UCRL-JRNL-237027

Discrete Element Modeling

J. Morris, S. Johnson
December 5, 2007

American Society of Civil Engineers: Journal of Geotechnical

and Geoenvironmental Engineering

Disclaimer
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC,
nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein
to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or
Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product
endorsement purposes.

Discrete Element Modeling

Overview:
The Distinct Element Method (also frequently referred to as the Discrete Element
Method) (DEM) is a Lagrangian numerical technique where the computational domain
consists of discrete solid elements which interact via compliant contacts. This can be
contrasted with Finite Element Methods where the computational domain is assumed to
represent a continuum (although many modern implementations of the FEM can
accommodate some Distinct Element capabilities). Often the terms Discrete Element
Method and Distinct Element Method are used interchangeably in the literature, although
Cundall and Hart (1992) suggested that Discrete Element Methods should be a more
inclusive term covering Distinct Element Methods, Displacement Discontinuity Analysis
and Modal Methods. In this work, DEM specifically refers to the Distinct Element
Method, where the discrete elements interact via compliant contacts, in contrast with
Displacement Discontinuity Analysis where the contacts are rigid and all compliance is
taken up by the adjacent intact material.
A theoretical basis for the DEM is provided by Williams et. al (1985). A key aspect of
the technique is that it can simulate many objects interacting even when the topology of
the arrangement is entirely changed. Consequently, DEM research has involved
optimization of nearest neighbor sorting algorithms (see Williams and OConner, 1995;
Munjiza et al, 1993; Perkins and Williams, 2001; Perkins and Williams, 2002; Munjiza
and Andrews, 1998). The DEM solves Newtons equations of motion to resolve particle
motion and adds a contact law to resolve inter-particle contact forces. Forces are typically
integrated explicitly in time to acquire the time history response of the material using an
appropriate quadrature method. A 2nd order accurate method is usually sufficient and has
been shown to be optimal in terms of total simulation time under several circumstances
(Rougier et al, 2004). The DEM includes a family of techniques that use radically
different treatments for the element geometry and the form of the contact forces. This
discussion documents the various forms of DEM employed and the applications typically
considered.
Early approaches to the DEM employed rigid disks or spheres with compliant contacts
(Cundall and Strack, 1979).. These approaches have the advantage that the algorithms for
detecting contact and calculating forces between particles are relatively straight forward.
However, they are not appropriate for representing all discrete media. For example, to
closely mimic tight rock structures, Cundall (1980), Walton (1980) and Cundall and Hart
(1985) developed two-dimensional DEMs that employed arbitrary polygons. These
approaches were later extended to 3-dimensions by Cundall (1988) and Hart et al. (1988)
who developed DEMs composed of rigid and deformable polyhedral blocks with
compliant contacts. In order to simplify contact resolution between polyhedral blocks,
Cundall (1988) developed the common plane approach which rapidly and interatively
identifies the area of overlap between the polyhedra.
Contact in DEM is captured through a soft object model, where interpenetration of the
objects is allowed and interpreted physically as local elasto-plastic deformation of the

object at the contact surface. To capture the response of the material at the contact points,
a variety of contact laws have been proposed, from simple linear to highly non-linear
forms. An overview of contact models for granular applications of the 2-D and 3-D DEM
can be found in Walton (1994) and Luding (2006).
For jointed rock numerous models have been developed for the DEM. It is worth
mentioning that such models are required to not simply reproduce data, but also be
suitable for inclusion in a numerical method. These issues are discussed in detail by
Morris (2003). Models have been developed for the DEM which include non-linear,
hysteretic load-unload paths in the normal response of the joint and dilation in shear. The
most sophisticated of these models have been demonstrated to reproduce a wide range of
experimental data for joints in a variety of materials and yet be numerically robust. These
approaches typically take estimates of the normal and shear displacement increments on a
joint at each timestep and use them to integrate the normal and shear stress on the joint
subject to limitations such as friction angle. Softening is typically accommodated by
allowing the friction angle to change as the joint slips. Dilation is addressed by allowing
the normal stress to be affected by the shear displacement (for example, Souley (1995) or
Itascas 3DEC).
DEM has been extended to include the internal stress state of the objects using several
different treatments. When appropriate, rigid bodies are preferred because they permit
large timesteps to be used. The addition of an internal deformation mode adds
computational overhead to each step and requires shorter timesteps for stability of the
DEM. Modal dynamics (Williams and Mustoe, 1987; Pentland and Williams, 1989)
elements allow selection of modally decoupled deformation modes to tailor the
deformation response in a computationally efficient manner. Cosserat points (Rubin,
2001; Morris et al, 2003) provide a non-linear, homogeneously deformable element. Full
finite element discretization (Morris et al., 2006; Block et al., 2007) of individual discrete
elements is also an option when wavelengths comparable to or shorter than the length of
the elements must be resolved. Knowledge of the internal stress state can help to establish
criteria for fracturing and fragmenting the individual objects (Owen et al, 2002; Munjiza
and Latham, 2002; Morris et al., 2006; Morris and Johnson, 2007). Finite difference
(Cundall (1980; 1988) and Hart et al. (1988)) can also be used to model the deformation
of compliant blocks.
It is possible to develop combined rigid, uniformly deformable, and finite element
discretizations within a single framework. For example,.Morris et al. (2004), observed
that the theory of Cosserat points (Rubin, 1995; 2000) could model each element as a
homogenously deformable continuum. A Cosserat point describes the dynamic response
of the polyhedral rock block by enforcing a balance of linear momentum to determine the
motion of the center of mass (3 translational degrees of freedom), as well as three vector
balance laws of director momentum to determine a triad of deformable vectors, which
model both the orientation of the element (3 rotational degrees of freedom) and its
deformation (6 degrees of freedom for dilatation and distortion). The response of the
deformable polyhedral block is modeled explicitly using the standard material constants
that characterize the original three-dimensional material, and constitutive equations for

the contact forces at the joints become pure measures of the mechanics of joints. This
deficiency was overcome by internally discretizing the polyhedral blocks with a
collection of smaller tetrahedral elements. The numerical solution procedure depends on
nodal balance laws to determine the motion of the four nodes of each tetrahedral element,
similar to that described above for the motion of blocks. In general, the accelerations of
the nodes of a particular element are coupled with the nodes of the neighboring elements.
However, the director inertia coefficients in the theory of a Cosserat point can be
specified so that these equations become uncoupled. This form corresponds to a lumped
mass assumption and is particularly convenient for wave propagation problems using
explicit integration schemes because it does not require the inversion of a stiffness
matrix. In continuum regions, where the nodes of neighboring elements are forced to
remain common (i.e., unbreakable), the Cosserat point formulation is basically the same
as standard finite element models (FEM) that use homogeneously deformable tetrahedral
elements. In this case, the computational effort in LDEC is significantly reduced: many
nodes are shared and there is no need for contact detection on shared element surfaces.
While standard finite element formulations are based on shape functions and weighting
functions, the latest version of LDEC utilizes balance laws for the directors of each
Cosserat point (associated with the positions of the nodes of the tetrahedral elements).
LDEC can be run simultaneously in DEM and FEM-like modes, dynamically blending
continuum and discrete regions, as necessary.
Even in the case of rigid elements with deformable contacts it is possible to develop
criteria for element breakage. Experimentally-derived tabular approaches have been
developed to relate resultant particle size distribution to the energy of impact (Herbst and
Potapov, 2004). However, it is also possible to derive estimations of the average stress
state within a DEM element, given the contact forces and body forces within the element.
This capability can be used to visualize the stress state within the DEM system or to
develop criteria for breaking the DEM elements. For example, the average stress tensor
may be calculated using a rigid body formulation (Rubin et al, 2006) of the Cosserat
point. Using this approach, fracture is assumed to be instantaneous and is initiated when
the mean rigid body stress exceeds some criterion appropriate to the material considered.
The DEM has also been extended to include coupling to computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) formulations. For simple one-way coupling, applicable in situations where the
solid flow is sparse or interstitial fluids do not significantly contribute, models such as
Darcy flow models (Preece et al, 1999; Jensen and Preece, 2000; Klosek, 1997) can be
employed. This approach may also be formulated to update the porosity/permeability
constants as the porous geometry changes. For two-way fluid-solid coupling, useful
where the effects of interstitial fluid cannot be neglected, three techniques are commonly
used: Lattice-Boltzmann (L-B), Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) and pipe flow
models. L-B (Cook et al, 2000; Cook et al, 2003) is an Eulerian approach to modeling
fluids, which is coupled to DEM models by mapping DEM solids onto the L-B grid, and
establishing the fill ratio of individual cells; this technique is also amenable to
parallelization for large problems (OConner and Friedrich, 1999). SPH (Monaghan,
1992) is a mesh-free Lagrangian approach that can be easily coupled by enforcing
compliance between the DEM solid and Lagrangian integration points located inside of

the DEM solid (Potapov et al, 2001; Morris and Johnson, 2007). Pipe flow models
(Munjiza et al, 2000) are efficient methods of coupling fluid when the pore network is
relatively intransient.

Geotechnical Applications of the DEM:

The DEM methods are collectively appropriate for simulating a wide range of
geotechnical applications. Cundall (2001) provides a review of DEM simulations of both
granular materials and rock masses. Early applications of the simplest spherical element
DEM implementations focused on micro-scale modeling of granular geo-materials,
including the response of sands and soils at the microscale. More recent work has
extended this approach to include interparticle bonds that mimic the response of rocks at
the macroscale. For example, Antonellini and Pollard (1995) simulated the formation of
shear bands in sandstone using the DEM. Morgan (1999a, 1999b) applied the DEM to the
mechanics of granular shear zones. This class of DEM, often called the Bonded Particle
Method, is the topic of section ???.
This section documents polyhedral block implementations of the DEM. These have
allowed direct simulation of extensive, heavily fractured rock masses. For example,
Heuze et al. (1993) used a 2-D polygonal DEM to analyze explosions in hard rock. When
considering complicated geologies, polyhedral block implementations of the DEM
provide the fundamental advantage that pre-existing joints in rock can be incorporated
into the model directly, and the joints are allowed to undergo large deformation. Detailed
joint constitutive models (see Morris (2003) for a review) can also be used to combine
experimentally observed fracture properties (such as joint dilation, friction angle, and
cohesion) with the DEM approach.

Simulations of underground structures in jointed rock:

Heuze and Morris (2007) provide an extensive overview of the DEM as applied to jointed
rock masses. One fundamental advantage of the DEM is that pre-existing joints in rock
can be incorporated into a DEM model directly, and the joints are allowed to undergo
large deformation. Detailed joint constitutive models (see Morris (2003) for a review) can
also be used to combine experimentally observed fracture properties (such as joint
dilation, friction angle, and cohesion) with the DEM approach. Combined with modern
computing power, the DEM provides an opportunity to directly simulate the behavior of
in situ rock masses at a scale not previously possible. Here we cover some of the
technical details specific to this application of the DEM and present results obtained
using these techniques.

Simulation of an extensive underground facility in fractured rock

Morris et al (2006) performed simulations of an extensive, multi-tunnel facility with the
Livermore Distinct Element Code (LDEC). The solution domain spanned 60 m in each
direction and encapsulated a generic facility that included several tunnel sections and a
lift shaft (see Figure 5). Several geological models were considered as part of this study.
In particular, the behavior of regular, persistent joints was compared to the effect of nonpersistent (i.e., randomized) joints in the surrounding rock. The rigid block capability was

used to model hard rock and to emphasize the role of joint geometries. Figure 6 shows an
example of the randomized jointing present in the non-persistent model geology. In both
cases discussed here, the joint patterns resulted in typical block sizes of 30 cm.
Consequently, each model contained approximately 8 million individual polyhedral rock
blocks and approximately 100 million contact elements, making these the largest
simulations of this type performed to date. The facilities were subjected to loading
corresponding to one kiloton at the surface 50 m above.
Figure 7 compares the velocity fields of the two simulations at 30 ms. Results obtained
for the regular, persistent joint set and irregular, non-persistent model differed in several
key ways:
The regular model exhibited strong anisotropy. Since the joints are weak under
shear loading, the regular, persistent joint sets tend to channel the waveform,
resulting in variations in wavespeed with direction of propagation.
The irregular model exhibited higher attenuation. Again, because the joints are
weak under shear loading, the irregular joint structure results in more plastic
deformation on the joints and, consequently, more attenuation.
Persistent joints allow shear motion along the entire length of the computational
domain, resulting in large chimney effects above collapsed tunnels sections.
The irregular model resulted in more diffraction of waves around cavities in the
rock mass.
Figure 8 shows two snapshots of the collapse of the largest room within the facility using
the non-persistent joint set simulation. While the largest room within the facility has
totally collapsed, the narrowest access tunnels experienced minimal damage. The midsize
tunnels show a range of damage, with most damage occurring in tunnel sections that
contain a junction with another tunnel or lift shaft. This behavior is consistent with the
idea that tunnel junctions compromise tunnel strength.

Figure 5: Generic facility model including several tunnel sections and a lift shaft. The
facility spans 60m and is 50m below the surface.

Figure 6: The non-persistent randomized geology in the vicinity of one of the tunnels.
The near-horizontal joint set persists through the model. However, joint sets in the near
vertical direction persist only through several consecutive layers at a time.

Figure 7: The velocity magnitude for the two models at 30ms. The non-persistent,
randomized geology model (left) and regular jointed model (right) exhibit fundamentally
different responses to loading.

Figure 8: Snapshots of the largest room at 0 ms and 200 ms, using the non-persistent joint
set simulation. The simulation predicts that this large room within the facility would
completely collapse under the applied loading.

Simulations of a Tunnel Opening in Infrequently Jointed Rock

The simulation just presented modeled tunnels in heavily jointed, hard rock, where the
tunnel diameter was spanned by many blocks. Under such circumstances, it is appropriate
to simulate the rock mass using a tight structure consisting of polyhedral blocks that are
either rigid or homogenously deformable (with deformable points of contact in both
cases). In contrast, the focus of this section is on a class of problems where the joints are
sufficiently infrequent so that the predominant failure mechanism is block breakage
rather than intact rock displacement.
Morris et al (2006) presented a preliminary simulation performed in two
dimensions using the LDEC code. The geology consists of blocks of limestone,
measuring 1.83 m wide, by 0.30 m high, surrounding a tunnel measuring 2.73 m by 2.80
m. The tunnel is subjected to loading that corresponds to a tamped, one-ton detonation
located 4.88 m left and 5.75 m above the tunnel. The calculation was performed in two
stages. Initially, LDEC was run with deformable blocks of limestone internally
discretized into 10 cm tetrahedral elements. Cohesive elements were not included. In this
mode of operation, the time step is quite short so that modes of deformation within the 10
cm elements can be captured. After 10 ms, the LDEC calculation was switched over to
rigid-block mode, which ignores internal modes of the elements to increase the size of the
time steps and to investigate the flow of rubble into the tunnel over long time scales. The
simulation shows that a significant portion of the rock mass surrounding the tunnel is
reduced to rubble by the tension produced as waves reflect from the interior surface of
the tunnel. This rubble mass is sufficient to fill in the original tunnel.

Figure 9: The infrequently jointed model is displayed top left, with individual blocks
colored randomly to emphasize joint locations. The simulation results at 10 ms, 500 ms
and 1000 ms, show that a significant portion of the surrounding rock is reduced to rubble
and fills the tunnel.

Impact into a Boulder Field

The second application of the polyhedral DEM involves interaction between a projectile
and a loose pile of polyhedral blocks. A simple and surprisingly effective method of
protecting underground targets is through the use of boulder screens, where the boulder
diameters are of the same order as the incoming projectile cross-section. Heuze(1989)
reviews projectile penetration into geological materials.. Austin et al. (1980, 1981)
performed a set of experimental studies on full-scale boulder screens. In addition, small
scale, controlled experiments on the mechanics of impact into brittle diorite blocks have
been performed (Kumano et al, 1982 and Kumano and Goldsmith 1982). Nelson et al.
performed a 2-D DEM analysis of boulder screen performance using cubic and hexagonal
lattices of octagonal bodies. Our study focuses on capturing the stochastic, 3-D nature of
this system, using polyhedral, orthorhombic, rigid bodies with a fracture and impact point
comminution model selected to achieve rapid simulation times.
Two sets of systems were investigated: 1-caliber and 2-caliber boulder fields. Each set of
systems consists of 10 separate randomly generated configurations corresponding to the
system as measured and described in Austin et al (1980). Each random configuration is
produced using a uniform random distribution of dimensions for the orthorhombic
bodies, where the product of the dimensions for each body is constrained by volume and
aspect ratio limits (taking the maximum or minimum ratio of the set of pairs of
orthogonal dimensions within the body). The bodies are rotated randomly about their
centroids, placed in a body-centered configuration in layers perpendicular to the gravity
potential, and allowed to settle and reorient within a rigid pit of dimensions
L20xH10xW10(bottom)1110(top).
The fracture criterion was modeled using the mean stress tensor within each body. The
stress tensor is calculated using a rigid body formulation (Rubin et al, 2006) of the
Cosserat point. Fracture is assumed here to be instantaneous and is initiated when the
mean rigid body stress exceeds the von Mises failure criterion. A fracture plane was then
introduced in the direction of most principal tensile stress and originating from the point
of highest applied force. Comminution at the impact point is approximated as a pyramidal
cavity with energy loss due to heat dissipation and surface creation approximated by the
release of strain energy in the block before fracture. The cavity model is based on the
average equivalent conical cavity geometry derived from data on diorite impact in
Kumano1982, which indicates a relatively uniform value of approximately 70-degrees
across a range of low speed impacts.
From Figure 2 and Figure 3, it can be seen that the depth of penetration increases with
decreasing boulder size. Tthough the homogenized mass fraction and density of the
domain remains constantdoes not change, the results indicate a pronounced increase in
the penetration of the projectile with decreasing boulder sizechange in the behavior of the
projectile. Proportionally less kinetic energy is removed from the projectile during each
boulder impact, as both the cross-sectional area and mass of each boulderobject is less in
the 1-caliber case (i.e., a factor of 4 and 8, respectively, or 2 and 4 per unit equivalent
length of firing path between the two cases) with d. Dissipated energy is converted into
kinetic energy of in the resultant boulder-wise ejecta. Especially interesting is the ability

of the model to capture j-hooking of the projectile in a granular medium, an observed but
poorly understood phenomenon in granular impact.
From Figure 2 and Figure 3, it can be seen that though the homogenized mass fraction
and density of the domain remains constant, the results indicate a pronounced increase in
the penetration of the projectile with decreasing boulder size. Proportionally less kinetic
energy is removed from the projectile during each boulder impact, as both the crosssectional area and mass of each boulder is less in the 1-caliber case (i.e., a factor of 4 and
8, respectively, or 2 and 4 per unit equivalent length of firing path between the two cases)
with dissipated energy converted into kinetic energy in the resultant boulder-wise ejecta.
Especially interesting is the ability of the model to capture j-hooking of the projectile in a
granular medium, an observed but poorly understood phenomenon in granular impact.
This seminar was sponsored under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.

Table 1: Physical properties of diorite

Specific
gravity
2.83

Modulus
of Compressive
elasticity (psi) strength (psi)
5.06e6
3.2e4

Tensile
strength (psi)
2e2

Figure 1: Example of model generation for the boulder shield

Nominal
dimensions
15-18 (1-cal)
30-33 (2-cal)

Figure 2: Trajectory tracks for the projectile centroid in 2-caliber boulder field trials projected to the
plane of the firing line parallel to gravity

Figure 3: Trajectory tracks for the projectile centroid in 1-caliber boulder field trials projected to the
plane of the firing line parallel to gravity

References:
Alder BJ, Wainwright TE. Studies in molecular dynamics. I. General method. Journal of
Chemistry and Physics 1959; 31: 459-466
Austin CF, Halsey CC, Berry SL, Full-scale penetration into semiconfined diorite
boulders by a semiarmor-piercing (SAP) bomb and a slender penetrator, P. W.
Department, 'Editor'. 1980, Naval Weapons Center
Austin CF, Halsey CC, Berry SL, Full-scale penetration into semiconfined diorite
boulders by a semiarmor-piercing (SAP) bomb, D. f. t. Navy, 'Editor'. 1981,
Naval Weapons Center: China Lake, California. 27.
Block G, Rubin M, Morris JP. Simulations of dynamic crack propagation in brittle
materials using nodal cohesive forces and continuum damage mechanics in the
distinct element code LDEC, International Journal of Fracture, 144 (3), 131-147.
2006:
Cook BK, Noble DR, Preece DS, Williams JR, Direct simulation of particle-laden fluids.
2000, Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM. 11.
Cook BK, Noble D, Williams JR. A direct simulation method for particle-fluid systems.
Engineering Computations 2003; 21: 151--168
Cundall, P. A. (1980), UDEC-A generalized distinct element program for modeling jointed rock, Final
Tech. Rep. Eur. Res. Office (US Army Contract DAJA37-79-C-0548), NTIS order No. AD-A087
610/2.

Cundall PA. Formulation of a three-dimensional distinct element model. International

Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mineral Sciences and Geomechanics 1988; 25: 10716
Cundall, P. A. and Hart, R. D. (1985), Development of generalized 2D and 3D distinct element
programs for modeling jointed rock, Misc. Paper SL-85-1, US Army Corps of Engineers, SL-85-1.
Cundall, P. A. and Hart, D. H. (1992), Numerical modeling of discontinua, Eng. Comput., 9, 101113.

Cundall PA, Strack ODL. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies.
Geotechnique 1979; 29: 47-65
Cleary, P. W. (1991), Extensions of the hybrid method for granular flows, Proceedings 5th
International Computational Techniques and Applications Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Cundall, P. A. (1980), UDEC-A generalized distinct element program for modeling jointed rock,
Final Tech. Rep. Eur. Res. Office (US Army Contract DAJA37-79-C-0548), NTIS order No. ADA087 610/2.

Ehlers W, Ramm E, Diebels S, D'Addetta GA. From particle ensembles to Cosserat

continua: Homogenization of contact forces towards stresses and couple stresses.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 2003; 40: 6681-6702
Hart, R., Cundall, P. A., and Lemos, J. (1988), Formulation of a three-dimesional distinct element
model - Part II. Mechanical calculations for motion and interaction of a system composed of many
polyhedral blocks, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 25, 117-125.

Herbst JA, Potapov AV. Making a Discrete Grain Breakage model practical for
comminution equipment performance simulation. Powder Technology 2004; 143144: 144-150
Heuze FE, An overview of projectile penetration into geological materials, with emphasis
on rocks, D. o. Energy, 'Editor'. 1989, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Jensen RP, Preece DS, Modeling sand production with darcy-flow coupled with discrete
elements, in Sandia National Laboratories Reports. 2000, Sandia National
Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM
Klosek JT, The Integration of Fluid Dynamics with a Discrete-Element Modelling
System: Algorithms, Implementation, and Applications, in Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering. 1997, Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Cambridge, MA. 103.
Komodromos P, Williams JR. On the simulation of deformable bodies using combined
discrete and finite element methods. in Discrete Element Methods: Numerical
Modeling of Discontinua. 2002. Santa Fe, NM, USA: ASCE.
Kumano A, Goldsmith W. Behavior of diorite under impact by variously-shaped
projectiles. Rock Mechanics 1982; 15: 25-40
Kumano A, Goldsmith W. Analytical and experimental investigation of the effect of
impact on coarse granular rocks. Rock Mechanics 1982; 15: 67-97
Luding S. About contact force-laws for cohesive frictional materials in 2D and 3D. in
Behavior of Granular Media. 2006.
Monaghan JJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annual Reviews of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 1992; 30: 543-574
Morris, JP. Review of Rock Joint Models, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-ID153650, 2003. See http://www-r.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/244645.pdf.

Morris JP, et al. Simulations of underground structures subjected to dynamic loading

using the distinct element method. Engineering Computations 2003; 21: 348-408

Morris, JP, Rubin, MB, Block, GI, Bonner, MP, Simulations of Fracture and
Fragmentation of Geologic Materials using Combined FEM/DEM Analysis,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 33 (1-12): 463-473, 2006
Morris JP, Glenn LA, Heuze FE, Blair SC. Simulations of underground structures
subjected to dynamic loading using the distinct element method. in Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Discrete Element Methods; Numerical
Modeling of Discontinua, Sep 23-25 2002. 2002. Santa Fe, NM, United States:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Morris JP, Johnson SM. Simulations of fracture and fragmentation of geologic materials
using combined FEM/DEM/SPH analysis. in Discrete Element Methods 2007.
2007. Brisbane, Australia.
Munjiza A, Bicanic N, Owen DRJ. BSD contact detection algorithm for discrete elements
in 2D. in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Discrete
Element Methods (DEM). 1993. Cambridge, MA, USA: AFOSR.
Munjiza A, Andrews KRF. NBS contact detection algorithm for bodies of similar size.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1998; 43: 131-149
Munjiza A, The combined finite-discrete element method. First ed. John Wiley & Sons:
Chichester, West Sussex, England, 2004;333
Munjiza A, Andrews KRF. Penalty function method for combined finite-discrete element
systems comprising large numbers of separate bodies. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2000; 49: 1377-1396
Munjiza A, Latham JP. Computational challenge of large scale discontinua analysis. in
Discrete Element Methods: Numerical Modeling of Discontinua. 2002. Santa Fe,
NM, USA: ASCE.
Munjiza A, Latham JP, Andrews KRF. Detonation gas model for combined finitediscrete element simulation of fracture and fragmentation. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2000; 49: 1495-1520
O'Connor RM, Friedrich J. Microscale flow modeling in geologic materials. Physics and
Chemisty of the Earth (A) 1999; 24: 611-616
Owen DRJ, Feng YT, Cottrel MG, Ju J. Discrete/Finite element modeling of industrial
applications with multi-fracturing and particulate phenomena. in Discrete
Element Methods: Numerical Modeling of Discontinua. 2002. Santa Fe, NM,
USA: ASCE.

Nadler B, Rubin M. A new 3-D finite element for nonlinear elasticity using the theory of
a Cosserat point. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2003; 40: 45854614
Nelson RB, et al., Numerical analysis of projectile penetration into boulder screens, U.
S. A. C. o. Engineers, 'Editor'. 1983, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station: Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States
Pentland A, Williams JR. Good vibrations: modal dynamics for graphics and animation.
Computer Graphics 1989; 23: 215-222
Perkins ED, Williams JR. Generalized spatial binning of bodies of different sizes. in
Discrete Element Methods: Numerical Modeling of Discontinua. 2002. Santa Fe,
NM, USA: ASCE.
Perkins ED, Williams JR. A fast contact detection algorithm insensitive to object sizes.
Engineering Computations 2001; 18: 48-61
Potapov AV, Hunt ML, Campbell CS. Liquidsolid flows using smoothed particle
hydrodynamics and the discrete element method. Powder Technology 2001; 116:
204-13
Preece DS, Jensen RP, Perkins ED, Williams JR. Sand production modeling using
superquadric discrete elements and coupling of fluid flow and particle motion. in
Rock Mechanics for Industry: Proceedings of the 37th U.S. Symposium. 1999.
Vail, Colorado: Taylor and Francis.
Rougier E, Munjiza A, John NWN, Numerical comparison of some explicit time
integration schemes used in DEM, FEM/DEM and molecular dynamics. 2004.
856-879.
Rubin M. Numerical solution procedures for nonlinear elastic rods using the theory of the
Cosserat point. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2001; 38: 43954437
Rubin M, Morris JP, Johnson SM, Stress, strain and failure of a "rigid" body in motion
using the theory of a Cosserat point, in Internal report. 2006, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, California. 29.
M. Souley. An extention to the saeb and amadei constitutive model for rock joints
to include cyclic loading paths. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
32(2):101.109, 1995.
Walton, O. R. (1980), Particle dynamics modeling of geological materials, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, UCRL-52915.

Walton OR. Force models for particle dynamics simulations of granular materials. in
NATO ASI Symposium. 1994. Corsege, Corsica: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Williams JR, Hocking G, Mustoe GGW. The theoretical basis of the discrete element
method. in NUMETA. 1985. Swansea, UK.
Williams JR, O'Connor RM. A linear complexity intersection algorithm for discrete
element simulation of arbitrary geometries. International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1995; 12: 185-201
Williams JR, Mustoe GGW. Modal methods for the analysis of discrete systems.
Computers and Geotechnics 1987; 4: 1-19