Particle-Based Discrete Element Modeling:

Geomechanics Perspective
Catherine O’Sullivan, Ph.D.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper is a review of the use of particulate discrete element modeling (DEM) in geomechanics. The overall objective of the
paper is to serve as an introduction to researchers and practitioners in geomechanics who are considering adopting DEM in their work or using
the results of DEM simulations to guide other studies, for example, the development of constitutive models for continuum-based numerical
analysis. It is hoped that prior converts to the use of DEM will also benefit from a relatively objective overview of current DEM use in
geomechanics. The introductory sections present the background to the method and give an overview of the evolution of the use of particulate
DEM in recent geotechnical research. The general principals of the algorithm are then presented, considering the types of particles typically
used, the calculation of contact forces, and formulation of simulation boundary conditions. Some techniques available to interpret and post-
process of DEM results and provide the information to link the particle scale and overall response are outlined. Approaches used to validate
and calibrate DEM models to verify that DEM simulation results representative of physical reality are discussed. An overview of the
application of DEM modeling to field-scale problems is then presented. Finally the conclusions consider future developments in the area
and emphasize the need to maintain quality in DEM simulations. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000024. © 2011 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Discrete elements; Soil mechanics.
Author keywords: Discrete element modeling; Particulate soil mechanics.

Introduction
Soil is a particulate material; consequently, its response to applied
loads and deformations is highly complex, even if consideration is
restricted to particles exceeding 100 μm in size. This is the size
limit (approximately) at which the particle response becomes do-
minated by inertia considerations, i.e., the magnitude of the surface
interaction forces become negligible in comparison with the par-
ticle inertia. For the purposes of the discussion presented in this
study consideration will be largely restricted to materials with a
D50 exceeding 100 μm, and such materials will be referred to as
granular materials. Referring to Feda (1982) or Potyondy and
Cundall (2004), for example, a list of response characteristics
for granular materials that includes the nonlinearity of the stress
strain response curve; the dependence of the response on the
material state [in which the term “state” refers to a combination
of void ratio and effective stress and can be quantified by using
the state parameter as defined by Been and Jefferies (1985)];
anisotropy, sensitivity of the response to the intermediate principal
stress, and stress dependant stiffness can be developed. Although
significant progress has been made in advancing understanding of
granular material response over the past 50 years within the geo-
mechanics community in particular (e.g., development of critical
state mechanics framework for soil response), the relationship
between the particle-scale interactions and the overall material re-
sponse is not completely understood. Discrete element methods are
1
Senior Lecturer, Skempton Building, Imperial College London,
London SW7 2AZ, U.K. E-mail: cath.osullivan@imperial.ac.uk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 28, 2009; approved on
June 30, 2011; published online on July 2, 2011. Discussion period open
until May 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geomechanics,
Vol. 11, No. 6, December 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2011/6-449–
464/$25.00.
numerical tools that can be used to address this gap in understand-
ing because particle-scale interactions that cannot be measured in
laboratory tests can easily be monitored in “virtual” tests. Discrete
element methods can also overcome some of the limitations of
more conventional continuum mechanics based approaches in
which the development of finite displacements or localizations
within the material require remeshing and pose convergence chal-
lenges to convergence of numerical models.
The use of discrete element modeling (DEM) is increasing
within the geomechanics research community; and although its use
in industry is less commonplace, this situation is likely to change
with increasing computing power. The objective of this paper is
to provide a overview of the application of particulate discrete
element modeling in geomechanics. It must be recognized that a
very large number of researchers have been developing and using
DEM to study granular material response; therefore, an exhaustive,
complete review of the field within a single paper would be impos-
sible. Furthermore, the review is presented from the perspective of
one researcher, working within one application area, and a resultant
bias in the material selected is inevitable. Recognizing these lim-
itations, it is intended that the contents will provide information
for researchers who do not use DEM to advance understanding of
the method to the broader geomechanics community so that both
experimentalists and those who use continuum analysis approaches
can better appreciate the potential to use DEM results to guide their
own research. The initial section of the paper presents a brief review
of the variety of geomechanics studies that have been published in
DEM over the past 10 years. The overall DEM algorithm is then
presented, and some techniques used to interpret the results of
DEM analyses are introduced. Methods used to validate and cal-
ibrate DEM studies are then presented. Throughout these discus-
sions, emphasis is placed on the use of DEM in micromechanics
studies to advance understanding of fundamental material response.
The final section of the paper then discusses the use of DEM to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 449

Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464

 simulate field-scale problems. The conclusions include some
comments on the likely future development of DEM use in
geomechanics.
Overview of Particulate DEM
Background
Particulate DEM can be defined as a numerical method that sim-
ulates the response of granular materials considering the individual
particles to be rigid and uses relatively simple models to simulate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
their interactions. As outlined by Duran (2000), for example, par-
ticulate DEM models can be classified as “soft sphere” or “hard
sphere.” Poschel and Swager (2005) give useful, detailed descrip-
tions of the various particle-based approaches available to model
granular materials, only the broad concepts are presented in this
study. Fig. 1 illustrates schematically the differences between these
two modeling approaches. In the soft-sphere approach, a small
amount of overlap is allowed at the contact points, and this overlap
can be considered analogous to the deformation that occurs at the
contacts among real soil particles. The magnitude of this overlap
can be related to the interparticle contact force, as discussed
subsequently. Most particulate mechanics models used in the
geomechanics community adopt this approach. In contrast for the
hard-sphere approach (Hoomans et al. 1996), no overlap is allowed
between particles. Contacts are assumed to be of short time dura-
tion, and particle motion is calculated by considering the energy
loss during collision and modeled by using a coefficient of resti-
tution. Within a geomechanics context this approach probably only
suited for rapid granular flow simulations. Given the prevalence of
soft-sphere approaches in geomechanics, no further consideration
of the hard-sphere algorithms is given in this study.
Trends in DEM Use within the Research Community
Granular materials are encountered in a variety of disciplines
outside of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. Most
notably, chemical and process engineers also regularly adopt DEM
in their research. The complexity of granular material response has
attracted interest from mathematicians and physicists who use
DEM simulations to generate data to guide understanding of the
fundamentals of granular material response. Recent conference
proceedings (Nakagawa and Luding 2009) illustrate the range of
applications of DEM across these disciplines. Much information
on the applicability of DEM to advance understanding of granular
materials for geomechanics applications can therefore be gained
by reference to journals in these other disciplines. Two particularly
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the differences between hard-sphere and soft-sphere particulate modeling approaches; particle velocities before
interaction are given by v1 and v2 ; post interaction velocities are given by v01 and v02
450 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
useful publications are by Zhu et al. (2007, 2008), which provide
reviews of the development of DEM algorithms and the application
of DEM, respectively, from a chemical engineering perspective.
The recent special editions of Powder Technology (Thornton 2009)
and Particuology (Zhu and Yu 2008) also contain papers of interest
to the geomechanics community. Although Cundall (2001) does
provide an introduction to particulate DEM for a geotechnical audi-
ence, only limited details on the DEM algorithm are presented.
Although Cundall (2001) has a nice introduction to DEM, the paper
can be viewed as rather philosophical and aspirational. Although it
is not a review paper, Potondy and Cundall (2004) is a useful base
reference for DEM analysts because the modeling and interpreta-
tion approaches used are more clearly outlined than in typical
DEM-related papers, furthermore the authors discuss rather frankly
both the advantages and limitations of their model, in addition to
both specimen generation and interpretation of DEM particle-scale
results.
Zhu et al. (2007) provide information on the number of DEM-
related publications each year from 1985 to 2005 across a range of
disciplines by using the Web of Science database. Their data were
updated in the current paper by using the Web of Knowledge data-
base (Thomson Reuters 2009) and searching and accessing the key-
words discrete element method/model, distinct element method/
model, discrete particle simulation/method/model, and granular dy-
namic simulation. The results of this analysis are presented in Fig. 2.
There has been a continuous increase in the number of papers pub-
lished per year over the past 20 years, and since 1996, approxi-
mately 17 additional papers are published each year (excluding
data for 2009, which is incomplete)—an almost linear rate of
increase. This search indicated that a total of almost 1950 papers
relating to discrete element type simulations were published
between 1977 and the end of 2008.
Although knowledge of the overall use of DEM in physical
and mathematical sciences and engineering is interesting, a better
appreciation of the current state of practice regarding DEM use
within the geomechanics community is presented in this paper fol-
lowing a review of a number of international geotechnical journals.
The journals considered were the Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Computers and Geotechnics, Geomechanics and Geoengineering:
An International Journal, Géotechnique, the International Journal
of Geomechanics, the International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, the International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, and Soils and Founda-
tions. Reading every single paper in these journals would be
prohibitively time consuming; consequently, discrete element
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Annual rate of disrete element modeling publications identified

by using the Web of Knowledge in May 2009 by using the keywords
“discrete element method,” “discrete element model,” “distinct element
method,” distinct element model,” “discrete particle simulation,” “dis-
crete particle method,” discrete particle model,” and “granular dynamic
simulation,” following the approach of Zhu et al. (2007)

publications were identified by reviewing the paper titles and au-

thors. Therefore, it is possible that a few relevant papers may have
been omitted. The time period of 1998 to May 2009 was consid-
ered. Including papers available on line in advance of publication,
a total of 116 papers were identified (this total excludes the use of
block DEM codes for rock block stability analyses).
Fig. 3(a) illustrates the number of particulate DEM papers
published in each of the years considered, whereas Fig. 3(b) illus-
trates the number of particles modeled in these simulations. Until
2007, the number of publications describing two-dimensional (2D)
DEM simulations outnumbered the number of documented three-
dimensional (3D) simulations almost every year. It is important to
always remember that real granular materials of interest to geotech-
nical engineers are three-dimensional and exercise engineering
judgment in interpreting the results of 2D DEM simulations to
extrapolate findings to soil response. The primary reason for the
prevalence of 2D DEM modeling are the reduced computational
costs as a consequence of the smaller number of degrees of freedom
assigned to each particle in a 2D simulation (three) in comparison
with a 3D simulation (six). Furthermore, the number of contacts per
particle is greater in the 3D case because the system is not restricted
to in-plane contacts, as in the 2D case, and the computational time
is closely related to the number of contacts in the system. It is also
easier to visualize the micromechanical data, including the network
of contact forces and the particle rotations, in three dimensions in
comparison with the 2D case. Most of the published simulations
were carried out by using the 2D commercial code PFC2D, and
2D codes tend to be substantially cheaper than 3D codes. Fig. 3(a)
illustrates that the rate of increase in research publications using
particulate DEM analyses in the geomechanics literature continues
to grow (the data for 2009 are not yet complete).
Use of DEM within Geomechanics
Simulations of DEM are used to simulate both cohesionless soil
(Thornton 2000) and cemented sand/rock mass in which the
material is represented as individual disks bonded together
(Potyondy and Cundall 2004). Typically, these analyses are re-
stricted to consider particles exceeding approximately 100 μm,
i.e., particles sufficiently large such that the surface attraction
Fig. 3. Review of DEM publications in geomechanics literature:
(a) annual rate of publication; (b) number of particles considered in
simulations
forces are negligible in comparison with the particle inertia. Clay
DEM simulations are less common and complicated by both the
complexity of the surface interaction forces and the particle geom-
etry. However, researchers, including Anandarajah (2003), Lu et al.
(2008), and Peron et al. (2009) have explored the use of DEM to
simulate clay response.
The range of DEM studies published within the geomechanics
literature can be broadly classified as documentations of DEM
algorithm modifications; validation of DEM models; calibration
of DEM models; analyses of the relationship between particle-scale
(microscale) mechanics and the bulk (macroscale) material re-
sponse; development of interpretation techniques; simulations of
element tests; and simulations of field-scale boundary value prob-
lems. Documented simulations of element tests greatly outnumber
simulations of field-scale boundary value problems. All the geome-
chanics publications considered described a simulation of a field or
industrial scale application. Zhu et al. (2008) provide a detailed list
of examples of particulate DEM papers applied to specific types of
problems, considering a broad range of sources including many
geomechanics applications. A more concise list giving only limited
key references that can give introductions to the application of
DEM to simulate different types of physical systems (mostly at
element test scale) is given in Table 1.
To date, most of the DEM simulations within the geomechanics
community have been completed either byusing the original Trubal
code (Cundall and Strack 1979; or a modified version of that code)
or the commercially available codes PFC2D/PFC3D which are also

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 451

Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464

 Table 1. List of Key References
Simulation type Reference
Biaxial compression Iwashita and Oda (1998) (unbonded material including rolling resistance);
test (2D) Potyondy and Cundall (2004) (bonded particle model to simulate rock mass response)
Triaxial test Thornton (2000) (with periodic boundaries); Cui et al. (2007) (including test boundary conditions using membrane model)
Plane strain test Ng (2004) (with periodic boundaries); Powrie et al. (2005) (including test boundaries)
True triaxial test Ng (2004); Thornton (2000) (both with periodic boundaries)
Direct shear test Masson and Martinez (2001) (2D); Cui and O’Sullivan (2006) (3D)
Simple shear test Matsushima et al. (2003)
Interface shear test Wang et al. (2007)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Machine–soil interaction Huang and Detournay (2008)

Penetration Huang and Ma (1994) (2D); Butlanska et al. (2009) (3D)
Arching at field scale Jenck et al. (2009) (simulation of load transfer platform)

closely linked to Trubal (PFC 2D 2009a; PFC 3D 2009b). The
recent increase in available alternative commercial DEM codes
(EDEM; DEM Solutions 2009) and open source research codes
(Kozicki and Donze 2008; Xiang et al. 2009) mean that the domi-
nance of Trubal and its derivatives may decrease in coming years.
The contact dynamics method (Jean 1999) is also used within the
French geomechanics/particulate modeling community in particu-
lar (Silvani et al. 2009). Many DEM codes also exist outside the
geomechanics community (CSIRO 2009).
Method Overview
Fig. 4(a) provides a schematic overview of the sequence of calcu-
lations involved in a DEM simulation, assuming the central differ-
ence, distinct element algorithm proposed by Cundall and Strack
(1979) is adopted. Fig. 4(b) illustrates the calculation sequence
within each time increment. The DEM algorithm is a dynamic,
or transient simulation, in which the dynamic equilibrium of each
particle is considered at discrete time increments. To gain an
impression of the issues associated with implementing the algo-
rithm, refer to Kozicki and Donze (2008).
The initial phase in the simulation is to define the system geom-
etry including the boundary conditions. Referring to Fig. 5, the
most common particle geometries are disks (2D) and spheres (3D).
Their prevalence is a consequence of the computational cost of
DEM simulations. When disks or spheres are used, the distance
between particles can easily be determined from the centroidal
coordinates and the particle radii. Consequently, identification of
contacting particles and calculation of contact forces is straight-
forward. When one uses ellipsoidal particles (Lin and Ng 1997), a
nonlinear equation must be solved in each time increment at each
contact point. A compromise is to use “clumps” or “clusters” of
DEM particles by either bonding them together by allowing tensile
and cohesive forces at the contact points (McDowell and Harireche
2002) or by bringing the particles together into single rigid agglom-
erate by using the subparticles for calculation of contact forces and
considering the equilibrium of the entire agglomerate when updat-
ing the system geometry (Favier et al. 2001). Nezami et al. (2007)

Fig. 4. (a) Overall calculation procedure; (b) sequence of calculations completed within each time increment

452 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011

Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464

 Fig. 5. DEM particle types: (a) disks (2D) and spheres (3D); (b) ellipses (2D) and ellipsoids (3D); (c) overlapping disk and sphere clusters; (d) bonded
sphere model for crushable particles used by Cheng et al. (2003)
used 3D polygonal particles, limiting consideration to a finite range
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of polygonal geometries.
Having chosen the particles, placing them within the domain to
generate the DEM particle assembly for simulation of the boundary
value problem of interest is arguably more challenging than prepar-
ing controlled reconstituted sand specimen physical element tests
in experimental research, and in fact, may be more time-consuming
than the analysis of the boundary value problem of interest.
Potyondy and Cundall (2004) include a detailed description of
one common approach to specimen generation involving the gen-
eration of nontouching particles at random locations within the
problem domain; the radii of all the particles are then systematically
increased to achieve a target void ratio and finally a specified initial
stress state is achieved by moving the boundary walls. The second
two stages of this system themselves involve DEM simulation
cycles. Alternative approaches to directly construct a dense system
of particles without DEM simulation cycles include triangulation-
based approaches (Jerier et al. 2009) or the advancing front type
algorithms (Bagi 2005).
The final significant decision to be made at the input stage is the
contact model. The philosophy of DEM is to use rigid “penalty”
springs acting both normal and tangentially to the contact points
to calculate the interparticle forces. The force displacement rela-
tionship for these springs is sometimes called a contact constitutive
model. Probably the most commonly used contact model is the
linear no-tension spring slider in the normal direction, coupled with
a linear spring-slider system in the tangential direction. Elastic
theory, if applied to contact between two elastic spheres, yields
a nonlinear force deformation response at the contact point. A non-
linear elastic normal force displacement relationship can be devel-
oped by considering the response of two elastic spheres in contact
following the work of Hertz (Cundall 1988); refer to Johnson
(1985) for a detailed description of Herztian contact theory. The
corresponding tangential force displacement relationship is based
on the work of Mindlin and Deresiewicz (1953). Although most
implementations ignore the dissipation of energy before gross rel-
ative sliding of the particles, Thornton (1999) and Thornton and
Yin (1991) have proposed a contact model that captures the preslip
plastic response and resultant energy dissipation. Cavaretta et al.
(2010) have demonstrated that even for relatively simple manufac-
tured materials, real particle contacts do not follow elastic theory,
rather plastic yield of asperities exist before the development of an
elastic response occurs. Walton and Braun (1986) proposed a linear
normal contact model that can capture the dissipation and harden-
ing induced by the contact loading history. Many analysts (Cleary
2000) include a viscous dashpot in their contact models. The en-
ergy dissipation that occurs in which either by using the Waltron
Braun model or a viscous dashpot can be related to a coefficient
of restitution as adopted in the hard-sphere models considered
previously.
Some recent studies have developed new approaches to contact
modeling for geomechanics. Recognizing that the nonconvex, non-
smooth contact that develops between real soil particles adds a
resistance to rotation at the contact points, Jiang et al. (2005)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 453
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
proposed a rolling resistance model that extends the earlier rota-
tional resistance model proposed by Iwashita and Oda (1998) as
the contact spring modeling rotational resistance depends on the
contact area (as do the normal and shear contact springs) and
the Jiang et al. model also includes viscous damping. Looking
at a smaller scale, but also accounting for the non smooth nature
of real soil grain surfaces, Jiang et al. (2009) include roughness
in their model by simulating the asperities on particle surfaces by
engaging a systems of normal and shear springs acting in parallel
when particles come into contact. Kuhn and Mitchell (1992) were
probably the first researchers to use DEM to examine the influence
of particle interactions on macroscale creep from a geomechanics
perspective. More recently, this concept has been further developed
by Wang et al. (2008).
Granular materials of interest to geotechnical engineers are
not simply two-phase (particle-void) materials, and contact models
have been developed to account for the influence of additional
material phases on the material response. Although simulating fully
saturated response using DEM is considered subsequently, unsatu-
rated or partially saturated soil response poses a particular chal-
lenge to geotechnical engineers, and a number of research groups
have been examining the fundamental mechanics of unsaturated
soil response by using DEM. Gili and Alonso (2002), Jiang et al.
(2004), Richefeu et al. (2008), El Shamy and Gröger (2008), and
Scholtès et al. (2009) have all proposed contact models to represent
the interparticle tensile and cohesive forces that arise because of
capillary tension in partially saturated soils. DEM contact models
have also been developed to model alternative phases of the
material in composite granular materials. Abbas et al. (2007) and
Collop et al. (2007) both used viscoelastic spring dashpot contact
models to represent the viscosity of the binder between particles in
asphalt. Contact models to simulate response of cement between
the particles have also been proposed. In the simplest case, the con-
tact model is extended to transmit tension between the particles.
This approach is adopted by Kulatilake et al. (2001) in 3D to model
the response of a cemented sand (analogous to rock mass). Wang
and Leung (2008) used small disks to represent the cement phase of
the material with a simple tensile contact model used to model the
contact between the cementing disks and between the cementing
disks and the larger “soil” disks. Utili and Nova (2008) also used
this approach to model response in the contact normal direction;
however, consider two alternatives regarding the relationship be-
tween contact shear strength and normal force postrupture. This
simple linear-tensile contact force model has also been used to
simulate the response of sandstone rock mass (Cook et al. 2004).
Although Camborde et al. (2000) also adopt this simple approach to
model tensile forces, their work is distinguished by their use of non-
circular particles and the nonlinear, hysteretic model for contacts
in compression. Potyondy and Cundall (2004) describe a “parallel
bond model” that can transmit moments, normal (tensile and com-
pressive) forces, and shear forces. Although they discuss the appli-
cability of this model to sandstone, the simulations presented aim to
capture the response of mass granite. This model is available within
the commercial DEM code, PFC2D, and has been used to model
 rock mass in 2D (Wang et al. 2003a; Fakhimi et al. 2006). One of
the advantages of DEM is that it allows users to explore hypotheses
about the particle interactions that govern macroscale response
by implementing relatively simple contact constitutive models to
describe particle interactions. The range of interaction models that
have been considered to date extends beyond the publications cited
in this study, and this promises to be an interesting area of DEM
research in future years. One challenge in this area is to accurately
calculate the particle-scale forces in microscale laboratory experi-
ments. Although contributions to meet this need have been made by
Cavaretta et al. (2010), significant additional data are required.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A DEM simulation is a nonlinear dynamic analysis, even when
a linear contact model is used because there will typically be a
change in the contact conditions during the simulation. The time
increment used in a DEM analysis must be small to capture the
changing contact conditions, and more importantly, to avoid
numerical stability problems. Implicit particle codes have been
developed in both 2D (Ke and Bray 1995) and 3D (Holtzman et al.
2009). Use of an implicit time integrator requires formation of a
sparse stiffness matrix that must be inverted at least once per time
increment. Although Cundall and Strack’s algorithm avoids this
computationally expensive matrix inversion step, the time step
chosen must be small enough to satisfy numerical stability require-
ments. In a preliminary consideration of the merits of the two ap-
proaches, the unconditionally stable implicit approach seems very
attractive. However, a number of considerations render the implicit
approach impractical for most geomechanics applications. In the
first instance, typically even at very small strain levels, the material
response is geometrically nonlinear because there can be a change
in contact or contacts may start sliding. The time increment must be
sufficiently small to capture this nonlinearity. Any change in con-
tact conditions will change the global stiffness matrix that describes
the stiffness of the particle assembly, and in an implicit method,
iteration will be required to determine the appropriate stiffness
matrix. The DDA algorithm (Shi 1988; Shi and Goodman 1985)
uses the stiffness matrix at the end of the current time increment
to calculate the incremental displacements. An initial guess of the
stiffness matrix is made by assuming there is no change in the
global stiffness matrix over the current time increment. Then hav-
ing calculated the incremental displacements of each particle, a test
is performed to assess whether the initially assumption is valid. If a
change at even one contact point exists, a correction will need to be
made to the stiffness matrix, the incremental displacements are
recalculated, and the test is repeated. Shi (1988) used an innovative
“open close” iteration algorithm to manage this series of iterations
until convergence is achieved. Although this approach is very ef-
fective when the contact configuration remains approximately un-
changed, its use when rapidly changing contact conditions exist
(postpeak in a brittle granular material) is difficult. Achieving prov-
ing convergence is not easy, and if large changes in the geometry
exist, it may be necessary to reduce the time increment and repeat
the calculations. The DDA algorithm is very popular in block
discrete element simulations, and this can possibly be because of
the smaller number of geometry changes that are involved in con-
sidering systems of jointed rock mass deformations. The limitations
outlined in this study however, restrict its use in particulate-based
DEM simulations in which the Cundall and Strack (1979) algo-
rithm is beyond doubt the most popular approach to DEM simu-
lation. Fig. 6 presents the results of a comparison simulation
described by O’Sullivan et al. (2003) in which a well-constrained
ideal system (biaxial compression of hexagonally packed disks)
was analyzed by using both explicit DEM and implicit DDA,
and equivalent results were obtained.
454 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
LEGEND
PFC2D Analysis
Laboratory Test
ClPolStlvl
Original DDAD
Formulation
Modified DDAD
Formulation
40
Angle of Mobilized Friction
30
20
10
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Axial Strain
Fig. 6. Equivalence of results with explicit DEM (PFC analysis) and
implicit DDAD (modified DDAD formulation; O’Sullivan et al. 2003)
An important decision to be made by researchers approaching
the use of DEM for the first time is whether to embark on 2D or 3D
analyses. The advantage of 2D simulations is that they are compu-
tationally cheaper for equivalent numbers of materials (2D particles
have three degrees of freedom, 3D particles have six), visualization
of results is significantly easier, and commercial 2D DEM codes are
substantially cheaper than 3D codes. In geomechanics, it is impor-
tant to recognize that although significant insight into granular
material response can be achieved by using 2D DEM simulations,
a 2D DEM model will always be an analog to soil, and use of 2D
DEM to quantitatively simulate or predict real soil response should
be approached with caution. However, although it is important to be
conscious of their limitations, 2D DEM simulations can give very
useful insight into mechanisms. A 2D DEM model captures many
of key complex mechanical response features unique to soil and
other granular materials; consequently, they can be used with a
large degree of confidence to assess how different particle-scale
parameters influence the overall material response. For example,
Jiang et al. (2005, 2009) demonstrated qualitatively the potential
of their contact models in 2D DEM simulations. Analysts of
DEM and the broader geomechanics community need to carefully
consider how to interpret the results of 2D DEM analyses and
recognize that the geometrical restrictions imposed by reducing
a 3D problem, including out-of-plane contacts and displacements,
mean that drawing quantitative conclusions about the microme-
chanics of the response may not be appropriate. This has implica-
tions for calibration of 2D DEM models against physical test data
on materials with three-dimensional particle geometries, as consid-
ered subsequently.
As a general rule, appropriate formulation and implementation
of boundary conditions is essential to achieve meaningful analytical
or numerical models of physical systems. Fig. 7 illustrates the dif-
ferent types of boundary conditions that are typically used in a
DEM simulation. The simplest boundary type is a rigid boundary
[Fig. 7(a)], these rigid boundaries are simply analytically described
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. DEM boundary conditions (a) rigid boundaries enclosing biaxial test specimen; (b) rectangular periodic boundaries; (c) circumferential
periodic boundaries for axisymmetric analyses; (d) mixed boundary environment for simulation of triaxial tests including flexible membrane
and circumferential periodic boundary

surfaces that can be planar or curved. These boundaries themselves
have no inertia; the contact forces determined at particle-boundary
contact are used to update the particle coordinates only. Servo con-
trol algorithms can be developed to control the internal stresses by
moving these boundaries. Fig. 7(b) is an illustration of a periodic
boundary. Periodic boundaries have been used in a number of
geomechanics-related publications, including Thornton (2000)
and Ng (2004). Where periodic boundaries are used, the granular
material is assumed to be infinite in extent. In the DEM simulation
it is then assumed that the material can be represented by repeated,
identical representative elements. For each element then, contact
detection occurs between particles along the left and right bounda-
ries and particles along the top and bottom boundaries. A global
strain field can be applied to simulate strain controlled tests or
stress-controlled (servo-controlled) tests. Cui et al. (2007) proposed
extension of the periodic cell concept to axisymmetric problems.
In this case, a pair of circumferential periodic boundaries is intro-
duced, as illustrated in Fig. 7(c), allowing an axisymmetric problem
to be simulated by simply considering a single “slice”. The final
type of boundary condition of interest in geomechanics applica-
tions is a stress-controlled boundary. When a stress-controlled
boundary is used, particles along the outside of the specimen are
identified, and force is applied to each of these particles to achieve
a specified stress condition. These boundary conditions are useful
for simulating triaxial tests and capturing the postpeak response.
A three-dimensional illustration of a mixed boundary simulation,
including use of a Voronoi diagram to calculate the forces along a
stress-controlled boundary, is illustrated in Fig. 7(d). Details on the
implementation of stress-controlled boundaries in both two and
three dimensions are given by Cheung and O’Sullivan (2008). By
considering the evolution of locatizations within their 2D and 3D
specimens, and the distribution of forces acting on the particles
along the specimen boundaries, Cheung and O’Sullivan concluded
that although the overall observed material response is not highly
sensitive to the boundary conditions, the particle-scale interactions
differ significantly when simulations on equivalent specimens with
rigid and flexible lateral boundaries are compared.
In experimental geomechanics, consideration is typically given
to the relationship between the particle diameter and the specimen
size. It would be rare to see a physical experiment (e.g., triaxial test)
performed on a sample that is less than approximately 10–20 times
the size of the largest particle in the system. This rule is not always
strictly adhered to in DEM simulations, with the simulation com-
putational cost obviously limiting the number of particles that can
be included in the virtual samples. One way to avoid this problem
is to use a periodic cell (e.g., Thornton 2000; Ng 2004). If the
motivation for the DEM analysis is to understand how the particle-
scale mechanics influences the overall approach within the boun-
daries of a laboratory test apparatus, then size effects/number of
particle effects must be considered. Emergence of localizations
cannot be considered within the periodic cell. One approach that
might be adopted is to repeat the simulation on a single sample
with the same particle-scale properties, fabric, and packing density,
but with different numbers of particles. If the response observed

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 455

Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464

 25 25

Legend
20 PFC Analysis 20

Angle of Mobilized Friction

Angle of Mobilized Friction

0% Std Dev.
of Rod Radii Legend
PFC Analysis PFC Analysis
1% Std Dev. 0% Std. Dev.
15 15 of Rod Radii
of Rod Radii
PFC Analysis PFC Analysis
2% Std Dev. 2% Std. Dev.
of Rod Radii of Rod Radii
10 10
Physical Test PFC Analysis
Borosilicate Rods 5% Std Dev.
(Thomas, 1997) of Rod Radii
5 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Axial Strain Axial Strain
(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 8. Sensitivity of response in 2D biaxial tests to number of particles in simulation: (a) 224 disks subject to small geometrical variations between
specimens; (b) 896 disks disks subject to small geometrical variations between specimens; (c) 5,728 disks and 12,512 disks with equivalent porosities
and particle and contact properties

does not change when the number of particles is increased, then
the analyst could restrict detailed parametric studies to the smaller
of two samples whose response was equivalent. It is rare for such
upscaling studies to be documented in DEM-related publications;
however, Potyondy and Cundall (2004) considered this issue in
detail. Fig. 8 illustrates the results of simulations on three sets of
2D DEM biaxial test simulations described by O’Sullivan (2002)
and O’Sullivan et al. (2002). In Figs. 8(a) and 8(b), biaxial test
simulations were repeated on specimens of 224 and 896 disks, re-
spectively. The sensitivity of the macroscale response to the small
geometrical variations was significant for the 224 disk specimens,
but less notable for the 896 disk specimens. In Fig. 8(c), the
response of two equivalent specimens with 5,728 disks and 12,512
disks is shown to be very similar. Although the results presented
in Fig. 8(c) indicate that upscaling of DEM results to samples with
larger domain sizes is possible, care should be taken in extrapolat-
ing these findings to simulations with different boundary condi-
tions, particle geometries, or particle size distributions.
Obviously a key issue in soil mechanics is the relationship
between soil response and water pressure for saturated soil. In
developing an understanding of drained material response, the
assumption of a dry material without a pore fluid is reasonable.
However, many applications exist in which explicit consideration
of the pore fluid is desired, most notably to develop an understand-
ing of the micromechanics underlying soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. Ng and Dobry (1994) demonstrated that qualitatively
reasonable results can be obtained when undrained cyclic tests
are simulated without explicit consideration of the pore fluid, but
assuming a constant specimen volume during the simulations.
Explicit consideration of the pore fluid is most often achieved
by using the coarse grid approximation proposed by Tsuji et al.
(1993). In this approach, the flow within each individual pore of
the granular material is not modeled; rather, the fluid phase is re-
solved at a discretization scale that is typically 10 times the average
particle diameter. With subtle differences, this is the approach
adopted by Kafui et al. (2002) and Zegal and El Shamy (2004).
Shafipour and Soroush (2008) includes an interesting discussion
comparing the response of a model by using a fully coupled
formation with equivalent constant volume simulations.
Micromechanical Analyses
From a fundamental or theoretical geomechanics perspective, DEM
is an incredibly powerful tool because it allows a look inside the
granular material and the development of an understanding of the

456 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011

Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Heterogeneous contact-force distribution in biaxial test simula-
tion on specimen with 7,771 disk particles
relationship between the overall observed granular material re-
sponse and the particle-scale interactions. Various tools have been
adopted to quantify the particle-scale mechanics. One relatively
straightforward approach is to plot the force chain network in
the material by drawing straight lines connecting the centroids
of contacting particles, in which the thickness of the line is propor-
tional to the magnitude of the contact force transmitted. Fig. 9
illustrates that these plots reveal the heterogeneity of the contact
force distribution within the material that had been observed in
photoelastic experiments both before the development of discrete
element modeling and more recently (Drescher and De Josselin de
Jong 1972; Behringer et al. 2008). Observation of these force chain
plots provides an alternative perspective stress transmission in
granular materials. They reveal that the stress is transmitted through
the material through quasi-parallel strong force chains or load-
carrying columns, and these force chains are laterally supported
by more lightly stressed particles. These strong force chains are on
average aligned in the orientation of the major principal stress act-
ing on the material. In three-dimensional analyses, in particular,
visualization of these force chains is nontrivial, and recognizing
that the bulk of the stress is carried only by the relatively highly
stressed particles in the strong force chains, force chains are often
visualized by considering only forces greater than some threshold
force (e.g., the average force plus 1 standard deviation) in the plots.
Plots of the particle displacements, incremental displacements,
rotations, and incremental rotations also provide insight into the
material response. Observation of displacement (total and incre-
mental) and velocity vectors can provide insight into mechanisms,
whereas plots of the particle configuration, color coded to indicate
the magnitude of particle rotations, are useful to identify the initia-
tion and evolution of particle localizations. As in the case of contact
force network plots, generation and interpretation of these plots in
three dimensions may prove challenging. Analysis of particle fluc-
tuations, or deviation of the particle displacements from the overall,
applied displacement field, has obtained much attention in the
physics community, in particular.
The strong force chain plots and the particle displacement and
rotation plots really provide only qualitative information on the
material structure and the evolution of the material structure during
loading. Various analysis approaches can be adopted to analyze the
data generated in DEM simulations and to provide meaningful,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 457
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
quantitative, information on the material response. The simplest
parameter to consider is the coordination number, Z, simply given
as the ratio of twice the number of contacts in the system (N c ) to the
number of particles (N p ). The number of contacts is multiplied by
two as each contact is shared with two particles
2N c
Z¼ ð1Þ
Np
Although this parameter is useful, it includes the particles outside
the strong and weak force chains that do not participate in the trans-
mission of contact forces through the material; consequently, as
demonstrated by Thornton (2000), more insight may be achieved
by considering the mechanical coordination number (N m ). The
mechanical coordination number considers only the particles with
two or more contacts; particles with only one or no contacts cannot
transmit stress. The expression is given by
2N c
N 1p
Nm ¼ ð2Þ
N p
N 0p
N 1p
where N 0p and N 1p = number of particles with 0 and 1 contact,
respectively. Thornton (2000) demonstrated that loose and dense
specimens of the same material converge to the same mechanical
coordination number after only a small amount of straining. The
coordination number is a measure of the packing density and con-
sequently is related to the specimen void ratio. This relationship
is, however, nontrivial and will depend on the particle geometry,
particle size distribution, and surface properties. Analysis of the
coordination number data can explain, to some extent, the relation-
ship between specimen response and particle geometry. In contrast
to spheres, disks, or ellipsoids, specimens of nonconvex particles
can interact at more than one contact point, permitting transfer of
both force and moment between particles. This difference in con-
tact interaction will result in increased peak strength and stiffness,
and is reflected in higher coordination number values. One can
use network analysis techniques to relate the observed macroscale
material response to the evolution of the coordination number. For
example, O’Sullivan et al. (2002) used the coordination number
data to demonstrate that their regular granular material tended
toward its bond percolation threshold during straining.
Understanding the anisotropic nature of soil response both in
strength and stiffness has been broadly acknowledged, as has the
influence of the intermediate principal stress. By using DEM, the
degree of inherent anisotropy in the material can be quantified, and
how this anisotropy evolves (induced anisotropy) during loading
can be monitored to advance understanding of both these issues.
More than one approach can be adopted to quantify fabric. The
approaches used by DEM analysts to quantify fabric were origi-
nally developed by experimental researchers; for example, Oda
et al. (1980) describe the concept of fabric and how to quantify
fabric using data gained from two-dimensional photoelasticitic
experiments. As illustrated in Fig. 10, the contact orientation,
the particle orientation, or the branch vector orientation (the branch
vector is the vector joining the centroids of contacting particles) can
be considered. Possibly the most commonly used metric of fabric
is the fabric tensor, as described by Satake (1978) and Rothenberg
and Bathurst (1989). The most commonly used expression for the
fabric tensor is the second-order fabric tensor given by
1 XNc
Φij ¼ nn ð3Þ
Nc i i j
where N c = total number of contacts in the system; and ni and
nj = components of the unit vector normal to the contact point
in the i- and j-directions, respectively. Alternative definitions of

Fig. 10. Alternative means of defining orientations for fabric quanti-
fication: (a) contact orientation; (b) branch vector orientation; (c) par-
ticle long axis orientation (Fonseca et al. 2009)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the fabric tensor use the same functional form but consider either
the orientiation of the branch vector or the particle long axis ori-
entation. The fabric tensor is a 2 × 2 matrix in two dimensions and
a 3 × 3 matrix in three dimensions. Considering the stress tensor,
the magnitude and orientation of the principal stresses can be cal-
culated by determining the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
stress tensor. Similarly, the principal values of fabric (ϕ1 and ϕ3 )
and their orientation can be calculated by considering the eigenval-
ues and eigenvectors of the fabric tensor. When analyzing the stress
tensor, a stress ratio is often looked at, normalizing the deviator
stress by a measure of the mean stress; however, when the fabric
tensor is defined with Eq. (3), the trace of the tensor is 1; conse-
quently, normalization is not required. The orientation of the major
principal fabric Φ1 is a measure of the average orientation of
the dominant fabric in the material, and the difference in fabric
Φ1
Φ3 gives a measure of anisotropy. Alternative measures of
anisotropy, by using the fabric tensor is to use the ratio ϕ1 =ϕ3 . To
quantify three-dimensional anisotropy, Barreto et al. (2009) consid-
ered the idea of using an invariant of the fabric tensor as follows:
1 roids and then to assume that the displacement gradient in each
pffiffiffi ½ðϕ1
ϕ2 Þ2 þ ðϕ1
ϕ3 Þ2 þ ðϕ2
ϕ2 Þ2  ð4Þ
2 triangle is linear. O’Sullivan et al. (2003) and Wang et al. (2007)
An alternative to use of the fabric tensor is the harmonic
approach (Rothenburg and Bathurst 1989). In this approach, the
contact orientations are assigned to discrete angular intervals; in
essence, a polar histogram is created. Then a curve is fitted to the
polar histogram giving an analytical form
1 ments, i.e., in which the micromechanisms and overall macroscale
EðθÞ ¼ ½1 þ a cos 2ðθ
θa Þ ð5Þ
2π
where a = parameter defining the magnitude of anisotropy; and θa
defines the direction of the major principal fabric orientation. The
equivalence of both approaches to quantify fabric can be appreci-
ated by reference to Kanatanai (1984).
Alternatively, graphical methods can be used. In the simplest
case, a polar histogram of the contact forces is looked at, and
the bins in the histogram can be colored to indicate the average
force magnitude within the angular interval so that information
about the biased orientation of the larger forces along one particular
orientation can be appreciated (Fig. 11). Within the geomechanics
community, conventional approaches analyze stress (e.g., stress
path plots using axes of mean and deviatoric stress); however, at
this time, no consensus has emerged on the most appropriate ap-
proach to use to quantify fabric.
Calculation of Stress and Strain
In a FEM analysis, stress and strain are considered. However, in
a DEM analysis, the calculations are in force and displacement.
458 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
A DEM simulation can select an arbitrary region within the domain
of grains and calculate the average stress in this region. The average
stress tensor (σ ij ) within this region is given by
1XNc
σ ij ¼ fl ð6Þ
V i ij
where N c = total number of contacts within the considered volume
(V); f i = force vector for contact c; lj = branch vector for contact c;
and V is the volume. The derivation of this expression is given by
a number of authors (Bagi 1996; Christoffersen et al. 1981). The
branch vector is the vector connecting the centroids of the two par-
ticles contacting at contact c. As outlined by Potyondy and Cundall
(2004), the stresses on individual particles (σpij ) can be calculated as
1 X c
Nc;p
σ pij ¼ jxi
xpi jnc;p
i fj
c
ð7Þ
Vp i
where V p = particle volume for particle p; N c;p = total number of
contacts involving particle p; xpi and xci = vectors describing the
particle and contact coordinates, respectively; nc;p
i = normal vector
describing the position of the contact relative to the particle cent-
roid; and f cj = vector describing the force at contact c. The deriva-
tion of this expression is similar to that of Eq. (6). An alternative
approach to homogenization then is to perform an averaging
operation over the stresses calculated for each particle. With these
approaches to calculation of stresses in arbitrary volumes, the non-
uniformity of stress conditions within element tests such as the
direct shear test, can be calculated (Cui and O’Sullivan, 2006).
In a DEM analysis, two points in time are picked and the incre-
ment in strain between these two points from the displacements of
the particles is calculated. The simplest way to do this is to triangu-
late the system with the vertices of the triangles as the particle cent-
proposed alternative nonlinear approaches to calculating strain by
using wavelet functions. O’Sullivan (2002) demonstrated that the
local nonlinear approach is more effective at capturing localiza-
tions, particularly in three dimensions.
The relationships between the particle-scale responses and the
overall material response can be derived from numerical experi-
response are measured independently on a single specimen and
subsequent correlation of the two data sets. Alternatively expres-
sions that have been developed from theoretical considerations
can be considered. For example, Cowin (1985) proposed a frame-
work to relate the fabric tensor to a fourth rank (elastic) stiffness
tensor, and Chang (1993) and Chang and Liao (1990) have dem-
onstrated the ability of their theoretical micromechanical-derived
continuum models to predict both macroscale and mircoscale
material response. Oda and Iwashita (1999) include an overview
of many of the key references in this area.
Validation
Validation can be approached in two ways: analytical or experimen-
tal. In the case of analytical validation, in the first instance simu-
lations considering contact between simple two particle systems or
single particles interacting with a boundary are informative. For
example, O’Sullivan and Bray (2003) demonstrated that simulating
a ball rolling down an inclined plane is a useful test to confirm
appropriate implementation of the shear contact model in DEM co-
des. Another example of use of a simple system in DEM validation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Polar histograms shaded according to average force in each histogram bin normalized by overall average contact force to illustrate weighting
of contact force magnitude in different directions (O’Sullivan and Cui 2009)

is by Munjiza et al. (2003), who validated their time integration
algorithm for updating the rotations of nonspherical particles in
three dimensions by considering the motion of a single nonspheri-
cal particle subject to various initial angular velocities. Analytical
validation of the ability of DEM codes to simulate the response
of multiple interactions is more challenging because most dense
assemblies of particles form statically indeterminate systems. How-
ever, as proposed by Cundall and Strack (1979), simulation of the
response of lattice packings of uniform particles is very useful.
Both Rowe (1962) and Thornton (1979) propose analytical expres-
sions for the peak strength of uniform assemblies of spheres that
are useful for DEM code validation (O’Sullivan and Bray 2002;
O’Sullivan et al. 2004)
The response of specimens of uniform regular disks and spheres
differs significantly from the response of soil. Consequently, ex-
periments are needed to validate the ability of a DEM code to sim-
ulate more realistic features of soil response. In the first instance, it
can be useful to use regular packings in these validation studies to
avoid erroneous code validation, as demonstrated by O’Sullivan
and Bray (2002). Simulations of DEM using spherical particles
or circular rods (Schneibli) are particularly useful because the
particle geometry can be replicated in the DEM simulations.
DEM simulations indicate a dependence of the response on the as-
sumed friction coefficient; consequently, accurate knowledge of the
surface friction coefficient is required for input into the simulations.
As highlighted by Cavaretta et al. (2010), experimentally determin-
ing the coefficient of friction is nontrivial. O’Sullivan et al. (2002)
demonstrated that where a lattice packing is used, although a
one-to-one mapping between the particle locations in the DEM
simulation and the experiment can easily be obtained, the system
response is very sensitive to small variations in particle geometry.
The importance of coupled fluid-particle DEM simulations has
been mentioned previously, and Suzuki et al. (2007) discuss ana-
lytical validation of such coupled models.
Calibration
In DEM calibration exercises, the DEM model can capture intrinsic
features of granular materials (dilatancy, localization, and stress
dependency of response). However, the DEM model simplifies the
complexity of the real physical system, most notably in modeling

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 459

Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464

 contact, particle geometry, particle deformation, and typically the
number of particles involved. The philosophy of calibration is
therefore to acknowledge these simplifications, and rather than de-
veloping a material using measured particle-scale parameters, an
analog model using relatively simple particle geometries and con-
tact models is created. The model parameters are then systemati-
cally varied to capture the macroscale response, as observed in
element tests for example.
Potyondy and Cundall (2004) outline some of the challenges
associated with calibration, most notably the need to explore the
sensitivity of the observed response to the size of the DEM particles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used. They also demonstrate that a DEM model may capture the
strength observed in different physical tests in different manners,
giving the example of a DEM model material that captures the
material response in uniaxial compression, but understimates the
strength once a confining pressure is applied, and then over esti-
mates the strength in Brazilian tests. Yoon (2007) includes a par-
ticularly detailed discussion of optimization of calibration.
Probably the most interesting published calibration exercise
has been the work of Robertson (2000), McDowell and Harireche
(2002), Cheng et al. (2003), Cheng et al. (2004). These series of
publications document the evolution of insight into the influence of
particle crushing on macroscale soil response, and are probably the
best recent example, of the way DEM can link particle scale and
macroscale soil response. The approach used in these studies is to
simulate each particle in a DEM simulation as an aggregate of
bonded spheres. The aggregate is generated following the approach
proposed by Robertson (2000), which uses a hexagonal-closed-
packed assembly of bonded spheres, reflecting the crystalline
nature of the particle material, with selected numbers of spheres
being removed to represent the flaws present in real soil particles,
McDowell and Harireche (2002) then demonstrated that a distribu-
tion of strengths with a realistic Weibull modulus can be captured
(i.e., the size-strength relationship observed in crushing tests on real
soil particles can be reproduced) by initially removing a random
number of balls within prescribed limits. Cheng et al. (2003)
showed that these particles could be calibrated to reproduce both
the response of single silica sand particles in single particle com-
pression tests and the response of an assembly of particles (sample
of silica sand) in isotropic compression (in this case, normalized
void ratios and mean effective stresses were compared). As the
model was calibrated at both the particle and macroscales, interpre-
tations of the relationships between particle-scale response and
overall response could be made with confidence. Cheng et al.
(2003) could then clearly demonstrate the extent to which particle
crushing dominates the material response along the normal com-
pression line and the influence of particle crushing on undrained
(constant volume) soil response. This modeling approach was also
used by Cheng et al. (2004). For DEM samples that are lightly over-
consolidated at yield, yield surfaces are contours of grain breakage,
whereas for samples that were more heavily overconsolidated at
yield, the response trends proposed in published stress dilatancy
theories were captured, and grain breakage was confirmed as the
reason for the peak friction angle decreasing with increase of stress
for these samples. Although the micromechanical analyses by
Cheng et al. (2003, 2004) tended to focus on bond breakages only,
Bolton et al. (2008) extended the micromechanical analyses;
included consideration of coordination number, deviator fabric,
and the energy stored in each agglomerate; and interpreted the
response by using continuum-based models that consider energy
dissipation in granular materials. The series of linked papers cited
in this study document a comprehensive study of fundamental
granular material response that demonstrate how DEM can be used
460 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
to advance understanding of material response characteristics com-
monly observed at the marcoscale in soil mechanics element tests.
The use of DEM in calibration studies should be approached
with caution. Analysts should consider, for their application,
whether it is valid to vary the interparticle coefficient of friction
between the DEM particles to compensate for the differences in
geometry among a real soil particle and a sphere. Friction inhibits
sliding. The nonspherical, nonconvex nature of real soil particles
will result in multiple contact points between two contacting soil
particles. Consequently, there will be effective transmission of mo-
ment between the particles, and rotations will be inhibited. Whereas
the macroscale responses may be similar, the particle-scale inter-
actions of nonspherical particles will differ from the particle-scale
interactions between highly frictional, spherical particles. Care
should also be taken when using two-dimensional particles to
represent real soil grains. Real soil will develop contacts in the
out-of-plane direction; consequently, the micromechanics will be
different. Carrying out two-dimensional DEM simulations in which
mechanisms can be more easily visualized has merit; however, as-
semblies of two-dimensional DEM particles must be considered as
analog soils. Along the same argument, the validity of calibrating a
2D DEM code against data obtained in a 3D physical test (Utili and
Nova 2008; Yoon 2007) must be carefully considered, especially
when 2D DEM models calibrated against a single physical test are
then applied to model field/industrial scale problems. It may be that
rigorous validation studies should demonstrate the ability of the
model to quantitatively simulate the material response for different
types of tests, with different test boundary conditions and the
variation in observed response as testing conditions (e.g., stress
level) vary.
Field or Industrial Scale Studies
Typically, geomechanics studies are application driven. Although
use of DEM to study soil micromechanics may guide development
of more sophisticated and reliable continuum models; at an indus-
trial scale, probably more interest in the potential for DEM to sim-
ulate large deformation problems of industrial relevance exists. The
principal challenge in the use of DEM in this way, however, is the
number of particles that are included in the DEM models. Although
Cundall (2001) predicted that by 2011 a DEM simulation involving
10 million particles would constituted an easy problem, referring to
Fig. 2, it is clear that within the geomechanics research community
the largest simulations are one order of magnitude smaller than this
aspiration. Nevertheless, DEM simulations can provide insight into
the mechanisms involved in field-scale applications.
The penetration problems of greatest interest within the geome-
chanics community are probably pile installation and cone penetra-
tion test (CPT) simulation. Considering CPT simulations, a notable
early simulation is the work of Huang and Ma (1994) who simu-
lated CPT installation by using a system of two-dimensional disks
and assuming symmetry only modeled half the problem domain,
installing a rigid wall along the axis of symmetry. Jiang et al. (2006)
also simulated CPT testing in two dimensions. Lobo-Guerrero and
Vallejo (2005) considered pile installation (again in two dimen-
sions) and included a simplified approach to particle crushing in
their simulations. Kinloch and O’Sullivan (2007) demonstrated that
plug formation in open-ended piles can be captured in 2D DEM
simulations by using disks; however, their work highlighted the
challenge associated with developing a problem domain that is suf-
ficiently large to minimize the effect of boundaries on the observed
response. Butlanska et al. (2009) considered CPT penetration in
three dimensions, and inhibited rotation of their spherical particles.
 The potential for DEM to provide insight into industrial or field-
scale problems is only beginning to be realized at the current time.
One particularly notable and interesting study is the work of Jenck
et al. (2009) who considered the arching mechanism involved when
piles support granular embankments overlying soft soil by coupling
physical tests on assemblies of rods with 2D DEM simulations,
and supplemented their analyses with continuum (FEM) simula-
tions. Bertrand et al. (2005) considered the interaction between
rock fill particles and gabion meshes. An alternative use of DEM
modeling is in the simulation of soil and rock interaction with
machinery (Huang and Detournay 2008; Horner et al. 1998;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nezami et al. 2007).
Conclusions
As external observers of the benefits offered to geomechanics by
DEM, in their recent review paper on developments in constitutive
and numerical modeling from 1948–2008 Zdravkovic and Carter
(2008) concluded that to date the primary use of distinct element
modeling has been inadvancing understanding of material response
from the micromechanical point of view through simulation of
element tests. In their review of likely research developments in
geomechanics from 2008–2068, Simpson and Tatsuoka (2008) sur-
veyed a large number of engineers working in both geomechanics
research and in industry. Many respondents to this survey sug-
gested that DEM will play a prominent role in developing future
analytical methods in geomechanics. Simpson and Tatsuoka iden-
tified the almost intractable challenge posed in which attempts are
made to model each individual particle in a field-scale boundary
value problem, but rather suggest that appropriate scaling param-
eters be adopted so that appropriate insight can be gained, for
problems involving finite deformations along shear bands or local-
izations in particular. Simpson and Tatsuoka identify the primary
future needs for DEM development to be more accurate modeling
of particle morphology and mechanical responses (including im-
provements to contact constitutive models) and an increase in
the number of particles that can reasonably be included in simula-
tions. These publications, coupled with the data presented in this
study documenting the continued increase in research publications,
including particulate DEM, indicates that this method of analysis is
well-accepted by the geomechanics community.
In his Rankine lecture, Potts (2003) presented arguments both in
favor of and against the use of numerical modeling in geotechnical
engineering. Although Potts’s discussion considered continuum
numerical modeling, his arguments against numerical modeling
are equally applicable to DEM. In the case of DEM, Potts’s concern
about uncertainties in the numerical algorithms is particularly rel-
evant for the challenge of integrating the rotational components of
motion when nonspherical particles are used (refer to Lin and Ng
1997, for example for further consideration of this issue). The con-
tact constitutive models used in DEM models are a simplification
and idealization of reality. Cavarretta et al. (2010), have highlighted
the challenges associated with accurately describing the contact
response for real soil particles. Potts also argued that the results
from numerical analysis are user dependent. Although there have
been few documented repetitions of DEM analyses, the prediction
competition described by Holst et al. (1999), in which DEM sim-
ulations of silo filling were compared, indicated that a wide scatter
can be obtained in DEM simulations of equivalent systems.
Key to the future development of DEM, and in the applica-
tion of DEM to industrial or field-scale problems in particular will
be to significantly increase the number of particles included in
DEM simulations. The implementation of DEM codes in a high
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 461
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
performance computing environment is important to realize this
goal. Issues relating to DEM algorithm implementation in a
computationally efficient manner are considered by Kozicki and
Donze (2008) and Carrillo et al. (1999). Cui et al. (2007) demon-
strated that periodic boundary conditions may be employed to
increase computational efficiency of DEM codes. It may be that
the optimal strategy is to combine high performance computing
with clever use of boundary conditions. Alternatively, DEM codes
can be coupled with continuum (FEM) modeling approaches
(Kozicki and Donze 2008; Wang et al. 2003b).
Simulations of DEM involving repeated or cyclic loading can
provide significant information regarding the long-term perfor-
mance of infrastructure, such as road pavements, embankment
dams subject to cyclic loading involving reservoir fluctuations, and
earthquake loading. Such simulations are computationally expen-
sive; however, increases in computing power and improvements in
DEM code efficiency should result in increased research efforts in
this area.
It seems likely that considerable research effort will be
expended to improve the realism of DEM models, increasing
the sophistication of DEM contact models, and incorporation of
more realistic particle geometries. As highlighted in this paper,
the physical tests required to guide the necessary improvements
in DEM contact models are nontrivial. Developments in image
analysis and micro computed tomography will provide opportuni-
ties for microscale validation of DEM models.
Discrete element modeling has the potential to considerably
advance current understanding of soil response. To ensure that the
geomechanics community as a whole has confidence in this tech-
nique, it is important that published DEM simulations are of high
quality. It is good practice to clearly document all input parameters.
As discussed previously, the extrapolation of the results of 2D
DEM simulations to guide understanding of 3D physical materials
should be approached with caution, and it is more likely that quali-
tative, rather than quantitative, correlation of 2D DEM models and
response of 3D materials is appropriate. DEM users should con-
sider the need to have reasonable ratios of particle size: specimen
size in their simulations that has long been recognized by exper-
imental researchers. Furthermore, studies to confirm the repeatabil-
ity of simulation results are useful to ensure that the specimen size
considered is large enough to be statistically representative of the
material response. Developing an understanding of the material re-
sponse within the critical state framework is also useful; for exam-
ple, rather than simply comparing the variation in peak mobilized
stresses as a function of particle geometry, consideration of the
variation in the position of the critical state line would be more
appropriate. Knowledge of the material state is often needed for
accurate interpretation of simulation results. The work of Maeda
(2009) is a nice example of the interpretation of DEM results within
the critical state mechanics framework that can provide significant
insight into field-scale problems.
The National Academy of Sciences (2006) highlighted the need
to understand the response of natural materials at the nano-, micro-,
and global scales when identifying the opportunities for research
and technical innovation in geotechnics in the new millenium. Par-
ticulate DEM is a very powerful tool to understand the particle-
scale response of granular materials and will certainly play a role
in advancing research in this area. The effect of DEM on the field of
particulate mechanics has already been significant, as evidenced by
the highly cited papers of Cundall and Strack (1979) and Tsuji et al.
(1993) in particular, and it seems that this effect is likely to continue
to grow.
 Acknowledgments
Interactions with past and current collaborators have played a large
role in the development of this paper. The most notable interactions
were with Professor J. D. Bray and Dr. D. Doolin at U. C. Berkeley,
Dr. L. Cui at University College Dublin, Mr. D. Barretto, Ms. G.
Cheung and Professor M. Coop at Imperial College London. Dr. B.
van Wachem of Imperial College London provided some very use-
ful references from the chemical engineering literature.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abbas, A., Masad, E., Papagiannakis, T., and Harman, T. (2007). “Micro-
mechanical modeling of the viscoelastic behavior of asphalt mixtures
using the discrete-element method.” Int. J. Geomech., 7(2), 131–139.
Anandarajah, A. (2003). “Discrete element modeling of leaching induced
apparent overconsolidation in kaolinite.” Soils Found., 43(6), 1–12.
Bagi, K. (1996). “Stress and strain in granular assemblies.” Mech. Mater.,
22(3), 165–177.
Bagi, K. (2005). “An algorithm to generate random dense arrangements for
discrete element simulations of granular assemblies.” Granular Matter,
7(1), 31–43.
Barreto, D., O’Sullivan, C., and Zdravkovic, L. (2009). “Quantifying the
evolution of soil fabric under different stress paths.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf.
on Micromechanics of Granular Media Golden, M. Nakagawa and
S. Luding, eds., American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.
Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. (1985). “A state parameter for sands.”
Geotechnique, 35(2), 99–112.
Behringer, R. P., Daniels, K. E., Majmudar, T. S., and Sperl, M. (2008).
“Fluctuations, correlations, and transitions in granular materials: Stat-
istical mechanics for a non-conventional system.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
A, 366(1865), 493–504.
Bertrand, D., Nicot, F., Gotteland, P., and Lambert, S. (2005). “Modelling a
geo-composite cell using discrete analysis.” Comput. Geotech., 32(8),
564–577.
Bolton, M. D., Nakata, Y., and Cheng, Y. P. (2008). “Micro- and macro-
mechanical behaviour of DEM crushable materials.” Geotechnique,
58(6), 471–480.
Butlanska, J., Arroyo Alvarez de Toledo, M., and Gens Solé, A. (2009).
“Homogeneity and symmetry in DEM models of cone penetration.”
Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Micromechanics of Granular Media Golden,
M. Nakagawa and S. Luding, eds., American Institute of Physics,
College Park, MD, 425–428.
Camborde, F., Mariotti, C., and Donze, F. V. (2000). “Numerical study of
rock and concrete behaviour by discrete element modelling.” Comput.
Geotech., 27(4), 225–247.
Carrillo, A. R., West, J. E., Horner, D. A., and Peters, J. F. (1999). “Inter-
active large-scale soil modeling using distributed high performance
computing environments.” Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl., 13(1),
33–48.
Cavarretta, I., Coop, M., and O’Sullivan, C. (2010). “The influence of
particle characteristics on the behaviour of coarse grained soils.”
Géotechnique, 60(6), 413–423.
Chang, C. S. (1993). “Micromechanical modeling of deformation and
failure for granulates with frictional contacts.” Mech. Mater., 16(1-2),
13–24.
Chang, C. S., and Liao, C. (1990). “Constitutive relations for particulate
medium with the effect of particle rotation.” Int. J. Solids Struct.,
26(4), 437–453.
Cheng, Y. P., Bolton, M. D., and Nakata, Y. (2004). “Crushing and plastic
deformation of soils simulated using DEM.” Géotechnique, 54(2),
131–141.
Cheng, Y. P., Nakata, Y., and Bolton, M. D. (2003). “Discrete element
simulation of crushable soil.” Géotechnique, 53(7), 633–641.
Cheung, G., and O’Sullivan, C. (2008). “Effective simulation of flexible
lateral boundaries in two- and three-dimensional DEM simulations.”
Particuology, 6(6), 483–500.
Christoffersen, J., Mehrabadi, M. M., and Nemat-Nasser, S. (1981).
“A micro-mechanical description of granular material behaviour.”
462 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
J. Appl. Mech., 48(2), 339–344.
Cleary, P. W. (2000). “DEM simulation of industrial particle flows: Case
studies of dragline excavators, mixing in tumblers and centrifugal
mills.” Powder Technol., 109(1-2), 83–104.
Collop, A. C., McDowell, G. R., and Lee, Y. (2007). “On the use of discrete
element modelling to simulate the viscoelastic deformation of an ideal-
ized asphalt mixture.” Geomech. Geoeng., 2(2), 77–86.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
(2009). “Computational modelling of fluid and particulate dynamics.”
〈http://www.csiro.au/science/CMIScfd.html〉 (Jul. 2009).
Cook, B. K., Lee, M. Y., DiGiovanni, A. A., Bronowski, D. R., Perkins,
E. D., and Williams, J. R. (2004). “Discrete element modeling applied
to laboratory simulation of near-wellbore mechanics.” Int. J. Geomech.,
4(1), 19–27.
Cowin, S. C. (1985). “The relationship between the elasticity tensor and the
fabric tensor.” Mech. Mater., 4(2), 137–147.
Cui, L., and O’Sullivan, C. (2006). “Exploring the macro- and micro-scale
response characteristics of an idealized granular material in the direct
shear apparatus.” Geotechnique, 56(7), 455–468.
Cui, L., O’Sullivan, C., and O’Neill, S. (2007). “An analysis of the triaxial
apparatus using a mixed boundary three-dimensional discrete element
model.” Geotechnique, 57(10), 831–844.
Cundall, P. A. (1988). “Computer simulations of dense sphere assemblies.”
Micromechanics of granular materials, M. Satake and J. T. Jenkins, ed.,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 113–123.
Cundall, P. A. (2001). “A discontinuous future for numerical modelling
in geomechanics?” Proc. Instit. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 149(1),
41–47.
Cundall, P., and Strack, O. (1979). “A discrete numerical model for granular
assemblies.” Geotechnique, 29(1), 47–65.
DEM Solutions. (2009). “EDEM.” 〈http://www.dem-solutions.com/〉
(Jul. 2009).
Drescher, A., and De Josselin de Jong, G. (1972). “Photoelastic verification
of a mechanical model for the flow of a granular material.” J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 20(5), 337–351.
Duran, J. (2000). Sands, powders, and grains: An introduction to the
physics of granular materials, Springer, New York.
El Shamy, U., and Gröger, T. (2008). “Micromechanical aspects of
the shear strength of wet granular soils.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 32(14), 1763–1790.
Fakhimi, J., Riedel, J., and Labuz, J. F. (2006). “Shear banding in
sandstone: Physical and numerical studies.” Int. J. Geomech., 6(3),
185–194.
Favier, J. F., Abbaspour-Fard, M. H., and Kremmer, M. (2001). “Modeling
nonspherical particles using multisphere discrete elements.” J. Eng.
Mech., 127(10), 971.
Feda, J. (1982). Mechanics of particulate materials, Elsevier Scientific,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Fonseca, J., O’Sullivan, C., and Coop, M. (2009). “Image segmentation
techniques for granular materials.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Micro-
mechanics of Granular Media, M. Nakagawa and S. Luding, eds.,
American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 223–226.
Gili, J. A., and Alonso, E. E. (2002). “Microstructural deformation mech-
anisms of unsaturated granular soils.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 26(5), 433–468.
Holst, J. M. F. G., Rotter, J. M., Ooi, J. Y., and Rong, G. H. (1999).
“Numerical modelling of silo filling, II: Discrete element analysis.”
J. Eng. Mech., 125(1), 104–110.
Holtzman, R., Silin, D. B., and Patzek, T. W. (2009). “Mechanical proper-
ties of granular materials: A variational approach to grain-scale simu-
lation.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 33(3), 391–404.
Hoomans, B. P. B., Kuipers, J. A. M., Briels, W. J., and Van Swaaij,
W. P. M. (1996). “Discrete particle simulation of bubble and slug
formation in a two-dimensional gas-fluidized bed: A hard-sphere
approach.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 51(1), 99–108.
Horner, D. A., Carrillo, D. A., Peters, J. F., and West, J. E. (1998). “High
resolution soil vehicle interaction modeling.” Mech. Based Des. Struct.
Mach., 26(3), 305–318.
Huang, A. B., and Ma, M. Y. (1994). “An analytical study of cone penetra-
tion tests in granular material.” Can. Geotech. J., 31(1), 91–103.
 Huang, H., and Detournay, E. (2008). “Intrinsic length scales in tool-rock
interaction.” Int. J. Geomech., 8(1), 39–44.
Iwashita, K., and Oda, M. (1998). “Rolling resistance at contacts in
simulation of shear band development by DEM.” J. Eng. Mech., 124(3),
285–292.
Jean, M. (1999). “The non-smooth contact dynamics method.” Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 177(3-4), 235–257.
Jenck, O., Dias, D., and Kastner, R. (2009). “Discrete element modelling
of a granular platform supported by piles in soft soil—Validation on
a small scale model test and comparison to a numerical analysis in a
continuum.” Comput. Geotech., 36(6), 917–927.
Jerier, J.-F., Imbault, D., Donze, F. V., and Doremus, P. (2008). “A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
geometric algorithm based on tetrahedral meshes to generate a dense
polydisperse sphere packing.” Granular Matter, 11(1), 43–52.
Jiang, M. J., Leroueil, S., and Konrad, J. M. (2004). “Insight into shear
strength functions of unsaturated granulates by DEM analyses.”
Comput. Geotech., 31(6), 473–489.
Jiang, M. J., Leroueil, S., Zhu, H., Yu, H.-S., and Konrad, J.-M. (2009).
“Two-dimensional discrete element theory for rough particles.” Int.
J. Geomech., 9(1), 20–33.
Jiang, M. J., Yu, H.-S., and Harris, D. (2005). “A novel discrete model for
granular material incorporating rolling resistance.” Comput. Geotech.,
32(5), 340–357.
Jiang, M. J., Yu, H.-S., and Harris, D. (2006). “Discrete element modelling
of deep penetration in granular soils.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 30(4), 335–361.
Johnson, K. L. (1985). Contact mechanics, Cambridge University,
Cambridge, U.K.
Kafui, K. D., Thornton, C., and Adams, M. J. (2002). “Discrete particle-
continuum fluid modelling of gas-solid fluidised beds.” Chem. Eng.
Sci., 57(13), 2395–2410.
Kanatani, K.. (1984). “Distribution of directional data and fabric tensors.”
Int. J. Eng. Sci., 22(2), 149–164.
Ke, T. C., and Bray, J. D. (1995). “Modelling of particulate media
using discontinuous deformation analysis.” J. Eng. Mech., 121(11),
1234–1243.
Kinloch, H., and O’Sullivan, C. (2007). “A micro-mechanical study of the
influence of penetrometer geometry on failure mechanisms in granular
soils.” Advances in measurement and modelling of soil behaviour, D. J.
DeGroot, C. Vipulanandan, J. A. Yamamuro, V. N. Kaliakin, P. V. Lade,
M. Zeghal, U. El shamy, N. Lu and C. R. Song, eds., ASCE, Reston,
VA.
Kozicki, J., and Donzé, F. V. (2008). “A new open-source software devel-
oped for numerical simulations using discrete modeling methods.”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 197(49-50), 4429–4443.
Kuhn, M. R., and Mitchell, J. K. (1992). “The modeling of soil creep with
the discrete element method.” Eng. Comput., 9(2), 277–287.
Kulatilake, P. H. S. W., Malama, B., and Wang, J. (2001). “Physical and
particle flow modeling of jointed rock block behavior under uniaxial
loading.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 38(5), 641–657.
Lin, X., and Ng, T.-T. (1997). “A three-dimensional discrete element model
using arrays of ellipsoids.” Géotechnique, 47(2), 319–329.
Lobo-Guerrero, S., and Vallejo, L. E. (2005). “DEM analysis of crushing
around driven piles in granular materials.” Géotechnique, 55(8),
617–623.
Lu, N., Anderson, M. T., Likos, W. J., and Mustoe, G. W. (2008). “A dis-
crete element model for kaolinite aggregate formation during sedimen-
tation.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 32(8), 965–980.
Maeda, K. (2009). “Critical state-based geo-micromechanics on granular
flow.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Micromechanics of Granular Media,
M. Nakagawa and S. Luding, eds., American Institute of Physics,
College Park, MD, 17–24.
Masson, S., and Martinez, J. (2001). “Micromechanical analysis of the
shear behavior of a granular material.” J. Eng. Mech., 127(10),
1007–1016.
Matsushima, T., Saomoto, H., Tsubokawa, Y., and Yamada, Y. (2003).
“Grain rotation versus continuum rotation during shear deformation
of granular assembly.” Soils Found., 43(4), 95.
McDowell, G. R., and Harireche, O. (2002). “Discrete element modelling
of soil particle fracture.” Geotechnique, 52(2), 131–135.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 / 463
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
Mindlin, R. D., and Deresiewicz, H. (1953). “Elastic spheres in contact
under varying oblique forces.” J. Appl. Mech., 20(5), 327–344.
Munjiza, A., Latham, J. P., and John, N. W. M. (2003). “3D dynamics
of discrete element systems comprising irregular discrete elements—
Integration solution for finite rotations in 3D.” Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng., 56(1), 35–55.
Nakagawa, M., and Luding, S. (2009). “Powders and grains 2009.” Proc.,
6th Int. Conf. on Micromechanics of Granular Media, American Insti-
tute of Physics, College Park, MD.
National Academy of Sciences. (2006). Geological and geotechnical
engineering in the new millennium: Opportunities for research and
technological innovation, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
Nezami, G., Hashash, Y. M. A., Zhao, D., and Ghaboussi, J. (2007). “Sim-
ulation of front end loader bucket-soil interaction using discrete element
method.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 31(9), 1147–1162.
Ng, T.-T. (2004). “Shear strength of assemblies of ellipsoidal particles.”
Géotechnique, 54(10), 659–670.
Ng, T.-T., and Dobry, R. (1994). “Numerical simulations of monotonic and
cyclic loading of granular soil.” J. Geotech. Eng., 120(2), 388–403.
Oda, M., and Iwashita, K. (1999). Mechanics of granular materials: An
introduction, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Oda, M., Konishi, J., and Nemat-Nasser, S. (1980). “Some experimentally
based fundamental results on the mechanical behaviour of granular
materials.” Géotechnique, 30(4), 479–495.
O’Sullivan, C. (2002). “The application of discrete element modeling to
finite deformation problems in geomechanics.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
O’Sullivan, C., and Bray, J. D. (2003). “A modified shear spring formu-
lation for discontinuous deformation analysis of particulate media.”
J. Eng. Mech., 129(7), 830–834.
O’Sullivan, C., Bray, J. D., and Riemer, M. F. (2002). “The influence of
particle shape and surface friction variability on macroscopic frictional
strength of rod-shaped particulate media.” J. Eng. Mech., 128(11),
1182–1192.
O’Sullivan, C., Bray, J. D., and Riemer, M. (2004). “Examination of the
response of regularly packed specimens of spherical particles using
physical tests and discrete element simulations.” J. Eng. Mech.,
130(10), 1140–1150.
O’Sullivan, C., and Cui, L. (2009). “Micromechanics of granular material
response during load reversals: Combined DEM and experimental
study.” Powder Technol., 193(3), 289.
Peron, H., Delenne, J. Y., Laloui, L., and El Youssoufi, M. S. (2009).
“Discrete element modelling of drying shrinkage and cracking of soils.”
Comput. Geotech., 36(1-2), 61–69.
PFC 2D Version 4.0 [Computer software]. (2009a). Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
PFC 3D Version 4.0 [Computer software]. (2009b). Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
Poschel, T., and Schwager, T. (2005). Computational granular dynamics,
Springer, Berlin.
Potts, D. M. (2003). “Numerical analysis: A virtual dream or practical
reality?” Géotechnique, 53(6), 535.
Potyondy, D. O., and Cundall, P. A. (2004). “A bonded-particle model
for rock.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 41(8),
1329–1364.
Powrie, W., Ni, Q., Harkness, R. M., and Zhang, X. (2005). “Numerical
modelling of plane strain tests on sands using a particulate approach.”
Géotechnique, 55(4), 297–306.
Richefeu, V., El Youssoufi, M. S., Peyroux, R., and Radjaï, F. (2008). “A
model of capillary cohesion for numerical simulations of 3D polydis-
perse granular media.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 32(11),
1365–1383.
Robertson, D. (2000). “Numerical simulations of crushable aggregates.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
Rothenburg, L., and Bathurst, R. J. (1989). “Analytical study of induced
anisotropy in idealized granular materials.” Géotechnique, 39(4),
601–614.
Rowe, P. W. (1962). “The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium
of an assembly of particles in contact.” Proc., Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A,
269(1339), 500–527.
 Satake, M. (1978). “Constitution of mechanics of granular materials
through graph representation.” Theoretical and applied mechanics
26, Univ. of Tokyo, 257.
Scholtès, L., Hicher, P.-Y., Nicot, F., Chareyre, B., and Darve, F. (2009).
“On the capillary stress tensor in wet granular materials.” Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., 33(10), 1289–1313.
Shafipour, R., and Soroush, A. (2008). “Fluid coupled-DEM modelling
of undrained behavior of granular media.” Comput. Geotech., 35(5),
673–685.
Shi, G.-H (1988). “Discontinuous deformation analysis, a new numerical
model for the statics and dynamics of block systems.” Ph.D. thesis,
Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 08/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Berkeley.
Shi, G-H., and Goodman, R. E. (1985). “Two-dimensional discontinuous
deformation analysis.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 9(6),
541–556.
Silvani, C., Désoyer, T., and Bonelli, S. (2009). “Discrete modelling
of time-dependent rockfill behaviour.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 33(5), 665–685.
Simpson, B., and Tatsuoka, F. (2008). “Geotechnics: The next 60 years.”
Géotechnique, 58(5), 357–368.
Suzuki, K., et al. (2007). “Simulation of upward seepage flow in a single
column of spheres using discrete-element method with fluid-particle
interaction.” J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Eng., 133(1), 104–109.
Thomson Reuters. (2009). “ISI web of knowledge database.” 〈http://www
.isiwebofknowledge.com/〉 (May 2009).
Thornton, C. (1979). “The conditions for failure of a face-centered-cubic
array of uniform rigid spheres.” Géotechnique, 29(4), 441–459.
Thornton, C. (1999). “Interparticle relationships between forces and displa-
cements.”Mechanics of granular materials, M. Oda and K. Iwashita,
eds., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 207–217.
Thornton, C. (2000). “Numerical simulations of deviatoric shear deforma-
tion of granular media.” Géotechnique, 50(1), 43–53.
Thornton, C. (2009). “Preface to special issue on discrete element
methods.” Powder Technol., 193(3), 215.
Thornton, C., and Yin, K. K. (1991). “Impact of elastic spheres with and
without adhesion.” Powder Technol., 65(1-3), 153–166.
Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T., and Tanaka, T. (1993). “Discrete particle
simulation of two-dimensional fluidized bed.” Powder Technol.,
77(1), 79–87.
464 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011
Int. J. Geomech., 2011, 11(6): 449-464
Utili, S., and Nova, R. (2008). “DEM analysis of bonded granular
geomaterials.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 32(17),
1997–2031.
Walton, O. R., and Braun, R. L. (1986). “Viscosity, granular-temperature
and stress calculations for shearing assemblies of inelastic, frictional
disks.” J. Rheol., 30(5), 949–980.
Wang, C., Tannant, D. D., and Lilly, P. A. (2003a). “Numerical analysis of
the stability of heavily jointed rock slopes using PFC2D.” Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 40(3), 415–424.
Wang, J., Gutierrez, M. S., and Dove, J. E. (2007). “Numerical studies
of shear banding in interface shear tests using a new strain calcu-
lation method.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 31(12),
1349–1366.
Wang, X., Chan, D., and Morgenstern, N. (2003b). “Kinematic modelling
of shear band localization using discrete finite elements.” Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., 27(4), 289–324.
Wang, Y.-H., and Leung, S.-C. (2008). “A particulate-scale investigation of
cemented sand behaviour.” Can. Geotech. J., 45(1), 29–44.
Wang, Y.-H., Xu, D., and Tsui, K. Y. J. (2008). “Discrete element modeling
of contact creep and aging in sand.” Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng.,
134(9), 1407–141.
Xiang, J., Latham, J. P., and Munjiza, A. (2009). “Virtual geoscience
workbench.” 〈http://sourceforge.net/projects/vgw/develop〉 (Jul. 2009).
Yoon, J. (2007). “Application of experimental design and optimization to
{PFC} model calibration in uniaxial compression simulation.” Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 44(6), 871–889.
Zdravkovic, L., and Carter, J. (2008). “Contributions to Géotechnique,
1948-2008: Constitutive and numerical modelling.” Géotechnique,
58(5), 405–412.
Zeghal, M., and El Shamy, U. (2004). “A continuum-discrete hydro-
mechanical analysis of granular deposit liquefaction.” Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., 28(14), 1361–1383.
Zhu, H. P., and Yu, A. B. (2008). “Preface to special edition on simulation
and modeling of particulate systems.” Particuology, 6(6), 389.
Zhu, H. P., Zhou, Z. Y., Yang, R. Y., and Yu, A. B. (2007). “Discrete particle
simulation of particulate systems: Theoretical developments.” Chem.
Eng. Sci., 62(13), 3378–3396.
Zhu, H. P., Zhou, Z. Y., Yang, R. Y., and Yu, A. B. (2008). “Discrete particle
simulation of particulate systems: A review of major applications and
findings.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 63(23), 5728–5770.