A new approach to the DEM, with

applications to brittle, jointed rock

Peter A Cundall

Itasca Consulting Group, USA

Lecture, ALERT School

Aussois

9 October 2008
 Overview

In this talk, we propose an alternative formulation for the

DEM simulations of blocky systems. The complete scheme
has not been implemented, although some components
exist and have been tested.

The objective is to increase the calculation efficiency of a

3D DEM model of interacting angular blocks, at the
expense of accuracy. There is an added advantage (over,
say 3DEC), in that the blocks may fracture.

Thus, the subject discussed here is speculative, and may or

may not lead to a viable method (e.g., one in which the
accuracy is acceptable).
 Topics covered here

1. Bonded assembly of particles

2. Smooth Joint Model

3. Review of 3DEC code – true polyhedral blocks

4. Equivalence between true blocky system and SJM

overlay.

5. Lattice scheme for improving efficiency

6. Proposed scheme
 Bonded particle assembly for brittle rock

The distinct element method (DEM) may be used to model

brittle rock, using an assembly of bonded particles. Each
bond-break represents a micro-crack, and a contiguous chain
of micro-cracks represents a macro-crack.

We use circular particles (in 2D and 3D), with bonding at

each contact, using the code PFC. It is possible to relate the
behaviour of such a bonded assembly to classical fracture
mechanics concepts:

Recently, the inclusion of joints (or pre-existing discontinuities)

has been added to the PFC bonded-particle representation of
brittle rock. This is the Smooth Joint Model (SJM).
 The Smooth-Joint Model (SJM)

A “joint” in a PFC bonded

assembly consists of
modified properties of
contacts whose 2 host-
particle centroids span joint plane
the desired joint plane.

To avoid the “bumpy-road” effect, a

new smooth joint model is employed
that allows continuous slip
SJM in 3D -
Illustration of smooth joint mechanics:
Note that the SJM also represents normal joint
opening
Example with several sliding joints:
We have performed an extensive series of validation comparisons with
laboratory experiments, in 2D (Wong et al, 2001) and 3D (Germanovich
and Dyskin, 2000)

Initial crack
(joint)

Laboratory Numerical

R.H.C. Wong, K.T. Chau, C.A. Tang, P. Lin. Analysis of crack coalescence in rock-like
materials containing three flaws: Part I: experimental approach. Int. J. Rock Mech. &
Min. Sci. 38 (2001).
SJM in 2D

SJM in 3D
 True polygonal & polyhedral block DEM models

For many years, DEM codes UDEC and 3DEC have been
available to model angular blocks of rock. Both codes are
computationally intensive, using detailed interaction logic – e.g.,
edge-to-edge, edge-to-corner, face-to-corner, etc).

We review briefly the formulation for 3DEC, and then propose a

simpler alternative.

Note that 3DEC and UDEC do not include block fracture,

although each block may contain a nonlinear constitutive model
(e.g., Mohr Coulomb), which accounts for smeared

Example of a 3DEC simulation:

Summary of equations used in 3DEC for the contact and motion of
arbitrary polyhedra (from Cundall, Lemos & Hart papers, 1988).
Relative contact velocity -

A
shear C
normal
B

In all DEM codes (and

} (similarly for block B)
especially 3DEC) there is
also a great deal of
housekeeping logic to
detect and manage
contacts efficiently.

Law of motion for translation -

where

… similarly for rotation (damping force)

Block assemblies with bonded spheres & SJM

We may form angular “blocks” with assemblies of spheres,

separated by smooth joint planes. This is an approximate
representation of polyhedra.

To illustrate the approach, we compare the same model of

grain structure simulated with both UDEC and PFC2D.

Note that 2D is used for clarity. An identical approach

operates in 3D, using 3DEC and PFC3D, respectively.
An alternative to UDEC (or 3DEC) …

bonds

joint planes
UDEC model Stress-measurement
patch

“block” with
different modulus
 Stress-measurement
PFC2D model patch

smooth joint plane

bonds
Force distribution in PFC
assembly when loaded
axially (in Y direction)

(blue = compression
red = tension)
 Comparison of stress in a circular patch – UDEC and PFC2D

(Note – the measurement schemes within the patches are not identical)
Lattice model version of packed particle assembly
In a further simplification, we replace balls and contacts by
nodes and springs, where a node is a point mass. The
advantage of this formulation is a great increase in efficiency.
For example, in 3D, the computational speed is increased by
a factor of 10 and the memory requirement decreased by a
factor of 7.

The node/spring representation is called the lattice model,

and – as an example – it is used in the code “BLO-UP” which
simulates the fragmentation of a rock mass due to blasting.

The Smooth Joint Model (already discussed) may be used to

overlay joints on the lattice model.
For example, we make
2 joint continuous sets:

Each dot is a spring

that is intersected by a
joint plane

Each such joint

element obeys the
SJM formulation (ie,
angle of joint, not the
spring, is respected)
Thus, we may create a system composed of polyhedral blocks with -

1. A lattice network to represent the interior material of each

block.
2. The Smooth Joint Model (SJM) to represent the boundary
of each block. The boundary description is stored as a
separate data structure that is tied to (rotated with) the
block material.
3. Interaction between blocks determined by the mean of the
SJM planes of the two contacting blocks.

Note that simple point-to-point interaction is used for contact

detection, eliminating the time-consuming polyhedral
interaction logic of 3DEC.

Further, interior springs may break, resulting in possible splitting

of blocks. The new crack is assigned an SJM normal vector.
 Visualization of proposed scheme in two dimensions

Lattice nodes

mean SJM plane

(slip & normal closure
resolved in SJM direction)

Block boundary polygon

interaction lattice spring

The detection and interaction “error” is related to the
resolution (mean spacing between lattice nodes). Thus, the
error may be reduced by making the resolution finer.

The lattice scheme acts as a meshless method – resolution

may be improved locally at any time, if required. If this is done,
the block boundary geometry remains the same.

Lattice springs are calibrated to reproduce the required

elastic and strength properties of the block material. (This is
fundamentally different from, say, the finite element method,
which is based on a volumetric formulation).
 Conclusions

The proposed scheme for simulating assemblies of polyhedral

blocks promises to be very efficient, at the expense of less
accuracy in contact conditions, compared to, say, 3DEC (which
uses exact polyhedral contact laws).

However, the accuracy is related to the lattice resolution, which

may be refined as necessary (even locally).

Splitting of blocks is an integral part of the scheme. The

location and angle of such splits is not constrained by a grid.
(New SJMs may be placed arbitrarily).