired number of particles. If the initial area is
too small, a specimen of a pre-established size cannot be
formed. If the initial area is too large, i.e. initial com-
putation area is too large, computation efficiency will
become low with the current techniques used in DEM.
To overcome this limitation, the expansion method was
proposed by a few researchers. All particles with
reduced radii are randomly positioned in a specific area,
which is very close to actual desired specimen size, and
no overlap/contact force is developed between any two
particles. After all particles are positioned, radii of all
particles are restored gradually while the consolidation
pressure is kept constant on boundaries. The overlap/
contact force developed between any two particles dur-
ing the growth process allows particles to move in order
to turn the liquid-like specimen into a dense specimen.
The rigid (or flexible) boundaries are allowed to move
accordingly so that stress state is achieved at equili-
brium. Once the desired radii are restored, interparticle
friction coefficients are reset to their normal values.
Because the interparticle friction coefficient is low dur-
ing particle placement, the expansion method also pro-
duces dense specimen. The expansion method was
shown in reference [9] for planar elliptical particles and
was implemented in DEM program PFG-2D [31].
2.4. Modified isotropic-compression method
Authors in Refs. [28,32] modified slightly the isotropic-
compression method in order to generate loose specimen
by setting the interparticle/wall-particle friction coefficient
to their normal values. Unfortunately, the effect of their
modification on specimen uniformity was not discussed in
their papers, but some arching effect could explain the
presence of large pores in the central part of the specimen.
This arching effect was maintained even as walls con-
tinued to move inward to compress the specimen.
3. DEM method and specimen features
3.1. UL DEM code
The DEM code developed at Université Laval (U.L)
is a two-dimensional code similar to that proposed in
Refs. [5,6]. Each rigid disk is identified separately, with
its own mass, moment of inertia and contact properties.
Normal and tangential springs and dashpots exist at
each contact, including interparticle contact and parti-
cle/wall contact illustrated in Fig. 1.
In Fig. 1, a divider is included in order to allow for no
contact forces between two particles if they separate. A
slider Mohr–Coulomb friction law is incorporated and
allows determining the shear force between two particles
along the tangential direction.
581
Fig. 1. Contact models of two rigid disks in DEM.
The amount and rate of overlap between neighbour-
ing elements (disk/disk or disk/wall) are used to calcu-
late the contact forces at each instant in time. The total
unbalanced force F i (i represents x, y direction, respec-
tively) and moment M0 acting on each disk are com-
puted based on local equilibrium of direct neighbour
elements, and are used to calculate each disk’s instanta-
neous acceleration a based on Newton’s 2nd Law. The
acceleration a is then integrated to obtain velocity v as:
vinþ1=2 ¼ vin1=2 þ ain  Dt ð1aÞ
where vi and ai are the computed velocity and acceleration
in the x, and y directions at the n  1=2, or n þ 1=2 time
steps. The velocity is then integrated for displacement xi:
xinþ1=2 ¼ xin1=2 þ vinþ1=2  Dt ð1bÞ
where xi=transitional and rotational displacement, and
t=the time step of integration. This cycle is repeated
at the next instant in time until the simulation is stop-
ped. For disk j, contact forces Fn, Fs are summed over p
neighbours:
1 X r 1X r
p p
@2 xji @2  j
¼ j F ; ¼ M ð2Þ
@t 2 m r¼1 i @t 2 I0 r¼1 0
where mj and I0 is the mass, moment of inertia of disk j.
The average stress tensor is calculated by Eq. (3):
1X N
ij0 ¼ F k lk ð3Þ
V k¼1 i j
The summations are over the N contacts in the
volume V. Fik and lK j are respectively the contact force
vector and the contact orientation vector at contact K.
Rayleigh linear damping with parameters  and  [5], as
well as frictional sliding, was used herein to dissipate
energy due to the dynamic formulation of the model.
3.2. Material used and geometry of the specimens
A granular material with a distribution of particle size
shown in Fig. 2 has been used in this DEM study. The
582 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
Fig. 2. Distributions of particle size used in DEM analysis.
material modelled is composed of disks with a max-
imum diameter of 9.0 mm, and a minimium diameter of
6.0 mm, an average grain diameter d50=7.6 mm and
uniformity coefficient Cu ¼ d60 =d10 ¼ 1:3. The number
of particles of specific radius was calculated using Eq.
(4).
PðiÞ
NðiÞ ¼ N
rsðiÞ  P
where, N(i) is the total number of particle i with specific
radius r(i). P(i) is weight percentage of particle i. N is
total number of particles with different radius used in
DEM analysis. Parameter s is 2 for disk, and 3 for
sphere. P is a variable calculated with Eq. (5) as follows:
np
X to the largest particle (void) diameter is too small/large.
PðiÞ
P¼
i¼1
rsðiÞ
where np is the number of all types for particles used in
DEM analysis.
Table 1 gives the material parameters used in the DEM
analyses conducted herein. An interparticle friction
coefficient equal to 1.0 was used for facilitating the crea-
tion of very loose/loose/medium-dense samples. Simula-
tions were performed with periodic rigid boundaries.
In the process of specimen generation, compression
was carried out after particles were randomly packed as
Table 1
Material parameters used in DEM analysis
Density (kg/m3) of particles
Normal spring stiffness (N/m)
Tangential spring stiffness (N/m)
Interparticle coefficient of friction for specimen generation
Rayleigh damping coefficient ()
Rayleigh damping coefficient ()
liquid-like specimen. Interparticle friction coefficient
was set as 1.0 to make sliding very difficult to occur at
contacts so that very loose specimen could be generated
with strain-controlled boundaries. In this case, when the
interparticle friction coefficient is reset to normal values,
such as 0.5, before 1-D compression test or biaxial
compression test are carried out, sliding may happen at
some contacts if the applied boundary pressure is kept
constant. The specimen then arrives at a new equlibrium
and will show some additional compression before a
deviatoric stress is applied.
Two types of specimens were prepared with sizes
shown in Table 2 to carry out an oedometer test or a
biaxial compression test with DEM. For one-dimen-
sional compression, the samples had a width of 200 mm
and a height that depended on the selected planar void
ratio. For a planar void ratio of 0.30 described here as
medium-dense, the height was about 178 mm. In all
cases, the total number of particles in one sample was
620.
3.3. Evaluatation of homogeneity of specimen
Microscopically, soil cannot be considered as homo-
geneous with respect to the overall structure. On real
ð4Þ soil specimens, density or void ratio is usually used as
an index to evaluate specimen homogeneity. These
properties are measured over a specific volume. The
determination of the representative elementary area in a
DEM 2-D sample is of utmost importance for the eval-
uation of specimen homogeneity. The heterogeneity
may be amplified/reduced locally if ratio of character-
istic length of representative elementary volume (area)
ð5Þ To macroscopically characterize the homogeneity of the
DEM specimen generated, planar void ratio was used to
evaluate the homogeneity of specimen in bothand y
directions. Planar void ratio was computed using Eqs.
(6a) and (6b). In this 2-D system, the representative
elementary area is referred to as ‘band’ defined hor-
izontally or vertically as shown in Fig. 3.
Table 2
Other data used in DEM analysis
Grain size distribution Gradation in Fig. 2
Total no. of particles in specimen 620
Parameter s in Eq. (4) 2
Parameter np in Eq. (5) 10
Incremental time t (s) 1.0104
2600 Coefficient of friction between wall and 0.0
particle
1.5109 Desired overall planar void ratio 0.34, 0.3, 0.28, 0.265
1.0109 (very loose/loose/medium-dense/dense)
1.0 Specimen for 1-D compression test About 200180
1.0 (103 m103 m)
0.0 Specimen for biaxial test (103 m103 m) About 150220
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597 583

Fig. 3. Definition of bands to compute planar void ratio.

 
Ab  As
ei ¼ i s i ð6aÞ planar void ratio was chosen as an index to reflect spe-
Ai cimen homogeneity. Fig. 5 provides relationship
  between sample variance S of planar void ratio and
Ajb  Ajs number of bands (or the ratio of band thickness and
ej ¼ ð6bÞ average grain diameter d50) in both the horizontal
Ajs
direction and the vertical direction for a specimen with
where Aib , Ajb is the total area of band i (in vertical target planar void ratio as 0.34, where r0 is an initial
direction), and the total area of band j (in horizontal random decimal introduced below in Eq. (10b). The
direction respectively. Ais , Ajs is the sum of the area of sample variance S was calculated as follows:
all particles in band i and in band j respectively calcu-
1 X m
lated as follows: S2 ¼ ðei  eÞ2
m  1 i¼1
X
mðiÞ ð8aÞ
Aib ¼ aki ð7aÞ in the vertical direction
k¼1
1 X k  2
S2 ¼ ej  e
X
mðjÞ
k  1 j¼1
Ajb ¼ akj ð7bÞ ð8bÞ
k¼1 in the horizontal direction

where m(i), m(j) is the number of particles in band i and

band j, respectively. aki , akj is the area of particle k in
band i and band j respectively. If a particle is shared by
two adjacent bands, such as i and i+1 in vertical direc-
tion, corresponding parts of the particle are computed
and considered in both bands as shown in Fig. 4.
The number of bands must therefore be related to
both the size of the specimen and the largest particle
(void) diameter in the DEM specimen. In addition, the
number of bands chosen should avoid effect of layer
when multi-layer compaction method is used in speci-
men generation. Considering that the target planar void
ratio of the very loose specimen (0.34) in this study is far
smaller than that of natural soils (> 2.0), variance S of

Fig. 5. Relationship between sample variance and number of bands

Fig. 4. Common particle shared by two adjacent bands. (e=0.34, r0=0.5).
584 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
where, e is the target planar void ratio for a given spe-
cimen. ei, ej is the planar void ratio in band i, j obtained
from Eqs. (6a) and (6b), respectively. m, k is the number
of total bands used in vertical direction and horizontal
direction respectively.
Fig. 5 shows that the results of 4, 5, 7, 9 bands are
similar to those of 11 bands, while results of 19, 21, 29
(or more) amplify the heterogeneity of specimen. Opti-
mum conditions would correspond to maximizing the
number of bands while sample variance of void ratio is
kept at a small level. Furthermore, adopting an odd
number of bands would guarantee that the elementary
bands are different from the actual layers used to gen-
erate the sample. Consequently, it appears that 11 bands
would be adequate to describe the distribution of planar
void ratio in this DEM study with sufficient accuracy,
which corresponds to the ratio of band thickness to
average grain diameter d50 as 2.25.
4. Techniques for specimen preparation in DEM studies
4.1. Generation of initial particle arrangement
The numerical method of simulating randomly-
packed material is shown in Fig. 6 as a flow chart for
particles corresponding to a specific grain size distribu-
tion. To form ‘pseudo-random decimal’ in a numerical
simulation, which should be homogeneously distributed
in (0, 1), a random number, zi, was generated using the
following relation:
zi ¼ ða  zi1 Þðmod MÞ ð9Þ
where, a is non-negative multiplicator, M is parameter.
(mod M) means the residual number after (a.zi) being
divided by M. i represents order number here, i.e. 0, 1,
2,    n   .
Given z0, a series of random number z1, z2,    zn   
can be obtained from Eq. (9). Random decimal ri can
then be obtained by normalizing zi in the following way:
ri ¼ zi =M ð10aÞ
In this study, a=3125, c=0.0, M=524 288 were used
according to random theory, so initial z0 is determined
by Eq. (10b).
z0 ¼ 2  ½r0  65536 þ 557 ð10bÞ
where r0 is an initial random decimal and should be in
0–1 range. If the number of particles used in DEM
analysis is as large as 524 288, ‘pseudo-random decimal’
can be rather homogeneously distributed in (0, 1). Up to
now, hundreds or thousands of particles have been
usually used in DEM analyses. With this limited
amount of particles in the present DEM analysis, it is
worthy to evaluate the effect of different initial random
decimal r0 on particle distribution. For the sake of
clarity, only the arrangements of the largest particles
(d=9.0 mm) with different initial decimal number
before and after compaction of first layer are shown in
Fig. 7. Labels Random-1, Random-2. . .Random-9 cor-
responds to r0=0.1, 0.2, ... 0.9, respectively. Fig. 7
indicates clearly that the arrangement of the largest
particles depends essentially on initial random decimal
r0 since any random number is related to the former
random number according to Eq. (9). Thus, the
arrangement of any set of particles is related with the
arrangement of a former set of particles according to
procedure summarized in Fig. 6. So, ‘random arrange-
ments’ will give different particle arrangements and thus
different mechanical behaviours should be expected
provided that the number of particles are much smaller
thant the maximum allowed by the random scheme.
Quantitative results will be shown below.
4.2. Single layer method
This method considers random placement of all par-
ticles according to the procedure shown in Fig. 6, fol-
lowed by one-dimensional compression induced by
moving the top wall downward. The other three walls
are kept fixed during the compression process. Com-
pression continues until the overall planar void ratio
reaches a target value. Initial random decimal r0=0.5
was used for generating specimens used for 1-D com-
pression (oedometer test) simulations as well as for 2-D
biaxial compression simulations. Fig. 8 shows the dis-
tribution of planar void ratio in a specimen, replicating
the oedometer test in which the friction between the wall
and the particles is fully active or fully removed.
Several observations can be made: (1) Planar void
ratio is rather homogenously distributed in the x-direc-
tion. (2) Planar void ratio near the boundary walls is
larger than that in the central zone. (3) Single layer
method without boundary friction gives more homo-
genous specimens than that with boundary friction, with
its sample variance S as 0.038 and 0.070 respectively. (4)
In the y-direction, the planar void ratio is not homo-
genously distributed. (5) The planar void ratio near bot-
tom wall is about 2–3 times that near the top wall. (6)
Single layer method with boundary friction can give less
homogenous specimen than that without boundary fric-
tion in the y-direction, with its sample variance S as 0.157
and 0.127 respectively. As a result of these studies, in all
other sample generation techniques, wall/particle friction
coefficient was set equal to zero in order to facilitate the
generation of homogeneous specimens.
4.3. Modified isotropic-compression method
This method can also be considered as a single-layer
method since it considers random placement of all par-
ticles followed by compression induced by the inward
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597 585

Fig. 6. Flow chart for randomly-packed particles with specific grain size distribution.

movement of the four walls without friction between
wall and particles. Fig. 9 shows some characteristics
of these specimens: in the x and y directions, the
planar void ratio is not homogenously distributed.
Planar void ratio in the centre of the specimen is
about 1.5 times larger than that near the boundary
walls. Fig. 10 illustrates particle arrangements of a
specimen with a loose zone highlighted with a dotted
line. Further compaction may reduce the inhomo-
geneity, but will densify the specimen. These results
confirm that the existing techniques in DEM need to
be improved in order to generated loose homo-
geneous specimens.
4.4. Multi-layer method (ML)
To improve the homogeneity of the specimen, a multi-
layer method was developed in the U.L DEM code.1
The procedure of the proposed improved technique is
illustrated in Fig. 11.
All of the distinct elements were evenly divided into
several sets, for instance four sets in the present case as
1
The multi-layer method is in principle an analogue to the actual
multi-layer method described by Ladd [29]. This sample preparation
technique is generally used to obtain loosely compacted unsaturated
sand samples.
586 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597

Fig. 7. Arrangement of particles with maximum radius with different initial random decimal (before and after compaction of the first layer).

Fig. 8. Distributions of planar void ratio in 1-D test specimen by the single layer method (r0=0.5).

illustrated in Fig. 11. For the first layer, the particles
were randomly generated in a given area. Then com-
pression was carried out by moving down the top wall
to the first specific specimen height while the other three
walls were kept fixed. For the second layer, the top wall
was first moved up to form a large void space, which
was the same as the given area used for generating the
first layer. The second set of particles was randomly
generated to fill the new area followed by compression
by moving the top wall to the second specific specimen
height. This procedure was repeated for the third set of
particles and the fourth set of particles until the speci-
men was completely formed. In the ML method, each
set of particles is compacted to each specific specimen
height to make sure that the overall void ratio of all n
layers compacted is kept at the same target value. The
required height of the specimen at the top of the nth
layer is thus:
ht
hn ¼ n ð11Þ
nt
where, ht is the height of target specimen. nt is total
number of sets designed to generate the target specimen.
Given the number of particles and their area, ht, hn
can be directly related to planar void ratio of specimen
generated by the ML method. In the U.L DEM code, a
subroutine was made to check if the overall void ratio in
the concerned area enclosed by the walls (all n layers) en
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
Fig. 9. Distributions of planar void ratio in biaxial test specimen by the single layer method (r0=0.5).
Fig. 10. Specimen formed by the modified isotropic compression
method—single layer method.
is close to the target void ratio e during the process of
compacting the nth layer, i.e. en ¼ e. If en ¼ e, the top
wall will stop moving down and the next step in the
procedure will start.
Fig. 12 shows the distributions of void ratio in the
x-direction and y-direction for 1-D compression (oed-
ometer) test specimen generated with the multi-layer
method for an overall void ratio (target value) e=0.34,
which incidentally is the same as that in Fig. 8.
An initial random decimal r0=0.5 was used similar to
the oedometer test specimen using a single-layer
method. By comparing the distributions of void ratio in
the x-direction in Figs. 8 and 12, it is found that no
apparent difference was observed between the two
methods in the x-direction, which is due to the fact that
particles were compacted in the vertical direction in
both cases. However, by comparing distributions of
void ratio in the y-direction, it is readily observed that
the specimen generated with the multi-layer method was
much more homogeneous than that generated with the
single layer method. However, it can also be observed
from the distribution of planar void ratio in the
y-direction (in Fig. 12b) that the planar void ratio of the
top layer, i.e. the last-compacted layer, was significantly
587
larger than that in the underlying layers. This may be
related to the fact that compacting successive layers of
particles, a fraction of the compaction energy will be
transferred to the layers below and densify them except
for the last layer. To make specimen more homo-
geneous, the multi-layer method needs to be improved
in order to lessen the effect of compaction energy
transferred from upper layers to the underlying layers.
4.5. Multi-layer with undercompaction method (UCM)
To reduce the effect of compaction energy transferred
from successive layers, the multi-layer with under-
compaction method (UCM) was used to generate a very
loose DEM specimen. The method is similar to that
proposed by Ladd [29] for real samples, however, with a
slight difference since an average undercompaction con-
cept is used herein to overcome the limitation of Ladd’s
method (see the Appendix). The average void ratio of the
n layers below the (n+1) layer are compacted to a void
ratio (en ) larger than the final target value e. Applying
this principle to each layer of soil until that the average
void ratio of whole specimen et is equal to the desired
target value e when compacting the final layer of soil,
requires that e1 > e2 >     > en >     > et ¼ e, where
en is the average void ratio of all n layers when compact-
ing the nth layer, et is the void ratio of whole specimen
after compacting the final layer. Surely, the way to
determine e1 ; e2 ;     en , i.e. the undercompaction cri-
terion, will depend on the target value of the planar void
ratio e, number of total layers nt, amount of particles in
each layer, and the input data. In this part, a trial and
error approach was used to test different sets of selected
undercompaction values (e1 ; e2 ;     en ) to achieve spe-
cimens with different target planar void ratio e as sum-
marized in Table 3. Distributions of void ratio in
oedometer test specimen by the UCM method, as well
as those by the ML method, are shown in Fig. 13, while
588 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597

Fig. 11. The procedure of multi-layer method for generating specimen.

Fig. 12. Distribution of planar void ratio in oedometer test specimen by multi-layer method (r0=0.5).
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597 589

Table 3
Undercompaction values used for generating 1-D compression test specimen

No. of step Layer(s) in Particles in Void ratio of all n layers en ðn ¼ 1 4Þ (UCM)
specimen specimen
Very loose Loose Medium-dense Dense
ðe ¼ 0:34Þ ðe ¼ 0:30Þ ðe ¼ 0:28Þ ðe ¼ 0:265Þ

1 1 155 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.34

2 2 310 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.332
3 3 465 0.362 0.34 0.32 0.307
4 4 620 0.34 0.30 0.28 0.265

Fig. 13. Distribution of planar void ratio in oedometer test specimen by the ML and UCM methods (r0=0.5).

the initial random decimal r0=0.5 was used as discussed 1X k

above. It can be found from Fig. 13 that effect of com-
paction energy transferred from the successive layers
can be reduced which enables to generate more homo-
geneous specimens.
4.6. Sensitivity analysis
A series of numerical simulations were carried out
on very loose, loose, medium-dense and dense speci-
mens formed with different initial random number, i.e.
random-1, 2,    9, with the ML and UCM methods,
respectively. Fig. 14 shows distributions of void ratio
in the y-direction for 1-D compression test on med-
ium-dense specimens (e=0.28) generated with the ML
and UCM methods using different initial random
decimals r0. The distributions are of the same features
for very loose/loose/dense specimens, and are not
shown herein.
Fig. 14 shows that the distribution of void ratio is
different with different initial random decimal r0 as dis-
cussed above. In order to highlight the difference
between the ML and UCM technique, the mean void
ratio was computed from all cases with different r0 using
the following equations:
ei ¼ er ð12aÞ
k r¼1 i
1X k
ej ¼ er ð12bÞ
k r¼1 j
where, ei , ej is the mean void ratio in band i (in vertical
direction) and in band j (in horizontal direction)
respectively; eri , erj is the void ratio in band i and band j
in the specimen with label random-r, and k is the total
number of different initial random numbers used, which
was 9 in this study.
Fig. 15 presents the distributions of mean void ratio ej
in the x-direction and of ei in the y-direction for very
loose (e=0.34), loose (e=0.30), medium-dense
(e=0.28) and dense (e=0.265) specimens. Values shown
in Table 3 were used for the multi-layer method with
undercompaction. Fig. 15 shows that the distribution of
average void ratio is rather homogeneous in both x- and
y-directions for very loose, loose, medium-dense and
dense specimens generated with the UCM method, com-
pared with the results shown in Fig. 15 corresponding to
the ML method. It can therefore be stated that the UCM
method is found to be an adequate technique to generate
590 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
Fig. 14. Distributions of planar void ratio in y-direction with different initial random decimal (medium-dense, oedometer test specimen).
homogeneous specimen for a wide range of densities,
from very loose to dense states. Quantitative assessment
will be introduced below.
4.7. Quantitative assessment of sample homogeneity
To quantitatively compare various distributions of
void ratio in the specimens generated with the ML and
UCM methods, two indices were used. These indices
were defined as follows:
(1) Sample variance S
1 X
m
S2 ¼ ðei  eÞ2
m1 i¼1
where, e is the desired void ratio. ei is the mean void
ratio in band i obtained from Eq. (12). m is the number
of total bands in specimen (final band, see Fig. 3).
(2) Linear coefficient b
P P P 
m yi  ei  yi ei
b¼ P 2 P 2 ð14Þ
m yi  yi
where yi is the coordinate in y direction at the center of
band i. Linear coefficient b reflects the inclination of
regression line, and its unit is 1/cm in this paper. The
greater is the value of b, the greater is the difference
between planar void ratio at the top and at the bottom
of the sample. If b=0, the regression line for distribu-
tion of planar void ratio will be a vertical line and pla-
nar void ratio is constant.
Table 4 gives the values of these indices for the dis-
tribution of planar void ratio in the y-direction in very
loose/loose/medium-dense/dense 1-D compression test
specimens generated with each method. Table 4 reveals
that the sample variance in the UCM specimens is
smaller than that in the ML specimens. Furthermore, it
indicates that linear coefficient b in the UCM specimens
is far smaller than that in the ML specimens for all
specimens in the various density states, confirming that
the UCM method is the more appropriate method for
generating homogeneous samples in DEM studies.
5. Discussion
5.1. Undercompaction criteria
ð13Þ One important issue for the multi-layer with under-
compaction method is the undercompaction criterion
used to determine the required compaction degree for
each layer. The average undercompaction value was
determined based on trial and error, which is time con-
suming. To make the multi-layer with undercompaction
method readily useable in other DEM analyses, a pre-
established compaction criterion may prove useful.
Ladd [29] defined a predetermined percent under-
compaction for each layer, Un, which is typically com-
pacted to a lower density than the final desired value,
and suggested a linear undercompaction criterion given
by Eq. (15)
Un n1
¼1 ð15Þ
Un0 nt  1
where, Un0 is the percent under-compaction selected for
the first (bottom) layer. n is number of layer being con-
sidered, and nt total number of layers of a specific spe-
cimen during compaction.
To overcome the practical and physical defects in
Ladd’s [29] method (see the Appendix), we suggest an
average predetermined percent undercompaction U n ,
which is defined for all n layers. The required height of
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597 591

Fig. 15. Distributions of average planar void ratio in x-direction and in y-direction.
592 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597

Fig. 15. (continued)

Table 4
Quantitative indices for distribution of void ratio in 1-D test specimen

Sample Linear
variance S coefficient
b (1/cm)

One-layer method, no boundary friction, 0.127 0.147

loose ðe ¼ 0:34Þ
One-layer method, with boundary friction, 0.157 0.179
loose ðe ¼ 0:34Þ
Multi-layer method
Very loose, e ¼ 0:34 0.053 0.038
Loose, e ¼ 0:30 0.047 0.043
Medium-dense, e ¼ 0:28 0.051 0.049
Dense, e ¼ 0:265 0.040 0.029
Multi-layer method with undercompaction
Fig. 16. Undercompaction criteria.
Very loose, e ¼ 0:34 0.047 0.010
Loose, e ¼ 0:30 0.027 0.001
Medium-dense, e ¼ 0:28 0.024 0.005
Dense, e ¼ 0:265 0.021 0.001
(2) Non-linear average undercompaction criterion:
2
U n n1
the specimen at the top of the nth layer is given as ¼1 ð19Þ
follows: U n0 nt  1
" ! #
ht U n Fig. 16 shows average undercompaction relationships
hn ¼ 1þ n ð16Þ
nt 100 U n =U n0 suggested by Eqs. (18) and (19). The relation-
ship proposed by Ladd [29] [Eq. (15)] is also shown on
The relationship between U n suggested in this paper this figure. Fig. 17 shows the vertical distributions of
and Un proposed by Ladd [29] is (see the Appendix): average void ratio in very loose (e=0.34), loose
Un (e=0.30), medium-dense (e=0.28) and dense (e=0.265)
U n ¼ ð17aÞ specimens with different undercompaction criteria. The
n
undercompaction percentage of the first layer U n0 is the
U n0 ¼ Un0 ð17bÞ same as that indicated in Table 3 for very loose, loose,
medium-dense and dense specimens, respectively. The
Therefore, two undercompaction criteria are suggested. average planar void ratio is also calculated from Ran-
(1) Linear average undercompaction criterion: dom-1, Random-2. . ..Random-9 cases. Similarly, sam-
ple variance S and linear coefficient b, determined from
U n n1
¼1 ð18Þ Eqs. (13) and (14), are used to quantitatively compare
U n0 nt  1 distributions of planar void ratio in specimens generated
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597 593

Fig. 17. Distributions of planar void ratio with different undercompaction criteria.

Table 5 5.2. Performance of specimens generated

Quantitative indices for specimen with different undercompaction criteria

Method Specimen Sample Linear Another possible method to generate very-loose/loose/

variance S coefficient medium-dense/dense specimen may be to let particles
b (1/1cm) settle down by themselves like raining under gravity in
Ladd [29] Very loose, e ¼ 0:34 0.053 0.015 DEM simulation [34]. However, with the limited number
Loose, e ¼ 0:30 0.044 0.029 of particles usually used in DEM analysis, this method
Medium-dense, e ¼ 0:28 0.035 0.031 will generate an inhomogeneous specimen with the top
Dense, e ¼ 0:265 0.030 0.019 layer loose and the bottom layer dense, as shown in [34].
Eq. (18) Very loose, e ¼ 0:34 0.046 0.004 To overcome this defect, millions of particles may be
Loose, e ¼ 0:30 0.033 0.017
Medium-dense, e ¼ 0:28 0.029 0.019
needed in DEM analysis to generate a sand specimen
Dense, e ¼ 0:265 0.025 0.012 block at first. Then a homogeneous part of specimen
Eq. (19) Very loose, e ¼ 0:34 0.042 0.012 could be ‘cut off’ from the block for the further numer-
Loose, e ¼ 0:30 0.029 0.004 ical test. This method will surely cost far much more
Medium-dense, e ¼ 0:28 0.022 0.004 CPU time than the UCM technique proposed.
Dense, e ¼ 0:265 0.021 0.001
To further understand the performance of UCM
technique, micro-analysis and macro-analysis were car-
different undercompaction criteria, given in Table 5. ried out on the loose/medium-dense specimens under a
Fig. 17 and Table 5 show that average undercompaction simple shear test with stress rotation, as shown in
criterion shown in Eq. (19) can generate the most Fig. 18. After the specimen was generated with UCM
homogeneous specimen among the three criteria. technique and the undercompaction criterion shown in
594 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
Fig. 18. Procedure of simple shear test on loose and medium-dense specimens.
Eq. (19), the friction coefficient was decreased to a value
of 0.5, a typical value used in DEM analysis, and the
sample was loaded under a vertical stress of 400 kPa. In
this consolidation stage, the horizontal rigid walls were
fixed and particle–wall friction was kept as zero, see
Fig. 18a. A little additional settlement occurred as expec-
ted after the specimen arrived at new equilibrium. No
boundary shear stress was applied on the specimen in the
stage, and major (minor) compression stress is in vertical
(horizontal) direction. Then particle–wall friction coeffi-
cient was set to a value of 0.5, the same as interparticle
friction coefficient, followed by periodic simple shear
under constant volume, which is to study the undrained
behaviour of the specimen under stress rotation. In this
periodic simple shear process, as shown in Fig. 18b, the top
and bottom rigid walls were vertically fixed, but moved
horizontally accompanying the side :rigid walls, which
rotated periodically with rotation rate  as follows:
: : 2 t
 ¼  0  cos ð20Þ
T0
: initial mean effective stress, and shear strain as a func-
where  0 is peak rotation rate, 0.15 rad/min in this
study. t is time. T0 is periodic, chosen as 2 min here.
Thus, the undrained test is a strain-controlled stress–
rotation test.
Fig. 19 provides contact orientation histograms of
loose specimen after generation and after consolidation.
As can be seen from Fig. 19, contacts appear preferably
distributed vertically and horizontally after specimen
generation. After consolidation, contacts become rather
evenly distributed, with vertical axis as the major axis of
an elliptic-like distribution. This slight anisotropic dis-
tribution of contacts could be mainly due to the aniso-
tropic stress state in the stage. It may later show slight
stress-induced anisotropic behaviour, or slight structural
anisotropic behavior if bonds are formed at contacts.
Based on the effective stress calculated from Eq. (3),
the pore water pressure uw developed in the specimen
under stress rotation is defined in Eq. (21) as follows:
   
x0 þ y0 x0 þ y0
0
uw ¼  ð21Þ
2 2
where the subscript ‘‘0’’ represents ‘‘initial state’’ of the
specimen at t=0 in the shear process.
To include the factor such as density of specimen or
initial consolidation stress state, pore water pressure in
Eq. (21) could be normalized by initial mean effective
0
stress m0 as Eq. (22):
 
0 0
uw  x þ  y
0 ¼ 1
  ð22Þ
m0 0 0
 þ
x y
0
where liquefaction occurs when the value in Eq. (22) is
equal to 1.0.
Fig. 20 provides pore water pressure normalized by
tion of time induced from undrained periodic shear test
on loose/medium-dense specimens. Fig. 20 shows that,
in one periodic stress rotation, pore water pressure may
increase due to contractancy, or may decrease due to
dilatancy. However, the average pore water pressure
(see broken curves in the figure) increases after one
periodic stress rotation. Pore water pressure in loose
specimen increases rapidly and periodically with stress
rotation until liquefaction arrives. Pore water pressure
in medium-dense specimen increases gradually and per-
iodically with stress rotation, and liquefaction has not
occurred in the simulation. The simulated results here are
in agreement with the observed from stress rotation tests
on saturated sands in geotechnical labs [35]. As will be
shown in the authors’ another work on microstructured
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597 595

Fig. 19. Contact orientation histograms of loose specimen before shear.

Fig. 20. Pore water pressure normalized by initial mean effective stress, shear strain as a function of time for (a) loose specimen; (b) medium-dense
specimen.

soils [36], a strain-hardening stress–strain relationship
accompanied by shear-contractancy has been well
simulated with biaxial compression test on the medium-
dense granular specimen. In addition, a very dense spe-
cimen should be easily generated with the UCM tech-
nique by choosing a very small interparticle friction
during compaction. Thus, it could be thought that the
UCM technique appears to be able to generate homo-
geneous DEM specimens with different density to reflect
the main behaviors of granulars observed in geotechni-
cal labs.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a new technique, designated as the
Multi-layer with Undercompaction Method (UCM) was
described. Its objective was to generate homogeneous
DEM specimens for a variety of density conditions
ranging from very loose to dense states. Particles are
divided evenly to form several layers and compacted
layer by layer. When compacting the nth layer, all n
layers are compacted to a state looser than the final
target value in order to reduce the effect of compaction
energy transferred from compaction of successive lay-
ers. Undercompaction criteria based on average planar
void ratio were proposed to achieve uniformity of spe-
cimens. Evaluation on homogeneity using the planar
void ratio showed that:
1. Traditional single-layer methods, especially that
with friction between walls and particles, can
hardly produce homogeneous specimens.
2. The multi-layer method (ML) can generate spe-
cimens apparently homogeneous with a loose
layer in the top part of the specimen.
3. The UCM method was proven to generate very
homogeneous specimens, especially in very loose,
loose and medium-dense states, for 1-D com-
pression as well as for biaxial test simulations.
4. A nonlinear average undercompaction criterion
is very efficient when using UCM method in
DEM specimen generation.
5. The specimens generated with the UCM technique
596 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597

appear to be able to reflect the main behaviors of of this nth layer in conventional laboratory. So the first
granulars with different density observed in problem for Ladd’s method is that one is not able to
geotechnical labs. measure Un in conventional laboratory. In addition, Eq.
(A1) used by Ladd [29] can be rewritten as follows:
Un
Acknowledgements hn  Dh  n ¼ Dh ðA4Þ
100
The authors thank the National Science and Engi-
neering Research Council, Canada, for the financial As Dh ¼ ht =nt is equal to thickness of each layer for
support of the first author. specimen where the compaction of successive layer does
not densify the layers below, h.n is the required height
of the specimen at the top of the nth layer while under-
Appendix compaction is not used. So the left hand side of Eq.
(A4) corresponds to overall undercompaction value for
The required height of the specimen at the top of the all n layers while the right hand side of Eq. (A4) is
nth layer suggested by Ladd [29] is: directly related with percent undercompaction Un
 defined for each layer. Thus, the second problem for
ht Un Ladd’s method is that physical meaning of Un is unclear
hn ¼ ð n  1Þ þ 1 þ ðA1Þ
nt 100 by dividing this overall undercompaction value in the
left hand side, with h in the right hand side in Eq.
where, ht, nt is the total height, total number of layers of (A4).
a specific specimen. Un is a predetermined percent An average predetermined percent undercompaction
undercompaction defined by Ladd [29] for each layer. U n is therefore suggested by being defined for all n lay-
Eq. (A1) can be rewritten as follows: ers. This implies that all n layers, including the nth layer,
 are compacted to a lower average-density than the final
ht Un Un desired value. The required height of the specimen at the
hn ¼ nþ ¼ Dh  n þ Dh ðA2Þ
nt 100 100 top of the nth layer is suggested as follows:
" ! #
where Dh ¼ ht =nt and is equal to thickness of each layer U n ht U n
for specimen without undercompaction, i.e. multi-layer hn ¼ Dh  n þ Dh  n  ¼ 1þ n ðA5Þ
100 nt 100
method in this paper, when effect of compaction energy
transferred from successive layer is neglected.
From Eq. (A2), average void ratio of n layers com- The average void ratio of all n layers compacted can
pacted can be computed based on its definition as follows: be computed with Eq. (A6)
Un
hn Dh  n þ Dh U n
en ¼  1 ¼ 100 1 hn Dh  n þ Dh  n 
hs Dhs  n en ¼ 1¼ 100  1
hs Dhs  n
Un
¼ e þ ðe þ 1Þ ðA3Þ U n
100  n ¼ e þ ðe þ 1Þ ðA6Þ
100
where, hn is the required height of the specimen at the
top of the nth layer. hs, hs is the abstract height of Relationship between U n and Un readily follows from
solid in the specimen, and the abstract height of solid in Eqs. (A2) and (A5):
each layer respectively. e is the final desired void ratio
for whole specimen. Un
U n ¼ ðA7Þ
Two problems are worthy of mentioning for the the- n
oretical work by Ladd [29]. One is that its pre-
determined percent undercompaction Un is defined for For the first layer of soil, then we have:
each layer compacted to a lower density than the final
desired value. As demonstrated in this paper and in U n0 ¼ Un0 ðA8Þ
laboratory tests, the compaction of each successive layer
can further densify the soil below it when multi-layer
References
method is used. It is impossible to separate the volume
change of whole the nth layer and that of the layers [1] Oda M. Deformation mechanism of sand in triaxial compression
below, and thus it is impossible to measure the density tests. Soils and Foundations 1972;12(4):45–63.
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 579–597
[2] Drescher A, de Josselin de Jong G. Photoelastic verification of a
mechanical model for the flow of a granular material. J Mech
Phys Solids 1972;29:337–51.
[3] Desrues J, Chambon M, Mokni M, Mazerolle F. Void ratio
evolution inside shear bands in triaxial sand specimens studied by
computed tomography. Geotechnique 1996;46(3):1–18.
[4] Jiang MJ, Shen ZJ, Adachi T, Hongo T. Microscopic analysis on
artificially-prepared structured collapsible loess. Chinese Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 1999;21(4):486–91.
[5] Cundall PA, Strack ODL. The distinct element method as a tool
for research in granular media, part II [Department of Civil
Engineering report]. University of Minnesota; 1979.
[6] Cundall PA, Strack ODL. The distinct numerical model for
granular assemblies. Geotechnique 1979;29(1):47–65.
[7] Dobry R, Ng TT. Discrete modelling of stress-strain behaviour of
granular media at small and large strains. In: Proceedings of 1st
US Conf. on Discrete Element Methods. Golden (CO): CSM
Press; 1989.
[8] Ting JM, Corkum BT, Kauffman CR, Greco C. Discrete numer-
ical model for soil mechanics. Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, ASCE 1989;115(3):379–98.
[9] Rothenburg L, Bathurst RJ. Micromechanical features of gran-
ular assemblies with planar elliptical particles. Geotechnique
1992;42(1):79–95.
[10] Ullidtz P. Modelling of granular materials using the discrete ele-
ment method. In: Proceedings of 8th Int. Conf. on Asphalt
Pavements, vol. 1, 10–14 August, Seattle, Washington. Seattle
(WA, USA): University of Washington; 1997. p. 757–69.
[11] Thomas PA, Bray JD. Capturing nonspherical shape of granular
media with disk clusters. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvir-
onmental Engineering, ASCE 1999;125(3):169–78.
[12] Oda M, Iwashita K, Kakiuchi T. Importance of particle rotation
in the mechanics of granular materials. In: Behringer, Jenkins JT,
editors. Powders and grains. Rotterdam (The Netherlands):
Balkema; 1997. p. 207–10.
[13] Cundall PA. Computer simulations of dense sphere assemblies.
In: Satake M, Jenkins JT, editors. Micromechanics of granular
materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988. p. 113–23.
[14] Thornton C, Sun G. Axisymmetric compression of 3-D poly-
disperse systems of spheres. In: Thornton C, editor. Powders &
grains 93. Rotterdam (The Netherlands): Balkema; 1993. p. 129–34.
[15] Lin X, Ng TT. A three dimensional element model using arrays
of ellipsoids. Geotechnique 1997;47(2):319–29.
[16] Anandarajah A. Discrete-element method for simulating beha-
viour of cohesive soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE 1994;120(9):1593–613.
[17] Anandarajah A. On influence of fabric anisotropy on the stress-
strain behaviour of clays. Computers and Geotechnics 2000;27:1–17.
[18] Kuhn MR, Mitchell JK. New perspectives on soil creep. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1993;119(3):507–24.
597
[19] Cundall PA. Numerical experiments of localisation in frictional
materials. Ingen-Arch 1989;59(2):148–59.
[20] Cundall P. Shear band initiation and evolution in frictional
materials. In: Mechanics Computing in 19900 s and Beyond ASCE
Engineering Mechanics Speciality Conference, 20–22 May 1991.
New York (USA): ASCE; 1991. p. 1284–9.
[21] Bardet JP, Proubet J. A numerical investigation of the structure
of persistent shear bands in granular media. Geotechnique 1991;
41(4):599–613.
[22] Nakase H, Motegi H. Couple stress in DEM analysis. In: Adachi
T, Oka F, Yashima M, editors. Localisation and bifurcation the-
ory for soils and rocks. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Workshop on Localisation and Bifurcation Theory for Soils and
Rocks, Gifu, Japan, 28 September–2 October, 1998. p. 289–93.
[23] Iwashita K, Oda M. Rolling resistance at contacts in simulation
of shear band development by DEM. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE 1998;124(3):285–92.
[24] Tarumi Y, Hakuno M. A granular assembly simulation for the
dynamic liquefaction of sand. Natural Disaster Science 1988;
10(1):45–59.
[25] Kiyama H, Nishimura T, Fujimura H. Advanced distinct element
model coupling with pore water. Doboku Gakkai Rombun-
Hokokushu/Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers
1994;499(III-28):31–9.
[26] Sadd MH, Tai QM, Shukla A. Contact law effects on wave pro-
pagation in particulate materials using distinct element model-
ling. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 1993;28(2):
251–65.
[27] Ng TT, Dobry R. A nonlinear numerical model for soil mechan-
ics. J Geotech Engrg, ASCE 1994;120(2):388–403.
[28] Thornton C. Numerical simulation of deviatoric shear deforma-
tion of granular media. Geotechnique 2000;50(1):43–53.
[29] Ladd RS. Preparing test specimens using undercompaction.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ 1978;1(1):16–23.
[30] Katsuki S, Ishikawa N, Ohira Y, Suzuki H. Shear strength of rod
material. Journal of Civil Engineering 1989;410:1–12 [in Japanese].
[31] PFC2D, user’s manual. Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group;
1999.
[32] Masson S, Martinez J. Micromechnical analysis of the shear
behaviour of granular material. Journal of Engineering Mechan-
ics, ASCE 2001;127(10):1007–16.
[34] Cheng YF, Guo SJ, Lai HY. Dynamic simulation of random
packing of spherical particles. Powder Technology 2000;107:123–
30.
[35] Ishihara K. Sand response to cyclic loading induced by earth-
quakes, traffic and waves. Proc. 7th Asian Reg. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng. 1983, 242–66.
[36] Jiang MJ, Leroueil S, Konrad JM. Yielding of microstructured
geomaterial by DEM analysis Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE [submitted for publication].