Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Effect of heterogeneity of particle properties on variability of laboratory

sandy soil properties: A random discrete element perspective
Jia-Yan Nie a, Yi-Fei Cui a, Zhi-Yong Yang b, *, Yan-Zhou Yin c, Zi-Jun Cao d, Dian-Qing Li d
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, PR China
c
Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Earth Surface Processes, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, PR China
d
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Institute of Engineering Risk and Disaster Prevention, Wuhan University, Wuhan
430072, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Many experimental results have presented that soil deformation and strength properties for the same type of soil
Random field modeling samples are with a certain variability at the same density and stress states, and even at the identical laboratory
Discrete element method conditions. Micro mechanical interpretations of this phenomenon are the random spatial arrangement of con­
Heterogeneity of particle properties
stituent particles and heterogeneity of particle geometry and mechanical properties. This paper mainly focuses
Drained triaxial compression
on the influence of the latter, which is still an open issue for the community of granular materials, by the random
Variability of soil properties
discrete element method. The random field model is firstly incorporated into the discrete element method to
characterize the heterogeneity of equivalent particle properties for a simple linear rolling resistance contact
model. Two RFM parameters named coefficient of variation and scale of fluctuation are adopted to represent the
variability and spatial correlation pattern of particle properties, respectively. Monte Carlo simulations are then
performed by repeatedly conducting DEM simulations of drained triaxial compression tests on a series of dense
heterogeneous specimens. The macroscopic soil deformation and strength parameters are analyzed statistically.
The contact network characteristics of three representative heterogeneous specimens are discussed and
compared with those of the homogenous specimen to explore the underlying microscopic mechanisms. More­
over, the variability of soil properties due to the random spatial arrangement of constituent particles is compared
with that due to the heterogeneity of particle properties. The study helps to provide more insights into the cross-
scale understanding of the variability of sandy soil properties in the laboratory.

1. Introduction
Granular soils like sands are ubiquitous on the earth surface, and
have been widely employed as the common construction materials of
geotechnical or hydraulic engineering structures. The serviceability and
ultimate limit states of these structures under external loadings are
closely related to the physical and mechanical properties of soils.
Traditional limit state analysis methods take the soil deformation and
strength parameters, which are generally determined from the labora­
tory or field tests, as inputs for the design or evaluation of the relevant
structures (Craig, 2004). Many experimental results have shown that
macroscopic soil deformation and strength parameters for the same sort
of soil samples may exhibit a certain variability at the same density and
stress states, and even at the similar laboratory conditions (Schwiteilo
and Herle, 2016; Schneider-Muntau et al., 2021). This variability would
be more pronounced for in-situ soils because of the complexity of the
experienced geological process and stress paths. The variability of soil
properties has promoted the probabilistic design or evaluation of the
engineering structures (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999; Fenton and Griffiths,
2008; Qi and Li, 2018; Gao et al. 2019; Yang et al., 2021). However, the
underlying physical mechanisms of the variability of soil properties have
been not yet explored from the perspective of granular mechanics, at
least partially, even at the soil sample scale.
For sandy soils, the complexity of their macro mechanical behaviors
mainly originates from the packing patterns and interactions between
constituent particles, which is further related to the particle geometry

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: njiayan@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (J.-Y. Nie), yifeicui@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.-F. Cui), yangzhy85@mail.sysu.edu.cn (Z.-Y. Yang), yinyanzhou@
imde.ac.cn (Y.-Z. Yin), zijuncao@whu.edu.cn (Z.-J. Cao), dianqing@whu.edu.cn (D.-Q. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104497
Received 8 April 2021; Received in revised form 30 September 2021; Accepted 3 October 2021
Available online 13 October 2021
0266-352X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-Y. Nie et al.
properties (e.g., particle size and shape) (Mollon and Zhao, 2013; Vangla
and Latha, 2015; Yang and Luo, 2015; Gong et al., 2019a) and me­
chanical properties (e.g., particle Young’s modulus and sliding friction)
(Antony et al., 2006; Coetzee and Els 2009; Barreto and O’Sullivan,
2012; Huang et al., 2014; Gong et al., 2019b), other than the effect of
pore fluid (Ma et al., 2021). Hence, it can be anticipated that there are at
least two factors leading to the variability of soil properties for the same
type of soil samples at the same density and stress states, namely, the
random spatial arrangement of constituent particles and heterogeneity
of particle geometry and mechanical properties. Although the effects of
the polydispersity of particle shape and size on the behaviors of sandy
soils have been experimentally or numerically investigated by many
researchers (Minh and Cheng, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Jiang et al.,
2018; Rorato et al., 2018; Yang and Luo, 2018; Nie et al., 2021), the
heterogeneity of particle mechanical properties has received little
attention. In fact, this heterogeneity has been proved by many re­
searchers. For example, a series of micro mechanical tests on different
types of natural sand grains (e.g., Leighton Buzzard sand, limestone,
completely decomposed granite grains) have shown that the Young’s
modulus and inter-particle friction of the same class of sand grains vary
within a certain range, and the variability differs for different materials
(Senetakis et al., 2013; Sandeep and Senetakis, 2018a, 2018b). The
variability of particle Young’s modulus and inter-particle friction mainly
results from the variable particle mineralogy and surface roughness
characteristics. In addition, Ren et al. (2021) further found that the
uneven distribution of the coating and the morphology of the grains
would introduce more dispersity into these particle properties. And
hence a probabilistic selection of input properties might be more
appropriate in the discrete element method (DEM) simulations for the
materials showing high discrepancy in their properties (Ren et al.,
2021). Almost at the same time, Rorato et al. (2021) proposed a novel
method to simplify the calibration of rolling resistance by relating the
rolling friction and particle true sphericity, which enabled that the
variability of grain shape could be directly mapped into the DEM. These
novel works naturally necessitate the studies with regard to the effect of
the heterogeneity of particle properties on the variability of soil prop­
erties using the DEM. Recently, some relevant DEM studies have
emerged within the geomechanics community. For instance, Yang et al.
(2017) adopted the random field model (RFM) to characterize the het­
erogeneity of particle sliding friction, and investigated its influence on
the drained biaxial shearing behaviors of dense sands. Rorato et al.
(2018) discussed the effect of particle shape distribution on the drained
triaxial shearing responses of sands, through assigning varying rolling
friction coefficients on the constituent particles in the DEM based on
different probability distributions. Zhao and Liu (2020) used the RFM to
simulate the heterogeneity of particle Young’s modulus, bonding
strength and sliding friction, and studied the fragmentation mechanisms
of rock samples under uniaxial compression. Nevertheless, the effect of
the heterogeneity of particle properties on the variability of sandy soil
properties is still an open issue.
The advantage of RFM to characterize the heterogeneity of particle
properties is that two RFM parameters named coefficient of variation
COV and scale of fluctuation δ can consider the variability of particle
property for each particle and the spatial correlation pattern of particle
properties between constituent particles, respectively. Although some
studies have shown that the particle shape is spatially independent for
air-pluviated sand specimens (e.g., Rorato et al., 2020), this does not
indicate that the other particle properties or the shape of other sand
specimens especially of the undisturbed or less disturbed soil specimens
are not possible to be spatially correlated. The spatial correlation
assumption for particle properties between constituent particles is based
on the fact that particles at adjacent locations within undisturbed or less
disturbed soils may experience the similar formation history. Moreover,
the RFM is able to model the spatially independent particle properties,
similar with that adopted in Rorato et al. (2018), when the scale of
fluctuation is smaller than the minimum particle size within the soil
2
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
sample. Therefore, in this study, the RFM is still adopted to characterize
the heterogeneity of equivalent particle properties (e.g., effective
modulus, contact normal to tangential stiffness ratio, sliding friction and
rolling friction coefficients) for a simple linear rolling resistance contact
model in DEM simulations of drained triaxial compression, and further
explore its effect on the variability of soil properties. And then, two COV
and three δ are combined in pairs to prepare different types of hetero­
geneous soils. After that, Monte Carlo simulations are conducted by
repeatedly performing DEM simulations on a series of dense specimens
for each type of heterogeneous soil. The corresponding macroscopic soil
deformation and strength parameters are statistically analyzed to
explore the effects of COV and δ of particle properties on the variability
of soil properties. The contact network characteristics of three repre­
sentative heterogeneous specimens are analyzed and compared with
those of the homogenous specimen to explore the underlying micro­
scopic mechanisms. Moreover, the variability of soil properties due to
the random spatial arrangement of constituent particles is also
compared with that due to the heterogeneity of particle properties.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. Firstly, the
basic theories of the DEM and RFM are briefly introduced, and then the
coupled RFM and DEM model (RDEM) for drained triaxial compression
is presented in detail. In the following, the macro and micro mechanical
behaviors of heterogeneous and homogeneous samples are analyzed,
respectively. Finally, some primary conclusions and discussions are
summarized.
2. Random discrete element model of drained triaxial
compression
2.1. Discrete element method
Discrete element method (DEM) was originally proposed by Cundall
(Cundall, 1971) to deal with rock mechanics problems using block ele­
ments. It was further extended to reproduce the granular soils’ behaviors
by adopting ideal disks or spheres to represent real soil particles (Cun­
dall and Strack, 1979). The basic principle of the DEM is that at the given
force or displacement boundary conditions, the translational and rota­
tional kinematics of constituent spherical particles are governed by the
following Newton’s equation and Euler’s equation, respectively:
dvi
Fi = m (1a)
dt
dωi
Mi = Ii (1b)
dt
where Fi and Mi are the resultant force and resultant torque acting on or
around the mass centroid of the spherical particle, respectively, and Fi
consists of contact force and local damping force fd while gravity force is
ignored in this study; m and Ii are the mass and principal moment of
inertia of the spherical particle, respectively; vi and ωi are the trans­
lational and angular velocity of the spherical particle, respectively. The
standard and extending leapfrog algorithms are adopted to solve the
above Newton’s and Euler’s equations, respectively. The local damping
force fd is artificially applied on each particle in order to facilitate the
dissipation of kinetic energy of the whole granular particles system, and
it is determined as follow:
fd = − α|fu |vp /|vp | (2)
where fu and vp are the resultant contact force and translational velocity
of the particle, respectively; α is the local damping ratio and set as 0.3
reference to our previous studies (Nie et al., 2020; 2021). The minus sign
means that the local damping force fd acts along the opposite direction of
the particle translational motion. Note that there is no damping torque
applied on the particles in this study.
As for the contact force fc , the following two contact models at the
J.-Y. Nie et al.
particle scale are employed in the DEM to determine the normal contact
force fcn and tangential contact force fct , respectively:
fcn = − kcn δn n (3a)
fct = − min(|fc’t − kct Δut |, |μs fcn |)t (3b)
where n and t are the unit contact normal and tangential vector,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 1, whose directions are consistent with
those of relative normal and tangential translation of the given particle
(e.g., particle p2) against the contacting particle (e.g., particle p1), and
hence the minus signs in both equations represent that the directions of
fcn and fct are opposite with those of n and t, respectively; δn is the normal
penetration depth between two contacting particles; Δut is the incre­
mental relative tangential displacement of the contacting particles at the
current time step; fc’t is the tangential contact force at the previous time
step; μs is the contact sliding friction defining the maximum magnitude
of tangential contact force, and once the magnitude of fct reaches to
|μs f nc |, the relative tangential sliding occurs between two contacting
particles; knc and ktc are contact normal and tangential stiffness, respec­
tively. In this study, a simple linear contact model is adopted to derive
the contact normal and tangential stiffness directly from the particle
properties of two contacting particles as follows:
* *
2(Ep1 Rp1 )(Ep2 Rp2 )
kcn = * *
(4a)
Ep1 Rp1 + Ep2 Rp2
* * * *
2(Ep1 Rp1 kp1 )(Ep2 Rp2 kp2 )
kct = * * * *
(4b)
Ep1 Rp1 kp1 + Ep2 Rp2 kp2
where E*p1 and E*p2 are the effective modulus of the particle p1 and p2,
respectively, which increase with the particle Young’s modulus; k*p1 and
k*p2 are the contact normal to tangential stiffness ratio of two contacting
particles which increase up to a finite positive value as the particle
Poisson’s ratio increases; Rp1 and Rp2 are the radius of two contacting
particles, respectively (Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 2014). In addition,
the contact sliding friction μs is determined from the particle sliding
friction of both contacting particles as follow:
( )
μs = min μp1 , μp2 (5)
where μp1 and μp2 are the particle sliding friction of two contacting
particles, respectively.
Considering that using ideal spheres in the DEM simulation to
reproduce the soil behavior would acquire a smaller shear strength than
common experimental results, the rolling resistance model are often
introduced into the contacting particles to enhance the soil strength
(Iwashita and Oda, 1999; Jiang et al., 2005; Zhou et al., 2013). This
alternative way helps to significantly reduce the computation burden of
random DEM simulations compared with the realistic shape DEM
Fig. 1. 2D schematic of the adopted linear rolling resistance contact model in this study (particles rendered with different colors representing particles of varying
particle properties) (modified from Liang and Zhao, 2019).
3
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
simulations (Kawamoto et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2021). Similar with
Iwashita and Oda (1999), a simple rolling resistance model is adopted in
this study and the corresponding rolling resistant momentum Mrc can be
determined as:
/
Mcr = − min(|Mc’r − kcr Δθr , |μr Rfcn |)θr |θr | (6)
where Δθr is the incremental relative rotation angle between two con­
tacting particles at the current time step; M’rc is the rolling resistant
momentum at the previous time step; R is the contact effective radius
and defined through R1 = R1P1 + R1P2 ; krc is the contact rolling stiffness and
can be determined by the contact tangential stiffness ktc through krc =
2
ktc R ; μr is the contact rolling friction determining the upper-bond of the
rolling resistant momentum, and once the magnitude of Mrc reaches to
|μr Rfcn |, the relative rolling occurs between two contacting particles. The
minus sign in Eq. (6) also indicates that the direction of Mrc is opposite
with that of the relative rolling motion of the particle. Similar with μs ,
μr is also derived from the particle rolling friction of two contacting
particles as follow:
( )
μr = min μrp1 , μrp2 (7)
where μrp1 and μrp2 are the particle rolling friction of two contacting
particles, respectively. The above introduced simple linear rolling
resistance contact model in PFC3D has also been adopted by many re­
searchers to efficiently study the sandy soil behaviors considering the
effect of particle shape (e.g., Gu et al., 2020; Rorato et al., 2021).
2.2. Random field modeling
The macroscopic soil deformation and strength parameters exhibit
significant spatial variability because of the complicated geological
processes such as weathering, transportation, and sedimentation. Van­
marcke (1977) found that the spatial variability of soil properties in the
field can be well described by the random field model (RFM). Since then,
the RFM has received considerable attention in the probabilistic design
or evaluation of geotechnical engineering structures. This study adopts a
similar philosophy but uses the RFM at a rather small scale (e.g., particle
scale) to characterize the heterogeneity of particle properties within a
soil specimen, reference to the previous studies (Yang et al., 2017; Zhao
and Liu, 2020).
In this study, the RFM considers four basic particle properties of the
aforementioned linear rolling resistance model as random variables,
including particle effective modulus E*p , contact normal to tangential
stiffness ratio k*p , sliding friction μp and rolling friction μrp . The four
particle properties are assumed to follow the lognormal distributions
with given mean values (μ) and coefficient of variations (COV) in
consideration of their non-negativity characteristics. Each of the particle
properties is spatially auto-correlated by a specific autocorrelation
J.-Y. Nie et al.
function for different particles within the soil sample. The autocorrela­
tion function is a function of the scale of fluctuation (δ) and spatial
distance between particles. A smaller δ implies a weaker spatial corre­
lation of the particle property between constituent particles and hence
the sample is more heterogeneous, and vice versa. Specially, if δ is less
than the minimum particle size, the particle property of constituent
particles is spatially uncorrelated and would be varying according to the
assumed probability distribution, and hence the sample is very hetero­
geneous; While if δ tends to be infinitely larger, the particle property of
constituent particles within the soil sample is strongly correlated and
would be kept the same, and therefore the sample becomes
homogenous.
Suppose that four lognormal random fields for E*p , k*p , μp and μrp are to
be constructed. Take the lognormal random field k(x, y, z) of the particle
property k as an example, where k denotes E*p , k*p , μp μrp , respectively,
and x, y and z are spatial coordinate components of the particle mass
centroid. The autocorrelation matrix ρ for the random field k(x, y, z) is
firstly estimated by the assumed Gaussian autocorrelation function as
follow (Fenton and Griffiths, 2008):
[ (( )2 ) ]
( ) Δx,ij
)2 (
Δy,ij
)2 (
Δy,ij
ρij Δx,ij , Δy,ij , Δz,ij = exp − π + + (8)
δx δy δz
where ρij is the coefficient of autocorrelation of the particle property k
between the i-th and j-th particle; Δx,ij, Δy,ij and Δz,ij are the spatial
distances between the mass centroids of the i-th and j-th particles along
the x-, y- and z- directions, respectively; δx, δy, and δz are the scale of
fluctuation of the particle property in the x-, y- and z- directions,
respectively, which are assumed to be equal to the value of δ in this
study. The Cholesky decomposition is then adopted to decompose the
autocorrelation matrix ρ to a lower-triangular matrix L according to the
following expression (Yang and Ching, 2021):
ρ = LLT (9)
Based on the lower-triangular matrix L, a correlated standard normal
random field N(x, y, z) is then generated through the following equation
(Nie et al., 2020):
N(x, y, z) = LU (10)
where U is an independent standard normal column vector with n ele­
ments; n is the number of constituent particles within the soil sample.
Finally, the lognormal random field k(x, y, z) of the particle property k
can be given by (Fenton and Griffiths, 2008):
k(x, y, z) = exp[μlnk + σ lnk ⋅N(x, y, z) ] (11)
where μlnk and σlnk are the mean and standard deviation of the par­
ticle property k in the normal space, which can be estimated by the
followings (Fenton and Griffiths, 2008):
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )̅
σ lnk = ln 1 + COV 2k (12a)
1 2
μlnk = lnμk − σ (12b)
2 lnk
where μk and COVk are the mean and COV of the particle property k. It
should be noted that the cross-correlation of different particle properties
is not considered in this study, and hence there are totally four inde­
pendent random field models mapped into the heterogeneous samples to
consider the heterogeneity of particle properties.
2.3. RDEM of drained triaxial compression
In this section, the RFM is incorporated into the DEM to conduct
drained triaxial compression simulations. Firstly, a reasonable homo­
geneous sample with constant particle properties needs to be prepared,
4
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
and then the corresponding particle property values are set as the mean
values of random particle properties of the heterogeneous samples. To
this end, a robust numerical model configuration consisting of 5000
spherical particles of uniform grading is adopted reference to our pre­
vious studies (Nie et al., 2020; 2021), as shown in Fig. 2. The numerical
sample is prepared through the isotropic compression of a cloud of
particles with non-overlap under a numerical stress servo control
scheme with the target confining pressure of Pc = 100 kPa. During the
isotropic compression process, the particle sliding and rolling friction
are assigned with zero, while the other two particle properties are set as
their trial mean values. When the sample reaches an initial mechanically
equilibrium state, the particle sliding and rolling friction are also reset as
their trial mean values, and a second numerical stress servo control
procedure is conducted to acquire the final well-“consolidated” sample
before shearing. In the following, a constant loading rate γ̇ of 0.01/s is
adopted to compress the specimen through the top and bottom walls
under a well-controlled confining stress of 100 kPa, and the compression
process stops until the axial strain reaches 40% where the soil critical
state is obviously observed. The density scaling method is adopted to
acquire a relatively acceptable critical time step Δtcr (O’Sullivan 2011)
to ensure the computation efficiency. The computational time step Δt is
set to 10− 5 s for all simulations. The inertia number Iinertia is less than
10− 3 during the whole compression process, indicating that the shearing
is quasi-static (Midi, 2004). The final mean values of the four particle
property parameters are determined as: E∗p =1000 MPa, k∗p =0.25, μp =
0.4 and μpr = 0.4, to make the stress–strain curves and critical internal
friction angle of the homogeneous sample can be able to represent the
laboratory results of the common dense sub-rounded quartz sands. The
length of the final densified homogeneous sample before shearing is
around 33 mm and about 11 times larger than the maximum particle
diameter, which satisfies the basic requirement for the size of numerical
sample in the DEM so as to relieve the rigid boundary effect (Jamiol­
kowski et al., 2004).
In terms of the preparation of heterogeneous samples with varying
particle properties, three scale of fluctuation (e.g., δ = 0.001 m, 0.018 m,
0.033 m) and two coefficients of variation (e.g., COV = 0.03, 0.10) are
combined to construct different random field models for four random
particle properties. Different combinations of the coefficient of variation
and scale of fluctuation are adopted to prepare different types of het­
erogeneous soils, which would be illustrated in the following. As
aforementioned, four random particle properties are assumed to be in­
dependent and lognormally distributed. Table 1 summarizes the statis­
tical characteristics of random field models for the four random particle
properties. Once the random field model for each type of particle
property are constructed based on the section of 2.2, the particle prop­
erty values for each random field realization are mapped into constitu­
ent particles within the already generated homogeneous sample based
on their mass centroid positions to acquire the heterogeneous sample.
Note that the current heterogeneous sample would not be mechanically
stable due to the change of particle properties, and a new numerical
stress servo equilibrium process should be further conducted. A very
slight disturbance is observed during this process and the average value
of the normalized distances between mass centroids of each particle by
their corresponding sizes within the homogeneous and heterogeneous
samples is only about 0.01. Hence, it can be assumed that the initial
particle spatial arrangement and density are consistent with each other
for homogeneous and heterogeneous samples, and the effect of particle
random spatial distribution on the variability of soil properties can be
neglected in this study. After the preparation of heterogeneous samples,
similar drained triaxial shearing procedure is conducted as that on the
homogeneous samples.
Taking the random field model of particle sliding friction μp as an
example, Fig. 3 shows six typical realizations of μp random field with
different combinations of COV and δ. It can be seen that the random field
model can effectively simulate the heterogeneity of particle properties of
J.-Y. Nie et al. Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497

Fig. 2. (a) Numerical model configuration of the drained triaxial compression simulation and (b) particle size grading curve.

Table 1
Statistical characteristics of random field models for four equivalent particle properties and their range of variation, and some other statistical values of 500 random
simulations for each type of heterogeneous soil sample.
Particle Probability Mean Coefficient of Scale of Range of Minimum and Range of Range of contact
properties Distribution μ Variation (COV) fluctuation (δ), variation maximum average dimensionless friction angle, φs (◦ )
m values stiffness, k

E*p (MPa) Lognormal 1000 0.03 0.001 [863.7,1161.4] 998.6,1001.2 [4318.5,5807.0]

0.018 [850.2,1134.0] 965.8,1033.8 [4251.0,5670.0]
0.033 [875.3,1132.2] 947.8,1051.7 [4376.5,5661.0]
0.10 0.001 [612.1,1638.9] 995.4,1003.8 [3060.5,8194.5]
0.018 [580.8,1514.1] 891.2,1117.5 [2904.0,7570.5]
0.033 [639.9,1505.9] 837.1,1182.2 [3199.5,7529.5]
k*p Lognormal 0.25 0.03 0.001 [0.215,0.290] 0.250,0.250
0.018 [0.220,0.289] 0.244,0.257
0.033 [0.220,0.286] 0.238,0.266
0.10 0.001 [0.150,0.408] 0.249,0.251
0.018 [0.162,0.403] 0.232,0.274
0.033 [0.163,0.388] 0.213,0.308
μp Lognormal 0.4 0.03 0.001 [0.337,0.463] 0.400,0.401 [18.8,24.7]
0.018 [0.351,0.459] 0.390,0.412 [19.3,24.7]
0.033 [0.349,0.457] 0.378,0.419 [19.3,24.7]
0.10 0.001 [0.225,0.649] 0.398,0.402 [12.4,33.0]
0.018 [0.257,0.631] 0.367,0.441 [14.6,32.2]
0.033 [0.253,0.623] 0.331,0.466 [14.0,31.8]
μpr Lognormal 0.4 0.03 0.001 [0.340,0.462] 0.400,0.401
0.018 [0.348,0.457] 0.388,0.411
0.033 [0.354,0.454] 0.379,0.422
0.10 0.001 [0.233,0.645] 0.398,0.402
0.018 [0.251,0.622] 0.360,0.436
0.033 [0.265,0.606] 0.333,0.479

Note that the values of “Rang of variation” are determined from the maximum and minimum particle property parameters of 500 random simulations; “Minimum and
maximum average values” denotes that the minimum and maximum average values of particle property parameters for each sample of 500 random simulations;
“Range of dimensionless stiffness, k” and “Range of contact friction angle, φs (◦ )” are calculated based on the values of “Rang of variation” reference to Aboul et al.
(2017).

granular soils in the DEM model to some extent. For a given COV, the
sample would be more heterogeneous when δ is smaller. Specially, the
particle property is spatially uncorrelated for the sample with δ = 0.001
m, which is less than the minimum particle size, while it would be kept
the same and the sample becomes homogenous when δ is infinitely large.
For a given δ, the variability of particle property for each particle in­
creases with the COV. In this study, 500 number of random field re­
alizations are independently generated based on the Monte Carlo
scheme reference to Li et al. (2020) for each random particle property
under a given COV and δ. The acquired 500 samples for each type of
heterogeneous specimen are further used to perform drained triaxial
compression.
The variation range of four particle properties of constituent
particles and their maximum and minimum average values of 500
random simulations are also summarized in Table 1 for each type of
heterogeneous soil. According to the previous literatures (Roux and
Combe, 2010; Aboul et al., 2017; Sibille et al., 2019), the dimensionless
stiffness k defined as k = E*p/2Pc for each case (shown in Table 1) is
significantly larger than the threshold (e.g., 1875) proposed by Aboul
et al. (2017), and the contact rolling stiffness is also higher than the
corresponding extreme, indicating that the adopted random contact
stiffness in this study is large enough to avoid the interplay of local
elastic parameters and contact friction parameters on the macroscopic
plastic properties. In addition, the contact friction angles for all cases in
Table 1 are basically larger than 15◦ , suggesting that the coupled effects
of contact sliding friction and rolling friction on the critical state shear

5
J.-Y. Nie et al.
Fig. 3. Six typical random field realizations for particle sliding friction μp with different COV and δ.
strength can be safely ignored. These priors help to uncouple the com­
bined effects of the heterogeneity of local elasticity parameters and
contact friction parameters on the variability of soil deformation and
strength properties.
3. Effect of heterogeneity of particle properties on soil behaviors
3.1. Macroscopic behaviors
In this section, the stress–strain relationships and soil deformation
and strength parameters (e.g., Shear modulus G, Poisson’s ratio v, peak
internal friction angle φp and critical internal friction angle φc ) of 500
random samples for each type of heterogeneous specimen are statisti­
cally analyzed compared with those of the homogeneous sample. Similar
analysis is also conducted on the additional 500 random simulations of
homogenous samples with different particle spatial arrangement but the
same density. Based on these statistical results, effects of two random
field model parameters (e.g., COV and δ) and the random spatial
arrangement of constituent particles on the variability of soil properties
are systematically discussed and compared.
Fig. 4. Stress–strain curves for homogeneous and heterogeneous specimens with different δ and COV = 0.10 at the same initial density and stress states.
6
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
3.1.1. Stress–strain relationships
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 present the evolutions of the deviatoric stress q and
the void ratio e with the axial strain εa for 500 heterogeneous samples
under different combinations of COV and δ, respectively. The corre­
sponding curves of the homogeneous sample are also shown in Fig. 4 and
Fig. 5. It can be seen from Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 that all specimens experience
strain softening after reaching the peak shear strength and finally reach
the critical state when the axial strain is larger than 0.30. Meanwhile, all
specimens show shear dilation instantly after compression because of
the very dense characteristic at the initial state. And the stress–strain
curves of heterogeneous specimens appear as a curve cluster with a
certain width especially at the large deformation stage. The width of the
curve cluster increases with the increasing of δ for a given COV. The
differences of stress–strain curves of heterogeneous specimens result
from the distinct spatial correlation pattern and varying average values
of particle properties, which will be further explained in the following
section. In addition, it is interesting to note that the average stress–strain
curves of 500 heterogeneous specimens are closer to those of the ho­
mogeneous specimen with the increase of δ for a given COV.
On the other hand, for δ = 0.001, the stress–strain curve cluster of
J.-Y. Nie et al.
Fig. 5. Stress–strain curves for homogeneous and heterogeneous specimens with different δ and COV = 0.03 at the same initial density and stress states.
random heterogeneous samples does not fully cover the curve of the
homogeneous specimen especially at the peak shear strength state,
although this phenomenon is not so obvious for COV = 0.03. This might
be because when δ = 0.001, particle properties are spatially uncorre­
lated and hence their average values over constituent particles at each
random field realization are close to their corresponding mean values of
RFM, which are also the particle property values of the homogeneous
sample, as shown in Table 1. While weak particles (particles with
smaller sliding and rolling friction than the mean values of RFM) within
heterogeneous samples collapse earlier compared with the homoge­
neous sample, and then induce a smaller peak shear strength. Similar
phenomenon has also been observed in Rorato et al. (2018). In other
words, when two particles touch with each other, only the more
spherical and smooth particle transmits its rolling and sliding friction to
the contact (Rorato et al., 2018). For larger COV (e.g., 0.10) under δ =
0.001, it means that particle properties of heterogeneous samples are of
greater variability, and more weaker particles within samples reduce the
peak shear strength, making the difference of peak shear strength
Fig. 6. Stress–strain curves for random homogeneous specimens with different spatial arrangement of constituent particles at the same initial density and stress states
and the corresponding statistical results of soil deformation and strength properties.
7
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
between homogeneous and heterogeneous samples more pronounced.
Comparing the results of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, it can be seen that for a given
δ, the discrepancies of stress–strain curves of heterogeneous specimens
increase with COV. That is, the width of the curve cluster increases with
COV, and this phenomenon is much clearer at the larger scale of
fluctuation.
In order to distinguish and compare the variability of soil properties
due to the random spatial arrangement of constituent particles and that
due to the heterogeneity of particle properties, 500 additional random
simulations of homogeneous samples are conducted, and the initial void
ratio for all simulations is kept the same as the specific homogeneous
sample used to prepare heterogeneous samples. Fig. 6 (a) and (b) present
their stress–strain curves, similar strain softening and shearing dilata­
tion behaviors are observed. And it is anticipated that the curves of the
specific homogeneous sample used for the preparation of heterogeneous
samples are totally within the curve cluster of other 500 random ho­
mogeneous samples, which is different with the random heterogeneous
samples with δ = 0.001. Moreover, a relatively large width of the curve
J.-Y. Nie et al. Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497

cluster has been acquired under this case, compared with those of the
random heterogeneous samples shown in Figs. 4 and 5, suggesting that
the variability of peak shear strength due to the random spatial
arrangement of constituent particles can be greater than that due to the
heterogeneity of particle properties, which will be further analyzed in
the next section.
3.1.2. Soil deformation and strength parameters
In order to quantify the effect of heterogeneity of particle properties
on the variability of soil deformation and strength properties, the shear
modulus G, Poisson’s ratio, v, peak internal friction angle φp , and critical
internal friction angle φc are determined for all DEM simulations.
Among which, the shear modulus G and Poisson’s ratio v are calculated
based on the stress–strain curves within the axial strain of 0.2%, during
which the soil specimen is assumed to be linear elastic, and the corre­
sponding soil deformation parameters are determined by the following
two expressions:
G=
q
(13a)
3εs
(εx + εy )/2
v= (13b)
εz
where q is the deviatoric stress and εs is the deviatoric shear strain
defined as εs = 2(εz − (εx + εy )/2)/3, and εx , εy and εz are the principal
strain along the direction of x, y and z axis, respectively (Wang et al.,
2020). Considering that the heterogeneity of particle properties, the
strains in the x and y direction for heterogeneous samples might be
somewhat deviated during compression, and hence the average value of
εx and εy is set as the radial strain to determine the shear modulus G and
Poisson’ ratio v.
The peak and critical internal friction angles, φp and φc are deter­
mined as:
( )
φp = sin− 1
σ 1p − σ3
(14a)
σ 1p + σ3
( )
φc = sin− 1 σ1c − σ3
(14b)
σ1c + σ3
where σ1p, σ 1c are the axial stress at the peak and critical state, respec­
tively. Axial stress within the axial strain from 30% to 40% are averaged
as the critical state axial stress σ1c in order to alleviate the influence of
stress fluctuation during the critical state.
Fig. 7 gives the frequency distribution histograms of the shear
modulus G and Poisson’s ratio v of 500 random heterogeneous samples
for COV = 0.10 and δ = 0.033 m. The shear modulus G and Poisson’s
ratio v of the specific homogeneous specimen are also shown in Fig. 7
with blue dot lines. It is found that the probability distribution functions
(PDFs) of both two deformation parameters for random heterogeneous
samples can be well-fitted by the Gaussian distribution. This conclusion
holds for the random heterogeneous samples with other combinations of
COV and δ, and also the random homogeneous samples (shown in Fig. 6
(c-f)). Fig. 8 further shows the evolutions of the statistical characteristics
(e.g., the mean and COV) of G and v with δ for different COVs of particle
properties. It can be seen that the COV and δ of E∗p and k∗p have little
influence on the mean values of the shear modulus G and Poisson’s ratio
v; while they have a relatively large effect on the COV of G and v. Spe­
cifically, the increase of COV or δ of E∗p and k∗p would increase the COV of
G and v. Moreover, the COV of G and v are always less than the COV of E∗p
and k∗p because of the average effect of particle properties in obtaining
the bulk values.
Similarly, Fig. 9 shows the frequency distribution histograms of the
peak and critical internal friction angle, φp and φc of 500 random het­
erogeneous samples for COV = 0.10 and δ = 0.033 m. It can be seen that
PDFs of two soil strength parameters can also be well-fitted by the
Gaussian distribution, and the fluctuation ranges of φp and φc can be up
to 4 and 3 , respectively for the heterogeneous samples with large COV
◦ ◦
and δ. Fig. 10 gives the evolutions of the mean and COV of φp and φc with
δ for different COVs of particle properties. Different from the soil
deformation parameters G and v, the COV and δ of μpr and μp have a
certain influence on the mean values of φp and φc. Specifically, the
decrease of COV or increase of δ of μpr and μp can increase the mean
values of φp and φc. This phenomenon may be because φp and φc are
mainly affected by the average values of μpr and μp within each het­
erogeneous sample. Reference to Fenton and Griffiths (2008), if the
assumed lognormally distributed random fields of particle properties are
used, the mean values of the average values of particle properties of 500
heterogeneous specimens decrease with COV of particle properties and
this decrease is more significant for a smaller δ. The slight dependences
of the mean values of G and v on the COV and δ of E∗p and k∗p may be
because the changed average values of E∗p and k∗p has a limited influence
on the soil deformation parameters within the studied range of this
study. The COV and δ of μpr and μp have a large influence on the COV of
φp and φc. The COV of φp and φc generally increase with the COV of the
μpr and μp. They also increase with δ except for φc when COV of μpr and μp
equals to 0.03. The possible reason of this exception is that φc mainly
depends on μpr of particles within the strain localized zone, and hence
the variation of φc would be saturated with δ when the COV of particle
properties is relatively small.
The mean and COV of four soil property parameters for 500 random
homogeneous samples shown in Fig. 6(c-f) have also been plot on Fig. 8
and Fig. 10 for comparing the variability of soil properties due to the
particle spatial arrangement and that due to the heterogeneity of par­
ticle properties. It is seen that the variability of soil deformation and
strength parameters of random homogeneous samples are larger than
those of heterogeneous samples with COV of particle properties being

Fig. 7. Frequency distribution histograms of the shear modulus G and Poisson’s ratio v of 500 random heterogeneous samples with COV = 0.10 and δ = 0.033 m.

8
J.-Y. Nie et al. Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497

Fig. 8. Evolutions of the mean and COV of the shear modulus G, Poisson’s ratio v with δ for different COVs of particle properties.

Fig. 9. Frequency distribution histograms of the peak friction angle φp and critical friction angle φc of 500 random heterogeneous samples with COV = 0.10 and δ =
0.033 m.

equal to 0.03 or 0.10 if δ is relatively small (e.g., δ = 0.001 m). This of soil properties due to the heterogeneity of particle properties exceeds
result suggests that in this case the contribution of particle spatial the former, and hence this source of variability of soil properties cannot
arrangement is dominant for the variability of soil properties. However, be ignored in such a condition. Moreover, the heterogeneity of particle
when the COV and δ of particle properties become larger, the variability properties exists inherently for natural soils, and it should be taken into

9
J.-Y. Nie et al.
Fig. 10. Evolutions of the mean and COV of the peak internal friction angle φp , critical internal friction angle φc with δ for different COVs of particle properties.
account reasonably when conducting DEM studies especially for soils
with highly varying particle properties. The adopted RDEM is readily to
consider both effects of the random spatial arrangement of constituent
particles and heterogeneity of particle properties. This study consider
them separately in order to explore their own effects more clearly.
3.2. Mechanisms analysis
3.2.1. Representative specimen behaviors
In this section, three representative specimens for different types of
heterogeneous samples (e.g., HES-A, HES-B and HES-C) and the specific
homogeneous sample (HOS) used to prepare heterogeneous specimens
(as shown in Fig. 4) are chosen to analyze their micro mechanical be­
haviors so as to give some insights into the observed variability of soil
properties because of the different heterogeneity characteristics of par­
ticle properties (e.g., different spatial correlation patterns and average
values of particle properties of constituent particles). Three represen­
tative heterogeneous specimens are selected based on the following
principles:
(1) The HES-A is selected from one random simulation for COV =
0.10 and δ = 0.001 m. The stress–strain curves for HES-A is
denoted as pink line in Fig. 4a. It should be noted that for this
10
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
combination of COV and δ, the average values of particle prop­
erties for constituent particles within 500 random samples are
almost equal to particle properties of the HOS sample, that is, the
mean values of four random particle properties, as shown in
Table 1. Hence such a selection aims to explore the effect of
correlation pattern of particle properties on soil behaviors. The
particle properties of HOS sample are strongly spatially corre­
lated while those of HES-A sample are spatially uncorrelated.
(2) The HES-B and HES-C samples are chosen from two random
simulations for COV = 0.10 and δ = 0.033 m. The stress–strain
curves for HES-B and HES-C samples are denoted as black and
green lines in Fig. 4c, respectively. The HES-B and HES-C samples
are selected representatively as they give the minimum and
maximum critical internal friction angles of 500 random simu­
lations. Moreover, HES-B and HES-C have similar spatial corre­
lation patterns of particle properties but different average values
of particle properties of constituent particles. Hence the effect of
average values of particle properties on soil properties can be
discussed.
The stress–strain curves for HES-A, HES-B, HES-C and HOS have been
redrawn in Fig. 11 for clearer showcase. The corresponding soil defor­
mation and strength parameters (i.e., G, ν, φp, φc) and average values of
J.-Y. Nie et al. Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497

Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves of the representative heterogeneous and homogeneous specimens.

* *
particle properties of constituent particles (i.e., Ep , kp , μp , μrp ) are also
attached in the legends of Fig. 11(a) and (b), respectively. It can be easily
seen from Fig. 11 that HOS sample has a larger shear strength than HES-
A sample at both peak and critical state, suggesting that at the given
average values of particle sliding and rolling friction, the shear strength
would increase for samples with more correlated particle friction pa­
rameters. While for a given correlation pattern, the shear strength of
HES-C sample is larger than that of HES-B due to the larger average
values of particle sliding and rolling friction. Moreover, it is interesting
to see that stress–strain curves of both HES-A and HES-B samples are
very consistent, which indicates that the weakening effect of uncorre­
lated particle properties on the soil shear strength of HES-A sample has
been counteracted by its larger average values of particle friction pa­
rameters. In addition, it is also seen from Fig. 11 that the macroscopic
deformation parameters are mainly determined by the average values of
* can be seen from Fig. 13(a) that four samples have almost the same ρs
local elasticity parameters, and shear modulus G increases with Ep while
*
Poisson’s ratio v decreases with kp , which are consistent with the results
of Fleischmann et al. (2013).
3.2.2. Contact network characteristics
Contact network characteristics (e.g., mean coordination number,
mean normal contact force, sliding, rolling and weak contacts) are
analyzed in this section in order to explain the obvious shear strength
differences for four representative specimens from the micromechanics
perspectives.
Fig. 12 gives the evolutions of the mean coordination number (MCN)
and mean normal contact force <fn> of four representative samples. It is
interesting that HES-A and HES-B have almost the same MCN and <fn>
during shearing, which, to some extent, explains the similar evolutions
of stress–strain curves of these two specimens shown in Fig. 11. In
comparison with the MCN and <fn> of HES-A and HES-B samples, HES-
C sample has the smallest MCN and largest <fn> while HOS sample has
intermediate ones. These observations suggest that both the average
values and spatial correlation patterns of particle properties affect the
magnitudes of MCN and <fn> and further affect the bulk behaviors of
granular soils. Larger average values of μpr and μp would induce a smaller
MCN and hence a greater <fn>, while stronger spatial correlations of
particle friction parameters would decrease the MCN and increase <fn> .
Fig. 13 presents the evolutions of the percentage of sliding contacts ρs
and percentage of rolling contacts ρr of four representative samples. It
except a slightly larger one for HES-A owing to more weak constituent
particles. Nevertheless, Fig. 13(b) shows that HES-C and HES-B have the
smallest and largest ρr , respectively, which results in the corresponding
largest and smallest shear strength. A small ρr or ρs implies that the
specimen has a large resistance to the contact rolling or sliding and
further gives a great overall shear strength. As a result, the HES-B and
HES-A samples have a final similar shear strength because of the mutual
offset effects of the contributions of sliding and rolling contacts to the
shear strength within two samples.
Fig. 14 shows the evolutions of the percentage of weak contacts of
four representative specimens. Herein, the weak contacts are defined as

Fig. 12. Evolutions of the mean coordination number and mean normal contact force of the representative heterogeneous and homogeneous specimens.

11
J.-Y. Nie et al. Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497

Fig. 13. Evolutions of the percentages of sliding and rolling contacts of the representative heterogeneous and homogeneous specimens.

arrangement. Effects of two random field parameters on the variability

of soil deformation and strength parameters are analyzed. The vari­
ability of soil properties due to the random particle spatial arrangement
is also compared. The contact network characteristics of four represen­
tative samples are explored to explain the observed shear strength dif­
ferences owing to the heterogeneity of particle properties. Some primary
conclusions from this study are summarized as follows:

(1) The stress–strain curves of random heterogeneous samples with

almost the same particle spatial arrangement but variable particle
properties under drained triaxial compression appear as a curve
cluster with a certain width, which indicates that the heteroge­
neity of particle properties is an important source of the vari­
ability of soil properties. The contribution of particle spatial
arrangement to the variability of soil particles is greater than that
due to heterogeneity of particle properties when their coefficient
of variation is smaller (e.g., 0.03) or larger (e.g., 0.10) under
smaller scale of fluctuation. However, for the larger coefficient of
variation and scale of fluctuation, the contribution of the het­
erogeneity of particle properties is dominant.
(2) The shear modulus, Poisson’s ratio, peak and critical internal
Fig. 14. Evolutions of the percentage of weak contacts of the representative
heterogeneous and homogeneous specimens. friction angles of random heterogeneous specimens follow
Gaussian distributions if lognormally distributed random fields
are used for describing the heterogeneity of uncorrelated particle
the contacts whose contact forces are less than the mean normal contact
properties. The mean values of shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio
force <fn> (Guo and Zhao, 2013). It is interesting to observe that four
of random heterogeneous samples are basically not affected by
specimens have almost the same percentage of weak and strong contacts
COV and δ of particle properties, while the mean values of peak
within the contact networks during shearing. It indicates that the
and critical internal friction angles are. The COV of soil property
average values and spatial correlation pattern of particle properties have
parameters for random heterogeneous specimens generally in­
minor effects on the percentages of weak and strong contacts, and there
creases with the COV and δ of particle properties. Two random
are always more than 60% weak contacts within the soil samples
field model parameters affect the soil strength parameters
regardless of the heterogeneity of particle properties. This phenomenon
through the average values and spatial correlation patterns of
is consistent with the previous DEM studies of homogeneous samples
particle properties of the heterogeneous samples.
(Guo and Zhao, 2013; Nie et al., 2021).
(3) The average values and spatial correlation patterns of particle
properties jointly affect the soil macroscopic and microscopic
4. Conclusions and Discussions
mechanical quantities. The shear strength increases with the
average values of particle sliding or rolling friction and also the
This study incorporates the RFM into DEM to explore the effect of
spatial correlation degrees of these particle properties. And hence
heterogeneity of particle properties on the variability of sandy soil
heterogeneous samples with different average values and spatial
properties. Four equivalent particle properties including particle effec­
correlation degrees of particle properties might have similar
tive modulus, contact normal to tangential stiffness ratio, sliding and
stress–strain curves when subjected to a mutual offset between
rolling friction for a simple linear rolling resistance contact model in the
both effects. The mean coordinate number and percentages of
DEM are assumed as lognormally distributed random variables. Based
sliding or rolling contacts decrease while mean normal contact
on the coupled RFM and DEM model, random DEM simulations of
force increases with the average values of particle sliding or
drained triaxial compression in tandem with MCS are conducted on
rolling friction and the correlation degrees of these particle
heterogeneous samples with almost the same particle spatial

12
J.-Y. Nie et al.
properties, which explains the shear strength differences of het­
erogeneous and homogeneous specimens micromechanically.
This study makes a novel attempt to couple the RFM with DEM to
explore the effect of heterogeneity of equivalent particle properties on
variability of soil properties. The statistical characteristics of four in­
dependent random field models for spatially varying particle properties
are chosen based on empirical values to conduct a parametric study. The
relevant data might be obtained by the emerging non-intrusive soil tests
aided with X-ray μCT technique, which has been adopted by many re­
searchers to image particle size or shape characteristics and even iden­
tify particle minerals (Fonseca et al., 2012; Hurley et al., 2017; Rorato
et al., 2019; Nadimi et al., 2020; Cano et al., 2021). The more physical
RDEM studies will be pursued in our future efforts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jia-Yan Nie: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing –
original draft. Yi-Fei Cui: Writing – review & editing, Funding acqui­
sition. Zhi-Yong Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Writing–review & editing. Yan-Zhou Yin: Writing – review & editing.
Zi-Jun Cao: Writing – review & editing. Dian-Qing Li: Writing – review
& editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their
insightful and constructive comments that help to greatly improve the
quality of the manuscript. This study was funded by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (42077238, 41941019, 52109144), the
Open Innovation Fund of Changjiang Institute of Survey, Planning,
Design and Research (CX2020K07) and the Second Tibetan Plateau
Scientific Expedition and Research Program (2019QZKK0903). The
financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Aboul, H.R., Sibille, L., Benahmed, N., Chareyre, B., 2017. Discrete numerical modeling
of loose soil with spherical particles and inter-particle rolling friction. Granular
Matter 19 (1), 1–12.
Antony, S.J., Moreno-Atanasio, R., Hassanpour, A., 2006. Influence of contact stiffnesses
on the micromechanical characteristics of dense particulate systems subjected to
shearing. Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 (21), 214103. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2396894.
Barreto, D., O’Sullivan, C., 2012. The influence of inter-particle friction and the
intermediate stress ratio on soil response under generalized stress conditions.
Granular Matter 14 (4), 505–521.
Cano, A.C., Van Stappen, J.F., Wolterbeek, T.K., Hangx, S.J., 2021. Uniaxial compaction
of sand using 4D X-ray tomography: the effect of mineralogy on grain-scale
compaction mechanisms. Mater. Today Commun. 26, 101881.
Coetzee, C.J., Els, D.N.J., 2009. Calibration of discrete element parameters and the
modelling of silo discharge and bucket filling. Comput. Electron. Agric. 65 (2),
198–212.
Craig, R.F., 2004. Craig’s soil mechanics, seventh edition. CRC Press.
Cundall, P.A., 1971. A computer model for simulating progressive, large-scale movement
in blocky rock system. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, 1971.
Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D.L., 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies.
Geotechnique 29 (1), 47–65.
Fenton, G.A., Griffiths, D.V., 2008. Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering. John
Wiley & Sons.
Fleischmann, J.A., Plesha, M.E., Drugan, W.J., 2013. Quantitative comparison of two-
dimensional and three-dimensional discrete-element simulations of nominally two-
dimensional shear flow. Int. J. Geomech. 13 (3), 205–212.
Fonseca, J., O’sullivan, C., Coop, M.R., Lee, P.D., 2012. Non-invasive characterization of
particle morphology of natural sands. Soils Found. 52 (4), 712–722.
13
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
Gao, G.H., Li, D.Q., Cao, Z.J., Wang, Y., Zhang, L., 2019. Full probabilistic design of earth
retaining structures using generalized subset simulation. Comput. Geotech. 112,
159–172.
Gong, J., Nie, Z., Zhu, Y., Liang, Z., Wang, X., 2019a. Exploring the effects of particle
shape and content of fines on the shear behavior of sand-fines mixtures via the DEM.
Comput. Geotech. 106, 161–176.
Gong, J., Zou, J., Zhao, L., Li, L., Nie, Z., 2019b. New insights into the effect of inter-
particle friction on the critical state friction angle of granular materials. Comput.
Geotech. 113, 103105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103105.
Gu, X., Zhang, J., Huang, X., 2020. DEM analysis of monotonic and cyclic behaviors of
sand based on critical state soil mechanics framework. Comput. Geotech. 128,
103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103787.
Guo, N., Zhao, J., 2013. The signature of shear-induced anisotropy in granular media.
Comput. Geotech. 47, 1–15.
Huang, X., Hanley, K.J., O’Sullivan, C., Kwok, C.Y., 2014. Exploring the influence of
interparticle friction on critical state behaviour using DEM. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Meth. Geomech. 38 (12), 1276–1297.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 2014. PFC — Particle Flow Code, Ver. 5.0. Minneapolis:
Itasca. Available from https://www.itascacg.com/software-faq.
Hurley, R.C., Hall, S.A., Wright, J.P., 2017. Multi-scale mechanics of granular solids from
grain-resolved X-ray measurements. Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 473
(2207), 20170491.
Iwashita, K., Oda, M., 1999. Mechanics of granular materials: an introduction. CRC Press.
Jamiolkowski, M., Kongsukprasert, L., & Lo Presti, D. C. (2004). Characterization of
gravelly geomaterials. Proceedings of the fifth international geotechnical
conference. Bangkok 22-26 November 2004 (Vol. 2, pp. 29-56).
Jiang, M.D., Yang, Z.X., Barreto, D., Xie, Y.H., 2018. The influence of particle-size
distribution on critical state behavior of spherical and non-spherical particle
assemblies. Granular Matter 20 (4), 1–15.
Jiang, M.J., Yu, H.-S., Harris, D., 2005. A novel discrete model for granular material
incorporating rolling resistance. Comput. Geotech. 32 (5), 340–357.
Kawamoto, R., Andò, E., Viggiani, G., Andrade, J.E., 2016. Level set discrete element
method for three-dimensional computations with triaxial case study. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 91, 1–13.
Li, K.Q., Li, D.Q., Liu, Y., 2020. Meso-scale investigations on the effective thermal
conductivity of multi-phase materials using the finite element method. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 151, 119383.
Liang, W., Zhao, J., 2019. Multiscale modeling of large deformation in geomechanics.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 43 (5), 1080–1114.
Ma, T., Zhang, K., Shen, W., Guo, C., Xu, H., 2021. Discontinuous and continuous
Galerkin methods for compressible single-phase and two-phase flow in fractured
porous media. Adv. Water Resour. 156, 104039.
MiDi, G.D.R., 2004. On dense granular flows. Eur. Phys. J. E 14 (4), 341–365.
MINH, N.H., CHENG, Y.P., 2013. A DEM investigation of the effect of particle-size
distribution on one-dimensional compression. Géotechnique 63 (1), 44–53.
Mollon, G., Zhao, J., 2013. Generating realistic 3D sand particles using Fourier
descriptors. Granular Matter 15 (1), 95–108.
Nadimi, S., Fonseca, J., Andò, E., Viggiani, G., 2020. A micro finite-element model for
soil behaviour: experimental evaluation for sand under triaxial compression.
Géotechnique 70 (10), 931–936.
Nguyen, D.H., Azéma, E., Sornay, P., Radjai, F., 2015. Effects of shape and size
polydispersity on strength properties of granular materials. Phys. Rev. E 91 (3),
032203.
Nie, J.Y., Cao, Z.J., Li, D.Q., Cui, Y.F., 2021. 3D DEM insights into the effect of particle
overall regularity on macro and micro mechanical behaviors of dense sands.
Comput. Geotech. 132 (6), 103965.
Nie, J.Y., Li, D.Q., Cao, Z.J., Zhou, B., Zhang, A.J., 2020. Probabilistic characterization
and simulation of realistic particle shape based on sphere harmonic representation
and Nataf transformation. Powder Technol. 360, 209–220.
O’Sullivan, C., 2011. Particulate discrete element modelling: a geomechanics
perspective. CRC Press.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999. Evaluation of geotechnical property variability. Can.
Geotech. J. 36 (4), 625–639.
Qi, X.H., Li, D.Q., 2018. Effect of spatial variability of shear strength parameters on
critical slip surfaces of slopes. Eng. Geol. 239, 41–49.
Ren, J., Li, S., He, H., Senetakis, K., 2021. The tribological behavior of iron tailing sand
grain contacts in dry, water and biopolymer immersed states. Granul. Matter 23 (1),
1–23.
Rorato, R., Arroyo, M., Andò, E., & Gens, A., 2019. Sphericity measures of sand grains.
Eng. Geol., 254, 43-53.
Rorato, R., Arroyo, M., Andò, E., Gens, A., Viggiani, G., 2020. Linking shape and rotation
of grains during triaxial compression of sand. Granul. Matter 22 (4), 1–21.
Rorato, R., Arroyo, M., Gens, A., Andò, E., & Viggiani, G. (2018). “Particle shape
distribution effects on the triaxial response of sands: a DEM study.” In Micro to
Macro Mathematical Modelling in Soil Mechanics, pp. 277–286. Birkhäuser, Cham,
2018.
Rorato, R., Arroyo, M., Gens, A., Andò, E., Viggiani, G., 2021. Image-based calibration of
rolling resistance in discrete element models of sand. Comput. Geotech. 131,
103929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103929.
Roux, J. & Combe, G., 2010. How granular materials deform in quasistatic conditions, in:
J.D. Goddard, J.T. Jenkins, P.G. (Ed.), IUTAM-ISIMM Symposium on Mathematical
Modeling and Physical Instances of Granular Flow, AIP Conference Proceedings (vol.
1227). p. 260.
Sandeep, S., Senetakis, K., 2018a. Effect of young’s modulus and surface roughness on
the inter-particle friction of granular materials. Materials 11 (2), 217.
J.-Y. Nie et al.
Sandeep, C.S., Senetakis, K., 2018b. Grain-scale mechanics of quartz sand under normal
and tangential loading. Tribol. Int. 117, 261–271.
Schneider-Muntau B., Medicus G., Desrues J., Andò E., & Viggiani G., 2021. Investigation
of Uncertainty in Strength Parameter Identification. In: Barla M., Di Donna A., Sterpi
D. (eds) Challenges and Innovations in Geomechanics. IACMAG 2021.
Schwiteilo, E., Herle, I., 2016. Vergleichsstudie zur Kompressibilität und zu den
Scherparametern von Ton aus Ödometer- und Rahmenscherversuchen. Geotechnik
40, 204–217.
Senetakis, K., Coop, M.R., Todisco, M.C., 2013. The inter-particle coefficient of friction at
the contacts of leighton buzzard sand quartz minerals. Soils Found. 53 (5), 746–755.
Sibille, L., Villard, P., Darve, F., Aboul Hosn, R., 2019. Quantitative prediction of discrete
element models on complex loading paths. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 43
(5), 858–887.
Vangla, P., Latha, G.M., 2015. Influence of particle size on the friction and interfacial
shear strength of sands of similar morphology. Int. J. Geosynthet. Ground Eng. 1 (1),
6.
Vanmarcke, E.H., 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. J. Geotech. Eng. Divis.
103 (11), 1227–1246.
Wang, R., Dafalias, Y.F., Fu, P., Zhang, J.M., 2020. Fabric evolution and dilatancy within
anisotropic critical state theory guided and validated by DEM. Int. J. Solids Struct.
188-189, 210–222.
14
Computers and Geotechnics 141 (2022) 104497
Wang, X., Yin, Z.Y., Xiong, H., Dong, S., Feng, Y.T., 2021. A spherical-harmonic-based
approach to discrete element modeling of 3D irregular particles. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.6766.
Yang, J., Luo, X.D., 2015. Exploring the relationship between critical state and particle
shape for granular materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 84, 196–213.
Yang, J., Luo, X.D., 2018. The critical state friction angle of granular materials: does it
depend on grading? Acta Geotech. 13 (3), 535–547.
Yang, Z., Ching, J., 2021. Simulation of three-dimensional random field conditioning on
incomplete site data. Eng. Geol. 281, 105987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2020.105987.
Yang, Z.Y., Cao, Z.J., Li, D.Q., Phoon, K.K., 2017. Effect of spatially variable friction
coefficient of granular materials on its macro-mechanical behaviors using biaxial
compression numerical simulation. Eng. Mech. 34 (5), 235–246 (in Chinese).
Yang, Z., Nie, J., Peng, X., Tang, D., Li, X., 2021. Effect of random field element size on
reliability and risk assessment of soil slopes. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 80 (10),
7423–7439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02422-z.
Zhao, T., Liu, Y., 2020. A novel random discrete element analysis of rock fragmentation.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 44 (10), 1386–1395.
Zhou, B., Huang, R., Wang, H., Wang, J., 2013. DEM investigation of particle anti-
rotation effects on the micromechanical response of granular materials. Granular
Matter 15 (3), 315–326.