Sensing Mechanism and Real-Time

Computing for Granular Materials

Shushu Liu, S.M.ASCE 1; Hai Huang, M.ASCE 2; Tong Qiu, M.ASCE 3;
and Shihui Shen, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The discrete element method (DEM) has been widely used to study the mechanical behavior of granular materials. However,
potential error accumulation over the required large number of time steps due to the explicit time integration in DEM simulations may
undermine the simulation accuracy. In this paper, a computing scheme based on real-time data fusion between a sensing mechanism
and traditional DEM is developed and investigated. The developed sensing mechanism and real-time (SMART) computing consists of:
(1) real-time data acquisition of particle kinematics through a wireless instrumentation called SmartRocks that are embedded at discrete
locations in a granular assemblage, and (2) a built-in data-fusion-based algorithm using the Kalman filter to integrate the prediction generated
by DEM and the measurements reported by SmartRocks. The performance of the SMART computing algorithm is investigated by simulating
a series of ball collision experiments consisting of two-ball center-to-center, two-ball off-center, and multiball collisions. It is concluded
that SMART computing can improve the accuracy of DEM simulations. The results of this study suggest that the location and number of
SmartRocks, whose recordings are fused into DEM simulations to recondition the particle movements, are important to the accuracy of
SMART computing. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000769. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Data fusion; Discrete element methods; Granular materials; Kalman filter; Sensing mechanism.

Introduction
The discrete element method (DEM) (Cundall and Strack 1979) is a
numerical method that simulates the response of granular materials
by tracing the motion of individual particles using Newton’s second
law and relatively simple particle-particle contact behaviors. It
has been extensively used to study the performance of infrastruc-
ture systems with granular components such as railroad ballast
(Saussine et al. 2006; Huang and Chrismer 2012; Tutumluer et al.
2013; Liu et al. 2016), wave propagation (Zamani and El Shamy
2011, 2013; O’Sullivan et al. 2015; O’Donovan et al. 2016),
particle-structure interactions (Nazami et al. 2007), triaxial test
(Wang and Tonon 2006; O’Sullivan and Cui 2009; Lu and
McDowell 2010; Lee et al. 2012), and geogrid-aggregate interac-
tion (Tutumluer et al. 2010; Indraratna and Rujikiatkamjorn 2013;
Qian et al. 2015). A comprehensive review of DEM and its appli-
cations in geomechanics is provided by O’Sullivan (2011). Recent
developments in DEM have focused on particle shapes and contact
detection (Basosa 1990; Cundall and Hart 1992; Nezami et al.
2004; Huang 2010; Ngo et al. 2014), contact models (Cundall
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802. Email: sxl450@
psu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Railroad Transportation Engineering Program,
Pennsylvania State Univ., Altoona, PA 16601 (corresponding author).
Email: huh16@psu.edu
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802. Email: tqiu@engr
.psu.edu
4
Associate Professor, Railroad Transportation Engineering Program,
Pennsylvania State Univ., Altoona, PA 16601. Email: szs20@psu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 23, 2017; approved on
January 4, 2018; published online on April 26, 2018. Discussion period
open until September 26, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Computing
in Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3801.
and Strack 1979; Hanley et al. 2014), and iteration schemes
(Kruggel-Emden et al. 2008; Johnson et al. 2009; Mathew
et al. 2014; Lee and Hashash 2015).
Although DEM theory has been undergoing rapid development
in recent years, the wide application of this method relies heavily
on its efficiency and, more importantly, accuracy. During DEM
simulations, minimization of error propagation has always been
a difficult task to overcome. One common practice to reduce error
is to conduct both experiments and DEM simulations and then ad-
just DEM model parameters to match the simulation results to the
experimental results through trial and error; however, this process
is very time consuming. More importantly, it is found that particle
shape, particle initial orientation, and contact properties signifi-
cantly affect the simulation accuracy (Huang 2010; Tutumluer
et al. 2010). Minor errors due to truncation or round-off over ex-
tended simulation time accumulate (Press et al. 2007; Hanley and
O’Sullivan 2016); these errors, if not corrected in real time, may
eventually lead to discrepancies between DEM simulations and
reality.
To overcome this limitation of traditional DEM simulations,
a computing scheme based on real-time data fusion between a sens-
ing mechanism and traditional DEM is developed and investigated
in this study. The framework of the developed sensing mechanism
and real-time (SMART) computing consists of: (1) real-time data
acquisition of particle kinematics through a wireless instrumenta-
tion called a SmartRock sensor that are embedded at discrete loca-
tions in a granular assemblage, and (2) a built-in algorithm based on
data fusion using SmartRock measurements to increase the accu-
racy of DEM simulations of the entire granular assemblage. The
performance of the SMART computing algorithm is investigated
by simulating a series of experiments consisting of two-ball
center-to-center, two-ball off-center, and multiball collisions and
comparing the simulation results with camera recordings from
the experiments. In the following sections, the wireless device,
SmartRock, is first introduced, followed by a description of the

© ASCE 04018023-1 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 Fig. 1. Comparison of a real rock and a SmartRock.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SMART computing algorithm and three case studies to demon- DEM Model
strate the performance of the algorithm in comparison with tradi-
Particle Flow Code in Three Dimensions (PFC3D, Itasca 2008)
tional DEM simulations.
is used in this study. In PFC3D, each particle is modeled as an indi-
vidual sphere, whose motion is governed by Newton’s second law.
The kinematic behavior of moving particles in PFC3D
SmartRocks includes translation and rotation. Let px , py , pz , ṗx , ṗy , ṗz ,
A SmartRock, as shown in Fig. 1, is a wireless device that can p̈x , p̈y , and p̈z denote particle displacement, linear velocity, and
realistically record the movement of individual granular particles. linear acceleration along the x-, y-, and z-directions in the Cartesian
It can sense, record, and transmit its movement including: linear space, respectively, and ωx , ωy , ωz , ω̇x , ω̇y , and ω̇z denote the
and rotational acceleration, velocity, and displacement in real time. angular velocity and angular acceleration around the x-, y-,
Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is used to generate a z-directions, respectively. Let translational displacement u∶ ¼ ½px ;
SmartRock so that it has a similar shape to a real granular particle py ; pz , velocity v∶ ¼ ½ṗx ; ṗy ; ṗz , and acceleration a∶ ¼ ½p̈x ; p̈y ;
and does not significantly alter the movement of surrounding par- p̈z . Consider the kinematic model of the particle translation and
ticles. The internal unit manufactured by Railroad Technology rotation at the k þ 1th time step based on the information from the
and Services (RTS) and embedded inside of each SmartRock is a kth time step as
9-degree-of-freedom motion/vibration sensor consisting of a triax-


u u
ial gyroscope, a triaxial accelerometer, and a triaxial magnetometer, ¼A þ Bak þ W k ð1Þ
which records rotation, translation, and orientation, respectively. v kþ1 v k
The sensor can sample at a maximum of 500 Hz so that vibration
frequencies up to 250 Hz can be resolved. The SmartRock is ωkþ1 ¼ ωk þ ΔT ω̇k þ wk ð2Þ
capable of sending raw data to a base station for analysis via
where
Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). A Bluetooth master (base station)
is able to communicate with up to seven nodes (i.e., SmartRocks). 2 3
1 0 0 ΔT 0 0
Raw data can be further processed at the base station using standard 6 7
analysis tools such as Matlab. Raw data can also be stored in time- 60 1 0 0 ΔT 0 7
6 7
stamped files within the SmartRock. Details of the SmartRock 6 7
60 0 1 0 0 ΔT 7
can be found in Liu et al. (2015, 2016). The current generation A¼6
60 0
7
of SmartRocks has dimensions down to 19 mm, which is small 6 0 1 0 0 7
7
6 7
enough to monitor granular particle movements in a wide range 60 0 0 0 1 0 7
4 5
of applications.
0 0 0 0 0 1
2 3
1 2
Sensing Mechanism and Real-Time Computing 6 ΔT 0 0 7
62 7
6 7
6 1 7
The Kalman filter (Kalman 1960) is a recursive mathematical al- 6 0 ΔT 2 0 7
gorithm that can be used to minimize system error by integrating 6 2 7
6 7
predictions and measurements. The Kalman filter has been widely 6 1 7
B¼6 0 0 ΔT 2 7
used in the Global Position System (GPS). The location of a GPS 6 2 7
6 7
unit can be predicted by double integrating the accelerations 6 ΔT 0 0 7
6 7
recorded by onboard accelerometers. It can also be measured by 6 7
6 0 ΔT 0 7
using multiple satellites. However, neither the prediction (by accel- 4 5
erometers) nor the measurement (by satellites) is satisfactory in 0 0 ΔT
terms of accuracy just by themselves. The Kalman filter is applied
to find the common characteristics between the prediction and ΔT = length of time step; W k = process noise respective to trans-
the measurement so that the system error can be minimized and lational displacement and velocity; and wk = process noise respec-
a more accurate location can be obtained. Similarly, in SMART tive to angular velocity. These noises are assumed to be white
computing, the Kalman filter is applied to integrate the prediction Gaussian noise with known covariance as E½W k · W Tk  ¼ Qk and
generated by DEM and the measurements reported by SmartRocks E½wk · wTk  ¼ qk , where E½· denotes the mathematic expectation.
in the following procedure. It is assumed that the particle translation and rotation are

© ASCE 04018023-2 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 independent along each direction. For independent and unrelated 2 3
σ2x 0 0 0 σx 0ẋ 0 0 0
noises 6 7
6 0 σ2y 0 0 0 σy 0ẏ 0 0 7
6 7
σxy ¼ σxz ¼ σyz ¼ 0 6 7
6 0 0 σ2z 0 0 0 σz 0ż 0 7
R¼6
6σ
7
7 ð7Þ
σẋ ẏ ¼ σẋ ż ¼ σẏ ż ¼ 0 6 x 0ẋ 0 0 0 σ2ẋ 0 0 0 7
6 7
σxẏ ¼ σxż ¼ σyẋ ¼ σyż ¼ σzẋ ¼ σzẏ ¼ 0 6 0 σy 0ẏ 0 0 0 σ2ẏ 0 0 7
4 5
σωxy ¼ σωxz ¼ σωyz ¼ 0 0 0 σz 0ż 0 0 0 σ2ż 0

therefore 2 3
σ2ωx 0 0 0
2 3 6 7
σ2x 0 0 σxẋ 0 0 r¼6
4 0 σ2ωy 0 0 7 5 ð8Þ
6 7 2
6 0 σ2y 0 0 σyẏ 0 7 0 0 σ ωz 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 7
6 7
6 0 0 σ2z 0 0 σzż 7
Q¼6 7 ð3Þ σ2x 0 , σ2y 0 , and σ2z 0 = variances of displacements; σx 0x˙ 0 , σy 0y˙ 0 ,
6σ 0 0 σ2ẋ 0 0 7
6 xẋ 7 and σz 0z˙ 0 = covariances between displacements and velocities;
6 7
6 0 σyẏ 0 0 σ2ẏ 0 7 and σ2ω 0x , σ2ω 0y , and σ2ω 0z = variances of angular velocities in
4 5
the measurement model.
0 0 σzż 0 0 σ2ż
It should be noted that the measurements reported by
2 3 SmartRocks are in the local coordinates (x 0 , y 0 , and z 0 ) that need
σ2ωx 0 0 to be translated into the global coordinates (x, y, and z). Addition-
6 7 ally, the sensor used for particle kinematical recording is not
q¼6
4 0 σ2ωy 0 7 5 ð4Þ located at the center of the SmartRock. As a result, the accelerations
0 0 2
σ ωz recorded by the SmartRock include not only the translational ac-
celerations at the center, but also an extra part of angular acceler-
where σ2x , σ2y , and σ2z = variances of displacements; σxẋ , σyẏ , and ation around the center, i.e., motion of a fixed particle in a moving
σzż = covariances between displacements and velocities; σ2ẋ , σ2ẏ , frame. These should be considered accordingly. Detailed descrip-
tions of vector conversions between global and local coordinate
and y2ż = variances of linear velocities; and σ2ωx , σ2ωy , and σ2ωz =
systems of a rigid body are explained by James (2006).
variances of angular velocities.

Implementation of SMART Computing

SmartRock Measurement Model
The SmartRocks provide linear acceleration and rotation in a
sensor-fixed Cartesian reference frame (x 0 , y 0 , and z 0 ) at each time
0 0 0 0 0 0
step. Let px , py , pz , ṗx , ṗy , and ṗz denote the particle displace-
ment and velocity measured by the SmartRocks in the x 0 -, y 0 -, and
0 0
z 0 -directions in the Cartesian space, respectively, and ωx , ωy , and
z0
ω denote the angular velocity measured by the SmartRocks
0 0
around the x 0 -, y 0 -, and z 0 -directions, respectively. S∶ ¼ ½px ; py ;
0 0 0 0
pz ; ṗx ; ṗy ; ṗz , s∶ ¼ ½ωx 0 ; ωy 0 ; ωz 0 , and the measurement equa-
tions from the SmartRocks at the kth time step can be described as
M k ¼ Sk þ Z k
mk ¼ sk þ zk
where M k = translational vector of measurements; mk = rotation
vector of measurements; Zk = noises of displacement and velocity;
and zk = noise of angular velocity. Zk and zk are assumed to be
white Gaussian noise with known covariance as E½Zk · ZTk  ¼ Rk
and E½zk · ZTk  ¼ rk . The noises of displacement and/or velocity
along one direction are independent of the noises along the other
directions; for independent and unrelated noises
σx 0y 0 ¼ σx 0z 0 ¼ σy 0z 0 ¼ 0
σẋ 0y˙0 ¼ σẋ 0z˙0 ¼ σẏ 0z˙0 ¼ 0
σx 0y˙ 0 ¼ σx 0z˙0 ¼ σy 0x˙0 ¼ σy 0z˙0 ¼ σz 0x˙0 ¼ σz 0ẏ 0 ¼ 0
σωx 0y 0 ¼ σωx 0z 0 ¼ σωy 0z 0 ¼ 0
therefore
The SMART computing framework consists of (1) real-time data
acquisition from SmartRocks; and (2) a built-in data-fusion-based
algorithm for numerical simulations. For SMART computing,
SmartRocks are first installed at discrete locations of interest at
the very beginning of any experiment for measuring particle move-
ments at these locations. DEM simulations are prepared in a tradi-
tional way except that those particles representing SmartRocks are
positioned at the same locations as those in the experiment. The
SmartRock measurements are fused into the DEM simulation in
real time through the built-in data-fusion-based algorithm.
This built-in data-fusion-based algorithm consists of two parts:
ð5Þ the Kalman filter and DEM prediction. The Kalman filter is applied
to recondition the calculated translation and rotation of the DEM
particles having the identical initial positions as the SmartRocks
ð6Þ by learning from the SmartRock measurements. The DEM predic-
tion is then applied to recondition the translation and rotation of
the rest of DEM particles. The algorithm can be summarized as
follows: h i
u
1. Compute state vector and ωk in DEM simulation at the kth
time step.
v k
2. Import SmartRock measurements into DEM simulation.
3. Compute the difference between the SmartRock recordings and
DEM results for the particles corresponding to SmartRocks


u
Δk ¼ Mk − ð9Þ
v k
~ k ¼ mk − ωk
Δ ð10Þ
4. Initialize the state covariance matrix: COV 0 ¼ 0, cov0 ¼ 0.
5. Update the state covariance matrix and compute the Kalman
Gain matrix for particle translation

© ASCE 04018023-3 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 COV kþ1jk ¼ A × COV k × AT þ Qk ð11Þ values is calculated, where higher weights are assigned to the
control points closer to the particle of interest. Errors are
weighted during the interpolation so that the influence of one
COV kþ1jk × H
KGkþ1 ¼ ð12Þ point, relative to another, declines with distance from the control
H × ðCOV kþ1jk þ RÞ × H T point.
A variety of IDW interpolation functions were considered,
Update the state covariance matrix and compute the Kalman and the Shepard interpolation (Shepard 1968), presented in
Gain matrix for particle rotation Eqs. (19)–(22), was chosen because it provides a fast interpo-
covkþ1jk ¼ covk þ qk ð13Þ lation with acceptable accuracy (Yang et al. 2004; Press 2008),
and can be implemented in PFC3D without massive matrix
operations. It is suitable for large-scale DEM simulations
covkþ1jk × h involving a large number of granular particles, where the com-
kgkþ1 ¼ ð14Þ
h × ðcovkþ1jk þ rÞ × hT putational efficiency is a top priority. The interpolation equation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

can be expressed as
where H and h are 6 × 6 and 3 × 3 identity matrices, Pn
respectively. β i ∅ðdÞ
KG and kg are the Kalman gains for particle translation ErðpÞ ¼ Pi¼1 ð19Þ
i¼1 ∅ðdÞ
n
and rotation, respectively. The Kalman gain is a relative weight
given to the measurements and current DEM prediction. The
Kalman gain is between 0 and 1. With a high Kalman gain, more

KGi  Δi
weight is placed on the most recent SmartRock measurements; βi ¼ ð20Þ
~i
kgi  Δ
whereas with a low Kalman gain, more weight is given to the
DEM predictions. If the Kalman gain equals 1, the SmartRock
measurements will be 100% trusted; on the other hand, if the
Kalman gain equals 0, the DEM predictions will be maintained. ∅ðdÞ ¼ d−λ ð21Þ
COV kþ1jk and covkþ1jk are the prediction state covariance
matrices based on the current state; COV k and covk are the re- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sults of current state covariance matrices with respect to particle d¼ ðx − xi Þ2 þ ðy − yi Þ2 þ ðz − zi Þ2 ð22Þ
translation and rotation. R and r are the estimated covariance
matrices of the noise from the SmartRock measurements.
6. Update the state vector and state covariance matrix of particle where ErðpÞ = error of a particle of interest interpolated
translation for the next iteration from the control nodes; β i = error of control node computed
by the Kalman filter algorithm; n = number of control nodes;



u u d = Euclidean distance between a non-SmartRock particle
¼ þ KGkþ1 × Δk ð15Þ and control node; x, y, and z = coordinates of each non-
v kþ1 v k
SmartRock particle; xi , yi , and zi = coordinates of the ith control
node; and λ = smoothing parameter assigned manually based on
COV kþ1 ¼ COV kþ1jk − KGkþ1 × H × COV kþ1jk ð16Þ experience.
For the choice of λ, one can consider the degree of smooth-
Update the state vector and state covariance matrix of particle ing desired in the interpolation, the density, and distribution of
rotation for the next iteration samples being interpolated, and the maximum distance over
which an individual control node is allowed to influence the sur-
~k
ωkþ1 ¼ ωk þ kgkþ1 × Δ ð17Þ rounding particles (Gordon and Wixom 1978). The smoothing
parameter λ has a significant impact on the prediction of each
covkþ1 ¼ covkþ1jk − kgkþ1 × h × covkþ1jk ð18Þ individual particle. Greater values of λ result in greater influence
of the nearest control nodes on the interpolated particle motion;
7. DEM prediction. on the other hand, excessively small values of λ cause the in-
In the experiments and simulations of a granular assemblage, terpolated particle motion to be dominated by control nodes
the ideal scenario would be the situation that all particles far away. Press (2008) recommended that in D dimensions, a
involved are SmartRocks so that movement of all particles value of λ ≥ D þ 1 may produce results with sufficient accu-
can be monitored and subsequently fused into DEM using the racy. Based on a parametric investigation, λ ¼ 3 was found to
Kalman filter algorithm. In most cases, however, only a small produce accurate solutions for the two-dimensional (2D) cases
percentage of particles can be replaced by SmartRocks due to considered in this study (i.e., D ¼ 2); therefore, this value is
practical reasons such as cost, structural soundness, and so forth. adopted.
In other words, not all DEM particles will have accurate descrip- Finally, the translation and rotation of each particle p at the
tions from the SmartRocks. Therefore, SmartRocks will be stra- k þ 1th time step is updated
tegically placed inside the granular assemblage to form a series
2 3p 2 3p
of control nodes. Movements of other non-SmartRock particles u u
in the DEM simulation will be updated based on these control 6 7 6 7
4v5 ¼ 4 v 5 þ ErðpÞ ð23Þ
nodes through interpolation. It is worth noting that this interpo-
lation process will have errors, too. To obtain a more statistically ω kþ1 ω k
sound prediction of the reality, the Inverse Distance Weighting
(IDW) approach is used to distribute the errors computed by 8. Algorithm evocation.
the Kalman filter algorithm from the control nodes to other par- The SMART computing algorithm can be evoked at every
ticles. In this approach, a weighted average of all the observed N time step. Frequent execution of the algorithm yields more

© ASCE 04018023-4 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Flowchart of SMART computing algorithm.

accurate simulation results but at the expense of computational cost.

The value of N should be determined considering the balance of
computational efficiency and accuracy. Fig. 2 shows the flowchart
of the SMART computing algorithm. The algorithm is implemented
within the framework of PFC3D and examples are provided in the
following section.

SMART Computing Case Studies

Several examples involving collision of balls are investigated

through experiments, DEM-only simulation, and SMART comput-
ing to demonstrate the advantage of the proposed algorithm.
Spherical SmartRocks with a radius of 28 mm were 3D-printed
to be consistent with the spherical particles used in PFC3D (Fig. 3).
These spherical SmartRocks were used to conduct ball collision
Fig. 3. 3D-printed spherical SmartRocks.
experiments.

© ASCE 04018023-5 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 1 1
Slope Slope
Gap
2 2
Flat Gap Flat
0.5 m
plane plane 0.028 m
2
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of experiment: (a) two-ball center-to-center collision; (b) two-ball off-center collision; and (c) multiball collision.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In this study, SMART computing was evoked every 20 time
steps (i.e., N ¼ 20 in Fig. 2) in the DEM simulation. This value
of N is selected as an example to demonstrate the advantage of
the algorithm: (1) it can improve the accuracy; and (2) it only needs
to be implemented for every certain number of time steps depend-
ing on the combination of accuracy and efficiency. To demonstrate
SMART Computing three study cases were conducted: (a) a two-
ball center-to-center collision; (b) a two-ball off-center collision;
and (c) a multiball collision, as shown in Fig. 4. High-speed cam-
eras were set up to track the particle positions as the ground truth.
The objective of Cases (a) and (b) is to validate the data fusion
algorithm based on the Kalman filter method where all the Smar-
tRock measurements are fused into the DEM simulations. The ob-
jective of Case (c) is to validate the SMART computing where not
all the SmartRock measurements were used; instead, only measure-
ments from select SmartRocks were fused into the DEM simulation
to update their movement as control nodes, and to predict the move-
ment of the rest of the SmartRocks.
Two-Ball Center-to-Center Collision
In order to make a center-to-center collision, four pieces of flat ply-
wood plates were used for the setup. Two were used to build a slope
with an inclination angle of 2.7° and the other two for a flat plane. A
gap with a width of 0.02 m was left between the two parallel wood
plates to ensure a center-to-center collision. One SmartRock (#1)
was placed at the top of the slope and the other SmartRock was
placed on the flat plate 0.5 m from the bottom of the slope (#2),
as shown in Fig. 4(a). In this case, the SmartRock on the top rolls
down along the slope and collides with the SmartRock resting on
the flat plane.
Two-Ball Off-Center Collision
The setup of the slope was identical to the case of the two-ball
center-to-center collision. One SmartRock was placed at the top
of the slope; the other one was placed on the ground at the bottom
Fig. 5. Control nodes considered in multiball collision: (a) Case 37; (b) Case 67; (c) Case 267; and (d) Case 347.
© ASCE 04018023-6
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023
1
Slope
Gap Gap
Flat
3 4 y
plane 56 7
x
(c)
of the slope with a 0.028-m offset along the y-direction, as shown in
Fig. 4(b).
Multiball Collision
The same slope setup was adopted in this case. One SmartRock was
placed at the top of the slope and the other six SmartRocks were
packed to a triangular pattern on the ground, as shown in Fig. 4(c).
The top SmartRock (#1) rolls down along the slope, and has a
center-to-center collision with the SmartRock (#2) in the first
row on the ground. The rest of the SmartRocks disperse sub-
sequently. Four simulation cases were considered in this study
to investigate the effect of location and number of control nodes.
1. Case 37: Measurements of Balls 3 and 7 were fused into the
DEM simulation as two control nodes, as indicated by shading
in Fig. 5(a).
2. Case 67: Measurements of Balls 6 and 7 were fused into the
DEM simulation as two control nodes, as indicated by shading
in Fig. 5(b).
3. Case 267: Measurements of Balls 2, 6, and 7 were fused into the
DEM simulation as three control nodes, as indicated by shading
in Fig. 5(c).
4. Case 347: Measurements of Balls 3, 4, and 7 were fused into the
DEM simulation as three control nodes, as indicated by shading
in Fig. 5(d).
PFC3D Model Parameters
The SmartRocks were modeled in PFC3D using spherical balls
having linearly elastic contact. The coefficient of restitution Rn ,
defined as the ratio of the relative velocities before and after colli-
sion, was introduced to calibrate the ball stiffness and contact
damping ratio. Rn typically ranges between 0 and 1 depending on
energy dissipation. Rn ¼ 0 corresponds to the perfectly plastic col-
lision whereas Rn ¼ 1 corresponds to the perfectly elastic collision.
Itasca (2008) and O’Sullivan (2011) showed a relationship between
Rn and damping ratio ξ
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 Table 1. Model parameters found from the experiment. Therefore, the damping ratio can be
Parameter Value calculated according to Eq. (24). Table 1 lists the model parameters
in the DEM simulation. The normal and shear contact stiffness
Slope length 1.173 m
values were obtained through trial and error by calibrating DEM
Slope height 0.055 m
Slope degree 2.7° simulations against SmartRock recordings from the two-ball
Wall stiffness 1,000 kN=m center-to-center collision experiment.
Ball radius 0.028 m
Ball density 950 kg=m3
Ball contact damping ratio 0.09 Results and Discussions
Ball normal contact stiffness (kn ) 300 kN=m
Ball shear contact stiffness (ks ) 300 kN=m Fig. 6 shows the ball displacement along the x-direction during the
Ball-wall friction 0.015 two-ball center-to-center collision experiment from the DEM-only
Ball-ball friction 0.015
simulation, SmartRock measurements (SR), SMART computing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(SC), and camera recordings. The minor discrepancy between

the DEM-only simulation and camera recordings was likely due
− ln Rn to the imperfect spherical shape of the SmartRocks and uncertainty
ξ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð24Þ
π þ ðln Rn Þ2
2 in the calibrated contact parameters, and so on. Discrepancies also
existed between the SmartRock measurements and camera record-
The coefficient of restitution can be obtained from SmartRock ings, which were due to uncertainties of the SmartRock measure-
recordings by conducting the two-ball center-to-center collision ex- ments, such as the measurement bias, noises, and others. In
periment. A value of 0.75 for the coefficient of restitution was contrast, the results from the SMART computing algorithm were

2.5
Ball 1 Ball 2
0.6
2

1.5
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

0.4

0.2
0.5
DEM-only DEM-only
SR SR
0 SC SC
Camera 0 Camera

-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s)

Fig. 6. Horizontal displacement of each ball in center-to-center collision simulation: (a) Ball 1; and (b) Ball 2.

2.5 0.4
Ball 1 Ball 2

2
0.3

1.5
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

0.2

1
0.1
0.5
DEM-only DEM-only
SR SR
SC 0 SC
0
Camera Camera

-0.5 -0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s)

Fig. 7. Ball displacement along x-direction in off-center collision simulation: (a) Ball 1; and (b) Ball 2.

© ASCE 04018023-7 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 0.1
Ball 1 Ball 2
0.04
0

Displacement (m)
-0.1
Displacement (m)
0.02

-0.2

0
-0.3
DEM-only DEM-only
SR SR
SC -0.4 SC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.02 Camera Camera

-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s)

Fig. 8. Ball displacement along y-direction in off-center collision simulation: (a) Ball 1; and (b) Ball 2.

closest to the camera recordings as the SMART computing fused camera recordings along the x- and y-directions. It can be seen that
the SmartRock measurements into DEM simulations, and the un- the results computed by the SMART computing algorithm were
certainties of the measurements were then considered, analyzed, more accurate than those from the DEM-only simulations and
and compensated; therefore, the kinematic behavior of each ball SmartRock measurements. Although the final displacement of
was accurately reconditioned every 20 time steps. the DEM-only results matched well with the camera recordings
Figs. 7 and 8 show the ball displacements during the off-center in terms of the magnitude as shown in Figs. 7 and 8(a), the
collision experiment from the DEM-only simulation, SR, SC, and DEM-only simulation cannot accurately predict the trajectories

0.4 0.2 0.2

Ball 2 Ball 3 Ball 4

0.2 0.1 0.1

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)

0 0 0

DEM-only DEM-only
DEM-only
37 37
37
67 67 67
-0.2 -0.1 267 -0.1
267 267
347 347 347
Camera Camera Camera

-0.4 -0.2 -0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s) (c) Time (s)
0.2
0.3 0.2 Ball 7
Ball 5 Ball 6

0.2
0.1 0.1
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)

0.1

0 0 0

DEM-only DEM-only DEM-only

-0.1 37 37 37
67 67 67
-0.1 -0.1 267
267 267
-0.2 347 347 347
Camera Camera
Camera

-0.3 -0.2 -0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(d) Time (s) (e) Time (s) (f) Time (s)

Fig. 9. Ball displacements along x-direction in multiball collision simulation: (a) Ball 2; (b) Ball 3; (c) Ball 4; (d) Ball 5; (e) Ball 6; and (f) Ball 7.

© ASCE 04018023-8 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 of each ball with time. For instance, the camera recordings show
that both balls experienced back and forth movement after the col-
lision, particularly along the y-direction, rather than a smooth mo-
tion; however, the DEM-only simulation was unable to realistically
reproduce these kinematic characteristics. This was likely due to
the following differences between DEM simulations and the ex-
periment: (1) the SmartRocks in the experiment are imperfect
spheres; (2) the mass center of each SmartRock is not at the geo-
metric center leading to an additional rotation of each SmartRock
(around the geometric center); and (3) realistic contact behaviors
are not captured in the DEM-only simulations. Unlike the DEM-
only simulations, the SmartRocks can accurately record the actual
movement of each ball through real-time translational and rota-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
y-direction whereas the recorded motion was along the negative
y-direction. During a multiball collision, a slight variation in ball
velocity and ball-ball contact point may lead to a noticeable change
in the motion of each ball, such as the direction of ball movement
and the magnitude of ball displacement. This variation may accu-
mulate and pass on to the subsequent balls, eventually leading to
inaccurate predictions.
Utilizing the SMART computing algorithm, the control nodes
were first reconditioned by the Kalman filter algorithm, so that
the movements of the control nodes were consistent with the cam-
era recordings (for every 20 time steps). The DEM simulation then
predicted the movement of the surrounding balls based on the con-
trol nodes. The SMART computing results presented in Figs. 9 and

tional measurements. When these measurements are incorporated
into DEM simulations after filtering out measurement bias, the
SMART computing algorithm can correct the kinematic behavior
of each ball despite the differences between DEM simulations and
the experiment.
Figs. 9 and 10 show the displacement of the six balls (#2–7)
during multiball collision in different simulation cases along the
x- and y-directions. The ball properties, e.g., stiffness, damping ra-
tio, and so on, were adapted from the two-ball collision cases dis-
cussed previously. While evaluating the accuracy of multiball
collision, two criteria were considered: the direction of movement
(particularly along the y-direction) and the magnitude of the dis-
placement of each ball, both compared to the camera recordings.
The figures show a generally good agreement between the camera
recordings and the DEM-only simulations in terms of the direction
of movement, except for Ball 7 along the y-direction where the
DEM-only simulations predicted the movement along the positive
10 also underscore that the accuracy of SMART computing de-
pends on the location and number of control nodes. The control
nodes at critical locations affected the predicted motion of the sur-
rounding balls; an increase in the number of control nodes im-
proved the overall accuracy of the simulation as more balls in
the simulation can be reconditioned using SmartRock measure-
ments through the Kalman filter algorithm. To illustrate, Fig. 10(d)
shows that the displacement of Ball 5 along the y-direction ob-
tained from Case 267 was the closest to the camera recordings.
The superior prediction of Case 267 over Case 347 is due to the
reconditioning of Balls 2 and 6 being more critical than that of
Balls 3 and 4 for the prediction of y-displacement of Ball 5; the
superior prediction of Case 267 over Cases 37 and 67 is due to
the addition of one more control node.
A statistical study was conducted to assess the goodness of fit
using the DEM-only simulation and SMART computing algorithm.
Two statistic indices—the sum of squared residuals (SSE) and the

0.2 0.2 0.2

Ball 2 Ball 3 Ball 4

0.1
0.1
0.1
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

0
0

-0.1 0

-0.1 DEM-only DEM-only DEM-only

37 -0.2 37 37
67 67 67
-0.1 267
267 267
-0.2 347
347 -0.3 347
Camera Camera Camera

-0.3 -0.4 -0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s) (c) Time (s)

0.2 0.2 0.1

Ball 5 Ball 6 Ball 7

0.1 0.1
0.05
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

0 0

0
-0.1 DEM-only -0.1 DEM-only DEM-only
37 37 37
67 67 67
267 267
-0.05 267
-0.2 -0.2
347 347 347
Camera Camera Camera

-0.3 -0.3 -0.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(d) Time (s) (e) Time (s) (f) Time (s)

Fig. 10. Ball displacements along y-direction in multiball collision simulation: (a) Ball 2; (b) Ball 3; (c) Ball 4; (d) Ball 5; (e) Ball 6; and (f) Ball 7.

© ASCE 04018023-9 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 12 500

10
400

8
300

SSE

2
6

χ
200
4

100
2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
DEM-only 37 67 267 347 DEM-only 37 67 267 347
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Statistical results: (a) SSE; and (b) χ2 .

Chi square value (χ2 ) were used. The SSE and χ2 assess the total
and percentage difference between simulation results and the cam-
era recordings for all the balls during the entire collision process,
respectively, as shown in Eqs. (25) and (26). Smaller values of SSE
and χ2 indicate better agreement with the camera recordings:
X ing Case 37 with Case 347 and Case 67 with Case 267, the use of
SSE ¼ ðsimulation result − camera recordingÞ2 ð25Þ
i¼1
X ðsimulation result − camera recordingÞ2
χ2 ¼ ð26Þ
i¼1
camera recording
Fig. 11 shows the SSE and χ2 for different simulation cases,
which demonstrates that the SMART computing in all cases
resulted in smaller values of SSE and χ2 . This indicates that the
SMART computing is able to more accurately predict the multiball
collision. It is also interesting to note that the location of control
nodes and the number of control nodes used in the algorithm af-
fected the accuracy of SMART computing. For instance, compar-
more control nodes improved the simulation accuracy. Comparing
Case 37 with Case 67 and Case 267 with Case 347, for a given
amount of the control nodes, Case 37 and Case 347 were more
accurate than the other two, demonstrating the importance of the
locations of control nodes. Fig. 11 shows that Case 267 resulted
in the best overall predictions.
Figs. 12–14 show the ball positions at different times predicted
by the DEM-only simulations, SMART computing using Case 267,

Fig. 12. Ball positions at different times predicted by DEM-only simulations.

Fig. 13. Ball positions at different times using SMART computing algorithm (Case 267).

© ASCE 04018023-10 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023

 Fig. 14. Ball positions at different times captured by camera.
and the positions captured by the camera recordings, respectively. It
is clearly seen that the SMART computing can better predict the
multiball collision.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
This paper presents a SMART computing algorithm that can en-
hance DEM simulations using a wireless device—SmartRock.
The SmartRock is capable of recording real-time particle transla-
tion and rotation if embedded in a granular assemblage. SMART
computing is a Kalman filter-based data-fusion technique that can
incorporate real-time SmartRock recordings into DEM simulations
to improve the simulation accuracy. The proposed algorithm is suit-
able for applications where individual particle movement, particle
arrangement, and rearrangement significantly affect the material
behavior, such as landslides and the shear bands in triaxial test
and direct shear test of granular materials. In SMART computing,
only a small percentage of particles are replaced by SmartRocks in
order to have accurate kinematic descriptions, whereas movements
of the other non-SmartRock particles are effectively predicted using
this algorithm. The simulation cases demonstrate that the location
and number of SmartRocks, whose recordings were used to recon-
dition the particles in DEM simulations, are important to the accu-
racy of SMART computing. For example, future research studies
on how to determine the appropriate positions and the number of
control nodes are needed to improve the proposed SMART com-
puting algorithm in engineering applications where only a small
percentage of particles are represented by SmartRocks at discrete
locations in a large granular assemblage.
References
Barbosa, R. E. 1990. “Discrete element models for granular materials and
rock masses.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Cundall, P. A., and R. D. Hart. 1992. “Numerical modeling of discontinue.”
Eng. Comp. 9 (2): 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb023851.
Cundall, P. A., and O. D. L. Strack. 1979. “A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies.” Geotechnique 29 (1): 47–65. https://doi.org/10
.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47.
Gordon, W. J., and J. A. Wixom. 1978. “Shepard’s method of metric
interpolation to bivariate and multivariate interpolation.” Math.
Comput. 32 (141): 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1978
-0458027-6.
Hanley, K. J., X. Huang, C. O’Sullivan, and C. Fiona. 2014. “Temporal
variation of contact networks in granular materials.” Granular Matter
16 (1): 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-013-0470-4.
Hanley, K. J., and C. O’Sullivan. 2016. “Analytical study of the accuracy of
discrete element simulations.” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 109 (1): 29–51.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5275.
Huang, H. 2010. “Discrete element modeling of railroad ballast using im-
aging based aggregate morphology characterization.” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Huang, H., and S. Chrismer. 2012. “Discrete element modeling of ballast
settlement under trains moving at ‘critical speeds’.” J. Constr. Build.
© ASCE 04018023-11
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023
Mater. 38: 994–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09
.007.
Indraratna, B., and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2013. “Deformation of coal fouled
ballast stabilized with geogrid under cyclic load.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng. 139 (8): 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0000864.
Itasca. 2008. Particle flow code, PFC3D 4.0. Minneapolis: Itasca Consult-
ing Group, Inc.
James, D. 2006. Representing attitude: Euler angles, unit quaternions, and
rotation vectors. Technical Rep. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Johnson, S. M., J. R. Williams, and B. K. Cook. 2009. “On the appli-
cation of quaternion-based approaches in discrete element
methods.” Eng. Comput. 26 (6): 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1108
/02644400910975414.
Kalman, R. E. 1960. “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction
problems.” J. Basic Eng. 82 (1): 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1115/1
.3662552.
Kruggel-Emden, H., M. Sturm, S. Wirtz, and V. Scherer. 2008. “Selection
of an appropriate time integration scheme for the discrete element
method (DEM).” Comput. Chem. Eng. 32 (10): 2263–2279. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2007.11.002.
Lee, S. J., and Y. M. A. Hashash. 2015. “iDEM: An impulse-based discrete
element method for fast granular dynamics.” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.
104 (2): 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4923.
Lee, S. J., Y. M. A. Hashash, and E. G. Nezami. 2012. “Simulation of tri-
axial compression test with polyhedral discrete elements.” Comput.
Geotech. 43: 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.02.011.
Liu, S., H. Huang, T. Qiu, and L. Gao. 2016. “Comparison of laboratory
testing using SmartRock and discrete element modeling of ballast par-
ticle movement.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (3): D6016001. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001540.
Liu, S., T. Qiu, and H. Huang. 2015. “Laboratory development and testing
of ‘SmartRock’ for railroad ballast using discrete element modeling.” In
Proc., 2015 Joint Rail Conf. 2015. New York: ASME Rail Transpor-
tation Division.
Lu, M., and G. R. McDowell. 2010. “Discrete element modeling of railway
ballast under monotonic and cyclic triaxial loading.” Géotechnique
60 (6): 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2010.60.6.459.
Mathews, G., IV, R. Mullen, and D. Rizos. 2014. “Highly stable explicit
temporal integration for discrete element computations.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 29 (6): 04014084. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943
-5487.0000412.
Nazami, E. G., Y. M. A. Hashash, D. Zhao, and J. Ghaboussi. 2007.
“Simulation of front end loader bucket-soil interaction using discrete
element method.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 31 (9):
1147–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.594.
Nazami, E. G., D. Zhao, Y. Hashash, and J. Ghaboussi. 2004. “A fast con-
tact detection algorithm for 3-d discrete element method.” Comput.
Geotech. 31 (7): 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2004.08
.002.
Ngo, N. T., B. Indraratna, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2014. “DEM simulation
of the behaviour of geogrid stabilised ballast fouled with coal.” Comput.
Geotech. 55: 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.008.
O’Donovan, J., E. Ibraim, C. O’Sullivan, S. Hamlin, D. M. Wood, and
G. Marketos. 2016. “Micromechanics of seismic wave propagation
in granular materials.” Granular Matter 18 (56), 1–18. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10035-015-0599-4.
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 O’Sullivan, C. 2011. Particulate discrete element modelling: A geome-
chanics perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis.
O’Sullivan, C., and L. Cui. 2009. “Micromechanics of granular material
response during load reversals: Combined DEM and experimental
study.” Powder Technol. 193 (3): 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.powtec.2009.03.003.
O’Sullivan, C., G. Marketos, and D. M. Wood. 2015. “Anisotropic stress
and shear wave velocity: DEM studies of a crystalline granular
material.” Geotech. Lett. 5 (3): 224–230.
Press, W. H. 2008. “Multidimensional interpolation on scattered
data.” Accessed January 20, 2017. http://numerical.recipes/CS395T
/lectures2008/20-MultidimInterp.pdf.
Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery. 2007.
Numerical recipes: The art of scientific computing, 3rd ed. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 04/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Qian, Y., D. Mishra, E. Tutumluer, and H. Kazmee. 2015. “Characterization
of geogrid reinforced ballast behavior at different levels of degradation
through triaxial shear strength test and discrete element modeling.”
Geotextiles Geomembranes 43 (5): 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.geotexmem.2015.04.012.
Saussine, G., C. Cholet, P. E. Gautier, F. Dubois, C. Bohatier, and J. J.
Moreau. 2006. “Modelling ballast behaviour under dynamic loading.
Part 1: A 2D polygonal discrete element method approach.” Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 195 (19–22): 2841–2859. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.cma.2005.07.006.
© ASCE 04018023-12
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(4): 04018023
Shepard, D. 1968. “A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregular-
space data.” In Proc., 23rd ACM National Conf., 517–524. New York:
ACM.
Tutumluer, E., H. Huang, and X. Bian. 2010. “Geogrid-aggregate interlock
studied by an image aided discrete element method.” Int. J. Geomech.
12 (4): 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622
.0000113.
Tutumluer, E., Y. Qian, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. Ghaboussi, and D. D. Davis.
2013. “Discrete element modelling of ballasted track deformation
behavior.” Int. J. Rail Transp. 1 (1–2): 57–73. https://doi.org/10
.1080/23248378.2013.788361.
Wang, Y., and F. Tonon. 2006. “Modeling triaxial test on intact rock using
discrete element method with membrane boundary.” J. Eng. Mech.
135 (9): 1029–1037. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889
.0000017.
Yang, C. S., S. P. Kao, F. B. Lee, and P. S. Hung. 2004. “Twelve different
interpolation methods: A case study of Surfer 8.0.” In Vol. 35 of Proc.,
ISPRS Congress. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Zamani, N., and U. El Shamy. 2011. “DEM simulations of wave propaga-
tion in dry granular soils.” In Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geo-
technical Engineering, 4166–4175. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Zamani, N., and U. El Shamy. 2013. “Discrete element method simulations
of the response of soil foundation structure systems to multidirectional
seismic motion.” Int. J. Geomech. 13 (5): 595–610. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000247.
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.