Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

DEM-FEM-MBD coupling analysis of landing process of lunar

lander considering landing mode and buffering mechanism
Shunying Ji ⇑, Shaomin Liang
State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

Received 6 December 2020; received in revised form 2 March 2021; accepted 24 March 2021

Abstract

The safe lander dynamics is an important part of the lunar landing mission. In this paper, a discrete element method (DEM) for lunar
soil is set up, and the finite element method (FEM) for the lander is set up by shell elements and beam elements. The lander is regarded as
a multibody system composed of a cabin, legs and footpads, and its motion characteristics are solved by multibody dynamics (MBD). A
DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm is developed to simulate the landing process of the lander considering landing mode and buffer
mechanism, whose correctness is verified by comparison with a full-scale experiment involving lunar lander on earth. The effects of
the mass, landing velocity and attitude of the lander on the safe landing are discussed. The buffering mechanism and influencing factors
of lunar soil are analyzed. The results show that the impact force peak and impact depth gradually increase with the increase in the land-
ing velocity and mass of the lander. Two kinds of inclined landing modes are defined and compared with vertical landing. It is found that
the force on the landing leg that first contacts the lunar soil is significantly greater than that on the landing leg, that contacts later. The
impact force peak on the lander under the two inclined landing modes is similar, but the impact depth of the 1-2-1 mode is significantly
greater than that of the 2-2 mode. In the process of landing, lunar soil has the function of buffering dissipation. The energy dissipation
rate is affected by the physical characteristics of lunar soil and the mechanical energy of the lander.
Ó 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of COSPAR.

Keywords: DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm; Lunar lander; Safe soft landing; Lunar soil energy absorption ratio; Buffering dissipation mechanism

1. Introduction
The moon is the nearest celestial body to the earth and
the starting point of human space exploration (Wang et al,
2019). In lunar exploration missions, the safe and stable
lander dynamics on the lunar surface not only affects the
safety of the equipment and personnel on board but is also
the key to lunar exploration projects and the premise for
the smooth implementation of future work (Li et al,
2016; Zhu et al, 2015). The lander is subjected to a high
impact load during the process of landing, which is affected
by many factors (Liu et al, 2008; Zheng et al, 2018). To
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jisy@dlut.edu.cn (S. Ji).
reduce the impact load on the lander and protect the
onboard equipment and astronauts, there are two main
landing buffer technologies currently studied, one of which
is the instantaneous reduction in the vertical descent veloc-
ity (Kwon et al, 2016; Ma et al, 2018), which includes the
use of gliders, landing buffer rockets (Zhu et al, 2017)
and retractable brakes. Another approach is to dissipate
energy over a limited distance, including the use of materi-
als with elastic deformation or inelastic deformation or
structures to absorb energy (Moghadam et al, 2019), such
as cushion airbags and aluminum honeycomb (Wang
et al, 2019). Aluminum honeycomb buffering has the char-
acteristics of a simple structure, high reliability and small
influence by temperature, which is widely used in the early
stages of lunar exploration projects.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2021.03.034
0273-1177/Ó 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of COSPAR.

Please cite this article as: S. Ji and S. Liang, DEM-FEM-MBD coupling analysis of landing process of lunar lander considering landing mode and
buffering mechanism, Advances in Space Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2021.03.034
S. Ji, S. Liang
In addition, due to the small range of the lunar surface
observed before landing (Arslantas and Theil, 2018; Gong
et al, 2007) and the fact that the landing site on the lunar
surface cannot be accurately determined (Seo et al, 2016),
the lunar lander may land on a complex lunar surface with
slopes or covered with rocks and craters (Wang et al, 2019;
Zheng et al, 2018). Thus, it is necessary to assess the lan-
der’s safety and stability regarding complex landing sur-
faces under a random initial position and attitude before
landing (Zheng et al, 2018).
Lunar soil is similar to the soil on the earth’s surface in
that it exists in a granular state with discontinuities
(Katagiri et al, 2015; Metzger et al, 2018). Lunar soil plays
an important buffer role during the landing process (Li
et al, 2009). At present, lunar soil is generally regarded as
a continuous medium to analyze the deformation and other
characteristics of lunar landing sites overall, which is unfa-
vorable for studying the discrete characteristics of lunar
soil, such as buffer energy absorption properties (Mishra
and Prasad, 2018). In the 1970s Cundall and Strack pro-
posed the discrete element method (DEM) (Cundall and
Strack, 1979), which developed into an important tool
for simulating granular materials. This method has the
characteristics of simple calculations and high efficiency.
The DEM can set up a numerical model of a discontinuous
medium according to the discrete characteristics, which can
be used to simulate changes in the mechanical parameters
such as the velocity field, displacement field and force field
during the motion of a granular material or system
(Nakashima et al, 2011). The DEM regards the granular
material as a collection of individual particles and thus
effectively overcomes the macro continuity assumption of
the traditional continuum mechanical model and can con-
duct numerical simulations of the mechanical characteris-
tics of granular material from a micro perspective
(Kulchitsky et al, 2016). Therefore, the DEM can be used
to set up a lunar soil model (Gao et al, 2017; Jiang et al,
2013; Li et al, 2010; Liu et al, 2020; Otto et al, 2018).
The structural model of the lander can be set up by the
finite element method (FEM) (Ma, 2018; Zheng et al,
2018). The FEM has been fully developed and widely used
in engineering fields, and has achieved excellent results.
This method has a strong foundation and development in
modeling, static analysis and dynamic analysis. In addi-
tion, to analyze the buffer characteristics of the lander dur-
ing landing, it is generally necessary to set up its own buffer
device, which is realized by the theory of multibody
dynamics (MBD) (Chen and Nie, 2008; Wang et al,
2005). MBD can be used to study systems consisting of
multiple bodies, each of which has mass, inertia and
degrees of freedom. These bodies are connected by joints,
cables, contacts, or other kinematic or force constraints.
Overall, the MBD method has proved to be a useful tool
for the motion analysis of multibody systems (Lommen
et al, 2018). Therefore, an FEM-MBD coupling model
can be set up to analyze the dynamic characteristics of
the landing process of the lander.
2
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
The DEM-FEM-MBD coupling method is effective in
simulating the lander dynamics although the research on
this method is scarce at present. However, the DEM-
FEM coupling algorithm has been widely used in many
engineering problems (Recuero et al, 2016; Recuero et al,
2017; Tu et al, 2017; Zeng et al, 2020; Zheng et al, 2017).
Since the 1990s, the DEM-FEM coupling algorithm has
been developed and improved gradually and has irreplace-
able advantages in working with multiscale problems of the
coupling between granular materials and engineering struc-
tures (Wang et al, 2013; Wang and Ji, 2018; Yang et al,
2020). This method gives full play to the characteristics
of the DEM and FEM and has obvious advantages in solv-
ing multiscale interface coupling problems. The application
of a planetary wheel and soil (Knuth et al, 2012; Michael
et al, 2015; Nakashima et al, 2010; Nakashima et al,
2007; Smith and Peng, 2013) or ball mill and screw con-
veyor (Shi and Xie, 2016) can effectively verify the feasibil-
ity of the DEM-FEM coupling method (Okubo et al,
2020). The FEM-MBD coupling algorithm has made out-
standing contributions in the field of structural fatigue
strength calculations (Olivier et al, 2020; Sanborn et al,
2014; Sutoh et al, 2018). This method has significant
advantages in studying the stress distribution and dynamic
characteristics of structures under high load (El-Ghandour
et al, 2016; Sanborn et al, 2014). The application of fatigue
analysis to locomotive bodies, strength analysis of the
gasoline engine connecting rod and coupled vibration of
the vehicle bridge can be effective, and the feasibility of this
method has been confirmed (El-Ghandour and Foster,
2019). Based on this, the above two methods are developed
and coupled, and a DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm
is proposed to analyze the interaction between the lander
and the lunar soil.
The software Altair/EDEM is mature to deal with
motion properties of granular materials. The software
MSC/ADAMS has also been widely used to simulate the
dynamic characteristics of structures. It can be realized
by builing a coupling channel to transfer the calculation
information when working with the interaction between
the discrete element and the structure (Wang et al, 2018).
However, the method is not mature and is unsuitable for
working with the problem of a large number of particles,
because the transmission of information greatly reduces
the calculation efficiency, or even prevents calculation.
For the problem of asynchronous time steps, the calcula-
tion results may be inaccurate (Lommen et al, 2018).
In this paper, a DEM model of lunar soil and an FEM-
MBD coupling algorithm of the lander are developed with
CUDA C++, and a DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm
is built. The dynamic characteristics of the lander and the
motion characteristics of lunar soil are analyzed in detail.
Then, the main factors affecting the lander dynamics are
analyzed, including the landing velocity, mass of the lander
and landing attitude. Finally, the energy dissipation mech-
anism of lunar soil is analyzed.
S. Ji, S. Liang
2. DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm of the lunar lander
Considering the complexity of DEM-FEM-MBD cou-
pling algorithm, the modeling process is divided into three
parts: set up the discrete element model of lunar soil, build-
ing the finite element model of lander, and determining the
connection mode of multibody structure of lander. The
three parts will be described in detail. Finally, the imple-
mentation of the coupling algorithm based on parameter
transfer is introduced.
2.1. DEM model of the lunar soil
According to the discrete characteristics of lunar soil, a
simulation model of lunar soil can be set up by using dis-
crete elements. Although the construction technology of
arbitrary shape particles is developing rapidly, the content
of this method is not mature. The calculation process of the
contact force between particles with arbitrary shape is very
complex and is not conducive to large-scale calculation (Ji
et al, 2019; Zeng et al, 2015). To improve the simulation
efficiency, randomly arranged spherical elements can be
used to simulate lunar soil (Li and Ji, 2018), as shown in
Fig. 1. The physical properties of lunar soil are affected
by many factors, such as particle size, porosity, cohesion,
internal friction angle, bulk density, particle specific gravity
and particle morphology (Wang et al, 2020). In this paper,
the force between lunar soil particles can be calculated by
the Hertz-Mindlin nonlinear contact model based on
spherical elements. The contact force between particles
mainly includes the elastic force, viscous force and sliding
friction force based on the Coulomb friction criterion
(Ramırez et al, 1999), which is consistent with the physical
process of particle collision (Bui et al, 2009). The existence
of the electrostatic force between lunar soil particles has an
obvious effect on static lunar soil. Accordingly, the electro-
static force is not considered when studying the dynamic
response of lunar soil under an impact load (Pei et al,
2016; Yang et al, 2017).
Fig. 1. Discrete element model of lunar soil and parallel bonding model
between spherical elements.
3
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Under the impact load, lunar soil particles may be bro-
ken, which can be modeled by setting a parallel bonding
model between spherical elements and establishing certain
crushing criteria (Potyondy and Cundall, 2004). In the par-
allel bonding model, two spherical particles are bonded by
setting virtual parallel keys, as shown in Fig. 1. Compared
with the traditional point bonding model, the parallel bond
model can transfer not only forces but also moments. Here,
an elastic bonded disk is used to simulate the parallel bond
of the particle element. The radius of the disk is the mean
of the radii of the two bonded particles. The forces and
moments between the bonded elements can be decomposed
into normal and tangential components as:
F b ¼ F nb þ F sb ð1aÞ
Mb ¼ M nb þ M sb ð1bÞ
where F b andM b are the force and moment on the bonded
area, respectively, and F nb ; F sb ; M nb and M sb are the normal
and tangential components of the bond zone force and
moment.
When the particle element is bonded, the force and tor-
que increment will be generated in the bonding area due to
the change of element position and rotation angle in each
calculation step, which will affect the bonding state
between particles. The increment of force and moment
can be calculated by the following formula:

DF nb ¼ ðk n A DU n Þnij ð2aÞ

DF sb ¼ ðk s A DU s Þsij ð2bÞ

DM nb ¼ ðk n J Dbn Þnij ð2cÞ

DM sb ¼ ðk s I Dbs Þsij ð2dÞ
where DF nb , DF sb , DM nb and DM sb are the normal and
tangential force and torque increments of the bonding
zone, respectively; DU n ¼ V ij  nij Dt and DU s ¼ V ij  sij Dt
are the relative displacement in the normal and
tangential 
directions of two particles, respectively, Dbn ¼ xj  xi 


nij Dt, and Dbs ¼ xj  xi  sij Dt are the normal and
tangential rotation angles of the two particles respectively;
V ij is the relative velocity between the two particles.
i j
k n ¼ kknni þk
kn
n
j is the normal stiffness coefficient of spherical
elements. The normal stiffness coefficient of parallel bond-

RR
ing model is k n ¼ pE Ri þR
i j
j
. k s ¼ k n =2 is the tangential stiff-
ness coefficient of spherical elements. The tangential
 
stiffness coefficient of parallel bonding model is k s ¼ k1n ;
1 is the coefficient associated with m ; m is the Poisson’s ratio
of granular materials, A is the area of the bonded disk, J is
the polar moment of inertia of the bonded disk, and I is the
moment of inertia of the bonded disk, which can be calcu-
lated by the following equation:
1 1
A ¼ pR2 J ¼ pR4 I ¼ pR4 ð3Þ
2 4
S. Ji, S. Liang
where R is the radius of the bonded disk. Based on the
beam theoretical model, the failure criterion of the disk is
established, in which the maximum tensile stress rmax and
maximum shear stress smax act on the disk and can be
expressed as:
F nb jM sb j
rmax ¼ þ R
A I
F sb jM nb j
smax ¼ þ R ð5Þ
A J
When the maximum tensile stress rmax and maximum shear
stress smax of the bonded disk between particles reach the
failure strength, the bonding between particles fails, which
leads to particle breakage on the macro scale.
Generally, the landing time of a lander is short, and the
impact area of the shock wave generated by it is limited.
Accordingly, to improve the calculation efficiency, a finite
simulation domain of lunar soil particles can be estab-
lished, and the non-reflection boundary conditions around
and at the bottom are used to simulate the infinite space
domain. The dynamic compaction method provides a sim-
ulation method for the propagation distance of the shock
wave in granular media (Closs and Cook, 1987):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
D ¼ a ðMH =1000Þ ð6Þ
where D is the propagation distance of the shock wave in
the lunar base during the impact of the lander, whose unit
is m; ais the factor determined by the physical properties of
the lunar soil, and its value range is generally 0.42–0.8; M is
the mass of the lander structure, whose unit is kg; and H is
the equivalent free-falling height of the lander, whose unit
is m, which can be calculated by the landing velocity. To
satisfy the simulation domain and ensure the calculation
efficiency, the particle size of the lunar soil discrete element
model is larger than that of the actual lunar soil particle. In
the study, the numerical model of lunar soil is used to
replace the real lunar weathering layer, and the interaction
model between lunar soil model and structure is realized by
certain algorithm. Therefore, the difference of particle size
can be tolerated, which can ensure the correctness of the
calculation results by adjusting the calculation parameters.
At present, experimental studies of lunar soil usually
adopt volcanic rock as the simulated lunar soil. In this
paper, the parameters of the simulated lunar soil are used
for the numerical simulation (Hou et al, 2018), and the
Table 1
Computational parameters of lunar soil in the DEM simulation.
Parameter Symbol Value
Particle size R 45 cm
Number of particles n 190,200
Maximum tensile stress of the disk rmax 1.2 MPa
Maximum shear stress of the disk smax 0.3 MPa
Elastic modulus of lunar soil E 48.8 MPa
Friction coefficient between lunar soil l 0.44
Resilience coefficient of lunar soil e 0.35
Density of lunar soil q 1370 kg=m3
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
computational parameters are listed in Table 1. The elastic
modulus of lunar soil collected from the moon is
48.863 MPa, and that of artificial lunar soil is generally
11.1 ~ 80.0 MPa (Alshibli and Hasan, 2009). Therefore,
the elastic simulation selected in this paper is 48.8 MPa.
ð4Þ
2.2. FEM model of the lunar lander
Referring to the Chang’e-4 lander (Fig. 2(a)), a struc-
tural model of the lander is set up, which consists of a cabin
and 4 sets of landing gear. Each set of landing gear includes
a primary landing leg, two secondary landing legs, and a
footpad, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The landing leg is filled with
aluminum honeycomb. The footpad and cabin are com-
posed of shell elements of a certain thickness. The primary
struts are composed of beam elements.
The Crank-Nicolson method is used to solve the
dynamic equation of the structure:
M€ut þ C u_ t þ Kut ¼ F t ð7Þ
where M; C and K are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices of the structure, respectively, and F t is the exter-
_ €
nal load on time t. ut ; ut and ut are the displacement,
velocity and acceleration matrices of the structure at the
_ €
instant of time t, respectively. ut and ut can be obtained
by the central difference method:
(
u_ t ¼ gDt
1
ðut  utDt Þ  1g u_ tDt
g
ð8Þ
€ut ¼ gDt
1
ðu_ t  u_ tDt Þ  1g
g
€utDt
where Dt is the time step and utDt , u_ tDt and €utDt are the
displacement, velocity and acceleration of the structure,
respectively, at time t  Dt. g is a computational parameter
that ensures the stability of the calculation results
(g ¼ 0:5).
To obtain the stiffness matrix of the structure, the flat
shell element of the lander structure can be considered a
combination of planar membrane elements and plate bend-
ing elements, as shown in Fig. 3. For isotropic shell ele-
ments, the deformation of the planar membrane elements
and the plate bending element is relatively independent,
so the solution of the original element can converge
through the fine division of the elements. The global stiff-
ness matrix is singular as the elements are coplanar or
nearly coplanar. A generalized coordinated triangular flat
shell element composed of the triangular membrane ele-
ment GT9 and triangular thin plate element TMT with
an additional rigid body rotation angle can be used to elim-
inate the singularity (Li, 2015). The TMT element is univer-
sal for triangular thin and thick plates and is suitable for
small deformation problems. The element stiffness matrix
can be composed of the stiffness matrix of the two elements
as:
4
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

(a) Chang'e-4 lander (b) Finite element model of the lander

Fig. 2. Chang’e-4 lander and its finite element model for the simulation.

(a) Triangle planar membrane element (b) Triangle plate bending element

Fig. 3. Triangular shell element for constructing the lander structure.

2 3
k m;11 k m;12 0 0 0 k m;13 comb materials can be divided into two types: out-of-plane
6k k m;22 0 k m;23 7 compression and in-plane compression. Because the aver-
6 m;21 0 0 7
6 7 age stress of out-of-plane compression is large, it is often
6 0 0 k b;11 k b;12 k b;13 0 7
Ke ¼ 6
6
7
7 ð9Þ used in the design of the buffer. The secondary buffer device
6 0 0 k b;21 k b;22 k b;23 0 7 uses two kinds of honeycomb material to cushion the
6 7
4 0 0 k b;31 k b;32 k b;33 0 5 impact force in series. Here, a prismatic joint is used to
k m;31 k m;32 0 0 0 k m;33 connect the outside cylinder and the inside cylinder of the
landing leg to realize the simulation of its buffer device.
where K e is the stiffness matrix of the shell element, k m;ij is Fig. 5(b) and 5(c) show the simple diagrams of the relation-
the stiffness coefficient of the planar membrane element, ship between the load and the energy absorption and the
and k b;ij is the stiffness coefficient of the plate bending compression of aluminum honeycomb material.
element. When characterizing the relative motion between the
parts of the lander and the motion state of the whole struc-
ture, it is necessary to set up the global coordinate system
2.3. MBD model of the lunar lander for the overall motion and the local coordinate system
for the motion of each part and to establish the transfor-
To realize the buffer device of the landing leg and ensure mation relationships between each local coordinate system
structural coordination during the landing, a multibody and the global coordinate system. Taking any joint and its
structure system of the lander is built. The lander is divided two connecting bodies as an example, the coordinate sys-
into a cabin, landing leg and footpad. The cabin and land- tems of the multibody structure are plotted in Fig. 6.
ing leg are connected by a revolute joint, and the landing The local coordinates of the inside connecting body,
leg and footpad are connected by a spherical joint. The outside connecting body, inside joint and outside joint
topology and connection mode between the three parts are established. The body-fixed bases of the inside connect-
are indicated in Fig. 4, where B0 represents the cabin, B1 ,

ing body and outside connecting body are e11 ; e12 ; e13 and
B4 , B7 and B10 represent the cylinder, that upper strut fixed
2 2 2
e ; e ; e , respectively. The inside joint coordinate is
to the lander main body, B2 , B5 , B8 and B11 represent the
11 21 31 

cylinder, that lower moveable part of the lander. B3 , B6 , h1 ; h2 ; h3 , and the outside joint coordinate is h21 ; h22 ; h23 .
B9 and B12 represent the footpads. The conversion between the outside joint and outside
The landing leg is filled with a honeycomb structure to connecting body, the inside connecting body and inside
realize the buffering function, and a secondary buffer device joint, and the inside joint and outside joint can be
is designed, as plotted in Fig. 5. The deformation of honey- expressed as:
5
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

(a) Topology (b) Connection modes

Fig. 4. Components and connection modes of the lander multibody system.

(a) The secondary buffer device of the landing leg

(b) Simplified collapse diagram of secondary aluminum (c) Energy diagram of crushing process
honeycomb material

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the secondary buffer device of the landing leg.

2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 13
e21 h21 h11 e11 h21 h11 e21 e1
6 27 T 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 27 6 17
4 e2 5 ¼ H 22 4 h22 5; 4 h12 5 ¼ H 11 4 e12 5; 4 h22 5 ¼ H 21 4 h12 5 4 e2 5 ¼ H 22 H 21 H 11 4 e2 5
T
ð11Þ
e23 h23 h13 e13 h23 h13 e23 e13
ð10Þ
A2;1 ¼ H T22 H 21 H 11 , so,
where H T22 ; H 11 and H 21 are transformation matrices, 2 23 2 13
e1 e1
which can be obtained by the Euler angle or quaternions. 6 27 6 17
4 e2 5 ¼ A2;1 4 e2 5 ð12Þ
The conversion relationship between the inside connecting
body and the outside connecting body can be expressed as: e23 e13
6
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 7. Translational transfer of the mass centers of contiguous bodies.

Fig. 6. Local coordinates of the inside connecting body, outside connect-

ing body, inside joint and outside joint and the fixed global coordinate respectively, and Q and P are the joint points of the two
system and transformations between each part. bodies.
Hence, the displacement of the centroid of the external
body can be expressed as:
Hence, when the multibody system has multiple struc-
tures, the transformation relationship between the body- ri ¼ rLðiÞ þ riq þ riqp  rip ð16Þ
fixed basis vector of the first structure and the global coor-
where riqp is the relative displacement between the two joint
dinate base vector ðg 1 ; g2 ; g3 Þ can be expressed as:
2 i3 2 3 points. The rotation between contiguous bodies can be
e1 g1 obtained by:
6 i7 6 7
4 e2 5 ¼¼ Ai;i1 Ai1;i2    A1;0 4 g2 5 ð13Þ xi ¼ xri þ xLðiÞ ð17Þ
i
e3 g3
According to the superposition principle, the rotation of
The quaternion is effective for the transformation rela- body i caused by the rotation of the first inside connecting
tionship between coordinates. The transformation matrix body can be calculated from:
X
H can be obtained by quaternions Qðq0 ; q1 ; q2 ; q3 Þ and xi ¼ xrk þ x0 ð18Þ
expressed as: k2i
2 2 3
q0 þ q21  q22  q23 2ð q1 q2 þ q0 q 3 Þ 2ð q1 q3  q0 q2 Þ where xrk is the angular velocity of body k relative to its
6 7inside connecting body LðkÞ, x . is the angular velocity
H ¼ 4 2ð q1 q2  q0 q3 Þ q0  q0 þ q0  q0
2 2 2 2
2ð q2 q3 þ q0 q1 Þ 5 0
2 of body 0.
2ð q1 q3 þ q0 q2 Þ 2ð q2 q3  q0 q 1 Þ q20  q21  q22 þ q3
ð14Þ
2.4. DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm of lunar lander
The updated quaternions can be expressed as:
At each time step of the DEM-FEM-MBD coupling
2 3nþ1 2 3n 2 3n 2 3n
q0 q0 q0 q1 q2 q3 0 algorithm, the contact detection and node equivalent force
6 7
q1 7 6 7 6 7 6x 7 calculation are carried out by the DEM and FEM-MBD
6 6 q1 7 Dt 6 q1 q0 q3 q2 7 6 17
6 7 ¼6 7 þ 6 7 6 7 coupling sections, which are transferred to FEM-MBD
4 q2 5 4 q2 5 2 4 q2 q3 q0 q1 5 4 x2 5
for the stress computation and the dynamic calculation.
q3 q3 q3 q2 q1 q0 x3 Due to the relationship between the multibody structures,
ð15Þ the movement is restricted in some directions, which
reflects the motion characteristics of the multibody struc-
whereðx1 ; x2 ; x3 Þ denote the components of relative rota-

 ture. The displacement and strain update of the structure
tional velocity in the three directions of ei1 ; ei2 ; ei3 . More- are transformed into the displacement of the coupling
over, the introduction of quaternion update is relatively interface as the displacement boundary condition of the
simply; a more detailed description of the quaternion discrete element. The program flowchart of the DEM-
update can be found in the work of Fritzer (Fritzer, 2001). FEM-MBD coupling algorithm is shown in Fig. 8. The
Since the motion of the contiguous body drives the information transfer on the coupling section is the key
motion of the body itself, the motion of the contiguous problem of the coupling algorithm.
body is divided into translation and rotation. The transmis- When the lunar soil interacts with the lander structure,
sion diagram of the centroid motion of contiguous bodies the contact position between the lunar soil and lander
is plotted in Fig. 7, where CLðiÞ and Ci are the centroids structure is random. Therefore, it is necessary to determine
of the inside connecting body and outside connecting body, the equivalent nodal load of the lander under load. The
7
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 8. Program flowchart of the DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm.

lunar soil is composed of spherical elements, and the lander

structure is composed of beam elements and flat shell ele-
ments. The node equivalent force of the spherical discrete
elements and flat shell elements can be obtained according
to the principle of virtual work (Wellmann et al, 2008):
f i ¼ N T fDEM ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð19Þ
where f i is the equivalent node force of the element, fDEM is
the force of the DEM, and N is the shape function of the
element. Here, the shape function of the element is con-
structed by using the area coordinates of the triangle:
N i ¼ Li ¼Ai =A ð20Þ Fig. 9. Equivalent element force computation model of a triangular shell
element.
where Li is the area coordinate of the triangle, Ai is the area
enclosed by the action point and the other two element fF e gT ¼ ½NT  ff i0 ; f j0 ; f k0 gT ð21Þ
nodes, and A is the area of the triangular element, as plot-
ted in Fig. 9. where fi0 is the contact force of the beam element in the
The contact force and contact point coordinates of the 0

spherical element and beam element are obtained in the local coordinate system in the direction of i , which is com-
local coordinate system, as plotted in Fig. 10. According posed of normal and tangential parts; ½N is the transfor-
to Hertz-Mindlin theory, assuming that both ends of the mation matrix of the equivalent node force; and ½N A ; N B 
beam element are fixed, the equivalent node forces of the is composed of
two elements in the local coordinate system can be
obtained by static equilibrium: ð3a þ bÞb2
NA
ij ¼   dij ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð22Þ
L3
8
S. Ji, S. Liang
Fig. 10. Equivalent element force computation model of a beam element.
ð3b þ aÞa2
N Bij ¼   dij ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ
L3
where L is the length of the beam element, aı; and;b are the
distances from the contact point to the nodes at both ends,
and dij is a Kronecker symbol.
3. Validation
To verify the correctness of the above methods, the
landing process of the lander is studied and compared with
the vertical landing experiment on the earth (Hou et al,
2018). In the experiment, a full-scale manned lunar lander
with a buffer device is used. The experiment is realized on
the earth in vertical landing. The gravity acceleration is
g¼  9:81m=s2 , the mass of the lander is 3000 kg, and
the landing speed is 6.2 m/s.
The results of experiment and simulation are listed in
Table 2. The simulation result of single leg impact force
is slightly larger than the experiment value. In the experi-
ment, the triggering loads of the two stage buffer device
of the lander are 50 kN and 90 kN respectively, and the
maximum compression capacity of the buffer device is
200 mm. The maximum load on the single leg is less than
the critical load that allows the second stage buffer to work,
so the second stage buffer does not work. In the simulation,
the maximum load of the single leg is 94 kN, which is
greater than the trigger load of the two-stage buffer device,
so the two-stage buffer devices play a role. Therefore, the
immersion depth of the lander into the soil is slightly shal-
lower than the experimental results. The single leg impact
force calculated by Altair/EDEM (Hou, 2018) is much lar-
Table 2
Comparison the result of the experiment and simulation.
Contents Simulation Experiment Altair/EDEM
Maximum force of leg 94 kN 80 kN 132 kN
Immersion depth 88 mm 90 mm 145 mm
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
ger than that of the experiment, which is mainly due to the
rigid structure in Altair/EDEM and the self-buffering effect
of the lander is not realized. In addition, the immersion
depth calculated by Altair/EDEM is significantly larger
than that of the experiment. The above results show that
the DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm is reliable.
4. Dynamic response analysis of the lander during landing
To account for the short duration of the landing pro-
cess, the simulation time is set to 1.0 s. The calculation
parameters of the lander are listed in Table 3. Fig. 11 shows
the dynamic characteristics of the lunar soil and lander
structure during the landing, from which we can see the
movement of lunar soil particles under impact. When
t = 40 ms, the lunar soil at the contact point obtains a cer-
tain velocity. When t = 80 ms, the lunar soil around the
ð23Þ contact point also achieves a velocity, which indicates that
momentum transfer also occurs between lunar soil parti-
cles. When t = 120 ms, the lunar soil at the landing site
obviously splashes; and when t = 1000 ms, the lunar soil
particles basically reach a stable state.
The dynamic time history curve of the lander during
landing is obtained by using a landing velocity of 4 m=s,
as presented in Fig. 12. The load on the lander fluctuates
at the initial stage of contact between the lander and the
lunar soil due to the buffer device. In addition, the figure
shows that the landing time of the lander is approximately
0.6 s, and the impact depth is approximately 45 cm. Here,
the impact depth is the height of the center of mass falling.
Fig. 12(d) presents the change in the mechanical energy of
the lunar soil. At the moment of contact with the lander,
the lunar soil obtains a higher mechanical energy that
decreases slowly. When the lunar soil contacts the lander,
momentum transfer occurs at the contact point. The
mechanical energy of the lander decreases rapidly, and
the particles gain more momentum. Through the interac-
tion of particles as a result of collision and friction,
momentum is transferred to the surrounding particles so
that more particles can obtain mechanical energy. The col-
lision between particles causes plastic deformation and
even the breakage of particles, which makes the energy
change irreversibly, and the friction between particles
transforms mechanical energy into heat energy. In this
way, the mechanical energy of the whole collision system
is transformed and absorbed so that the lunar soil acts as
a buffer for the lander.
During landing, the footpad first contacts the lunar soil
and receives the longitudinal load of the lunar soil. Fig. 13
plots the von Mises stress distribution of the footpad at dif-
ferent times. Since the stress of each footpad is basically the
same at the same time, one of them is selected for analysis.
The stress is mainly concentrated at the bottom of the foot-
pad, that is, the contact with the lunar soil and the stress
value is relatively large at the initial contact time. Then,
the stress gradually decreases.
9
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Computational parameters of the lander in the FEM-MBD simulation.
Parameter Symbol Value
Lander mass M 1000 kg
Elastic modulus of the lander Es 207 GPa
Friction coefficient between the lander and lunar soil ls 0.3
Resilience coefficient of the lander es 0.1
Poisson’s ratio c 0.3
Density of the lander qs 7860 kg/m3
Acceleration due to gravity g 1.63 m/s2
Number of elements / 4084

t = 0 ms t = 40 ms t = 80 ms

t = 120 ms t = 570 ms t = 1000 ms

(a) Impact force vs. time (b) Velocity of the lander vs. time

(c) Impact depth vs. time (d) Variation in the mechanical energy of the lunar soil
with time in the landing system

Fig. 12. Dynamic characteristics of the lander and mechanical energy change of lunar soil during landing.

5. Analysis of the influencing factors on the landing process
The impact depth, impact force peak value and acceler-
ation of the lander are mainly affected by the impact veloc-
ity, soil compaction and mass of the lander. The impact
velocity and the mass of the lander directly affect the initial
mechanical energy of the landing system, which will be dis-
10
cussed in detail. Finally, the slope landing and lunar soil
energy absorption are analyzed.
5.1. Influence of the landing velocity
One of the factors affecting the landing is the impact
velocity. The variation in the peak impact force on the lan-
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

t = 70 ms t = 140 ms t = 240 ms t = 360 ms

Fig. 13. von Mises stress nephogram of one footpad at different times during landing.

der during landing is presented in Fig. 14, which shows that

the impact force peak rises with an increase in the impact
velocity. The increase rate of the peak impact force is low
when the velocity is low, and the impact force peak
increases with increasing linear velocity when the velocity
is high. Fig. 15 presents the relationship between the
impact depth and impact velocity. Here, the impact depth
refers to the descent distance of the mass center of the lan-
der after the lander contacts the lunar soil. With an
increase in the impact velocity, the kinetic energy of the
lander increases, and it will reach a greater depth; that is,
the vertical displacement will increase.
The variation in the energy absorbed by the lunar soil
with the impact velocity is presented in Fig. 16. At the
Fig. 15. Impact depth of the lander at different landing velocities.
moment when the mechanical energy of the particle system
is a maximum, considering the mechanical energy change
of the lander, the energy absorbed by the buffer device
and the strain energy of the footpad, the energy absorbed cal energy of the system and the greater the energy
by the particle system is calculated by using the law of absorbed by the particles.
the conservation of energy. The energy absorbed by the
particles increases linearly with an increase in the impact 5.2. Influence of the lander mass
velocity. This is mainly because when the landing velocity
is higher, the impact depth of the lander is greater, which An impact velocity of 4 m/s is chosen to study the influ-
makes the structure have a larger contact area with the ence of different masses of the lander on the landing pro-
lunar soil to transfer momentum. Then, more granular cess. Fig. 17 presents the variation in the peak impact
media can obtain kinetic energy, thus consuming the force with the mass of the lander. The impact force peak
mechanical energy of the landing system. In addition, the increases with an increase in the mass of the lander; when
higher the impact velocity, the greater the initial mechani- the mass reaches a certain value, the peak value tends to
be stable. Accordingly, when the mass of the lander reaches
a certain value, the mass of the lander is no longer the influ-
encing factor of the impact load. The impact depth
increases linearly with an increase in mass, as presented
in Fig. 18. Because the impact force does not increase when
the mass increases, the acceleration of the lander changes
slowly, and it takes a long time for the lander to reduce
its velocity to 0. Thus, the impact depth is greater.
Fig. 19 presents the energy absorbed by the lunar soil
with the variation in the lander mass. It can be seen that
the energy absorbed by the granular media increases lin-
early with an increase in the mass of the lander. When
the mass of the lander is large, the impact depth also
increases. The lander transfers more mechanical energy to
the granular media, which converts the mechanical energy
into other forms of energy through the collision and sliding
Fig. 14. Peak impact force on the lander at different landing velocities. friction between the particles to dissipate the energy of the
11
S. Ji, S. Liang
Fig. 16. Energy absorbed and dissipated by lunar soil at different landing
velocities.
Fig. 17. Impact force peak on the lander for different lander masses.
Fig. 18. Impact depth of the lander for different lander masses.
whole system. In addition, when the mass of the lander is
large, the initial mechanical energy of the system is high,
so the energy absorbed by the particles is high.
5.3. Influence of the landing attitude and inclination of the
lunar surface
With the development of deep space exploration tech-
nology, new lunar landers must land on complex lunar sur-
12
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 19. Energy absorbed and dissipated by lunar soil for different lander
masses.
faces with rocks, craters and slopes (Arslantas, 2018; Gong,
2007; Seo, 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the
landing characteristics of the lunar lander. Owing to the
differences in the flatness of the landing site and the inclina-
tion direction of the lander, the landing modes are various.
According to the landing sequence of the supporting legs,
two typical inclined landing modes are defined as indicated
in Fig. 20. In the 2-2 landing mode, legs 1 and 2 contact the
lunar surface first, and then legs 3 and 4 contact the lunar
surface. In the 1-2-1 landing mode, leg 1 contacts the lunar
surface first, followed by leg 2 and leg 3 and finally leg 4.
Since leg 1 penetrates the lunar soil to a certain depth,
leg 4 does not contact the lunar soil at the same time.
A landing velocity of 4 m/s is selected to compare the
landing process of 1-2-1, 2-2 and 4-0 landing modes. The
vertical landing mode is considered 4-0 landing mode. Dur-
ing the inclined landing, the slope of the lunar surface is set
to 5°. The motion status at different times is shown in
Fig. 21. The impact depth of the lander is shallower in
the 1-2-1 mode, and the splash of lunar soil is more severe
in the 2-2 mode.
The force of each landing leg under different landing
modes is presented in Fig. 22. It can be found that the loads
along the four legs of the lander in the 4-0 mode are basi-
cally the same. In the 1-2-1 mode, it is obvious that leg 1
first contacts the lunar soil and is subject to the largest
force, and then the three legs are under the same force. It
can be clearly seen that leg 1 and leg 2 bear the impact force
before t = 0.03 s, after which leg 3 and leg 4 mainly bear the
impact force. A comparison of the sum of the loads of the 4
leg contributions among the three landing modes is pre-
sented in Fig. 22(d). It can be found that the interaction
time between the lander and lunar soil in the 4-0 mode is
the shortest and that in the 2-2 mode is the longest. The
peak force in the 4-0 mode is significantly greater than that
in the tilted landing mode.
When the slope angle of the lunar surface is different, the
impact force peak of the lander under the two landing
modes varies with the slope angle, as shown in Fig. 23. It
is found that the impact load of the lander under the 2-2
S. Ji, S. Liang Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

(a) 2-2 landing mode (b) 1-2-1 landing mode

Fig. 20. Landing modes on a sloped lunar surface.

t = 0 ms t = 40 ms t = 120 ms t = 570 ms
(a) 4-0 landing mode

t = 0 ms t = 70 ms t = 90 ms t = 570 ms
(b) 1-2-1 landing mode

t = 0 ms t = 70 ms t = 100 ms t = 570 ms
(c) 2-2 landing mode

Fig. 21. Motion characteristics of the lander and lunar soil under three landing modes during landing.

mode is slightly greater than that under the 1-2-1 mode for
angle > 7.5°. The impact depth of the lander gradually
increases with an increase in the slope angle, but the change
is slow, and the impact depth in the 1-2-1 mode is signifi-
cantly greater than that in the 2-2 mode, as shown in
Fig. 24.
The buffering effect of particles is mainly due to the
strong extrusion and friction between the particles under
the impact load, and the structure of the internal complex
force chain is broken and reorganized, consuming a signif-
icant amount of energy (Mwangi and Kanny, 2012). Due
to the plastic deformation and viscous effect between parti-
cles, the energy of the system changes irreversibly and is
absorbed. In the particle system, the contact force is trans-
mitted through the force chain, which makes the local
impact load continuously expand in space and then reduces
the impact strength. In addition, the force chain has a sig-
nificant time effect on the force propagation, which delays
the instantaneous impact load in time, thus playing a buffer
13
role. Therefore, the proportion of energy absorbed by the
lunar soil is affected by the initial mechanical energy and
friction coefficient of the lander (Ciantia et al, 2016).
Since the friction coefficient of the lunar soil directly
determines the ability of the system to convert mechanical
energy into heat energy, the friction coefficient has a direct
impact on the energy absorption effect of lunar soil. Fig. 25
presents the influence of the lunar soil friction coefficient on
the lunar soil energy absorption for three landing modes.
The mechanical energy of the lander before landing is E0.
When the strain energy of the structure reaches the maxi-
mum, the strain energy of the structure is E1. At this time,
the mechanical energy of the lander is E2. The energy
absorbed by the self-generating buffer device of the lander
is E3. According to the energy conservation, the energy
absorbed by lunar soil is E4 = E0- E1- E2- E3 and the energy
absorption ratio of lunar soil is E4 / E0. It can be seen that
the proportion of lunar soil absorbed energy decreases with
an increase in the lunar soil friction coefficient. A compar-
S. Ji, S. Liang
(a) 4-0 landing mode
(c) 2-2 landing mode
Fig. 22. Force comparison among the landing legs under different landing modes.
Fig. 23. Impact force peak on the lander at different slope angles of the
lunar surface in two landing modes.
ison of the three landing modes shows that the energy
absorption ratio of lunar soil under the 2-2 mode is slightly
higher than that under the other two modes, which is due
to the long contact time between the lunar soil and lander
structure under the 2-2 landing mode. There is sufficient
momentum transfer between the lunar soil and lander.
The main role of friction is to prevent relative sliding
and rolling between the lunar soil particles and the lander
and achieve the consumption of energy through relative
sliding at the contact surface. When the particle friction
coefficient is small, the stability of the particle system is
weak, so it is easy to slide or even locally flow. The motion
distance of the lander in the granular material is long. With
14
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
(b) 1-2-1 landing mode
(d) Comparison of the sum of the loads of the 4 leg
contributions among the landing modes
Fig. 24. Impact depth of the lander at different slope angles of the lunar
surface in two landing modes.
an increase in the friction coefficient, the running distance
of the lander in lunar soil particles is relatively short, and
the energy absorbed by the lunar soil is relatively low.
The above results show that smooth particles have a better
buffering performance.
The initial mechanical energy of the lander also has
some influence on the energy absorption effect of the lunar
soil. The initial mechanical energy of the lander is charac-
terized by the landing velocity, and the effect on lunar soil
energy absorption is studied, as shown in Fig. 26. It can be
seen that when the initial mechanical energy of the lander is
low, the absorption ratio of the lunar soil decreases with an
increase in the initial mechanical energy and then increases
S. Ji, S. Liang
Fig. 25. Effect of the friction coefficient of lunar soil on energy dissipation
by lunar soil under three landing modes.
Fig. 26. Effect of the landing velocity on energy dissipation by lunar soil
under three landing modes.
gradually. Under the three landing modes, the order of the
absorption ratio of lunar soil is 4-0 < 1-2-1 < 2-2; that is,
the absorption ratio of lunar soil in the 2-2 mode is the
highest.
In addition, other physical properties of lunar soil and
the friction coefficient between lunar soil and lander also
play an important role in the energy dissipation of the
whole system, which will not be discussed in detail here.
6. Conclusions
A DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm is developed to
study the motion characteristics of the lander and the
dynamic characteristics of the lunar soil during the landing
process at different attitudes. The lunar soil is simulated by
DEM. The FEM of the multibody structure of a lander is
developed. The second buffer device of the landing leg is
designed and realized by prism joint. Subsequently, the cor-
rectness of the DEM-FEM-MBD coupling algorithm is
verified by comparing it with a full-scale experiment of a
lunar lander on earth. Moreover, the main factors affecting
the landing safety of the lander are studied. It is found that
the impact force peak and the depth increase with the
15
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
increase in landing speed and mass. In addition, the influ-
ence of different inclined landing modes is studied in detail.
The impact force peaks of the two inclined landing modes
are similar. However, the impact depth in the 1-2-1 mode is
significantly greater than that in the 2-2 mode. By compar-
ing the three landing modes, the order of the lunar soil
energy absorption ratio is 4-0 < 1-2-1 < 2-2. Finally, the
main factors influencing lunar soil energy absorption are
studied in detail. It is found that the proportion of energy
absorbed by lunar soil in total energy decreases with the
increase in friction coefficient. When the initial mechanical
energy of the lander is low, the energy absorption ratio of
the lunar soil decreases with an increase in the initial
mechanical energy and then increases gradually. These
results provide a theoretical basis for the analysis of the
mechanism of energy absorption and dissipation of lunar
soil, and provide a useful reference for the realization of
safely soft lunar landings.
In addition, the time step of the coupling algorithm in
this paper is the DEM time step, which ensures the accu-
racy of the calculation, but sacrifices the computational
efficiency. The main force of future work will be to solve
the asynchronous problem of the time step. This paper also
uses spherical particles to simulate lunar soil, which is
approximate to a certain extent, and cannot fully realize
the simulation of lunar soil morphology. Due to the limita-
tion of current theory and technology, it is impossible to
realize large-scale calculation of non-spherical particles,
which will be a main goal in the future.
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.
Acknowledgements
This study is financially supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11872136)
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (Grant No. DUT19GJ206).
Compliance with ethical standards
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Alshibli, K.A., Hasan, A., 2009. Strength Properties of JSC-1A Lunar
Regolith Simulant. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (5), 673–679.
Arslantas, Y.E., Theil, S., 2018. Attainable Landing Area Computation of
a Lunar Lander with Uncertainty by Reachability Analysis. Adv.
Aerospace Guid., Navig. Control. 41 (1), 497–513.
Bui, H.H., Kobayashi, T., Fukagawa, R., Wells, J.C., 2009. Numerical
and experimental studies of gravity effect on the mechanism of lunar
excavations. J. Terramech. 46 (3), 115–124.
S. Ji, S. Liang
Chen, J., Nie, H., 2008. Overloading of landing based on the deformation
of the lunar lander. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 21, 43–47.
Ciantia, M.O., Arroyo, M., Butlanska, J., Gens, A., 2016. DEM
modelling of cone penetration tests in a double-porosity crushable
granular material. Comput. Geotech. 73, 109–127.
Closs, D.J., Cook, R.L., 1987. Multi-Stage Transportation Consolidation
Analysis Using Dynamic Simulation. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Mater.
Manage. 17 (3), 28–45.
Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D.L., 1979. A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Géotechnique. 29 (1), 47–65.
El-Ghandour, A., Hamper, M.B., Foster, C.H., 2016. Coupled finite
element and multibody system dynamics modeling of a three-dimen-
sional railroad system. J. Rail Rapid Transit. 7, 1–12.
El-Ghandour, A.I., Foster, C.D., 2019. Coupled finite element and
multibody systems dynamics modelling for the investigation of the
bridge approach problem. J. Rail Rapid Transit. 1, 1–15.
Fritzer, H.P., 2001. Molecular symmetry with quaternions. Spectrochim.
Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 57 (10), 1919–1930.
Gao, X., Tang, D., Yue, H., Jiang, S., Deng, Z., 2017. Influence of friction
on sampling disturbance of lunar surface in direct push sampling
method based on DEM. Adv. Space Res. 59 (12), 3036–3044.
Gong, S., Li, J., Baoyin, H., Gao, Y., 2007. Lunar landing trajectory
design based on invariant manifold. Appl. Math. Mech. 28 (2), 201–
207.
Hou, X., Xue, P., Wang, Y., Cao, P., Tang, T., 2018. Theoretical and
discrete element simulation studies of aircraft landing impact. J. Braz.
Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 40 (3), 114–129.
Ji, S., Wang, S., Peng, Z., 2019. Influence of external pressure on granular
flow in a cylindrical silo based on discrete element method. Powder
Technol. 356, 702–714.
Jiang, M., Shen, Z., Thornton, C., 2013. Microscopic contact model of
lunar regolith for high efficiency discrete element analyses. Comput.
Geotech. 54, 104–116.
Katagiri, J., Matsushima, T., Yamada, Y., Tsuchiyama, A., Nakano, T.,
Uesugi, K., Ohtake, M., Saiki, K., 2015. Investigation of 3D Grain
Shape Characteristics of Lunar Soil Retrieved in Apollo 16 Using
Image-Based Discrete-Element Modeling. J. Aerosp. Eng. 28 (4),
04014092.
Knuth, M.A., Johnson, J.B., Hopkins, M.A., Sullivan, R.J., Moore, J.M.,
2012. Discrete element modeling of a Mars Exploration Rover wheel in
granular material. J. Terramech. 49 (1), 27–36.
Kulchitsky, A.V., Johnson, J.B., Reeves, D.M., 2016. Resistance forces
during boulder extraction from an asteroid. Acta Astronaut. 127, 424–
437.
Kwon, J.W., Lee, D.H., Bang, H., 2016. Virtual Trajectory Augmented
Landing Control Based on Dual Quaternion for Lunar Lander. J.
Guid., Control, Dynam. 39 (9), 2044–2057.
Li, C., Umbanhowar, P.B., Komsuoglu, H., Koditschek, D.E., Goldman,
D.I., 2009. Sensitive dependence of the motion of a legged robot on
granular media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 (24), 9932-9932.
Li, F., Ye, M., Yan, J., Hao, W., Barriot, J.-P., 2016. A simulation of the
Four-way lunar Lander-Orbiter tracking mode for the Chang’E-5
mission. Adv. Space Res. 57 (11), 2376–2384.
Li, W., Huang, Y., Cui, Y., Dong, S., Wang, J., 2010. Trafficability
analysis of lunar mare terrain by means of the discrete element method
for wheeled rover locomotion. J. Terramech. 47 (3), 161–172.
Li, Y., 2015. A new family of nonconforming finite elements on
quadrilaterals. Comput. Math. Appl. 70 (4), 637–647.
Li, Y., Ji, S., 2018. A geometric algorithm based on the advancing front
approach for sequential sphere packing. Granular Matter 20 (4), 58–
69.
Liu, T., Bai, Z., Zhao, Y., 2020. Research on the Retention Characteristics
of the Stratification Information of Lunar Soil Drilling Sampling. Adv.
Space Res. 66, 2428–2445.
Liu, X.L., Duan, G.R., Teo, K.L., 2008. Optimal soft landing control for
moon lander. Automatica. 44 (4), 1097–1103.
16
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Lommen, S., Lodewijks, G., Schott, D.L., 2018. Co-simulation framework
of discrete element method and multibody dynamics models. Eng.
Comput. 35 (3), 1481–1499.
Ma, L., Wang, K., Xu, Z., Shao, Z., Song, Z., Biegler, L.T., 2018.
Trajectory optimization for lunar rover performing vertical takeoff
vertical landing maneuvers in the presence of terrain. Acta Astronaut.
146, 289–299.
Metzger, P.T., Anderson, S., Colaprete, A., 2018. Experiments Indicate
Regolith is Looser in the Lundar Polar Regions than at the Lunar
Landing Sites. Earth Space 2018: Eng. Extreme Environ. 4, 1–9.
Michael, M., Vogel, F., Peters, B., 2015. DEM–FEM coupling simulations
of the interactions between a tire tread and granular terrain. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 289, 227–248.
Mishra, S.K., Prasad, K.D., 2018. Numerical evaluation of surface
modifications at landing site due to spacecraft (soft) landing on the
moon. Planet. Space Sci. 156, 57–61.
Moghadam, M.G.E., Shahmardan, M.M., Norouzi, M., 2019. Magneto-
rheological damper modeling by using dissipative particle dynamics
method. Comput. Particle Mech. 7 (3), 567–592.
Mwangi, F.M., Kanny, K., 2012. Development of granular-medium-based
impact energy management system. Int. J. Crashworthiness 17 (4),
401–414.
Nakashima, H., Fujii, H., Oida, A., Momozu, M., Kanamori, H., Aoki,
S., Yokoyama, T., Shimizu, H., Miyasaka, J., Ohdoi, K., 2010.
Discrete element method analysis of single wheel performance for a
small lunar rover on sloped terrain. J. Terramech. 47 (5), 307–321.
Nakashima, H., Fujii, H., Oida, A., Momozu, M., Kawase, Y., Kanamori,
H., Aoki, S., Yokoyama, T., 2007. Parametric analysis of lugged wheel
performance for a lunar microrover by means of DEM. J. Terramech.
44 (2), 153–162.
Nakashima, H., Shioji, Y., Kobayashi, T., Aoki, S., Shimizu, H.,
Miyasaka, J., Ohdoi, K., 2011. Determining the angle of repose of
sand under low-gravity conditions using discrete element method. J.
Terramech. 48 (1), 17–26.
Okubo, K., Rougier, E., Lei, Z., Bhat, H.S., 2020. Modeling earthquakes
with off-fault damage using the combined finite-discrete element
method. Comput. Particle Mech. 7, 567–592.
Olivier, B., Verlinden, O., Kouroussis, G., 2020. A vehicle track soil model
using co-simulation between multibody dynamics and finite element
analysis. Int. J. Rail Transport. 8 (2), 135–158.
Otto, H., Kerst, K., Roloff, C., Janiga, G., Katterfeld, A., 2018. CFD–
DEM simulation and experimental investigation of the flow behavior
of lunar regolith JSC-1A. Particuology. 40, 34–43.
Pei, C., Wu, C., Adams, M., 2016. DEM-CFD analysis of contact
electrification and electrostatic interactions during fluidization. Powder
Technol. 304, 208–217.
Potyondy, D.O., Cundall, P.A., 2004. A bonded-particle model for rock.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (8), 1329–1364.
Ramırez, R., Poschel, T., Brilliantov, N.V., Schwager, T., 1999. Coeffi-
cient of restitution of colliding viscoelastic spheres. Phys. Rev. E 60 (4),
4465–4472.
Recuero, A., Shabana, M., A., A., Mohil, P., Ulysses, C., 2016. ANCF
Continuum-Based Soil Plasticity for Wheeled Vehicle Off-Road
Mobility. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam., 11, 4, 044504.
Recuero, A., Serban, R., Peterson, B., Sugiyama, H., Jayakumar, P.,
Negrut, D., 2017. A high-fidelity approach for vehicle mobility
simulation: Nonlinear finite element tires operating on granular
material. J. Terramech. 72, 39–54.
Sanborn, G., Choi, J., Yoon, J.S., Rhim, S., Choi, J.H., 2014. Systematic
Integration of Finite Element Methods Into Multibody Dynamics
Considering Hyperelasticity and Plasticity. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn.
9, 041012-1-041012-11.
Seo, M.G., Hong, S.M., Tahk, M.J., 2016. Lunar Lander Landing Site
Decision in Low-Fuel Case. Matec Web Conf. 54, 09003.
Shi, F., Xie, W., 2016. A specific energy-based ball mill model: From batch
grinding to continuous operation. Miner. Eng. 86, 66–74.
S. Ji, S. Liang
Smith, W., Peng, H., 2013. Modeling of wheel–soil interaction over rough
terrain using the discrete element method. J. Terramech. 50 (5), 277–
287.
Sutoh, M., Wakabayashi, S., Hoshino, T., 2018. Landing Behavior
Analysis of Lunar Probe Based on Drop Tests and RFT in a Vacuum.
IEEE Rob. Autom. Lett. 3 (1), 360–366.
Tu, F., Ling, D., Hu, C., Zhang, R., 2017. DEM–FEM analysis of soil
failure process via the separate edge coupling method. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Meth. Geomech. 41, 1157–1181.
Wang, C., Nie, H., Chen, J., Lee, H.P., 2019. The design and dynamic
analysis of a lunar lander with semi-active control. Acta Astronaut.
157, 145–156.
Wang, L., Li, S., Zhang, G., Ma, Z., Zhang, L., 2013. A GPU-Based
Parallel Procedure for Nonlinear Analysis of Complex Structures
Using a Coupled FEM/DEM Approach. Mathem. Probl. Eng. 12, 1–
16.
Wang, S., Deng, Z., Hu, M., Gao, H., 2005. Dynami cmodel building and
simulation for mechanical main body of lunar lander. J. Central South
Univ. Technol. 12 (3), 329–334.
Wang, S., Marmysh, D., Ji, S., 2020. Construction of irregular particles
with superquadric equation in DEM. Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 10 (2),
68–73.
Wang, S.L., Ji, S., 2018. Coupled DEM–FEM Analysis of Ice-Induced
Vibrations of a Conical Jacket Platform Based on the Domain
Decomposition Method. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 28 (2), 190–199.
Wang, X., Yang, S., Li, W., Wang, Y., 2018. Vibratory finishing co-
simulation based on ADAMS-EDEM with experimental validation.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 96, 1175–1185.
17
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Wellmann, C., Lillie, C., Wriggers, P., 2008. Homogenization of granular
material modeled by a three-dimensional discrete element method.
Comput. Geotech. 35 (3), 394–405.
Yang, P., Zang, M., Zeng, H., Guo, X., 2020. The interactions between an
off-road tire and granular terrain: GPU-based DEM-FEM simulation
and experimental validation. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 179 105634.
Yang, Y., Zi, C., Huang, Z., Wang, J., Lungu, M., Liao, Z., Yang, Y., Su,
H., 2017. CFD-DEM investigation of particle elutriation with
electrostatic effects in gas-solid fluidized beds. Powder Technol. 308,
422–433.
Zeng, H., Xu, W., Zang, M., Yang, P., 2020. Calibration of DEM-FEM
model parameters for traction performance analysis of an off-road tire
on gravel terrain. Powder Technol. 362, 350–361.
Zeng, Y.W., Jin, L., Du, X., Gao, R., 2015. Refined modeling and
movement characteristics analyses of irregularly shaped particles. Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 39 (4), 388–408.
Zheng, G., Nie, H., Chen, J., Chen, C., Lee, H.P., 2018. Dynamic analysis
of lunar lander during soft landing using explicit finite element
method. Acta Astronaut. 148, 69–81.
Zheng, Z., Zang, M., Chen, S., Zhao, C., 2017. An improved 3D DEM-
FEM contact detection algorithm for the interaction simulations
between particles and structures. Powder Technol. 305, 308–322.
Zhu, H., Tian, H., Cai, G., 2017. Hybrid uncertainty-based design
optimization and its application to hybrid rocket motors for manned
lunar landing. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 30 (2), 719–725.
Zhu, H., Tian, H., Cai, G., Bao, W., 2015. Uncertainty analysis and
probabilistic design optimization of hybrid rocket motors for manned
lunar landing. Sci. China Technolog. Sci. 58 (7), 1234–1241.