See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316453475

An erosion model for the discrete element method

Article in Particuology · April 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.partic.2016.12.005

CITATIONS READS

30 196

4 authors, including:

Yongzhi Zhao Huaqing Ma

Zhejiang University Zhejiang University
121 PUBLICATIONS 3,531 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 592 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Huaqing Ma on 24 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Particuology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/partic

An erosion model for the discrete element method

Yongzhi Zhao ∗ , Huaqing Ma, Lei Xu, Jinyang Zheng
Institute of Process Equipment, College of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A shear impact energy model (SIEM) of erosion suitable for both dilute and dense particle flows is pro-
Received 17 August 2016 posed based on the shear impact energy of particles in discrete element method (DEM) simulations.
Received in revised form A number of DEM simulations are performed to determine the relationship between the shear impact
18 December 2016
energy predicted by the DEM model and the theoretical erosion energy. Simulation results show that
Accepted 22 December 2016
nearly one-quarter of the shear impact energy will be converted to erosion during an impingement.
Available online 24 April 2017
According to the ratio of the shear impact energy to the erosion energy, it is feasible to predict erosion
from the shear impact energy, which can be accumulated at each time step for each impingement during
Keywords:
Discrete element method
the DEM simulation. The total erosion of the target surface can be obtained by summing the volume of
Erosion material removed from each impingement. The proposed erosion model is validated against experiment
Wear and results show that the SIEM combined with DEM accurately predicts abrasive erosions.
Impact angle © 2017 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of
Shear impact energy model Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction model. However, though the characteristics of particles are similar

In equipment that contains solid particle flow, the impact
between the particles and the wall of the equipment will cause
abrasive erosion, which is a very common phenomenon in indus-
trial fields such as chemical, energy, mining, pharmacy, and
agriculture (Edwards, McLaury, & Shirazi, 2001; Johansson et al.,
2004; Talia, Lankarani, & Talia, 1999). In the chemical and energy
industries, problems caused by erosion frequently arise in equip-
ment such as boiler tubes exposed to fly ash (Talia et al., 1999), tubes
in fluidized bed combustion (He, Zhan, Zhao, Lu & Schlaberg, 2009;
Johansson et al., 2004), gas turbine blades (Talia et al., 1999), and
pneumatic conveying pipes (Edwards et al., 2001). Generally, there
are two ways to control the erosion: selecting better materials for
the equipment, and selecting proper working conditions (Edwards
et al., 2001). Accurately predicting the location and magnitude of
erosion in the equipment is necessary to prevent the failure of
devices and reduce economic losses. Many industries have been
developing reliable tools to solve the problem to save maintenance
time and resources (Pereira, de Souza, & de Moro Martins, 2014).
To accurately predict abrasive erosion, we need to investigate
the motion of the particles and develop a particle scale erosion
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yzzhao@zju.edu.cn (Y. Zhao).
to those of solids or fluids, particle motion is much more com-
plex (Jiang, Zhao, Liu, & Zheng, 2011). It is difficult to describe
particle motion with a continuum model because of the discrete
nature of granular materials. By modeling the particle motions like
molecules, the discrete element method (DEM) (Cundall & Strack,
1979) has been recognized as an effective tool to investigate the
physics of granular materials because it can calculate the motion
and micro-scale behavior of each particle (Chu & Yu, 2008; Cundall
& Strack, 1979; Jiang et al., 2011; Tsuji, Kawaguchi, & Tanaka, 1993).
For particles carried by fluids like air, oxygen, or other gases used in
chemical industrial processes, the motion of the particles is coupled
to the fluid flow. It is necessary to adopt the coupled computational
fluid dynamics and discrete element method (CFD–DEM) method
(Chu & Yu, 2008; Tsuji et al., 1993) to simulate the two-phase flow
in these processes. This method has effectively simulated complex
fluid–solid flows (Chu & Yu, 2008), such as the gas–solid flows in
pneumatic conveying pipes (Chu & Yu, 2008; Kuang, Li, Zou, Pan, &
Yu, 2013; Stratton & Wensrich, 2011), gas cyclone separators (Chu,
Wang, Xu, Chen, & Yu, 2011; Chu, Wang, Yu, & Vince, 2009, Chu,
Wang, Yu, & Vince, 2012; Chu & Yu, 2008), and fluidized beds (Chu
& Yu, 2008; Di Maio, Di Renzo, & Trevisan, 2009; Nakamura, Kondo,
& Watano, 2013; Nakamura, Tokuda, Iwasaki, & Watano, 2007; Pei
et al., 2013; Wu, Ouyang, Yang, Li, & Wang, 2012; Yang, Luo, Fang,
& Fan, 2013; Zhao, Liu, Cui, & Takei, 2010; Zhao, Cheng, Wu, Ding,
& Jin, 2010; Zhou, Pinson, Zou, & Yu, 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2016.12.005
1674-2001/© 2017 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
82 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88

Fig. 1. Collisions between particles and surfaces that result in erosion.

The erosion mechanism at the particle scale has been exper- where c = 1/2, ϕ = 2 according to Finnie’s experimental results
imentally investigated (Bitter, 1963a,b; Finnie, 1960; Neilson & (Finnie, 1960, 1972), m is the mass of the particle, and v is the
Gilchrist, 1968; Sheldon & Finnie, 1966a), and several single- velocity of the particle. p is the plastic flow pressure of the ero-
particle erosion models have been proposed (Lyczkowski & sion surface, which is generally about one–five times the value of
Bouillard, 2002), such as Finnie’s ductile erosion model (Finnie, the Vickers hardness of the target surface according to the experi-
1960), Bitter’s combined ductile and brittle erosion model (Bitter, mental data of Finnie, Wolak, and Kabil (1967). f is a function of the
1963a,b), Neilson and Gilchrist’s combined ductile and brittle ero- impact angle ˛ and can be described as follows,
sion model (Neilson & Gilchrist, 1968), and Sheldon and Finnie’s ⎧  
⎪ 2 2 2 P
90◦ brittle erosion model (Sheldon & Finnie, 1966a). Among them, ⎨ K sin (2˛) − P sin (˛) tan (˛) ≤ 2
Finnie’s ductile erosion model (Finnie, 1960) has been widely used f (˛) = , (2)
in erosion prediction of ductile materials. For predicting erosion ⎪
⎩ P P
cos2 (˛) tan (˛) >
using Finnie’s erosion model (Finnie, 1960), the impact velocity and K 2
angle of each particle need to be calculated and recorded when the where K is the ratio of normal to tangential force, which is set as
particle first contacts the target surface, then the erosion can be cal- the reciprocal of the friction coefficient in the DEM simulations. P
culated. Because only the first contact is considered in the model, it can be described as:
can calculate the erosion caused by direct impact (such as particle
K
i in Fig. 1) but not the erosion caused by non-direct impact (such P= , (3)
1 + mr 2 /I
as particle j in Fig. 1, which will hit particle l but not the surface)
or sliding friction (such as particle k in Fig. 1). In Finnie’s erosion where r is the average particle radius and I is the moment of inertia
model, the erosion caused by non-direct impact will be ignored of the particle about its center of gravity. From Eq. (2) it can be
because the particle does not contact the surface, and the erosion shown that the maximum volume removal occurs when tan(2˛) = P
caused by sliding friction cannot be calculated because it is not a while the two expressions are equal at the slightly higher angle
first-time contact. Therefore, Finnie’s erosion model is only suitable given by tan(˛) = P/2.
for dilute particle flow, but not for dense particle flow that occurs in In this paper, we focus on the erosion caused by spherical par-
dense fluidized beds or high-concentration pneumatic conveyers in ticles. For spherical particles, the moment of inertia I is 2mr2 /5 and
which non-direct impacts and sliding occur much more frequently P is 2 K/7. Eqs. (1) and (2) then become:
than direct impacts.
1 mv2 1
In order to predict the erosion in devices that contain dense W= f (˛) , (4)
4 2 p
particle flow, a new particle-scale erosion model is needed.
Ashrafizadeh and Ashrafizadeh (2012) recently investigated the where
impact of solid particles on a surface with DEM simulations and ⎧2 7
 K
⎪ 2
⎨ K sin (2˛) − K sin (˛) tan (˛) ≤ 7
compared the simulation results with experimental data (Zhang,
Sazonov, Kent, Dixon, & Novozhilov, 2001). They found that the f (˛) = .
⎪
⎩ 2 K
shear impact energy (the tangential component of the impact cos2 (˛) tan (˛) >
energy subjected on the target surface by the particle) is relevant to 7 7
the cutting erosion. This indicates that the erosion can be predicted The maximum volume removal occurs when tan(2˛) = 2 K/7 and
from the shear impact energy in DEM simulations. In this work, the two expressions are equal at the angle given by tan(˛) = K/7.
an erosion model for DEM termed the shear impact energy model From the perspective of energy conversion, Eq. (4) can be written
(SIEM) is proposed based on the relationship between the shear as follows,
impact energy and the erosion. Compared with Finnie’s erosion EFinnie
model, the new model is suitable for both dilute and dense particle W= , (5)
p
flows because the impact energy of direct, non-direct, and sliding
impacts can be obtained. The accuracy of the model is validated by where EFinnie represents the impact energy that is converted to
comparing simulation results with the experimental results. erosion in Finnie’s model, that is
1 mv2
EFinnie = f (˛) , (6)
Erosion model 4 2
where
When a hard particle, which can be considered a rigid body, ⎧2 7
 K
⎪ 2
⎨ K sin (2˛) − K sin (˛) tan (˛) ≤ 7
strikes the surface of a ductile material, it will cut into the sur-
face and remove some material, as shown in Fig. 2(a). According to f (˛) = .
⎪
⎩ 2 K
Finnie’s erosion theory (Finnie, 1960, 1972), the expression for the cos2 (˛) tan (˛) >
volume of material removed is 7 7
According to Ashrafizadeh & Ashrafizadeh (2012), EFinnie is
c mv2 1 related to the shear impact energy. However, it was difficult to cal-
W= f (˛) , (1)
ϕ 2 p culate the shear impact energy during the impingement either by
 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88 83

Fig. 2. Collision between a particle and a surface: (a) schematic of a spherical particle striking a surface and removing material, (b) collision modeled in DEM. The initial
velocity vector of the particle makes an angle ˛ with the surface.

traditional experiment or by theory until the advent of DEM. When

a particle strikes a surface, the surface will gain the impact energy,
which includes both normal and shear impact energy. Part of the
shear impact energy will be converted to erosion. In this paper, the
shear impact energy during an impingement is calculated by the
following equation in the DEM simulation,
 t1
EShear = − Ft · vt dt, when Ft · vt < 0 and Ft · v < 0, (7)
t0

where Ft is the tangential contact force between the particle and the
surface, vt is the tangential relative velocity between the particle
and the surface, as shown in Fig. 2(b), t0 is the start time of the
impingement, and t1 is the end time of the impingement. The shear
impact energy is accumulated during the impingement only when
Ft ·vt < 0 and Ft ·v < 0 because the shear impact energy can only be
converted to erosion under these conditions. In the current work, a
self-developed DEM code based on the linear spring-dashpot DEM
model (Cundall & Strack, 1979) is used to calculate the shear impact
energy. The explicit time integration method is adopted to calculate
the motions of the particles. The DEM used in this paper is similar Fig. 3. Particle–wall contact model.
to the model used in our previous work (Cui et al., 2014; Jiang et al.,
2011; Zhao, Cheng et al., 2010; Zhao, Ding, Wu, & Cheng, 2010;
Zhao, Jiang, Liu, & Zheng, 2009), with slight differences as described
below.
In the linear spring-dashpot DEM model, the spring stiffness is
generally smaller than the real values of the materials in order to
achieve a larger time step (Kuo et al., 2002; Limtrakul et al., 2003;
Mikami, Kamiya, & Horio, 1998; Mishra & Murty, 2001; Rhodes,
Wang, Nguyen, Stewart, & Liffman, 2001; Tsuji et al., 1993) in the
DEM simulation (Ting & Corkum, 1992). If soft spheres are used
to represent hard particles in DEM, the deformations will be larger
than the real deformations when particles contact the wall. This will
affect the calculation of the torque and rotational speed of the par-
ticle, which results in an inaccurate calculation of the shear impact
energy that is used to estimate erosion. In order to compensate
for these effects, we develop a new method to determine the con-
tact point and calculate the contact torque between the particle
and the wall. As shown in Fig. 3, in most existing soft sphere mod-
els, the contact point is set to p for particle–wall contact, which is Fig. 4. The shear impact energy obtained by DEM simulations and the erosion energy
called the traditional method, and in the current work, the contact calculated with Finnie’s model as a function of impact angle for a single particle.
point is set to q, which is called the new method. We have verified
that the torque, rotational speed, and shear impact energy do not 0.3. The normal spring stiffness, kn , and tangential spring stiffness,
change with spring stiffness changes when the new contact point kt , are 21,000 and 6000 N/m, respectively. The coefficient of resti-
is adopted, which means that the value of the spring stiffness has tution, e, which is used to calculate the damping coefficient (Ting
almost no effect on the erosion prediction. For soft spheres, the new & Corkum, 1992), is 0.9. The time step is set to be 10−6 s, which
method always results in the same shear impact energy. is smaller than the critical time step (Ting & Corkum, 1992). The
impact angles are 0◦ –90◦ in 5◦ increments. A total of 19 simulations
Results and discussion are done. In all simulations in this work, fragmentation of the parti-
cles is not considered and the particles are considered rigid, which
Shear impact energy calculated with DEM means that the shear impact energy only results in the erosion of
the ductile target surface, not the particle.
DEM simulations for impingements of a particle with 1 mm Fig. 4 shows the shear impact energy calculated at various
diameter, 1 m/s impact velocity, and various impact angles are per- impact angles. When the impact angle is smaller than 22.6◦ , the
formed and the shear impact energy is calculated. The density of shear impact energy increases rapidly from zero to the maximum,
the particle material is 2600 kg/m3 . The coefficient of friction, f, is and when the impact angle is greater than 22.6◦ , the shear impact
84 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88
Fig. 5. The effect of particle diameter on RE as a function of collision angle for a
single particle.
energy decreases gradually from the maximum back to zero. At
0◦ and 90◦ , the shear impact energies are zero because no tan-
gential component of the motion acts on the surface. This curve
is similar to that of the erosion energy in Finnie’s model (Eq. (6)),
which is also plotted in this figure. Here, the ratio of the normal to
tangential force K in Eq. (6) is set as the reciprocal of the friction
coefficient in the DEM model, 1/0.3. According to Finnie’s model
(Finnie, 1960, 1972), the maximum volume removal of the mate-
rial occurs at tan(2˛) = 2 K/7, which gives an angle of 21.8◦ . This is
very close to the value of 22.6◦ obtained from the simulations. The
ratio of the shear impact energy calculated by DEM to the erosion
energy in Finnie’s model is defined as
EShear
RE = . (8)
EFinnie
The values of RE at various impact angles are shown in the inset
of Fig. 4. We can see that the ratio is near four at across the range of
simulated impact angles. The result shows that there may be a pro-
portional relationship between the shear impact energy calculated
in DEM and the erosion energy in Finnie’s model. If a proportional
relationship exists, the volume of material removed in an impinge-
ment can be calculated according to Eqs. (5) and (8) as
EShear
W= . (9)
RE p
More simulations of impingements with different particle
diameters, friction coefficients, restitution coefficients, impact
velocities, and spring stiffnesses are required to confirm whether
the relationship exists in all cases. If the proportional relationship
is universal, the erosion of the surface can be easily obtained by
calculating the shear impact energy in the DEM simulations. Then
the DEM or CFD–DEM method can be applied to the field of erosion
prediction in many industrial areas by combining with SIEM.
Effect of particle properties and contact parameters
In order to study the effect of the particle diameter on RE , five
particle diameters (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mm) are simulated with
DEM. For each particle, the impact angles are 5◦ –85◦ in 5◦ incre-
ments. Since the shear impact energy at an impact angle of 0◦ or
90◦ is zero, the simulations at these two angles are not performed.
All other model parameters used in the simulations are kept the
same as those used in Section “Shear impact energy calculated with
DEM”. Fig. 5 shows the effect of particle diameter on RE as a func-
tion of impact angle. RE is calculated by Eq. (8) for all cases. It can be
seen that the particle diameter has almost no effect on RE . The value
of RE is about four for all particle sizes at different impact angles.
The inset of Fig. 5 shows the angle at which the maximum volume
removal occurs for particles with different diameters. It can be seen
that the angles are nearly equal and close to the angles calculated
with Finnie’s model.
To investigate the effect of the restitution coefficient on RE , five
coefficients of restitution (0.80, 0.85, 0.90, 0.95, and 1.0) are sim-
ulated with DEM. The simulation method is the same as in the
preceding paragraph. Fig. 6(a) shows the effect of the restitution
coefficient on RE as a function of impact angle. It can be seen that the
coefficient of restitution has almost no effect on RE , which is about
four. When the impact angle is larger than 30◦ , the values of RE are
nearly identical. When the impact angle is smaller than 30◦ , RE is
slightly smaller as the coefficient of restitution is smaller. RE is four
at any impact angle when the coefficient of restitution is one. The
inset of Fig. 6(a) shows the angle at which the maximum volume
removal occurs for collisions with different coefficients of restitu-
tion. It can be seen that the angles calculated from the simulations
are similar to those calculated with Finnie’s model.
The friction between different granular materials and surfaces
is different. To evaluate the effect of the friction coefficient on RE ,
five coefficients of friction (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5) are simulated
with DEM. Fig. 6(b) shows the effect of the friction coefficient on
RE as a function of impact angle. It can be seen that the friction
coefficient has almost no effect on RE , which is about four. The
inset of Fig. 6(b) shows the angle at which the maximum volume
removal occurs for particles with different coefficients of friction.
The angle changes with changing friction coefficient and is similar
to the angle calculated with Finnie’s model. Because the friction
coefficients are different, the ratios of normal to tangential force
K in Eq. (6), which are set as the reciprocal of the friction coeffi-
cient, are also different. According to Finnie’s model (Finnie, 1960,
1972), the angle decreases as the friction coefficient increases. The
simulation results match Finnie’s theory well.
Three different spring constant combinations (kn = 210 N/m,
kt = 60 N/m; kn = 2100 N/m, kt = 600 N/m; and kn = 21,000 N/m,
kt = 6000 N/m), are employed to evaluate the effect of spring stiff-
ness on RE . Fig. 6(c) shows the effect of spring stiffness on RE as a
function of impact angle. It can be seen that the spring stiffness has
almost no effect on RE . The inset of Fig. 6(c) shows the angle at which
the maximum volume removal occurs for particles with different
spring constants. The angles calculated from the DEM simulations
are close to those calculated with Finnie’s model. The results show
that the spring stiffness does not affect the erosion prediction, and
coupling SIEM and DEM with the new method for determining the
contact point is suitable to model soft sphere particles. Whether
a realistic or smaller spring stiffness is used, the model predicts
nearly the same amount of erosion.
If we use the traditional method instead of the new method
to determine the contact point, the spring stiffness greatly affects
RE , as shown in Fig. 6(d). Especially when the spring stiffness is
small, the overlap between the particle and wall is large, and accu-
rate shear impact energy cannot be obtained. Therefore, the new
method for determining the contact point must be used to calcu-
late shear impact energy when the spring stiffness in the model is
lower than the real value.
A fluid generally carries solid particles and in reality the veloc-
ities of the particles are different. To evaluate the effect of particle
impact velocity on RE , ten particle speeds (1–10 m/s in 1 m/s incre-
ments) are simulated with DEM. Fig. 6(e) shows the effect of particle
impact velocity on RE as a function of impact angle. It can be seen
that the particle impact velocity has no effect on RE . The inset of
Fig. 6(e) shows the angle at which the maximum volume removal
occurs for particles with different impact velocities. The angles are
equivalent and close to Finnie’s model.
 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88 85

Fig. 6. The effect of the (a) coefficient of restitution, (b) coefficient of friction, (c) spring stiffness, (d) spring stiffness in the traditional soft sphere DEM, and (e) particle impact
velocity on RE as a function of collision angle for a single particle.

The value of RE

To get a more exact value of RE , a total of 2754 simulations

are performed using combination of three particle diameters (0.5,
1.0, and 1.5 mm), three friction coefficients (0.1, 0.3, and 0.5), two
spring constant combinations (kn = 21,000, kt = 6000; and kn = 6000,
kt = 6000), three restitution coefficients (0.8, 0.9, and 0.95), three
impact velocities (1, 5, and 10 m/s), and 17 impact angles (5◦ –85◦
in 5◦ increments). The density of the material is 2600 kg/m3 , and
the time step in the simulations is 10−6 s. Shear impact energies
from the simulations, EShear , and the corresponding erosion ener-
gies from Finnie’s model, EFinnie , can be obtained. Plotting each
EShear value against the corresponding EFinnie value, we can get the
relationship between EShear and EFinnie , as shown in Fig. 7. The rela-
tionship between EShear and EFinnie is nearly linear. A linear fit with
a slope of about four is obtained.
If we set
Fig. 7. The relationship between EShear and EFinnie .
mv2
E= f (˛) , (10)
2

it can be found from Eq. (6) that From the simulation results and Fig. 7, it can be found that

1 1
EFinnie = E. (11) EFinnie ≈ E . (12)
4.0 4 Shear
86 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88

Fig. 8. Collisions between particle(s) and a surface: (a) single-particle collision and (b) multi-particle collisions.

From Eqs. (11) and (12), it can be found that

mv2
EShear ≈ E = f (˛) . (13)
2
This means that E in Finnie’s model actually represents the shear
impact energy during an impingement. From the simulation results
and analyses, we can say that nearly 1/4 of the shear impact energy
will be converted to erosion during an impingement. According to
Finnie’s theory and the simulation results, we set

RE = 4.0. (14)

Substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (9), we can calculate the volume of
removed material in an impingement in a DEM simulation,
EShear
W= , (15)
4.0p
where EShear can be calculated by Eq. (7) in the DEM simulation.
When the surface is impinged by many particles, the total volume
of removed material V can be obtained by summing the volume of
removed material in each impingement,
n collisions, the erosions obtained from the simulations are com-
V= Wi ,
i=1
where n is the total number of impingements. Note that the erosion
model is only suitable for a hard particle and ductile target surface,
which means the hardness of the particle must be much higher
than the target surface. If the hardness of the particle is close to or
lower than that of the target surface, the shear impact energy that
is converted to erosion of the target surface would be lower, and
the model would need to be adjusted.
Validation of the model
To validate the SIEM for DEM, two types of collisions between
particle(s) and a surface are simulated: single-particle collisions
and multi-particle collisions, as shown in Fig. 8. The erosion of the
surface is calculated by the SIEM in the DEM simulations. For the
single-particle collisions, the erosion obtained from the simula-
tion is compared with Finnie’s theory, and for the multi-particle
Fig. 9. Erosion of a flat aluminum plate as a function of collision angle for a single
particle.
(16) pared with the experiments of Sheldon and Finnie (1966b). The
particles used in the simulations are the same as those used in
the experiments. The particle material is silicon carbide and the
density is 3220 kg/m3 . The diameter of the particles is 127 ␮m and
the impact velocity is 152 m/s. The material of the target surface is
1100-0 Aluminum and the density is 2700 kg/m3 . The Vickers hard-
ness of 1100-0 Aluminum used in the experiments is 26.5 (Finnie
et al., 1967). The plastic flow pressure p is set as 4.2 times the Vick-
ers hardness according to the experimental data of aluminum by
Finnie et al. (1967). The simulation parameters are listed in Table 1.
Because the diameter of the particles is small and the impact veloc-
ity is high, the spring constants are set to be large and the time step
in the simulations is 10−9 s. The particles are considered to be rigid
because the hardness of the silicon carbide is much larger than that
of the aluminum target surface.
For the single-particle collisions, the erosions obtained with
DEM simulations and Finnie’s model as a function of impact angle
are shown in Fig. 9. The erosion obtained from the simulations is
nearly identical as the erosion calculated with Finnie’s model. This

Fig. 10. DEM simulation of multiple particles impacting a plane. The vectors represent particle velocities.
 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88 87

Table 1
Simulations parameters used for model validation.
Parameters
Diameter (mm)
Density of particles (kg/m3 )
Density of aluminum (kg/m3 )
Coefficient of sliding friction
Spring stiffness (N/m)
Coefficient of restitution
Impact velocity (m/s)
Inner diameter of the nozzle (mm)
Size of the specimen (cm)
Flow rate of the particles (g/s)
Vickers hardness of aluminum (VHN)
Time step (s)
Total simulation time (s)
Impact angle (◦ )
Fig. 11. Erosion of a flat aluminum plate as a function of collision angle for many
particles.
experiment, expect the flow rate of the particles, which was not
specified (Sheldon & Finnie, 1966b). In the current work, five flow
Value rates (0.62, 3.1, 6.2, 12.4, and 24.8 g/s) are simulated. The gas–solid
0.127 flow changes from dilute to dense in this flow rate range.
3220 Fig. 11 shows the erosion as a function of impact angle obtained
2700 from the DEM simulations and the experiments (Sheldon & Finnie,
0.5 1966b). The erosion predicted by the DEM simulations varies with
kn = 210,000 and kt = 60,000
the flow rate. The maximum erosion rate (grams eroded per gram
0.9
152.0 of abrasive) is the highest at the lowest flow rate, except when
4.0 compared with the erosion predicted from the single-particle col-
10 × 10 lision. The erosion rate is close to zero at an impact angle of 90◦ , and
0.62, 3.1, 6.2, 12.4, and 24.8 (for the
the erosion curve is very similar to that of the single-particle colli-
multi-particle collisions)
26.5 sion. This indicates that when the flow rate is low, the particles are
5 × 10−9 dilute, move independently, and impinge the plane individually. As
1.0 the flow rate increases, the maximum erosion rate decreases grad-
0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, ually, and the erosion at the impact angle of 90◦ increases gradually.
55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, and 90
When the flow rate is high, the interactions between particles are
greatly increased. With increasing flow rate, the erosion is reduced
when the impact angle is lower than about 40◦ , as shown in Fig. 11,
because many particles flow near the surface and later particles
cannot impinge the surface directly. A portion of the particle energy
is lost because of collisions with other particles. Conversely, the ero-
sion is increased at impact angles higher than about 40◦ , as shown
in Fig. 11. For a single-particle collision, the erosion is low when the
impact angle is high because the shear impact energy is low. How-
ever, when many particles impact the surface and the flow rate is
high, the erosion at high impact angles is also high because the shear
impact energy is high. For example, when the impact angle is 90◦ , as
shown in Fig. 12, many particles impact the surface when the flow
rate is high, and the particles bounce vertically after contacting the
surface. The particles exiting the nozzle later will collide with the
existing particles moving vertically, producing horizontal motion
of particles. When the particles with horizontal motion impinge the
surface, a portion of the shear impact energy will be converted to
erosion, and this is the reason for the non-zero erosion rate at 90◦ .
Comparing the simulation and experimental results, it is seen that
when the flow rate is 6.2 g/s, the simulation results are closest to
the experimental results.

shows that the SIEM can accurately predict the erosion of single-
particle collisions.
According to the experiments of Sheldon & Finnie (1966b), the
inner diameter of the nozzle was 4 mm and the size of the specimen
was 10 cm × 10 cm, which was large enough to ensure all particles
impacted the specimen, as shown in Fig. 10. In the multi-particle
collision simulations, all parameters are the same as those in the

Fig. 12. DEM simulation of particles impacting a plane when the impact angle is 90◦ . The vectors represent particle velocities.
88 Y. Zhao et al. / Particuology 34 (2017) 81–88
Conclusions
A shear impact energy erosion model based on the relation-
ship between the shear impact energy and the erosion rate was
proposed for DEM. The accuracy of the model was validated by com-
parison with theory and published experimental results. Based on
the results, the following conclusions can be made:
(1) It was possible to predict erosion by calculating the shear
impact energy in the DEM simulations. During the impinge-
ment of a particle, a portion of the shear impact energy was
converted to erosion, which was accumulated in each time step
in the DEM simulation.
(2) The ratio of the shear impact energy calculated with DEM to the
erosion energy calculated from Finnie’s model, RE , had a nearly
constant value of four. The properties of the particle, such as
diameter, friction coefficient, restitution coefficient, and impact
velocity, had almost no effect on the value of RE .
(3) The value of the shear impact energy during an impingement
obtained from the DEM simulation was equivalent to the value
calculated from Finnie’s model. Nearly one-quarter of the shear
impact energy was converted to erosion.
(4) When the concentration of particles was low, the particles were
diluted, moved independently, and impinged the surface indi-
vidually. The erosion rate was close to zero when the impact
angle was 90◦ . As the flow rate increased, the maximum erosion
rate gradually decreased, and the erosion was no longer close to
zero at an impact angle of 90◦ . When the concentration of parti-
cles was high, the interactions between particles increased and
the erosion was low at small impact angles because many of the
particles could not impinge the surface directly. Conversely, the
erosion was high at large impact angles because of the increased
horizontal motion and shear energy of the particles.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC, Grant No. 21476193).
References
Ashrafizadeh, H., & Ashrafizadeh, F. (2012). A numerical 3D simulation for prediction
of wear caused by solid particle impact. Wear, 276, 75–84.
Bitter, J. (1963a). A study of erosion phenomena: Part I. Wear, 6, 5–21.
Bitter, J. (1963b). A study of erosion phenomena: Part II. Wear, 6, 169–190.
Chu, K., Wang, B., Xu, D., Chen, Y., & Yu, A. (2011). CFD–DEM simulation of the
gas–solid flow in a cyclone separator. Chemical Engineering Science, 66, 834–847.
Chu, K., Wang, B., Yu, A., & Vince, A. (2009). CFD–DEM modelling of multiphase flow
in dense medium cyclones. Powder Technology, 193, 235–247.
Chu, K., Wang, B., Yu, A., & Vince, A. (2012). Computational study of the multiphase
flow in a dense medium cyclone: Effect of particle density. Chemical Engineering
Science, 73, 123–139.
Chu, K., & Yu, A. (2008). Numerical simulation of complex particle-fluid flows. Powder
Technology, 179, 104–114.
Cui, Z., Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, X., Hua, Z., Zhou, C., et al. (2014). Transition of axial
segregation patterns in a long rotating drum. Particuology, 13, 128–133.
Cundall, P. A., & Strack, O. D. (1979). A discrete numerical model for granular assem-
blies. Geotechnique, 29, 47–65.
Di Maio, F. P., Di Renzo, A., & Trevisan, D. (2009). Comparison of heat transfer models
in DEM–CFD simulations of fluidized beds with an immersed probe. Powder
Technology, 193, 257–265.
Edwards, J. K., McLaury, B. S., & Shirazi, S. A. (2001). Modeling solid particle erosion in
elbows and plugged tees. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 123, 277–284.
Finnie, I. (1960). Erosion of surfaces by solid particles. Wear, 3, 87–103.
Finnie, I. (1972). Some observations on the erosion of ductile metals. Wear, 19, 81–90.
Finnie, I., Wolak, J., & Kabil, Y. (1967). Erosion of metals by solid particles. Journal of
Materials, 2, 682–700.
View publication stats
He, Y., Zhan, W., Zhao, Y., Lu, H., & Schlaberg, I. (2009). Prediction on immersed tubes
erosion using two-fluid model in a bubbling fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering
Science, 64, 3072–3082.
Jiang, M., Zhao, Y., Liu, G., & Zheng, J. (2011). Enhancing mixing of particles by baffles
in a rotating drum mixer. Particuology, 9, 270–278.
Johansson, K., Norling, R., Hjörnhede, A., Almstedt, A.-E., Johnsson, F., & Nylund, A.
(2004). Hydrodynamics and steel tube wastage in a fluidized bed at elevated
temperature. Chemical Engineering Science, 59, 31–40.
Kuang, S., Li, K., Zou, R., Pan, R., & Yu, A. (2013). Application of periodic boundary
conditions to CFD–DEM simulation of gas–solid flow in pneumatic conveying.
Chemical Engineering Science, 93, 214–228.
Kuo, H., Knight, P., Parker, D., Tsuji, Y., Adams, M., & Seville, J. (2002). The influence
of DEM simulation parameters on the particle behaviour in a V-mixer. Chemical
Engineering Science, 57, 3621–3638.
Limtrakul, S., Chalermwattanatai, A., Unggurawirote, K., Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T., &
Tanthapanichakoon, W. (2003). Discrete particle simulation of solids motion in
a gas–solid fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering Science, 58, 915–921.
Lyczkowski, R. W., & Bouillard, J. X. (2002). State-of-the-art review of erosion mod-
eling in fluid/solids systems. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 28,
543–602.
Mikami, T., Kamiya, H., & Horio, M. (1998). Numerical simulation of cohesive powder
behavior in a fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering Science, 53, 1927–1940.
Mishra, B., & Murty, C. (2001). On the determination of contact parameters for
realistic DEM simulations of ball mills. Powder Technology, 115, 290–297.
Nakamura, H., Kondo, T., & Watano, S. (2013). Improvement of particle mixing and
fluidization quality in rotating fluidized bed by inclined injection of fluidizing
air. Chemical Engineering Science, 91, 70–78.
Nakamura, H., Tokuda, T., Iwasaki, T., & Watano, S. (2007). Numerical analysis of
particle mixing in a rotating fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering Science, 62,
3043–3056.
Neilson, J., & Gilchrist, A. (1968). Erosion by a stream of solid particles. Wear, 11,
111–122.
Pei, C., Wu, C.-Y., England, D., Byard, S., Berchtold, H., & Adams, M. (2013). Numer-
ical analysis of contact electrification using DEM–CFD. Powder Technology, 248,
34–43.
Pereira, G. C., de Souza, F. J., & de Moro Martins, D. A. (2014). Numerical prediction
of the erosion due to particles in elbows. Powder Technology, 261, 105–117.
Rhodes, M., Wang, X., Nguyen, M., Stewart, P., & Liffman, K. (2001). Use of discrete
element method simulation in studying fluidization characteristics: Influence
of interparticle force. Chemical Engineering Science, 56, 69–76.
Sheldon, G., & Finnie, I. (1966a). The mechanism of material removal in the erosive
cutting of brittle materials. Journal of Engineering for Industry, 88, 393–399.
Sheldon, G., & Finnie, I. (1966b). On the ductile behavior of nominally brittle mate-
rials during erosive cutting. Journal of Engineering for Industry, 88, 387–392.
Stratton, R., & Wensrich, C. (2011). Horizontal slug flow pneumatic conveying:
Numerical simulation and analysis of a thin slice approximation. Powder Tech-
nology, 214, 477–490.
Talia, M., Lankarani, H., & Talia, J. (1999). New experimental technique for the study
and analysis of solid particle erosion mechanisms. Wear, 225, 1070–1077.
Ting, J. M., & Corkum, B. T. (1992). Computational laboratory for discrete element
geomechanics. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 6, 129–146.
Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T., & Tanaka, T. (1993). Discrete particle simulation of two-
dimensional fluidized bed. Powder Technology, 77, 79–87.
Wu, G., Ouyang, J., Yang, B., Li, Q., & Wang, F. (2012). Lagrangian–Eulerian simulation
of slugging fluidized bed. Particuology, 10, 72–78.
Yang, S., Luo, K., Fang, M., & Fan, J. (2013). Discrete element simulation of the
hydrodynamics in a 3D spouted bed: Influence of tube configuration. Powder
Technology, 243, 85–95.
Zhang, L., Sazonov, V., Kent, J., Dixon, T., & Novozhilov, V. (2001). Analysis of boiler-
tube erosion by the technique of acoustic emission: Part I. Mechanical erosion.
Wear, 250, 762–769.
Zhao, T., Liu, K., Cui, Y., & Takei, M. (2010). Three-dimensional simulation of the par-
ticle distribution in a downer using CFD–DEM and comparison with the results
of ECT experiments. Advanced Powder Technology, 21, 630–640.
Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., Wu, C., Ding, Y., & Jin, Y. (2010). Eulerian–Lagrangian simulation
of distinct clustering phenomena and RTDs in riser and downer. Particuology, 8,
44–50.
Zhao, Y., Ding, Y., Wu, C., & Cheng, Y. (2010). Numerical simulation of hydrodynamics
in downers using a CFD–DEM coupled approach. Powder Technology, 199, 2–12.
Zhao, Y., Jiang, M., Liu, Y., & Zheng, J. (2009). Particle-scale simulation of the flow
and heat transfer behaviors in fluidized bed with immersed tube. AIChE Journal,
55, 3109–3124.
Zhou, Z., Pinson, D., Zou, R., & Yu, A. (2011). Discrete particle simulation of gas
fluidization of ellipsoidal particles. Chemical Engineering Science, 66, 6128–6145.