Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

The numerical modelling of excavator bucket filling using DEM

C.J. Coetzee *, D.N.J. Els
Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa

Received 15 February 2007; received in revised form 25 February 2009; accepted 28 May 2009
Available online 25 June 2009

Abstract

The filling of an excavator bucket is a complex granular flow problem. In order to optimize the filling process, it is important to under-
stand the different mechanisms involved. The discrete element method (DEM) is a promising approach to model soil-implement inter-
actions and it was used in this study to model the filling process of an excavator bucket. Model validation was based on the accuracy with
which the model predicted the bucket drag force and the development of the different flow regions. Compared to experimental measure-
ments, DEM predicted lower bucket drag forces, but the general trend was accurately modelled. At the end of the filling process the error
in predicted drag force was 20%. Qualitatively, there was a good agreement between the observed and the modelled flow regions in terms
of position and transition from one stage to the other. During all stages of filling, DEM was able to predict the volume of material inside
the bucket accurately to within ±6%.
Ó 2009 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are also found on hydraulic excavators, loaders and shovel

Earthmoving equipment plays an important role in the
agricultural, earthmoving and mining industries. The
equipment is highly diverse in shape and function, but most
of the soil cutting machines can be categorised into one of
three principal classes, namely blades, rippers and buckets
(shovels). This paper focuses on the numerical modelling of
excavator bucket filling using the discrete element method
(DEM).
Buckets are found on a number of earthmoving machin-
ery. Draglines are used to remove blasted overburden from
open cut mines. Its removal exposes the coal deposits
beneath for mining. A dragline is a crane-like structure
with a huge bucket of up to 100 m3 in volume suspended
by steel ropes. Draglines are an expensive and essential part
of mine operations and play an important role in the com-
petitiveness of South African mines. In the coal mining
industry it is generally accepted that a 1% improvement
in the efficiency of a dragline will result in an R1 million
increase in annual production per dragline [1]. Buckets
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 808 4239; fax: +27 21 808 4958.
E-mail address: ccoetzee@sun.ac.za (C.J. Coetzee).
excavators.
The filling of a bucket is a complex granular flow prob-
lem. Instrumentation of field equipment for measuring
bucket filling is difficult and expensive. It is possible to
use small-scale (usually 1/10th scale) experimental rigs to
evaluate bucket designs [1,2] but they are expensive and
there are questions regarding the validity of scaling [3,4].
To scale-up results from model experiments is problematic
since there are no general scaling laws for granular flows as
there are for fluid dynamics [5].
According to Cleary [5] the filling of buckets, in the
absence of very large rocks, is observed to be relatively
two-dimensional with little motion in the transverse direc-
tion. The flow pattern along a cross-section of the bucket in
the drag direction is the most important aspect of filling
and can be analysed satisfactorily using two-dimensional
models. Rowlands [2] made similar observations based on
dragline bucket filling experiments.
According to Maciejewski et al. [6], in practical cases
when the motion of a bucket or bulldozer blade is dis-
cussed, plane strain conditions apply only in some defor-
mation regions. The plane strain solution for such tools
can be assumed only with limited accuracy. Maciejewski

0022-4898/$36.00 Ó 2009 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2009.05.003
218 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227

et al. [6] also investigated the assumption of plane strain The main objective of this study was to demonstrate the
conditions in soil bins where the soil and tool motion is ability of DEM to predict the drag force on the bucket and
constrained between two transparent walls. For measure- the material flow patterns that develop as the bucket fills
ments in such a bin, the force acting on the tool due to up. The DEM results were compared to experiments per-
the friction between the soil and the sidewalls has to be esti- formed in a soil bin.
mated or neglected. They have shown that for a high num-
ber of teeth on the bucket, the teeth do not act as separate 2. The discrete element method
three-dimensional objects but as one wide tool built up
from several modules. The deformation pattern in front Discrete element methods are based on the simulation of
of such an assembly of teeth was found to be plane strain the motion of granular material as separate particles. DEM
deformation. The authors, however, concluded that this was first applied to rock mechanics by Cundall and Strack
was true for the particular cohesive soil (sandy clay) and [16]. In this study, all the simulations were two-dimensional
may not apply to other (especially rocky and brittle) mate- and performed using commercial DEM software PFC2D [17].
rials. In this study the bucket had a full-width lip with no A linear contact model was used with a spring stiffness kn
teeth and based on the findings by Maciejewski et al. [6], in the normal direction and a spring stiffness ks in the shear
the assumption of plane strain was made and two-dimen- direction (Fig. 1). Frictional slip is allowed in the tangential
sional DEM models were used. direction with a friction coefficient l. The damping force acts
Analytical methods [7–11] used to model soil–tool inter- on a particle in the opposite direction to the particle velocity
action are limited to infinitesimal motion of the tool and and is proportional to the resultant force acting on the par-
the given geometry of the problem. These methods were ticle with a proportionality constant (damping coefficient)
not expected to be valid for the analysis of the subsequent C [17]. For a detailed description of DEM, the reader is
stages of advanced earth digging problems [12]. The analyt- referred to Cleary and Sawley [18], Cundall and Strack
ical methods are based on Terzaghi’s passive earth pressure [16], Hogue [19] and Zhang and Whiten [20].
theory and assumptions of a preliminary soil failure pattern
[13]. Complicated tool geometry (such as buckets) and large 3. Experimental
deformations cannot be modelled using these methods [14].
The discrete element method is a promising approach to Two parallel glass panels were fixed 200 mm apart to
model soil-implement interaction and can be used to over- form the soil bin. The bucket profile was fixed to a trolley
come some of the difficulties encountered by analytical which was driven by a ball screw and stepper motor. The
methods [15]. In DEM, the failure patterns and material
deformation are not needed in advance. The tools are mod-
elled using a number of flat walls and the complexity of the
tool geometry does not complicate the DEM model. Large
deformation in the granular material and the development
of the granular material free surface are automatically han-
dled by the method.
Cleary [5] modelled dragline bucket filling using DEM.
Trends were shown and qualitative comparisons made, but
no experimental results were presented. The process of
hydraulic excavator bucket filling was investigated experi-
kn
mentally by Maciejewski and Jarzebowski [12]. The aim of
their research was optimization of the digging process and
bucket trajectories. It is shown that the most energy efficient Friction µ ks
bucket is the one where the pushing effect of the back wall is
minimized. Owen et al. [21] modelled 3D dragline bucket fill-
ing. In there approach, the bucket was modelled with the
finite element method and the soil with DEM. Ellipsoids
and clumped spheres were used to approximate the particle
angularity. The bucket followed a prescribed path.
Esterhuyse [1] and Rowlands [2] investigated the filling
behaviour of scaled dragline buckets experimentally with
the focus on rigging configuration, bucket shape and teeth
spacing. They have shown that the aspect ratio of the
bucket (width to depth) plays and important role in the
drag distance needed to fill a bucket. The bucket with the
shortest fill distance was found to produce the highest peak
drag force. Fig. 1. DEM contact model.
 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227
complete rig could be set at an angle h to the horizontal as
shown in Fig. 2a. The first arm was then rotated and fixed
such that both arms remained vertical. The second arm
remained free to move in the vertical direction. First, coun-
terweights were added at position A (Fig. 2a) to balance
the combined weight of the bucket profile and the second
arm assembly. This resulted in a ‘‘weightless” bucket.
Counterweights were then added at position B to set the
‘‘effective” bucket weight. Since arm 2 was always vertical
even for rig angles other then zero, the effective bucket
weight always acted vertically downwards (Fig. 2c). Bucket
weights of 49.1 N, 93.2 N, 138.3 N and 202.1 N were used.
When the bucket was dragged in the direction as indi-
cated, it was also free to move in the vertical direction as
a result of the effective bucket weight and the force of the
grains acting on it. The bottom edge of the bucket was
always set to be parallel to the drag direction and the mate-
rial free surface. This type of motion resembles that of a
dragline bucket which is dragged in the drag direction by
a set of ropes, but with freedom of motion in all other
directions [2].
Spring loaded Teflon wipers were used to seal the small
opening between the bucket profile and the glass panels. A
force transducer was designed and built to measure the drag
force on the bucket. A set of strain gauges was bonded to a
steel beam of which the position is shown in Fig. 2a. The
set of four strain gauges was used to measure the force in
the drag direction. Other force components were not
measured. The force transducer was calibrated and the
a Counter weights
A The laboratory shear tests and compressions tests were used
2nd Arm B to determine the material internal friction angle and stiffness
1st Arm
Direction of
vertical motion
θ unique set of particle friction and particle stiffness values,
Force transducer
b c
150 mm
Max volume
Wb θ Wb⋅cosθ
35 mm
100 mm
45°
200 mm
Fig. 2. Experimental setup.
219
calibration checked regularly to avoid drift in the measure-
ments. For rig angles other than zero, the force transducer
was zeroed before the drag commenced. This compensated
for the component of the bucket weight that acted in the drag
direction. The vertical displacement of the bucket was mea-
sured with a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)
and used as input to the DEM simulation. In both the exper-
iments and the DEM simulations the bucket was given a drag
velocity of 10 mm s 1. The dimensions of the bucket profile
are shown in Fig. 2b.
In this study corn grains were used. Although the corn
grains are not real soil, Rowlands [2] observed that seed
grains are suitable for experimental testing and closely
resemble natural soil flow into dragline buckets.
4. DEM parameters and numerical model
Fig. 3 shows the range of measured grain dimensions
and the equivalent DEM grain. A normal distribution
within the range of dimensions given was used to create
the clumped particles. Clumps can be formed by adding
two or more particles (discs in 2D and spheres in 3D)
together to form one rigid particle, i.e. particles included
in the clump remain at a fixed distance from each other
[17]. Particles within a clump can overlap to any extent
and contact forces are not generated between these parti-
cles. Clumps cannot break up during simulations regardless
of the forces acting upon them. In the model 20,000–30,000
clumped particles were used.
A calibration process, presented in another paper, was
developed for cohesionless material. The particle size, shape
and density were determined from physical measurements.
respectively. These tests were repeated numerically using
DEM models with different sets of particle friction coeffi-
Direction of drag cients and particle stiffness values. The combination of shear
test and compression test results could be used to determine a
Table 1.
a 5-9 b
R 2.5 - 4.5
5-6
8 - 12
3.0 - 5.0
4-5 R 1.5 - 3.0
θ 3-6
Fig. 3. (a) Physical grain dimensions and (b) DEM grain model.
Dimensions in (mm).
220 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227

In the software used, PFC2D, so-called walls are used to 120

build structures. The test rig and the bucket, with the same Wb = 202.1 N
dimensions as in the experiment, were built from walls. The 100 138.3 N
walls are rigid and move according to prescribed transla-

Vertical displacement [mm]

93.2 N
tional and rotational velocities. The forces and moments
acting on the walls do not influence the motion of the wall. 80
During the experiments a constant drag velocity of 49.1 N
10 mm s 1 was applied while the vertical displacement 60
was measured. The vertical displacement was influenced
by both the rig angle and the effective bucket weight. A typ- 40
ical result is shown in Fig. 4. Except for the initial transi-
tion, the vertical velocity was nearly constant, for a given
setup, and increased with an increase in bucket weight. In 20
the DEM model, the drag velocity was set to 10 mm s 1
and the measured vertical displacement was read from a
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
data file and applied to the bucket.
Drag displacement [mm]
Standard functions build into PFC2D were used to
obtain the forces and moments acting on individual walls Fig. 4. Measured vertical displacement of the bucket with h = 10° and
and on the bucket as a whole. For rig angles other than four values of effective bucket weight Wb.
zero, the rig was kept horizontal but the gravity compo-
nents were set accordingly.
The values and the positions where they were measured
5. Results and discussion are indicated in the figures. Taking the nominal particle
size as 10 mm, DEM predicted the heap height accurately
It is difficult to make quantitative comparisons regard- within 1.5–4.5 particle diameters.
ing flow patterns. When comparing the material free Fig. 7 shows typical drag forces obtained from experi-
surface, some comparisons could however be made. Figs. ments and simulations. The large jump in the drag force
5 and 6 show how the material flowed into the bucket for at the beginning of the experiment was observed in most
rig angles of h = 0° and h = 20°, respectively. When com- of the runs and could not be explained and needs further
paring the shape of the material free surface, the simula- investigation. From this result, it is clear that the DEM
tions were able to predict the general shape during the model captured the general trend in drag force, but it pre-
initial stages of filling. The simulations however failed to dicted lower values compared to the measured values. Over
accurately predict the material free surface during the final the complete drag of 800 mm, the model predicted a force
stages of filling. which was 15–50 N lower than the measured force. At the
Curves were fitted to the experimental free surface and end of the drag the error was 20%. The frictional force
overlaid on the numerical results in Figs. 5 and 6. The max- between the Teflon wipers and the glass panels was mea-
imum difference between the two free surfaces (heap sured in a run without grains. This frictional force was sub-
height) was measured along the direction perpendicular tracted from the measured drag force. Frictional forces
to the drag direction. Two measurements were made, one between the grains and the side panels would also have
where DEM predicted a higher heap height, and one an influence on the measured results. These frictional forces
measurement where DEM predicted a lower heap height. could not be measured or included in the 2D DEM model
and might be the reason why the model predicts lower drag
Table 1 forces [6].
Summary of corn properties and DEM parameters used. The drag energy was defined as the area under the drag
Macro property Measured DEM force–displacement curve. Making use of different rig
Internal friction angle 23° 24° angles h and effective bucket weights Wb, the drag energy
Angle of repose 25 ± 2° 24 ± 1° E700 up to a displacement of 700 mm is compared in Fig. 8.
3 3
Bulk density 778 kg m 778 kg m The first observation that could me made was that with
Confined bulk modulus 1.60 MPa 1.52 MPa an increase in effective bucket weight, for a given rig angle
Material-steel friction 14° 14°
h, there was a linear increase in required drag energy. A
Calibrated DEM properties closer investigation showed that with an increase in bucket
Particle stiffness, kn = ks 450 kN/m weight, the bucket was forced deeper into the material
Particle density, qp 855 kg/m3 which caused a higher drag force when compared to a
Particle friction coefficient, l 0.12 bucket with less weight.
Other properties The second observation that can be made is that with an
Damping, C 0.2 increase in the rig angle, there is a decrease in drag energy.
Model width 0.2 m
The effective bucket weight Wb always acted vertically
 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227 221

Fig. 5. Bucket filling results with rig angle h = 0°.

downward (Fig. 2c) so that the normal force pushing the
bucket into the material is given by Wb
cos (h). Thus, with
an increase in rig angle, there is a decrease in the normal
force pushing the bucket into the material. This caused a
reduction in the drag force, and hence a reduction in the
drag energy, when compared to results using a lower rig
angle. The DEM simulations were able to capture the gen-
eral trends, but it predicted drag energies lower than the
measured. The reason for this is that the predicted drag
forces were too low due to the exclusion of the friction
forces between the grains and the glass panels. It would,
however, still be possible to use the simulation results for
qualitative optimization of bucket filling.
Using the simulation results it was possible to identify
how much of the total force was exerted on each of the
bucket sections. In Fig. 9 the bucket was divided into six
sections. The graphs show, as a ratio of the total drag
force, the force on each of the sections. From the start
up to a displacement of 200 mm (25% of total displace-
ment) the total force acted mainly on the lip and the bot-
tom section. As material started to flow into the bucket,
the other sections came into play, first the inner curve
and finally the front section. Less than 5% of the force
acted on the top section. This was far less than the bottom
section (30%). The reason for this is that the material inside
the bucket showed little movement relative to the bucket
222 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227

Fig. 6. Bucket filling results with rig angle h = 20°.

and the pressure on the top section was only due to the
weight of the material inside the bucket. On the bottom
section, the pressure was due to the combined weight of
the material inside the bucket and the weight of the bucket
itself. During the complete filling process, 20–30% of the
drag force acted on the lip. This shows that the design of
the lip and teeth is important. It is well known that the
length of the lip/teeth and the angle of attack are important
factors influencing bucket filling [2] .
Rowlands [2] made use of mixtures of millet, peas and
corn in his 2D test rig. The observation of the filling behav-
iour led to the development of a theory that describes the
flow characteristics and patterns of material entering the
bucket. Rowlands [2] named this concept the Shear Zone
Theory. He observed that definite planes of shear (rupture)
formed between distinct moving material regimes. These
shear planes changed orientation and location depending
on initial setup and during different stages of the filling pro-
cess itself. The generalised theory is shown in Fig. 10. The
different flow regions, as named by Rowlands [2], are indi-
cated on the figure. The movements of the material relative
to the bucket are indicated by the arrows.
The virgin material remains largely undisturbed until the
final third of the drag during which ‘‘bulldozing” occurs.
The initial laminar layer flows into the bucket during the
first third of the drag (Fig. 10a). After entering to a certain
distance, this layer fails at the bucket lip and subsequently
becomes stationary with respect to the bucket for the
 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227 223

250
Front
0.5 Front
Experiment Inner curve
Top Inner curve
200 Lip
0.4 Top
Bottom Lip
Outer curve

Drag force ratio

Outer curve Bottom
Drag force [N]

150 0.3

Simulation
0.2
100

0.1
50

0
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Displacement in drag direction [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 7. Typical bucket drag forces with rig angle h = 10° and a bucket Fig. 9. Bucket drag force distribution with h = 10°.
weight Wb = 138.3 N.

remainder of the drag (Fig. 10b and c). At steeper drag

a
angles, the material flows more rapidly towards the rear
because of the added gravitational assistance. This effect
can be seen by comparing Figs. 5 and 6. Initial laminar layer Active dig zone Virgin material
With the laminar layer becoming stationary, a new zone,
the active flow zone, develops (Fig. 10). In this zone, the
material displacement is predominantly in the vertical
direction. The active dig zone is located above the teeth Shear line
and bucket lip. This area develops as material starts to
enter the bucket and increases in size after failure of the ini- b
tial laminar layer. In this zone, the virgin material fails and Initial laminar layer Active flow Active dig Virgin
either flows into the bucket as part of the laminar layer zone zone material
during the first part of filling or moves into the active flow
zone during the latter part of filling.
The dead load that has resulted from ‘‘live” material in
the active flow zone ramps up and over the initial laminar
layer. Some of the material in the initial laminar layer fails Shear line

120 c
Dead load Active flow Active dig Virgin
110 zone zone material

100

90
E700 [J]

80
Dead load Initial laminar Shear line
70 shear line layer

60 Fig. 10. The Shear Zone Theory according to Rowlands [2].

θ = 0° θ = 10°
θ = 20°
50 Experiment
Simulation
40 and starts to form part of the dead load (Fig. 10c). During
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 experiments and while the material was flowing, a definite
Wb [N] rupture or shear line could be observed here. With an
Fig. 8. Bucket drag energy E700 as a function of the bucket weight Wb for increase in drag angle, the active dig zone and active flow
different rig angles h. zone tended to join into one continuous band.
224 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227

Fig. 11. Flow regions using the particle–bucket displacement ratio.

It should be noted that Fig. 10 only shows three stages
of the filling process, but in reality there is a gradual tran-
sition from one stage to the next. It should also be noted
that this is a generalised theory and there will be variations
in the results when different materials and bucket geome-
tries are used. During experiments two definite shear lines
could be observed. The one extended from the tip of the
lip up to the free surface. This is named the cutting shear
line. The second line is the one between the initial laminar
layer and the dead load, called the dead load shear line.
Making use of DEM and investigating the flow regions
further, the following procedure was devised. The bucket
was moved through the material and ‘‘paused” after each
100 mm. The displacement vector of each particle was then
set to be zero after which the bucket was given a further
displacement of 10–15 mm (1–3 particle lengths). The par-
ticle displacement ratio PDR was defined as the ratio of the
magnitude of the particle absolute displacement vector to
the magnitude of the bucket absolute displacement vector.
The particles were then coloured according to their individ-
ual PDR values. A PDR equal to unity means that the par-
ticle is moving with the bucket. The result is shown in
Fig. 11. This is in effect the average velocity ratio over a
short period.
The flow regimes as predicted by the Shear Zone Theory
are indicated on the figure. The three pictures correspond
 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227
to the three pictures given in Fig. 10. After a displacement
of 100 mm, the active dig zone is clearly visible with
0.40 6 PDR < 0.65. The initial laminar layer moves into
the bucket with 0.10 6 PDR < 0.25. This corresponds well
to the flow zones shown in Fig. 10a.
After 500 mm, the characteristic ‘‘V” shape of the active
flow zone can be seen with 0.10 6 PDR < 0.25. Although
the PDR is relatively low, the displacement is predomi-
nantly in the vertical direction. The active dig zone is still
present and in the back of the bucket, the initial laminar
layer starts to become stationary relative to the bucket.
This is visible by the PDR values that increase towards
the back of the bucket. This corresponds well to the flow
zones shown in Fig. 10b.
After 800 mm the existence of the dead load shear line is
clearly visible. When compared to Fig. 10c, the active flow
zone and active dig zone cannot be distinguished from the
dead load. The reason for this is that at a bucket displace-
ment of 800 mm, the bulldozing effect is large and over-
shadows the other flow zones.
Dragline bucket optimization is very important in terms
of force and energy requirements and cycle time. In some
applications it would be advantageous to fill the bucket
using the minimum amount of energy. In other applica-
tions, it would be advantageous to fill the bucket as quickly
as possible to decrease cycle time [1]. To investigate fill
rates, images from the experiment were taken at different
stages of filling, the outline of the material digitized, and
the volume of material inside the bucket calculated and
expressed as a percentage of the maximum bucket volume.
The maximum bucket volume of 0.0146 m3 is defined in
Fig. 2b. Using the DEM results, the same procedure was
followed and the results compared.
Fig. 12 shows the experimental results using three differ-
ent rig angles. The bucket fill percentage is plotted against
bucket displacement in terms of bucket-lengths. In the
dragline industry, the target is to get the bucket completely
100
90
80
70
Bucket fill %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 on the DEM results with good agreement for h = 0°. For
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [bucket length]
Fig. 12. Bucket fill percentage as a function of bucket displacement for
different rig angles.
225
60
+ 6%
50
- 6%
40
Simulation %
30
20
θ = 0°, Wb = 49.1 N
θ = 10°, Wb = 49.1 N
θ = 20°, Wb = 49.1 N
10 θ = 0°, Wb = 138.3 N
θ = 10°, Wb = 138.3 N
θ = 20°, Wb = 138.3 N
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Experimental %
Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental and DEM fill percentages.
filled in 2–3 bucket-lengths. With an increase of the rig
angle from 0° to 10°, there is a slight increase in fill percent-
age towards the latter stages of filling. This is due to the
fact that when material is disturbed, it flows more easily
into the bucket. When the rig angle is further increased
to 20° there is, however, a decrease in fill percentage. A fur-
ther investigation showed that with an increase in rig angle,
the bucket displacement into the material is less. It has
been shown that the force perpendicular to the material
surface is given by Wb
cos (h). Hence, with an increase
in the rig angle, the force component forcing the bucket
to dig in, decreases. When this force component decreases,
the penetration depth of the bucket into the material is
reduced and the bucket scoops up less material. When
the bucket scoops up less material, there is a decrease in fill
percentage.
The comparison between experimental and DEM fill
percentages is summarised in Fig. 13. Using three rig
angles h = 0°, 10° and 30° and two effective bucket
weights Wb = 49.1 N and 138.3 N, the fill percentage
was calculated at displacements of 100, 200, 300, 400,
500, 600 and 700 mm. The 42 data points were plotted
and the two lines indicate that in all cases, except for
two, the DEM results were within ±6% of the experi-
mental results.
In practice, the bucket is rotated to prevent the majority
of the material to fall out when the bucket is disengaged.
This principle is depicted in Fig. 14 where, at the end of
its displacement, the bucket was lifted out of the material
and kept at the rig angle. The effect of bucket orientation
θ = 0° is clear on the amount of material that the bucket could
θ = 10° hold. Again, the experimental free surface outline is shown
θ = 20°
h = 20°, the DEM model predicts additional material in
the back of the bucket which can be explained by the differ-
ence in the final fill state as seen in Fig. 6 at a displacement
of 800 mm.
226 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227
Fig. 14. The effect of bucket orientation on the maximum holding capacity.
6. Conclusions
The main objective of this paper was to demonstrate
how accurately the discrete element method can predict
the process of excavator bucket filling. The flow patterns
of material entering the bucket, drag force acting on bucket
due to material interaction, energy requirements and the
bucket fill rates were compared to experimental observa-
tions and measurements. The study was limited to cohe-
sionless granular material and two-dimensional models.
The conclusions of the paper are:
1. Comparing the material free surface, DEM can accu-
rately model the flow of material into the bucket during
the initial stages of filling. During the latter stages of fill-
ing DEM, however, fails to accurately predict the mate-
rial free surface.
2. DEM can accurately predict the general trend in bucket
drag force. Over the complete drag of 800 mm DEM
predicts a drag force 15–50 N lower than the measured
values. The maximum measured drag force is 250 N
while DEM predicts a maximum drag force of 200 N.
3. DEM fails to accurately predict the drag energy. The
general trends are however correct and it is shown that
the drag energy increases linearly with an increase in
bucket weight.
4. Based on the DEM results, between 20% and 30% of the
total bucket force acts on the lip. With the current
experimental setup this cannot be validated.
5. The DEM results show good agreement with the Shear
Zone Theory. Based on qualitative comparisons, DEM
could predict the position of the initial laminar layer,
the active dig zone, the active flow zone and the dead load.
6. The DEM models, using different rig angles and bucket
weights, are able to predict the volume of material inside
the bucket accurately within ±6%.
References
[1] Esterhuyse SWP. The influence of geometry on dragline bucket filling
performance. M.Sc. Thesis Mechanical Engineering, University of
Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa; 1997.
[2] Rowlands JC. Dragline bucket filling. Ph.D Thesis, University of
Queensland, Queensland, Australia; 1991.
[3] Poschel T, Saluena C, Schwager T. Scaling properties of granular
materials. Phys Rev E 2001:64.
[4] Poschel T, Saluena C, Schwager T. Scaling properties of granular
materials. In: Vermeer PA, Diebels S, Ehlers W, Herrmann HJ,
Luding S, Ramm E, editors. Continuous and discontinuous modelling
of cohesive frictional materials. Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 173–84.
[5] Cleary PW. The filling of dragline buckets. Math Eng Ind 1998;
7(1):1–24.
[6] Maciejewski J, Jarzebowski A, Trampczynski W. Study on the
efficiency of the digging process using the model of excavator bucket.
J Terramech 2004;40:221–33.
[7] Dechao Z, Yusuf Y. A dynamic model for soil cutting by blade and
tine. J Terramech 1992;29(3):317–27.
[8] Ibarra SY, McKeys E, Broughton RS. A model of stress distribution
and cracking in cohesive soils produced by simple tillage implements.
J Terramech 2005;42:115–39.
[9] Onwualu AP, Watts KC. Draught and vertical forces obtained from
dynamic soil cutting by plane tillage tools. Soil Till Res 1998;48:
239–53.
[10] Osman MS. The mechanics of soil cutting blades. J Agric Eng Res
1964;9(4):313–28.
[11] Swick WC, Perumpral JV. A model for predicting soil–tool interac-
tion. J Terramech 1998;25(1):43–56.
[12] Maciejewski J, Jarzebowski A. Laboratory optimization of the soil
digging process. J Terramech 2002;39:161–79.
[13] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943.
 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els / Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217–227
[14] Karmakar S, Kushwaha R. Dynamic modelling of soil–tool interac-
tion: an overview from a fluid flow perspective. J Terramech
2006;43(4):411–25.
[15] Asaf Z, Rubinstein D, Shmulevich I. Evaluation of link-track
performances using DEM. J Terramech 2006;43:141–61.
[16] Cundall PA, Strack ODL. A discrete numerical method for granular
assemblies. Geotechnique 1979;29:47–65.
[17] Itasca. PFC2D Theory and background manual 1999: version 2.0.
<www.itascacg.com>.
[18] Cleary PW, Sawley ML. Three-dimensional modelling of industrial
granular flows. In: Second international conference on CFD in the
minerals and process industries; 1999. p. 95–100.
227
[19] Hogue C. Shape representation and contact detection for discrete
element simulations of arbitrary geometries. Eng Comput 1998;15(3):
374–90.
[20] Zhang D, Whiten WJ. The calculation of contact forces between
particles using spring and damping models. Powder Technol 1996;88:
59–64.
[21] Owen DRJ, Feng YT, de Souza Neto EA, Cottrell M, Wang F,
Andrade Pires FM, et al. The modelling of multi-fracturing solids and
particulate media. In: Mang HA, Rammerstorfer FG, Eberhardste-
iner J, editors. Fifth conference on computational mechanics, July 7–
12, 2002, Vienna, Austria.