See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262849051

Modelling of sand column collapse with material point method.

Conference Paper · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
16 2,506

1 author:

Wojciech Sołowski
Aalto University
66 PUBLICATIONS   606 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geomeasure View project

THEBES - THMC Behaviour of the Swelling Clay Barriers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wojciech Sołowski on 08 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MODELLING OF SAND COLUMN COLLAPSE WITH MATERIAL
POINT METHOD

W.T. Sołowski
ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, Department of Civil Surveying
and Environmental Engineering, Newcastle University, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
S.W. Sloan
ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, Department of Civil Surveying
and Environmental Engineering, Newcastle University, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT: The paper shows numerical analysis of sand column collapse. The simulation
was performed with the material point method and the results are compared to experiment.
The problem considered involves extreme deformations and is difficult to model with more
traditional numerical approaches like the finite element method.
In the analysis, the sand is modelled with a rate-independent Mohr-Coulomb model. Despite
the use of a simple constitutive model, the computed results agree with the experimental
observations reasonably well. This agreement is satisfactory both during and after the
collapse.

1 INTRODUCTION
The paper models the collapse of a sand pile using the material point method. The analysis
aims to reproduce the experimental results of Lube et al. (2007).
The material point method is an extension of the FLIP method (Brackbill & Ruppel 1986),
and was first developed by Sulsky et al. (1994). In the method, the material points contain all
the information required for the calculations, and the problem is solved in an explicit manner.
In each time step, the information stored in the material points is transferred to the grid nodes.
After solution on the grid, the updated information is returned to the material points, where
some additional updates may occur.
The generalised interpolation material point method (GIMP) was introduced by Bardenhagen
& Kober (2004). In GIMP, unlike in the original formulation of Sulsky et al. (1994), material
points are not just points in space; they have a fixed domain instead (see Figure 1). This
corresponds to a fixed grid shape function for all the particles.

grid material point

material point domain
grid node
grid cell

Fig. 1. Material point domain on a grid

As the particle domain (or the grid shape function) is fixed, the material points can still
separate from each other once the material deformation is large enough. As the material
points interact through the grid nodes, material separation occurs when no part of the two
neighbouring material point domains contribute to a common node. This usually undesirable
behaviour is greatly reduced when compared to the original material point method
formulation. The more advanced versions of the material point method (e.g. Ma et al. 2006,
Sadeghirad et al. 2011) aim to remove the possibility of material separation. The
computational cost, however, may be significant. Moreover, due to an increase in their
complexity, these more advanced methods may be less robust numerically.
The material point method is particularly suited to problems with very large deformations.
That is why it has been chosen for simulation of sand pile collapse. Such a problem would be
difficult to solve using a traditional finite element method.

2 SAND COLUMN COLLAPSE EXPERIMENT

The sand pile collapse experiment by Lube et al. (2007) is shown in Figure 2. It consists of
a 20 cm deep channel, the release system (adjustable for different column widths) and a table
on which the sand can spread after the mechanism is released.

9.05

63.35

Fig. 2. Experimental setup (after Lube et al. 2005). Falling weight lifts the front gate and releases the sand.

The results of the experiment were filmed through a transparent side of the channel. The
particular experiment modelled was performed with a column of initial width equal to 9.05
cm and height 63.35 cm. This experiment was chosen as it is the only one for which
evolution of the column free surface during the experiment was given.
The free surface evolution of the collapsing sand pile is shown in Figure 3. These results
were obtained by filming the experiment with a high speed camera (120 frames/s). Every
fifth frame was taken, leading to a time difference between the lines in Figure 3 of
approximately 0.0417s. Note that the initial time t0 is not related to the moment the
experiment began, but rather some later moment after releasing the sand.

3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The experiment was modelled with the GIMP version of the material point method using a
modified version of the Uintah software developed at the University of Utah. The grid and
the initial position of the material points are given in Fig 1. The dimensions of the column
were exactly the same as in the experimental setup, i.e. 633.5 x 90.5 mm. The grid cell size
was set to 5 mm. In each cell, nine (3x3) material points were placed, so that the simulation
was made with a total of 25,920 material points.
The sand was modelled as a Mohr-Coulomb material. This model was implemented
using the procedure of Clausen et al. (2006, 2007), which ensures that the stresses are
integrated accurately.
 600

Height [mm]
500 Free surface at t0+: 0.0 s
0.042 s
0.083 s
0.125 s
0.167 s
400 0.208 s
0.25 s
0.291 s
0.333 s
0.375 s
300 0.417 s
0.458 s
0.5 s
2s

200

100

Distance [mm]
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Fig. 3. Evolution of the free surface of the collapsing sand column in time. Data digitised from Lube et al.
2007 (crosses indicates the points where data was taken).

Fig. 4. Material point grid and initial material point setup.

The sand used in the experiment was an industrial sand with a grain-size of 1.4±0.4 mm.
Unfortunately, Lube et al. (2007) does not provide much more information on the properties
of the sand used. Therefore, the friction angle was approximated by the angle of repose while
typical values were assumed for the dilation angle, the elastic properties and the density (see
Table 1)
Table 1: Material parameters for sand (Mohr – Coulomb model)
Shear Bulk Friction Dilation Density
Cohesion
modulus modulus angle angle [kg/m3]
[kPa]
[MPa] [MPa] [deg] [deg]
0.323 0.7 0 31 1 2650
 The release mechanism used in the experiment was not modelled, since little information
was given on it. Consequently, modelling the frictional contact between the gate and the sand
pile would thus have been rather arbitrary. Moreover, the computational resources needed for
modelling the release mechanism accurately would be significant. Instead of modelling the
release mechanism, the sand is assumed to be released fully at the beginning of the analysis
(i.e. at time zero). This will cause some discrepancies between the experimental observations
and the predictions in the first few tenths of seconds of the sand pile collapse (as the release
takes around 0.08s).
Lube et al. (2005) (where more details on the test setup is given) suggested that the
roughness of the table surface on which the sand spreads has a negligible effect on the
experiment results. This can be explained by the fact that the majority of the actual flow
generally occurs over the sand already deposited. Therefore rough contact, inherent in the
material point method, was used in the analysis.

4 RESULTS
The numerical analysis aimed to replicate the experimental results over the full range of
movement, up to an including the final state. However, as the initial data were disturbed by
the releasing mechanism, only the data from t0+0.125s are compared. The correlation
between the time counted from the beginning of the numerical analysis and time from the
experiment is given in Table 2. As such, the earliest compared experimental result (from
t0+0.125s) corresponds to 0.17s of the performed analysis (see Fig 5 left). Further results are
given in Figures 7-10. In these figures, the material points are coloured according to their
initial position.
Table 2: Correlation between time in the numerical analysis and experiment

Analysis [s] 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.5 0.54 2.0
Experiment t0+… [s] 0.125 0.167 0.208 0.25 0.291 0.333 0.375 0.417 0.458 0.5 2.0

Fig. 5. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.125 to t0+0.208 s.

Fig. 6. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.25 to t0+0.291 s.

Fig. 7. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.333 to t0+0.375 s.

Fig. 8. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.417 to t0+0.458 s.

Fig. 9. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.5 s.

 Fig. 10. Comparison of final simulation results with the experiment.
.

These results indicate a relatively good agreement between theory and experiment. To
achieve this good agreement, some additional numerical dissipation was needed in the
analysis. This numerical dissipation replicates the loss of energy of the sand upon moving
without any change in strain. Such energy loss is observed in reality and is mostly a result of
friction when the sand grains rotate during movement.
To compare, some results computed without additional numerical dissipation are shown in
Figures 11-13. It can be noted that initially the results are remarkably similar, but at the end
of the simulation where no additional dissipation was used, the predicted granular
deformation spreads much further than that which is observed in the experiment.

Fig. 11. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.167 to t0+0.333 s. No numerical
dissipation used.

Fig. 12. Comparison of simulation with the experimental results at t0+0.417 to t0+0.5 s. No numerical
dissipation used.
 Fig. 13. Comparison of final results of simulation with the experimental results. No numerical dissipation
used.

During the calculations, some mesh dependency is expected as certain material points
separate. For example, the material points at the tip of the collapsing pile (Figures 7-10) seem
to have lost connection with their initial neighbours. It appears that these points were initially
close to the bottom of the sand pile (thus their blue colour), but during collapse they were
pushed out and stayed at the front of the sand mass. The final result of the simulation with a
coarser mesh (150x75) is shown in Figure 14.

Fig. 14. Comparison of final results of simulation with the experimental results. Results obtained with
numerical dissipation and coarser grid (150x75).

To further improve the results, a more advanced constitutive model could be used instead
of the classical Mohr-Coulomb model. The Mohr-Coulomb model is a simple one which does
not capture some of the more complex facets of sand behaviour (like rate dependency). Still,
the predictions agree with the experimental data reasonably well, especially taking into
account how simple it is to calibrate the constitutive model used.

5 CONCLUSIONS
The paper shows a material point method simulation of a sand pile collapse. The results
obtained are compared to the experimental results of Lube et al. (2005), with show a
satisfactory agreement. The calculations were made to confirm the ability of the material
point method to model granular media, thus validating its applicability in geomechanics. The
material point method appears to be very capable in such problems where extreme
deformations and dynamic behaviour are encountered. The simulation proved to be relatively
robust and few numerical issues were experienced. In contrast, to solve this problem with the
finite element method, very advanced techniques would have to be used and many numerical
problems could occur.
 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science
and Engineering, headquartered at the University of Newcastle, Australia. The computations
were partially undertaken at the NCI National Facility in Canberra, Australia, which is
supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government. These computational resources
were provided by Intersect Australia Ltd.

REFERENCES
Bardenhagen, S.G. & Kober, E.M. (2004), “The Generalized Interpolation Material Point
Method”. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences Vol. 5(6):477-495.
Brackbill, J.U. & Ruppel, H.M. (1986), “FLIP: a method for adaptively zoned, particle-in-
cell calculations of fluid flows in two dimensions”. Journal of Computational Physics
Vol 65:314-346.
Clausen, J., Damkilde, L. & Andersen, L. (2006), “Efficient return algorithms for associated
plasticity with multiple yield planes”. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. Vol. 66:1036–1059.
Clausen, J., Damkilde, L. & Andersen, L. (2007), “An efficient return algorithm for non-
associated plasticity”. Computers and Structures Vol. 85:1795–1807.
Lube, G, Huppert, H.E., Sparks, R.S.J. & Freundt A. (2005), “Collapses of two-dimensional
granular columns”. Physical Review E. Vol. 72, 041301.
Lube, G, Huppert, H.E., Sparks, R.S.J. & Freundt A. (2007), “Static and flowing regions in
granular collapses down channels”. Physics of Fluids Vol. 19, 043301.
Ma J., Lu H. & Komanduri R. (2006), “Structured mesh refinement in generalized
interpolation material point method (GIMP) for simulation of dynamic problems”.
Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences Vol. 12:213–227.
Sadeghirad A., Brannon R.M. & Burghard J. (2011), “A convected particle domain
interpolation technique to extend applicability of the material point method for problems
involving massive deformations”. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engn. Vol. 86:1435-1456.

View publication stats