English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We summarize and numerically compare two approaches for modeling and simulating the dynamics of dry granular matter. The first one, the discrete-element method via penalty (DEM-P), is commonly used in the soft matter physics and geomechanics communities; it can be traced back to the work of Cundall and Strack [P. Cundall, Proc. Symp. ISRM, Nancy, France 1, 129 (1971); P. Cundall and O. Strack, Geotechnique 29, 47 (1979)GTNQA80016-850510.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47]. The second approach, the discrete-element method via complementarity (DEM-C), considers the grains perfectly rigid and enforces nonpenetration via complementarity conditions; it is commonly used in robotics and computer graphics applications and had two strong promoters in Moreau and Jean [J. J. Moreau, in Nonsmooth Mechanics and Applications, edited by J. J. Moreau and P. D. Panagiotopoulos (Springer, Berlin, 1988), pp. 1-82; J. J. Moreau and M. Jean, Proceedings of the Third Biennial Joint Conference on Engineering Systems and Analysis, Montpellier, France, 1996, pp. 201-208]. The DEM-P and DEM-C are manifestly unlike each other: They use different (i) approaches to model the frictional contact problem, (ii) sets of model parameters to capture the physics of interest, and (iii) classes of numerical methods to solve the differential equations that govern the dynamics of the granular material. Herein, we report numerical results for five experiments: shock wave propagation, cone penetration, direct shear, triaxial loading, and hopper flow, which we use to compare the DEM-P and DEM-C solutions. This exercise helps us reach two conclusions. First, both the DEM-P and DEM-C are predictive, i.e., they predict well the macroscale emergent behavior by capturing the dynamics at the microscale. Second, there are classes of problems for which one of the methods has an advantage. Unlike the DEM-P, the DEM-C cannot capture shock-wave propagation through granular media. However, the DEM-C is proficient at handling arbitrary grain geometries and solves, at large integration step sizes, smaller problems, i.e., containing thousands of elements, very effectively. The DEM-P vs DEM-C comparison is carried out using a public-domain, open-source software package; the models used are available online.

Compliant contact versus rigid contact: A comparison in the context of granular dynamics