PTEC-14628; No of Pages 15

Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt
deflection modelling
Jiahe Shen, Craig Wheeler, Dusan Ilic, Jian Chen ⁎
Centre for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies, School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia

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

Available online xxxx Belt deflection due to the belt weight and bulk solid loads is essential not only for reducing the flexure resistance
but also for extending the service life of belt conveyors. Current theoretical analysis and numerical modelling
Keywords: have failed to fully consider the interaction between a belt and bulk solid and therefore are not suitable to inves-
Dynamic belt deflection tigate belt deflection under dynamic conditions. The aim of this study was to develop a numerical model for
FEM predicting dynamic belt deflection by coupling the Finite Element Method (FEM) and Discrete Element Method
DEM (DEM). The open source software Code_Aster (FEM) and LIGGGHTS (DEM) were used for the coupling through
Coupling
an interface programmed in Python.
Python
Simulation results in terms of the longitudinal and transverse belt deflection were discussed and compared to the
results obtained from the experimental measurements. Influences on the dynamic belt deflection were analysed
by varying the operating conditions including the belt speed and tension. Furthermore, the belt pressure distri-
bution attributed to the bulk solids was investigated based on the developed coupled model. Good agreements
between the modelling and experiments were observed, indicating the validation of the coupled FEM and
DEM model.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The deflection of a conveyor belt occurs when transporting a bulk
material through successive idler sets. While the weights of the belt
and bulk material lead to the belt deformation, the interaction at the
belt and material interface has significant influences on the dynamic
belt deflection. Complexity increases due to this mutually interactive
process where the belt deflection determines the material pressure dis-
tribution which, in turn, affects how the belt deflects. Therefore, it is dif-
ficult to investigate the dynamic belt deflection.
Numerical simulations are becoming a powerful tool with the im-
provement of computer power. The Finite Element Method (FEM) and
Discrete Element Method (DEM) are two of the most widely used
methods in the field of bulk material processing and handling. The
FEM (originally based on the continuum theory) is developed to analyse
solid deformations caused by external load, while the DEM (designed
for an assembly of particles) is aiming at modelling the behaviour of
each individual particle. However, for the dynamic belt deflection that
involves both belt (continuum) and particles (discrete), neither the
FEM nor DEM is able to simulate independently. Therefore, a coupled
method of the FEM and DEM is required to be developed for this specific
problem.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jchen17@uon.edu.au (J. Chen).
A variety of FEM and DEM coupling methods have been undertaken
in the field of soil engineering, mechanical engineering and other inter-
disciplinary fields [1–9]. These methods can be divided into one-way
and two-way coupling. The one-way coupling means the obtained
data from the DEM would be transferred into the FEM unidirectionally.
It is not necessary to exchange the simulation data mutually as the neg-
ligible deformation of parts would not affect the boundary conditions in
the DEM significantly. A number of researchers have applied the one-
way coupling for a wide range of applications, including shot peening
[1], roll compaction process [2] and many others. Contrarily, the
two-way coupling requires both the FEM and DEM to exchange their
data bidirectionally and update each domain simultaneously. This
method is widely utilised for simulations with large changes of the
input conditions [3,4].
Depending on how the FEM and DEM involve the entire analysis,
Strnsky [5] classified the FEM and DEM coupling strategies as surface,
volume, multiscale and contact coupling respectively. The surface cou-
pling, as relatively the most straightforward method, is suitable for
analysing particles interacting with solid components. Onate [6], Villard
[7], Fakhimi [8] and many others have applied this method to analyse
geomechanics problems. Furthermore, the investigations of tyre and
soil contact were undertaken by Michael [3] and Zhao [9] using the sur-
face coupling. The ground was modelled as a bed of spherical particles
using DEM, while the rubber tyre was modelled with FEM to determine
the deformation. Similarly, Dratt [4] developed a coupled model for

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
0032-5910/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
2 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx
predicting the belt deflection based on the commercial software
ANASYS and PFC3D and extended the model with LIGGGHTS to consider
the deformation of a metal sheet that endures the impact from a flow of
a bulk material.
Contrary to commercial software, the open source software offers
the possibility to modify the models implemented within source codes
and the flexibility to adapt simulations specifically for different applica-
tions at the parameter level. In this study, a coupled FEM-DEM model
was developed for dynamically analysing the interaction of a conveyor
belt and a bulk material and quantifying the deflection of the belt ac-
cordingly. While the Code_Aster program was used for the FEM, the
LIGGGHTS program was employed for the DEM. Based on the surface
coupling strategy, the modelling was divided into the FEM and DEM do-
mains and analysed by suitable methods in each. The main challenge for
coupling was how to create the links between the two independent
simulations. Rather than wrapping the two simulation codes at a source
level, a coupling interface was used, enabling each simulation to process
the analysis independently and bidirectionally transfer the simulation
data between the FEM and DEM.
Furthermore, the dynamic deflection of the belt with the same con-
figuration, loaded bulk material and operating conditions were mea-
sured and compared with the simulation results. The comparisons
indicated the validation of the coupled FEM and DEM model for
analysing dynamic belt deflection.
2. FEM-DEM coupling
2.1. Coupling interface
The scheme of the FEM-DEM coupling is illustrated in Fig. 1, showing
the relationship of the coupling interface and controlled simulation pro-
grams. The coupling interface essentially incorporates the functions of
invoking the simulations, controlling the modelling process and ex-
changing the obtained data. The interface is programmed by a Python
script which utilises the subprocess module to call external programs.
Thus, both the Code_Aster and LIGGGHTS programs can be invoked
via the terminal of the Linux operating system. The LIGGGHTS program
can be simply invoked using an input file in a Linux terminal command.
However, starting the Code_Aster is more complicated as the input file
only contains the FEM analysis commands. A control file which includes
the FEM commands, geometry meshes, output information and work-
ing directory needs to be created and used to start FEM simulations
from the terminal. This is also done by the coupling interface.
2.2. Coupling procedures
The FEM and DEM coupling was conducted in an iterative manner
[4]. For each iteration, two types of data were exchanged: the deformed
Fig. 1. The FEM-DEM coupling scheme based on a Python programmed interface.
Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
belt geometry calculated by the FEM was used as the updated boundary
condition in the DEM, while the bulk material loads on the belt obtained
from the DEM were the input for the FEM. The entire coupling starts
with the DEM modelling and ends up with a steady belt profile after
convergence. A steady belt profile means the belt deflection would
vary negligibly (≤0.001 mm) with an increased iteration. For a typical it-
eration, the DEM simulation will run for a certain number of DEM
timesteps, while the FEM simulation will only be performed once. In
this study, the DEM timestep, ΔtDEM (5e-5 s) is dramatically smaller
than the FEM timestep, ΔtFEM (0.25 s). Thus, the duration of each cou-
pling iteration is governed by ΔtFEM which is integrated every five thou-
sand ΔtDEM's.
The proposed and implemented flow chart of the coupling is shown
in Fig. 2. In the first iteration, an initial undeformed STL belt mesh file
created by triangular elements using meshing software (GMSH) is
imported into the DEM simulation as a rigid boundary. After reaching
the iteration time ΔtFEM, the DEM simulation pauses. The contact forces
of the interacted finite elements are averaged and exported as an output
file (VTK). Then, these element forces are used in the FEM analysis and
transferred into mesh nodal forces automatically via the Code_Aster
built-in algorithm. The deflection of the belt is calculated using a static
non-linear solver due to a large amount of the belt deformation. Follow-
ing is the update of the DEM boundary where the deformed belt profile
obtained from the FEM is assigned in the DEM. Based on the new
boundary condition, the forces acting on elements of the belt are re-
calculated and exported for the use in the subsequent FEM simulation.
The coupling cycle continues until the convergent criterion that indi-
cates a minimal belt deformation variation, as explained in section
2.3.4 is satisfied.
2.3. Coupling implementation
2.3.1. FEM and DEM models
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the FEM modelling follows the typical analysis
procedures including the modelling environment initialization, creation
of the belt FE model, assignment of boundary conditions and loads,
solver analysis and result processing and output. In the investigated ex-
ample following, the FEM model consisted of a belt having a length of
one idler spacing. Typically, in a belt conveying system, belt cross sec-
tional profiles between any two successive idler sets are generally iden-
tical. The entire belt was initially modelled as a troughed profile
corresponding to a three-roll idler set. A radius of 50 mm was used for
the side to centre section junctions according to the measurement of
the cross-section of the belt without loading. The dimension of the
belt model is shown in Table 1.
In this study, two types of fabric belts with different thickness of
6 mm and 12 mm were investigated. Due to the relatively small ratio
of the belt thickness to its overall dimensions, the belts were modelled
by orthotropic thin shell elements to consider the varying elastic moduli
of the belt in the longitudinal (x-axis) and transverse (y-axis) directions
as described in the work of Wheeler [10]. Based on Kirchhoff's theory
[11], the main stresses that may occur are the elastic stresses σxx and
σyy and the in-plane shear stress τxy. The concise form of the strain-
stress matrix can be expressed as
2 3
1 vyx
− 0
0 1 6 Ex Ey 7 0 1
ε xx 6 7 σ xx
6 7
@ εyy A ¼ 6 −vxy 1
0 7 @ A
6 Ex Ey 7 ∙ σ yy ð1Þ
γxy 6 7 τ xy
4 1 5
0 0
Gxy
where the Poisson's ratios and elastic moduli are subject to the
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx 3

Fig. 2. The flow chart of the FEM-DEM coupling.

following restriction. As documented in [12–14], the Poisson's ratio νxy was assumed to be
similar to the value of a pure rubber as the rubber composition accounts
vxy vyx for the large portion of the belts. The Poisson's ratio νyx can be calculated
¼ ð2Þ
Ex Ey by (2 correspondingly. Thus, the in-plane shear modulus Gxy can be es-
timated by the equation below.
The longitudinal and transverse elastic moduli were measured by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the three-point bending test that involves supporting a belt sample E x Ey
Gxy ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
from the bottom at its ends and applying a vertical load at its middle. 2 1 þ vxy vyx
The relevant Young's modulus E is derived from.

3 The belt properties of the 6 mm and 12 mm thickness fabric belts

F∙l
D¼ ð3Þ were summarized in Table 2, based on which the element properties
48EIXX
in the FEM were assigned.
In order to define the boundary conditions, the belt mesh compo-
where D is the sample displacement; F is the applied force; l is the length nents, such as points, lines and surfaces are grouped and named. As
of the sample; IXX is the area moment of inertia of the belt samples and shown in Fig. 3, the belt is divided into two belt sides, one central belt
can be calculated by. and two junction belts. The contact between the idlers and the belt is
simplified by assuming the belt will conform the idler trough profile
3
b∙h without sliding. Therefore, the right end of the belt is fully fixed,
IXX ¼ ð4Þ
12 whereas the other end is partially restrained and allowed to move lon-
gitudinally when belt tension is applied. The belt outer edges are free of
where b is the belt sample width; h is the belt sample thickness. restraints.

Table 1 Table 2
Dimension of the FEM belt model. Parameters of fabric belt properties.

Description Value Belt properties 6 mm belt 12 mm belt

Belt thickness, T (mm) 6 or 12 Longitudinal Young's modulus, Ex (N/mm2) 38.3 64.9

Belt width, B (mm) 600 Transverse Young's modulus, Ey (N/mm2) 18.8 40.2
Idler roll set spacing, S (mm) 1200 Principle Poisson's ratio, vxy 0.45 0.45
Idler trough angle, β (°) 35 Poisson's ratio, vxy 0.23 0.28
Belt radius over idler junction, R (mm) 50 In-plane shear Modulus, Gxy (N/mm2) 9.9 18.9
Idler roll length, L (mm) 200 Density, ρ (kg/m3) 1365 1365

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
4 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx

Fig. 3. FEM modelling boundary conditions.

The external forces were applied in the sequence of the belt self-
weight, pre-tension and bulk material loads corresponding to the labo-
ratory experiments. While the belt pre-tension was varied in the range
of 5kN, 10kN and 15kN, the bulk material loads were obtained from the
DEM calculation. As large displacement and rotations occur, a non-
linear static analysis was used which provided an iterative algorithm
to update the boundary conditions and stiffness matrix. Various effects
attributed to the geometric and boundary nonlinearity can be consid-
ered to calculate more accurate results. The non-linear solver basically
used an iterative algorithm, in which the loads or displacements
would be applied incrementally and eventually reach the final values.
The modified Newton-Raphson method was employed to solve equilib-
rium equations for each calculation step [11,15]. Equilibrium iterations
for a given load step can proceed to the next if the solution is conver-
gent. The convergence criteria are in a relative basis and are given by
 
ep 
ξ¼
kRk
where ||ep|| is the square root of the sum of the squares of the load im-
balances; ||R|| is the square root of the sum of the squares of the applied
external loads. ζ is the dimensionless convergence value which, in this
case is defined as 1e-4. The FEM analysis ended up with a deformed
belt profile that can be used subsequently for the DEM modelling.
Correspondingly, the DEM modelling contained a bulk material
loaded with a full burden profile corresponding to a 100% loaded cross
section as defined in CEMA [Ref], travelling on the belt boundary that
is identical to the belt in the FEM. Two different bulk materials, coal
and iron ore were simulated in this study. The belt speed was set to be
consistently 1 m/s due to its minor influence on dynamic belt deflection
[16]. Periodic boundaries were introduced at both ends of the belt to en-
sure a continuous conveying process where particles that left one belt
end would be automatically reinserted from the other end. Fig. 4
shows the DEM model.
The Hertz Mindlin model was used to determine the pairwise poten-
tial of particles themselves and particles to boundaries. As shown in
Fig. 5, from Ilic [17], for two contact particles i and j, the contact forces
are typically resolved into a normal force and a tangential force, each
ð6Þ
of which has two components. The normal force is independent of the
tangential force. The normal contact force consists of the forces resulted
from a spring and a damper. Similarly, the tangential force also contains
a spring force (the shear force) and a damping force.

Fig. 4. DEM model for bulk materials.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx 5

The particle rolling was considered based on the simplified elastic

plastic spring dashpot, EPSD model, as described in the work of Ai
et al. [18] in which the rolling resistance torque results from a mechan-
ical spring and can be calculated by.

kr ¼ kt ∙R2 ð16Þ

ΔM kr ¼ −kr Δθr ð17Þ

Mkr;tþΔt ¼ Mtr;t þ ΔMtr ð18Þ

 
 k 
M r;tþΔt ≤Mm
r ð19Þ


Mm
r ¼ μrR Fn ð20Þ

Fig. 5. Hertz-Mindlin contact model [17].

where kr is the rolling stiffness; kt is the tangential stiffness; R* is the
particle equivalent radius. Δθr is the incremental relative rotation be-
tween the two particles. Δt is the DEM timestep; μr is the coefficient of
Therefore, the resultant contact forces can be expressed as. the rolling friction; Mmr is the full mobilisation torque and is determined

    by timing the normal force by the rolling friction coefficient. It caps the
F ¼ kn δnij −γ n vnij þ kt δt ij −γ t vtij
where, the first item is the particle normal force in which kn is the nor-
mal elastic coefficient; γn is the viscoelastic damping coefficient; δn is
the particle overlap; and νn is the particle relative velocity in the normal
direction. The second item is the particle tangential force. The associated
symbols have the similar meanings as the symbols of the normal force.
The subscripted t is specific for the tangential force.
The normal particle overlap δn is given by.
δn ¼ r−d
where, r is the summation of the two particle radiuses; d is the distance
of the two particle centres. The elastic coefficient for the normal contact
kn is expressed as.
4  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kn ¼ E R δn
3
where E* is the equivalent Young's modulus; R* is the equivalent parti-
cle radius.
ð7Þ maximum value of the torque attributed to the spring.
As the bulk material was conveyed continuously on the belt, the par-
ticle and belt contacts were detected while the contact forces acting on
each triangular belt element were calculated and averaged. By using the
Velocity-Verlet integration algorithm [19], the positions and velocities
of particles were computed for the update of the next timestep or stored
in a restart file for retrieving the modelling subsequently.
DEM calibration of particle parameters is necessary to achieve accu-
rate modelling of real bulk material behaviour. The main particle pa-
rameters are the interparticle friction μp, the friction between particles
ð8Þ and the boundary mesh μw and the rolling friction μr. These parameters
for the modelled coal and iron ore materials were calibrated according
to a range of DEM tests, including the angle of repose, slump plane
angle and inclining wall friction tests. The adhesion of the modelled par-
ticles was ignored due to the low contents of both moisture and fine
particles. Moreover, parameter settings regarding the DEM contact
ð9Þ models were assumed based on previous research outcomes
[17,20,21]. These parameters have been proven to be suitable for coal
and iron ore particles in DEM modelling. The input parameters specified
in the DEM modelling are summarized in Table 3.

   
1 1−v1 2 1−v2 2 2.3.2. Data exchange
¼ þ ð10Þ Successful data exchange is essential to couple the FEM and DEM
E E1 E2
modelling. It involves mutually extracting and assigning the FEM and
1 1 1 DEM simulation data: the bulk material loads and the belt mesh. With
¼ þ ð11Þ
R R1 R2 the assistance of Python programming, this process is implemented au-
tomatically without the interference of users.
where v1and v2 are the Poisson ratios; R1 and R2 are the radii of the two The bulk material loads from the DEM need to be assigned to the
particles. FEM. The bulk material loads are derived from the summation of parti-
The normal viscoelastic damping coefficient γn can be derived by. cle contact forces with respect to each individual belt element. The DEM
rffiffiffi modelling exports the forces as stresses (forces/area) in the output
5 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
γ n ¼ −2 β m Sn ≥0 ð12Þ
6
Table 3
Specifications of the DEM parameters.
where β is a constant. m* is the equivalent mass; Sn is the normal stiff-
ness. Parameters Coal Iron ore

  Inter-particle friction, μp 0.6 0.6

β ¼ InðeÞ=sqrt InðeÞ þ π2 ð13Þ Rolling friction, μr 0.5 0.7
Wall friction, μw 0.5 0.6
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Particle density, ρp (kg/m3) 1400 3500
Sn ¼ 2E R δn ð14Þ Bulk density, ρb (kg/m3) 800 2000
Coefficient of Restitution, εres 0.2 0.2
1 1 1 Young's Modulus, E (N/m2) 1e7 1e7
¼ þ ð15Þ Shear Modulus, G (N/m2)
m m1 m2 1e7 1e7
Poisson's Ratio, ν 0.3 0.3
Timestep ΔtDEM (s) 5e-5 5e-5
where, m1 and m2 are the particle masses.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
6 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx
(VTK) file. The most straightforward method to address the material
loads is to directly apply the element stresses to the corresponding
belt elements without any data calculation or transformation. However,
there are 2352 belt elements included in the belt mesh, making it im-
practical to assign the stresses manually. Therefore, Python program-
ming is employed to extract the stresses from the DEM output data,
identify the related belt elements and automatically map the material
loads.
Due to the software compatibility, a belt element may have different
IDs in the Code_Aster and LIGGGHTS programs. To identify the elements
and assign correct stresses, a detection algorithm is developed and im-
plemented based on element spatial positions, as shown in Fig. 6. For
an arbitrary belt element, the centroid can be calculated by averaging
the coordinates of the element vertices. If the coordinates of a centroid
calculated by the DEM is in line with an element centroid the FEM, the
element stress obtained from the DEM will be assigned to this FEM ele-
ment accordingly. A tolerance (5 mm) is introduced to take into account
the round-off effects of the software. The data exchange of the material
loads is completed by looping all the belt elements and mapping the
corresponding stresses.
With the modelling proceeding, the belt boundary in the DEM is up-
dated, leading to the deviations of the nodal coordinates of the belt ele-
ments between the FEM and DEM. To overcome this, connections that
link the FEM element IDs to the corresponding elements in the DEM
are created after they are matched up in the first iteration. Therefore,
for the following iterations, the forces acting on the DEM belt elements
can be assigned to the correct FEM elements via these ID connections.
As an example, Fig. 7 shows the assignment of the loads in the FEM
simulations for coal and iron ore materials in the first iteration. The total
forces applied to the belt in the FEM are 317kN and 840kN for the coal
and iron ore respectively, which correlate to the loads obtained from
the DEM.
For the boundary update in the DEM, the deformed belt mesh ob-
tained from the FEM is inserted and defined as the new boundary
after deleting the previous belt mesh. However, Code_Aster does not
output mesh files as STL format that is accepted by LIGGGHTS for
importing external boundaries. Therefore, conversion of the belt mesh
file is required. The meshing program GMSH is invoked to read the
Code_Aster output files (MSH file format) and convert them into STL
files, which is also conducted automatically through the Python cou-
pling interface.
The bulk material may agitate immediately after the belt boundary is
updated. Fig. 8 shows the belt experiences a larger deformation in the
current iteration. At t = 0.02 s of the iteration, the material particles
contact with the belt ends where less belt sag occurs, as shown in
Fig. 8 (a). Then, the loads concentrate in the middle of the belt at t =
0.04 s when all particles drop down and impact on this area. From this
point on, the material particles are, to some extent bouncing on the
belt, and the loads shift towards the belt ends at t = 0.06 s. A relatively
stable state of the bulk material is eventually achieved at t = 0.08 s, as
shown in Fig. 8 (d).
Fig. 6. Mesh element identification based on the triangular centroid.
Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
In contrast, the interaction of the belt and bulk material can be
reversed if the deformation of the updated belt is less than that in the
previous iteration. To overcome the variation of the material loads re-
sulted from the update of the belt boundary, the DEM simulation is set
to proceed for 0.25 s (in 5e3 timesteps) that is long enough for the
bulk material to reach a stable state before the load data is transferred
to the FEM.
One restriction associated with the update of the DEM belt boundary
may rise due to the loss of the contact shear history. The old belt bound-
ary is totally replaced by the new deformed belt. As a consequence, the
contact information of the particles and old belt boundary will not be
preserved for the subsequent modelling in the following iteration.
While the normal component of the contact force can be restored im-
mediately by reading the particle positions and computing the contact
overlaps accordingly, the shear component of the contact force based
on the history effect cannot be retrieved as the tangential overlap is cal-
culated by integrating the relative tangential velocity at the contact
point over time. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate whether the
shear history will affect the bulk material loads significantly. Two DEM
simulations are performed with and without the consideration of the
shear history. Special attention is paid to the duration of the first 1.2 s
(2.4e4s timesteps) after the belt boundary has been updated. For
every 0.2 s, the bulk material forces are exported for comparisons.
Both the loads resulted from the coal and iron ore materials are simu-
lated, and the results are presented in Fig. 9. The material loads are re-
ferred to as the summation of the forces on the belt and dissolved into
three force components in the belt transverse (X-axis), longitudinal
(Y-axis) and vertical (Z-axis) directions. The dash lines stand for the
simulations without the shear history, whereas the solid lines are re-
lated to the forces calculated with the shear history. The X and Y force
components are considerably negligible compared to the Z force com-
ponent with approximately two orders of magnitude. They are highly
overlapped with the horizontal “zero” coordinate in Fig. 9, making it dif-
ficult for all the lines to be clearly presented.
For the coal, it is evident that the force components are almost con-
sistent for both shear history on and off scenarios. The deviation of the
bulk material loads is not distinct, giving a maximum value of only
0.5%. A similar trend is observed for the iron ore, indicating the minimal
variations of the loads with the shear history.
It can be concluded that the loss of the shear history due to the up-
date of a new belt boundary will not result in significant influences on
the calculation of the overall bulk material loads. Therefore, the belt
mesh data exchange method is proper and can provide relatively accu-
rate simulation results in terms of the bulk material loads. Indeed, the
feasibility of this method is later validated by comparing the belt deflec-
tion predicted by the coupled model to experimental measurements.
2.3.3. Iteration continuation
In order to model the belt deflection as a dynamic and continuous
process, the involved iterations are required to be connected. This
means the results obtained from the current iteration should be
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx 7

Fig. 7. Applied loads check via element reaction forces: (a) coal; (b) iron ore.

assigned as initial conditions for the next. The modelling variants, values
and states of the current iteration need to be preserved and restored at
the outset of the next iteration. Therefore, the next iteration can start
from the point where the previous iteration ends. This process is
recognised as the iteration initialization of both the FEM and DEM
aspects.
For the FEM initialization, an initial state that essentially consists of
the stress fields, displacements and local variables in the previous calcu-
lation can be defined for the non-linear analysis solver. The definition
involves reading the database created previously and extracting the re-
sults required from the database. The process of the FEM analysis inte-
grated in the coupling can be illustrated by the 2D graphs in Fig. 10.
As shown in Fig. 10, the solid line in each graph indicates the initial
position of the belt, whereas the dash line indicates the solved deformed
belt profile in the current iteration. Fig. 10 (a) shows the undeformed
belt without any stresses at the beginning of the coupling. After the
bulk material loads, belt self-weight and pre-tension are applied, the
belt deflects and gives a displacement of D1 in the vertical direction.
The belt reaches the equilibrium where the internal stress increases to
σ1 to balance the external forces. The following iteration is illustrated
in Fig. 10 (b). The belt self-weight and pre-tension are consistent with
the first iteration, whereas the bulk material loads are calculated by
the DEM modelling and equal to P2 (P2 = P1+ ΔP2). Then, the FEM anal-
ysis continues with the displacement D1 and the stress σ1 based on the

Fig. 8. The variation of the coal material pressure distribution after the update of the belt geometry with larger belt sag for the current iteration.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
8 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx

Fig. 9. Effects of the shear history on the acting force: (a) coal; (b) iron ore.

first iteration assigned to the belt as the initial state. Therefore, the only
imbalance force is the variation of the bulk material loads ΔP2. The
belt deforms accordingly, giving the displacement of D2 = D1 + ΔD2
and stress of σ1 = σ1+ Δσ2. Similarly, for the third iteration shown
in Fig. 10 (c), the solution from the second iteration is defined as
the initial state. The variations of the displacement ΔD3 and stress
Δσ3 correspond to the change of the bulk material loads ΔP3. The cou-
pling terminates in the final iteration n, as shown in Fig. 10 (d) where
the FEM produces the displacement Dn that can be approximated as
the displacement Dn−1 of the previous iteration. Therefore, the final
dynamic belt profile can be obtained when the belt deformation vari-
ation is negligible.
The initialization of the DEM can be achieved by retrieving the state
recorded in a LIGGGHTS restart file. The restart files store the necessary
information of particles and other DEM settings for continuing the
modelling. The particle information includes the parameters such as the
densities, frictions, pair styles and other coefficients. The DEM settings
define the units and atom style, simulation box size and shape and
boundary settings. These variables are not required to be specified
again when a new iteration starts. However, contact pair styles may not
restart exactly due to the time difference when particle contact forces
are computed. For uninterrupted LIGGGHTS modelling, forces are calcu-
lated based on particle velocities in the middle of each DEM timestep. If
the modelling stops and restarts, forces will be initially evaluated with
particle velocities given at the end of the previous timestep. Nevertheless,
the variations of the forces due to this effect are not significant. The par-
ticle behaviour at the outset of a new iteration can be idealised to be con-
sistent with the behaviour at the end of the previous iteration.

Fig. 10. The process of the FEM analysis for belt deformation: (a) the first iteration; (b) the second iteration; (c) the third iteration; (d) the final iteration.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx 9

Fig. 11. Boundary settings for the DEM modelling.

The main concern associated with the DEM initialization is how to
define the simulation box boundaries. For LIGGGHTS, the two periodic
boundaries at both belt ends are fixed and cannot be adjusted during
modelling. Due to the applied pre-tension, the belt will extend longitu-
dinally and create an excess to the simulation domain, leading to the
termination of the DEM simulation. To overcome this, two fictitious
walls that are independent to the belt mesh are added to the ends of
the belt, as shown in Fig. 11. The periodic boundaries are set at the far-
thest ends of the fictitious walls. Thus, the belt is allowed to extend
within the simulation box while the fictitious walls stay in the same
positions. Particles that travel beyond the belt will be conveyed by the
fictitious walls. Moreover, these fictitious walls can also mitigate the im-
pact of particles when exiting and entering the periodic boundaries and
therefore be considered as buffer zones.
2.3.4. Coupling convergence
Due to the interaction of the belt and bulk material, the pressure act-
ing on the belt may vary and distribute differently with time, leading to

Fig. 12. Maximum belt deflection versus coupling iteration: (a) 6 mm thickness belt with coal; (b) 12 mm thickness belt with coal; (c) 6 mm thickness belt with iron ore; (d) 12 mm
thickness belt with iron ore.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
10 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx

Fig. 13. Simulation results for the 6 mm thickness belt with the iron ore and 5kN tension: (a) bulk material particle movements in the DEM modelling; (b) belt deflection in the FEM
modelling.

a variation of the belt profile for each coupling iteration. Therefore, the
convergence of coupling is determined by a criterion based on the max-
imum longitudinal belt deflection that not only has considerable effects
on determining the belt conveyor trampling resistance [22], but also is a
crucial consideration when designing belt conveyor systems [23,24]. If
the maximum longitudinal belt deflection in the current iteration varies
b0.5% of the magnitude in the previous iteration, the coupling is consid-
ered to be convergent, after which the results are output.
Fig. 12 shows the maximum deflection versus the coupling iterations
for the 6 mm and 12 mm thickness belts loaded with coal and iron ore
are presented. It can be observed that the maximum belt deflection
varies with the coupling iteration although the variation is not distinct
in Fig. 12 (a), (b) and (d). With the same belt tension, the 6 mm thick-
ness belt with the iron ore material shows the largest deflection, while
the deflection of the 12 mm thickness belt with coal is minimum. For
each scenario, it is evident that the maximum longitudinal belt deflec-
tion decreases with the increase of the belt tension.
The convergence criterion was applied to determine the completion
of the coupling for each case. As shown in Fig. 12, it can be observed that
the coupled FEM and DEM modelling will be convergent within eight it-
erations for the belts and bulk materials investigated in this study. The
deflection deviation of the last two iterations is in the range of 0.1–
0.5%. The coupling time can vary according to the iterations. Overall,
the computation time is in the range of 4–6.5 h for each individual

Fig. 14. Maximum belt deflection vs velocity in simulations: (a) 6 mm belt with coal; (b) 12 mm belt with coal; (c) 6 mm belt with iron ore; (d) 12 mm belt with iron ore.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx 11

case. While the DEM accounts for 90% of the total simulation time, the
FEM only contributes 10%.
After the coupling is convergent, simulation results including the
particle movement and the belt deflection in the last iteration of cou-
pling were visualized using post-processing software - Paraview and
GMSH. Fig. 13 shows an example of the simulation results of the
6 mm thickness belt with the iron ore under 5kN belt tension. It is
evident that the particle velocities in the conveyed direction (y-axis)
vary due to the deformation of the belt. With larger deformation, parti-
cles travelling on the belt tend to have a higher velocity component in
the vertical direction (Z axis). Moreover, it is observed that the maxi-
mum belt deflection occurs approximately in the middle of the idler
spacing. Further investigation of the dynamic belt deflection is pre-
sented in the following section.

Fig. 15. Comparison of the experiment and simulation results of the longitudinal deflection for (a) 6 mm belt with coal; (b) 12 mm belt with coal; (c) 6 mm belt with iron ore; (d) 12 mm
belt with iron ore.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
12 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx

Fig. 16. Comparison of the experiment and simulation results of the transverse deflection for (a) 6 mm belt with coal; (b) 12 mm belt with coal; (c) 6 mm belt with iron ore; (d) 12 mm belt
with iron ore.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx 13

Fig. 17. Coal load distribution on 6 mm belt: (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse directions.

Fig. 18. Coal load distribution on 12 mm belt: (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse directions.

Corresponding to the modelling, 6 mm and 12 mm thick belts, coal

3. Results and discussions
3.1. Validation of the coupled FEM and DEM model
Dynamic belt deflection was measured using photogrammetry to
convert 2D images into a 3D spatial profile. The experiments were con-
ducted on an experimental test apparatus that replicates a belt conveyor
by moving several idler roll sets underneath a fixed belt. Details of the
dynamic belt deflection measurements, including the principle, proce-
dures and data analysis method are documented in Shen [16].
and iron ore were used for the experiments. The belt tensions were var-
ied in the range of 5kN to 15kN at equivalent belt speeds of 0.25 m/s to
1.5 m/s.
Based on the experiments, it was found that the dynamic belt deflec-
tion was not significantly affected over the range of equivalent belt
speeds tested, although belt speed may affect the interaction of the
belt and bulk material [10,25]. A similar trend is also suggested by the
coupled modelling, as shown in Fig. 14. The maximum deflection re-
mains approximately consistent with varied belt speeds while higher
belt tension tends to reduce the belt deflection. Thus, the belt deflection

Fig. 19. Iron ore load distribution on 6 mm belt: (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse directions.

Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
14 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx
Fig. 20. Iron ore load distribution on 12 mm belt: (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse directions.
mainly relies on the belt tension rather than the belt speed. For the
modelling validation, comparisons of the results from the simulations
and experiments were made for varied the belt tensions and a constant
belt speed of 1 m/s.
3.1.1. Comparison of the longitudinal belt deflection
The developed FEM-DEM coupling model was validated by compar-
ing the longitudinal and transverse deflection to the experimental mea-
surements of the belts with the same dimension and operating
conditions. The longitudinal belt deflection referred to a polynomial
line that best fits the results of either the simulations or the experi-
ments. The comparisons are shown in Fig. 15.
It is evident that the maximum longitudinal belt deflection occurs
approximately in the middle of the idler spacing. Also, the longitudinal
belt deflection is asymmetric, showing the deflection of the first idler
half is lower than that of the second half. Good overall correlations
may be observed between the experiments and simulations. Some dis-
crepancy is observed, especially for the first half of the idler spacing (0-
600 mm) in Fig. 15 (b), the middle idler spacing (450-900 mm) in
Fig. 15 (c) and the second half idler spacing (600-1200 mm) in Fig. 15
(d). Nevertheless, it is suggested that the deviation is minimal with re-
spect to the related longitudinal belt deflection. The maximum devia-
tion is only 3.12 mm for the 6 mm thickness belt with the iron ore
under the belt tension of 5kN, giving a deviation percentage of 9%. It
can be concluded that the coupled FEM and DEM can provide good ac-
curacy in predicting the dynamic longitudinal belt deflection.
3.1.2. Comparison of the transverse belt deflection
Straight lines were used to represent the transverse belt deflection
due to the limited points along the belt cross-section that were not
enough for creating curved line fit. The comparisons of the dynamic
transverse belt deflection are presented in Fig. 16 accordingly. For the
6 mm belt shown in Fig. 16 (a) and (c), the simulations show good
agreement with the experiments except for the edges of the belt sides
where the simulated deflection exceeds experimental measurements.
The deviation may result from the fact that the belt tension was applied
through two pulleys at both ends of the test apparatus and therefore
tensions is not evenly distributed along the belt width. In this case, the
corresponding stress at the belt edges would be greater than that in
the middle. Moreover, the absence of the belt transition zones may con-
tribute further to the stress concentration at the belt edges. For the
12 mm belt shown in Fig. 16 (b) and (d), it is evident that the simulation
results correlate well to those from the experimental testing with devi-
ations within an acceptable range observed, especially around the belt
sides and horizontal to side idler (wall) junctions.
In conclusion, the comparison between experiments and modelling
validates the coupled FEM and DEM approach and suggests that accu-
rate analysis of dynamic belt deflection can be achieved.
Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
3.2. Bulk material pressure distribution
The above results were explored further for insight into the loads
that the bulk materials exert on the belt. The loads acting both longitu-
dinally and transversely were calculated, from which the load distribu-
tion on the belt was obtained. The belt was divided into six equal
subsections of 200 mm for the calculation of the longitudinal loads
and 12 subsections of 50 mm each to calculate the transverse loads.
The loads on each subsection are the cumulative totals of the forces on
all elements located in the relevant area. The calculated longitudinal
and transverse forces are shown in Figs. 17 to 20.
From the above results, it is evident that the forces fluctuate in the
longitudinal direction. Nevertheless, an increasing trend can be ob-
served, indicating the loads on the second half of the idler spacing are
more considerable than on the first half. This may probably be due to
the active and passive stress states induced inside the bulk material
[25]. The maximum forces are located on the subsection (600-
800 mm) immediately after the centre of the span. Regarding the trans-
verse load distribution, it is observed that the peak loading force on the
belt occurs either on the central section of the belt or at the belt junc-
tions (from −150 to 150 mm), while the forces on the belt side sections
taper and eventually come to zero at the belt edges. Moreover, the re-
sults also highlight that the influence of the belt tension on both the lon-
gitudinal and transverse loads is not significant.
In addition, the transverse load distribution also shows that the bulk
material loads exerted on the inclined sides of the belt is in the order of
37–41%, and the loads supported by the centre belt is 59–63% of the
total loads. This finding was found to be within the range of values ob-
tained by Ilic using both experimental and simulation techniques [17].
The experiments suggested that the bulk material loads exerted on
the inclined sides of the belt and on the central belt were in the 35–
45% and 55–65% ranges of the total loads respectively. Therefore, the
coupled FEM and DEM modelling presented shows reasonable overall
correlation to the experimental work.
4. Conclusion
This study developed a coupled FEM and DEM model for analysing
the dynamic belt deflection. Based on the proposed strategy and proce-
dures, coupling was implemented with the focus on the challenges as-
sociated with the data exchange and continuation of analysis. The
coupled FEM and DEM model was used to analyse the dynamic deflec-
tion of two types of belts having different properties loaded with coal
and iron ore materials. The simulation results showed good agreement
with the experimental measurements, indicating the validation of the
coupled FEM and DEM model. Furthermore, the bulk material loads
exerted on the belt were investigated using the developed coupled
model. This study yielded the following main findings including:
 J. Shen et al. / Powder Technology xxx (2019) xxx
• The simulations and experimental measurements suggest that for the
range of speeds investigated, belt deflection is not significantly influ-
enced by the belt speed.
• For the belts and bulk materials investigated, the maximum dynamic
belt deflection occurs in the middle of the idler set spacing. The longi-
tudinal belt deflection profile between idler sets is not symmetric,
showing a slightly larger deflection of the second half compared to
the first half. As expected the increased belt tension lead to a decrease
in belt deflection with a non-linear relationship exhibited.
• A slightly increased trend of the loads is found along the equivalent
belt speed direction. Moreover, the bulk material loads on the central
belt and belt junctions dominate the total loads. The percentages of
the loads acting on the inclined belt sides and central belt are in the
order of 40% and 60%, respectively. This is found to be in good agree-
ment with those previously presented by Ilic [17].
It is expected that the outcome of this study can be directly used as a
technical support for the design of belt conveyor systems. However, fu-
ture work will focus on transferring this “quasi” dynamic coupling that
requires pauses of the FEM and DEM during data exchange into more
delicate coupling where the data is exchanged for every DEM timestep.
Also, the coupled FEM and DEM model should further be developed for
more general and complex applications.
References
[1] K. Murugaratnam, S. Utili, N. Petrinic, A combined DEM–FEM numerical method for
shot peening parameter optimisation, Adv. Eng. Softw. 79 (2015) 13–26.
[2] A. Mazor, L. Orefice, A. Michrafy, A. de Ryck, J.G. Khinast, A combined DEM & FEM
approach for modelling roll compaction process, Powder Technol. 337 (2018) 3–16.
[3] M. Michael, F. Vogel, B. Peters, DEM–FEM coupling simulations of the interactions
between a tire tread and granular terrain, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 289
(2015) 227–248.
[4] M. Dratt, A. Katterfeld, Coupling of FEM and DEM simulations to consider dynamic
deformations under particle load, Granul. Matter 19 (3) (2017).
[5] J. Stransky, Open Source Dem–Fem Coupling, 2013.
[6] E. Oñate, J. Rojek, Combination of discrete element and finite element methods for
dynamic analysis of geomechanics problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
193 (27) (2004) 3087–3128.
Please cite this article as: J. Shen, C. Wheeler, D. Ilic, et al., Application of open source FEM and DEM simulations for dynamic belt deflection
modelling, Powder Technol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.08.068
15
[7] P. Villard, B. Chevalier, B. Le Hello, G. Combe, Coupling between finite and discrete
element methods for the modelling of earth structures reinforced by geosynthetic,
Comput. Geotech. 36 (5) (2009) 709–717.
[8] A. Fakhimi, A hybrid discrete–finite element model for numerical simulation of geo-
materials, Comput. Geotech. 36 (3) (2009) 386–395.
[9] C.-L. Zhao, M.-Y. Zang, Application of the FEM/DEM and alternately moving road
method to the simulation of tire-sand interactions, J Terramech. 72 (2017) 27–38.
[10] C. Wheeler, Analysis of the Main Resistances of Belt Conveyors, University of New-
castle, Newcastle, 2003.
[11] R.D. Cook, Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis, Wiley, 1994.
[12] Y.-c. Guo, S. Wang, K. Hu, D.-y. Li, Optimization and experimental study of transport
section lateral pressure of pipe belt conveyor, Adv. Powder Technol. 27 (4) (2016)
1318–1324.
[13] D. Marasová, Ľ. Ambriško, M. Andrejiová, A. Grinčová, Examination of the process of
damaging the top covering layer of a conveyor belt applying the FEM, Measurement
112 (2017) 47–52 Supplement C.
[14] Q.J. Zheng, M.H. Xu, K.W. Chu, R.H. Pan, A.B. Yu, A coupled FEM/DEM model for pipe
conveyor systems: analysis of the contact forces on belt, Powder Technol. 314
(2017) 480–489.
[15] J.-P. Aubry, Beginning with Code_Aster. A Practical Introduction to Finite Element,
Framasoft, 2013.
[16] J. Shen, C. Wheeler, J. O'Shea, D. Ilic, Investigation of the dynamic deflection of con-
veyor belts via experimental and modelling methods, Measurement 127 (2018)
210–220.
[17] D. Ilic, Bulk Solid Interactions in Belt Conveying Systems, PhD Thesis The University
of Newcastle, Australia, 2013.
[18] J. Ai, J.-F. Chen, J.M. Rotter, J.Y. Ooi, Assessment of rolling resistance models in dis-
crete element simulations, Powder Technol. 206 (3) (2011) 269–282.
[19] W.C. Swope, H.C. Andersen, P.H. Berens, K.R. Wilson, A computer simulation method
for the calculation of equilibrium constants for the formation of physical clusters of
molecules: application to small water clusters, J. Chem. Phys. 76 (1) (1982)
637–649.
[20] D. Ilic, C. Wheeler, Measurement and simulation of the bulk solid load on a conveyor
belt during transportation, Powder Technol. 307 (2017) 190–202.
[21] C. Wensrich, A. Katterfeld, Rolling friction as a technique for modelling particle
shape in DEM, Powder Technol. 217 (2012) 409–417.
[22] C. Spaans, The calculation of the main resistance of belt conveyors, Bulk Solids
Handl. 11 (4) (1991) 1–16.
[23] DIN22101, Continuous Mechanical Handling Equipment, Belt Conveyors for Bulk
Materials, Bases for Calculation and Design, Deutsche Norm, 1984.
[24] ISO5048, Continuous Mechanical Handling Equipment – Belt Conveyors with Carry-
ing Idlers –Calculation of Operating Power and Tensile Forces, International Organi-
zation for Standardization, 1989.
[25] C.A. Wheeler, A.W. Roberts, M.G. Jones, Calculating the flexure resistance of bulk
solids transported on belt conveyors, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 21 (4) (2004)
340–347.