Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Simulating shear behavior of a sandy soil under different soil conditions

Mohammad A. Sadek a, Ying Chen a,⇑, Jude Liu b
a
Department of Biosystems Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 5V6
b
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, PA 16802, USA

Received 10 February 2011; received in revised form 26 September 2011; accepted 30 September 2011
Available online 24 October 2011

Abstract

Understanding of soil shear behavior is very important in the field of agricultural machinery and soil dynamics. In this study, a dis-
crete element model was developed using a simulation tool, Particle Flow Code in Three Dimensions (PFC3D). The model simulates
direct shear tests of soil and predicts soil shear behavior, in terms of shear forces and displacements. To determine and calibrate model
parameters (stiffness of particles, strength and stiffness of bond between particles), laboratory direct shear tests were conducted to exam-
ine effects of soil moisture content and bulk density on shear behaviors of a sandy soil. Three soil moisture levels (0.02%, 13.0%, and
21.5%) and four bulk density levels (0.99, 1.28, 1.36, and 1.50 Mg/m3) were used in the tests. The test results showed that in general drier
and denser soil conditions produced higher shear forces. Based on the test results, the bond strengths of the model particles were deter-
mined from soil cohesion and internal friction angle. The model particle stiffness was calibrated based on the yield forces from the tests.
The calibrated particle stiffness varied from 1.0  103 to 8.2  103 N/m, depending on soil moisture and density levels. The bond stiffness
calibrated was 1.0  107 Pa/m for all soil conditions.
Ó 2011 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sandy soil; Moisture; Bulk density; Direct shear test; PFC3D; Stiffness; Calibration

1. Introduction the relationship of internal friction angle and water content

Understanding material shear behavior is the prerequi-
site for designing the machines which handle the material.
In designing tillage and seeding tools in agriculture, such
as plows, chisels, sweeps, and openers, engineers and
researchers need to know mechanical properties of the soil
with which these tools interact in field operations. Soil shear
properties, typically including soil internal friction and
cohesion, play important roles in soil–tool interactions
because they affect the draft force and soil disturbance of
the tool [12]. Soil cohesion and friction are affected by sev-
eral factors, particularly soil density and moisture content.
McKyes [11] reported that soil shear strength increases with
the decrease in soil water content. Gitau et al. [4] found that
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 204 474 6292; fax: +1 204 474 7512.
E-mail address: ying_chen@umanitoba.ca (Y. Chen).
of a sandy clay loam followed a second order polynomial
equation. Interaction effects of moisture content and bulk
density were also reported in the literature [7].
Soil internal friction and cohesion are normally mea-
sured using direct shear tests (DSTs) or triaxial tests with
DSTs being simpler. Measurements require special equip-
ment (direct shear box or triaxial system) which is not
always available. When compared to modeling approach,
measurements are also more time-consuming. The Discrete
Element Method (DEM) has been used for modeling
mechanical behaviors of soil, for example, soil deformation
under a rigid wheel [8]. The software, Particle Flow Code in
Three Dimensions (PFC3D) (Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, USA) is a common commercial DEM code.
In PFC3D, material (e.g. soil) is modeled as collections of
balls, clumps, or clusters of balls. Each ball contacted with
its neighboring balls. If an external force exerted on the

0022-4898/$36.00 Ó 2011 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2011.09.006
452 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458
material body, individual balls move and the dynamics
(displacements and forces) of the material body changes
as well. In simulating the interaction of soil with a rotary
tool using DEM, Momozu et al. [13] pointed out that soil
cohesiveness needs to be addressed. They added normal
tensile force at the contacts between model particles and
the normal forces bonded particles together, forming parti-
cle clusters which mimic soil aggregates in agricultural
fields. The PFC3D software package provides several mod-
els for different contact regimes between particles. Among
those models, the parallel bond model (PBM) in which
balls are held together by bonds is more suitable for
describing soil cohesive behaviors. The bond of the PBM
is depicted as a cylinder of cementitious material as shown
in Fig. 1a. The cylinder transmits both forces and moments
(Fig. 1b). Bonds break when the respective strengths at the
contact area are exceeded. For details regarding the PFC3D
PBM, readers are referred to Itasca [5] and Potyondy and
Cundall [14].
When simulating dynamic mechanical behaviors of
cohesive soils during the operation of a bulldozing plate
using PFC2D, Zhang and Li [18] used PBM and observed
that the parallel bonds resulted in balls being bond into
clusters initially and those clusters were later broken into
smaller clusters or individual particles during bulldozing.
The operation of a soil engaging tool in agricultural oper-
ations is very much similar to bulldozing. Soil engaging
tools break soil as it travels in a field. van der Linde [17]
also indicated that the PBM was more suitable for model-
ing agricultural soils than other PFC3D contact models.
Regardless of which PFC3D model is used to describe
particle contacts, one need to determine or calibrate the
model parameters. The model parameters of PFC3D mod-
els are the micro-properties of balls and bonds. Model
parameters are typically determined by matching the
behaviors of model particle to the behaviors of the soil sim-
ulated, so that the model particles represent the soil
particles.
PFC has been used to simulate the process of DST.
Thorton and Zhang [15] and Kadau et al. [6] used PFC2D
to investigate the shear behavior of general granular, and
they focused on how to interpret the simulation results.
van der Linde [17] used DST for the calibrations of model
parameters of a PFC3D model in simulating soil–tool
(a)
xi[ A] ni xi[C ]
A
Fig. 1. Diagram showing the PFC3D parallel bond model (PBM); (a) a cylinder of cementitious material between two balls; (b) forces on the cylinder [5].
interaction. Some other PFC models simulated DST of
non-soil materials, such as aluminum rods conducted by
Liu et al. [10] with the objective of improving the test device
to minimize the influences of the frictional force on the
shear strength measured. Landry et al. [9] simulated DST
of semi-solid manure using PFC3D to examine how model
micro-properties affect the simulation results and to cali-
brate the micro-properties through comparing simulated
internal friction angle and cohesion with those measured.
Coetzee and Els [3] used DEM in simulating shear tests
and compression tests of corn to calibrate micro-properties
of corn in modeling silo discharge and bucket filling.
In summary, most existing simulations of DST focused
on cohesionless materials in two dimensions. No research
has been done to simulate effects of soil moisture content
and bulk density on soil shear properties using PFC3D.
The specific objectives of this study were to (1) measure soil
shear properties under different soil moisture contents and
bulk densities using DSTs; (2) simulate the DSTs using the
PFC3D parallel bond model (PBM), and calibrate the
model parameters using the measurements.
2. Methodology
2.1. Laboratory direct shear tests (DST)
Laboratory DSTs were conducted to measure shear
properties of a sandy soil, including yield point, cohesion
(c), and soil internal friction angle (/), as affected by differ-
ent soil moisture contents and dry bulk densities. The data
served the model development, as described later in this
paper. The following sections describe the apparatus and
procedure of the DSTs.
2.1.1. Test apparatus
Direct shear tests were conducted using an apparatus as
shown in Fig. 2a. The apparatus consisted of a soil shear
box, a loading head, a weight hanger, and weights to gen-
erate normal loads. The shear box had two square rings for
holding soil sample (Fig. 2b). The cross-section of the box
was 60  60 mm and the height was 50.8 mm. Horizontal
displacement of the movable ring was achieved with a
motor. A load cell measured the shear force. Two potenti-
ometers measured the horizontal and vertical displace-
(b)
xi[ B ]
B
 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458 453

(a) (b)
Loading head

Motor
Load cell
Shear box

Weight hanger

Weight

Fig. 2. Direct shear test apparatus: (a) test setup; (b) shear box.

ments. Values of shear force and horizontal displacement
were recorded by a computer data acquisition system.
2.1.2. Soil conditions
The sandy soil used for DSTs contained 10% clay, 4%
silt, and 86% sand particles. Three soil moisture levels were
selected, Dry, Moist, and Wet. Under each moisture level,
four soil bulk density levels (Loose, Soft, Firm, and Com-
pacted) were examined. The moisture contents and densi-
ties of the soil samples used in DST are summarized in
Table 1. This formed a total of 12 soil moisture and density
combinations, and DST was performed for each of 12 com-
binations, and their variation within each moisture or den-
sity level was minimum. As data were mainly used to serve
the model development, treatments were not replicated.
2.1.3. Test procedure
Before DSTs, soil was sprayed with different amount of
water to achieve three different levels of moisture content.
After being sprayed, soil was left in air-tight plastic bags
for 24 h to get even moisture content. To obtain different
bulk densities, the soil was compacted in the shear box
by a soil proctor compaction hammer. The hammer
(weighed approximately 1 kg) was dropped into the box
from a height of approximately 0.45 m. To achieve differ-
ent levels of bulk density, one used 0 drop for the Loose
soil treatment, 3 drops for the Soft soil, 10 drops for the
Firm soil, and 25 drops for the Compacted soil. Numbers
of drops were arbitrarily determined. Before the shear
box was filled with soil, a porous stone with a thickness
of 6.3 mm was placed at the bottom and the top of the soil
sample in the shear box (Fig. 2b). The normal loads for the
tests were 210, 480, and 745 N, and the shear speed was
0.52 mm/min. The volume of the soil in the shear box
was measured before test, and after test the soil sample
was weighted, oven-dried at 105 °C for 24 h, and weighed
again to determine the soil moisture content and initial
dry bulk density.
2.2. Model development and calibration
PFC3D provides models with the following main
assumptions [5]:
a. Particles are treated as spherical and rigid bodies.
b. Contacts between particles occur over a vanishingly
small area (i.e., at a point).
c. Behaviors at contacts are described with a soft-con-
tact approach where rigid particles are allowed to
overlap one another at contact points.
d. The magnitude of overlap is related to the contact
force via the force displacement law.

Table 1
2.2.1. Model of direct shear test
Soil moisture and bulk density conditions of the soil samples.
A model was developed to simulate the DSTs described
Moisture Density Moisture content Bulk density (Mg/
above. In the model, a shear box was constructed using the
level level (%) m3)
10 PFC3D flat walls, and it consisted of two square rings, a
Dry Loose 0.023 1.06
bottom base, and a top cover. The box had a cross-section
Soft 0.022 1.28
Firm 0.016 1.39 of 60  60 mm and each ring was 25.4 mm in height. These
Compact 0.021 1.40 dimensions were the same as those used in the laboratory
tests. Particles (balls) were generated in the box (Fig. 3a),
Moist Loose 13.24 0.91
Soft 12.44 1.21 representing soil particles in the direct shear box. Ball size
Firm 13.14 1.34 followed a uniform distribution with the lower value of
Compact 12.99 1.58 3 mm and the upper value of 4 mm. The PFC3D PBM
Wet Loose 21.07 1.01 was used to describe the behavior of the contact between
Soft 21.30 1.34 particles. Originally, the model particle density was chosen
Firm 21.09 1.35 as the particle density of real soil (2650 kg/m3). However,
Compact 22.46 1.53 with this particle density, appropriate packing of model
454 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458
Fig. 3. Virtual shear box with model particles: (a) before shearing; (b) after shearing.
particles could not be achieved due to the high particle
porosity. Through preliminary simulations, a particle
density of 1900 kg/m3 was found to be appropriate for
particles to be packed to the bulk density range used in
the laboratory DSTs. van der Linde [17] also used particle
density different with 2650 kg/m3 in modeling a sandy soil
to obtain the appropriate packing. The particle density of
1900 kg/m3 was kept the same in all simulations, while
the bulk density was varied as in the laboratory DSTs.
Model particles were generated in the virtual shear box
and particles were cycled to achieve the equilibrium, i.e. the
unbalanced force was small when compared to the maxi-
mum contact force in the particle assembly. To perform
virtual shear tests, the top wall of the shear box was
designed as a servo wall to apply a constant normal load.
The servo wall controlled the load by changing the wall
velocity until the force became equal to the desired normal
load. Then shearing was conducted by keeping the top ring
stationary and displacing the bottom ring horizontally
(Fig. 3b) at a desired speed. The next step was to determine
and calibrate the micro-properties of model particles for
the sandy soil.
2.2.2. Determination of the micro-properties of model
particles
The PFC3D PBM include eight micro-properties: ball
normal and shear stiffness (Kn and Ks), friction coefficient
of balls (l), bond normal and shear stiffness (k n and k g ),
bond normal and shear strength ( rc and sc ), and bond ra-
dius multiplier, Rm . The Rm is the ratio of the radius of the
cylindrical bond and the radius of the smaller ball of two
balls in contact, and it ranges between 0 and 1. Not all mi-
cro-properties can be calibrated. Some of them need to be
preselected before calibrations of others [14]. Preliminary
simulations in this study showed no noticeable changes in
resultant soil shear properties when changing the particle
friction. This was inconsistent with the finding by Coetzee
and Els [3] who reported that simulation results of corn
shear properties were dependent on particle friction. The
inconsistency may be due to the facts that Coetzee and
Els [3] simulated cohesionless granular corn grains where
particle friction at the contact is more dominant. Whereas
this study simulated bonded particles where friction be-
comes effective only when bond breaks. In this study, an
arbitrary friction value (l = 0.5) was selected. For simplic-
ity, Rm was assumed as the medium value: 0.5, and the par-
ticle normal and shear stiffness were set the same, meaning
that Kn/Ks = 1 [1,2]. Equal value was assumed for the
bond normal and shear stiffness, i.e. k n /k s = 1 [17].
In agricultural fields, bonds or internal tensile stresses
exist between soil particles, and they are caused by the
water under tension between particles [16,18]. This soil
internal tensile stress is also termed as intrinsic stress. In
determining the particle bond strengths, the r  was assumed
to be the soil intrinsic stress, and the s was assumed to be
the soil cohesion. Intrinsic stress is the function of cohesion
and internal friction angle as: c cot / [12]. Thus,
 ¼ c cot /
r ð1Þ
s ¼ c ð2Þ
2.2.3. Calibrations of ball and bond stiffness
The ball stiffness (Kn) and bond stiffness (k n ) were
calibrated with the measured yield forces. Through
preliminary simulations, it was found that Kn was more
influential to the model outputs than k n . Therefore, k n
was assumed to be same for all soil conditions and it was
first calibrated with the measure yield force averaged
overall the soil conditions and with an assumed value for
Kn. After that, Kn was calibrated for different combinations
of soil moistures and bulk densities with the calibrated k n .
The values of r and s derived from measured / and c using
Eqs. (1) and (2).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Laboratory test results
3.1.1. Shear force–displacement curves
Typical shear force–displacement (horizontal) curves
obtained from DSTs are shown in Fig. 4. Shear force rap-
idly increased in the first portion of the curve before the soil
failure occurred. Once the soil sample failed, the shear
force either decreased (Fig. 4a), or had a sudden change
 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458 455

300 curve; that of Fig. 4b was at the sudden change in the

Shear force (N)
250 Yield point
increasing rate; that of Fig. 4c was at the interaction of
the two regression lines from the data points of the two
200
potions of the curve.
150

100 3.1.2. Soil yield forces

50 Yield forces from DSTs were examined for the purpose
of model calibration. They were read from the yield
0
0 50 100 150 points of all force–displacement curves of the 12 treat-
Horizontal displacement (mm) ment combinations, and they are plotted with soil mois-
(a) Fn = 210 N ture levels (Fig. 5). The Compact soil had highest yield
forces over all the soil moisture levels, followed by the
600 Firm soil. This held true at all the three normal loads.
500
Lower yield forces were observed for the Soft and Loose
Shear force (N)

soils. To demonstrate effects of soil moisture level on the

400 yield forces, the data were re-plotted in Fig. 6. Under all
300 Yield point the normal loads, the Dry soil had higher yield forces
than the Moist and Wet soils over all the soil bulk density
200
levels.
100 In summary, the differences in yield force between the
0 Loose and Soft soils were not inconsistent over the three
0 200 400 600 800 1000 normal loads, and in some cases they had similar yield
Horizontal displacement (mm) forces (Fig. 5). This was true for the differences in yield
(b) Fn = 750 N force between the Moist and Wet soil (Fig. 6). Based on
these results, yield forces of the Loose and Soft soils were
400 combined, and those of the Moist and Wet soils were also
combined in model calibrations. Thus, calibrations were
Shear force (N)

300 Yield point required for six combinations, rather than 12 combinations
of soil moisture and density levels.
200

100
0 DST were used for determining the model parameters.
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(c) Fn = 480 N
Fig. 4. Typical shear force–displacement (horizontal) curve from the
laboratory direct shear tests for the Dry and Compacted soils under
different normal loads (Fn).
in the increasing rate (Fig. 4b) or had a gradual change in
the increasing rate (Fig. 4c). It was considered that the yield
point of Fig. 4a was at the maximum force of the entire
3.1.3. Soil internal friction and cohesion
Soil internal friction angle (/) and cohesion (c) from
250 300 They were generated from yield force data which were con-
verted to yield stresses with the given area of the shear sur-
face of the shear box. The normal loads in force were also
converted to stresses with the given cross-sectional area of
the soil sample in the shear box. A linear trend line was
generated from yield and normal stresses; the / was taken
as the slope of the trend line and the c was taken as the
intersection. Trends of treatment effects on / and c values
were found to be similar to those of yield forces. Therefore,
they are presented for six combinations of soil moisture
and density levels (Table 2).

500 500
Loose Soft Firm Compact Loose Soft Firm Compact 500 Loose Soft Firm Compact
Yield force (N)
Yield force (N)
Yield force (N)

400 400
400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100
0 0 0
Dry Medium Wet Dry Medium Wet Dry Medium Wet
Soil moisture level Soil moisture level Soil moisture level
Fn = 210 N Fn = 480 N Fn = 745 N
Fig. 5. Comparisons of yield forces between the soil bulk density levels under different moisture levels and normal loads (Fn).
456 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458

500 500 500

Dry Medium Wet
Yield force (N)
Dry Medium Wet

Yield force (N)

Yield force (N)
400 Dry Medium Wet 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200
100 100 100
0 0 0
Loose Soft Firm Compact Loose Soft Firm Compact Loose Soft Firm Compact
Soil compaction level Soil compaction level Soil compaction level
Fn = 210 N Fn = 480 N Fn = 745 N
Fig. 6. Comparisons of yield forces between the soil moisture levels under different bulk density levels and normal loads (Fn).

Table 2
Soil internal friction angle and cohesion obtained from laboratory direct shear tests.
Propertya Average Dry Moist and wet
Soft and Loose Firm Compact Soft and Loose Firm Compact
/ (°) 21.0 18.5 22.0 25.5 14.4 20.0 25.7
c (Pa) 14,774 11,748 25,304 32,707 1226 4590 13,070
a
/ = soil internal friction angle; c = soil cohesion.

Most particles within the bottom ring (that was displaced

during the virtual test) flowed horizontally along the direc-
tion of shear force. In the top ring, balls at the upper right
corner basically had zero velocities. This was due to that
the top ring was kept stationary during the virtual test.
The balls at the lower left corner within the top ring had
flowed downwards near the end stage of shearing, due to
the offset of the top ring relative to the bottom ring. These
phenomena are consistent with the observations by Liu
et al. [10] in the DEM simulation of direct shear test of a
granular material.
For calibrations of both Kn and k n , the bulk densities of
the model particles were set as the measured values which
Fig. 7. Snapshot of particle instantaneous velocity field from simulations.
are summarized in Table 3. The values of r  and s derived
from measured / and c using Eqs. (1) and (2) are also sum-
marized in Table 3. All virtual direct shear tests were per-
3.2. Simulation and calibration results formed with the same normal loads and shear speed as
those used in the laboratory DSTs.
3.2.1. Model behaviors The procedure for calibrations is demonstrated by the
To examine if the model simulates the soil shear behav- example of Kn calibration for the Dry and Compact soil
ior, preliminary virtual direct shear tests were conducted condition. Virtual direct shear tests were conducted with
using the model. Particle instantaneous velocity field a set of assumed values for Kn. For example, Kn was ini-
(Fig. 7) is shown in a snapshot of velocity field representing tially assumed as 6.00E+03 N/m (Table 4). With this
the situation near the end of a virtual direct shear test. assumed value, a virtual shear test was run for each of three

Table 3
Model inputs for calibrations of the bond stiffness (k n ) and ball stiffness (Kn).
Parametera 
k n calibration Kn calibration
Average Dry Moist and wet
Soft and Loose Firm Compact Soft and Loose Firm Compact
3
qb (kg/m ) 1332 1170 1390 1400 1120 1350 1560
s (Pa) 1.48E+04 1.17E+04 2.53E+04 3.27E+04 1.23E+03 4.59E+03 1.31E+04
 (Pa)
r 3.52E+04 3.52E+04 6.27E+04 6.86E+04 4.76E+03 1.26E+04 2.72E+04
a
qb = soil bulk density; r
 and s = bond normal and shear strength of model particle, respectively.
 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458 457

Table 4 wall of the bottom ring of the shear box) was generated,
Demonstration of the calibration process using the Dry-Compact soil and it was converted to force–displacement (horizontal dis-
condition.
placement) curve, as illustrated in Fig. 8. When comparing
Assumed ball Normal Simulated Measured Relative the simulated curve with the one measured shown in Fig. 4,
stiffness, Kn (N/ force (N) yield Force yield force error, RE
m) (N) (N) (%)
one can see that simulated curve had similar trend as those
measured. More obvious yield points were often seen on
6.00E+03 210 210 206 10.9
480 279 347
simulated curves. Yield forces were read off those three
745 386 455 curves corresponding to the three normal loads, and they
were 210, 279, and 386 N. These three simulated yield
7.50E+03 210 208 206 4.3
480 339 347 forces were compared with the three measured yield forces
745 402 455 (206, 347, and 455 N). Their agreement was evaluated
using the relative error (RE) which was 10.9% for the
8.00E+03 210 202 206 1.6
480 343 347 assumed Kn value of 6.00E+03 N/m. The RE was defined
745 447 455 by the following equation:
8.10E+03 210 200 206 1.5  
480 347 347 100 X S  M 
RE ¼  M  ð3Þ
745 448 455 n
8.20E+03 210 211 206 0.4 where RE = relative error (%), n = number of observations
480 360 347
(n = 3 in this case), S = simulated yield force (N),
745 432 455
M = measured yield force (N).
8.30E+03 210 224 206 7.9 The above procedure was repeated for other seven
480 388 347
745 469 455
assumed values of Kn, as shown in Table 4. The results
showed that the assumed Kn value of 8.20E+03 N/m gave
8.50E+03 210 217 206 5.0 the least RE (0.4%), meaning the best match between the
480 384 347
745 451 455
simulated and measured yield forces. Thus, the value,
8.20E+03 N/m, was taken as the final Kn for the Dry-Com-
1.00E+04 210 208 206 10.7
pact soil condition. Similarly, calibration of Kn was per-
480 425 347
745 494 455 formed for other soil moisture and density conditions,
and calibration of k n for the overall soil condition. The
normal loads (210, 480, 745 N), which generated three results are summarized in Table 5.
shear force–displacement curves. Under each normal load, The calibrated model parameters can be used to simu-
the history of shear force (the total force on the opposing late more soil behaviors such as particle contact forces,

2
x10
3.24
3.22
3.20
3.18
3.16
3.14
3.12
3.10
3.08
3.06
3.04
3.02
3.00
2.98
2.96
2.94
2.92

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

-3
x10

Fig. 8. A typical force–displacement curve from simulations. X-axis: displacement in mm and Y-axis: shear force in N.
458 M.A. Sadek et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 451–458
Table 5
The calibrated ball stiffness (Kn) for six different soil conditions, and the calibrated k n for the overall soil condition.
Soil moisture level Ball stiffness, Kn (N/m)
Soil bulk density levels
Soft and Loose
Dry 3.1E+03
Moist and wet 1.0E+03
velocity fields, vertical displacement, and strain energy at
particle level. The calibrated model parameters can also
be used in simulations of the interaction of soil engaging
tools (e.g. tillage tools, seed openers, and fertilizer appli-
cation tools) with the soil. These works were beyond the
scope of this study and will be carried out in future
studies.
4. Conclusions
Laboratory direct shear tests of the sandy soil showed
that the Soft and Loose soils had similar yield forces which
were lower than those of the Firm soil, and the Compact
soil had the highest yield forces. For soil moisture effects
on yield forces, the moist and wet soils had similar yield
forces, while the dry soil had higher yield force. Similar
trends were observed for the effects of soil moisture and
density levels on soil cohesion and internal friction coeffi-
cient. The PFC3D model developed in this study generated
soil behaviors similar to those observed in the laboratory
direct shear tests, in terms of force–displacement curves.
The model allows changing the bulk density of particles
to simulate various bulk densities of real soil. The most sen-
sitive model parameter was the particle stiffness when the
PFC3D parallel bond model was used to describe the parti-
cle contact. Under the Dry soil, the particle normal and
shear stiffness was 3.1  103 N/m for the Soft and Loose
soils, 6.5  103 N/m for the Firm soil, and 8.2  103 N/m
for the Compact soil. Under the dry soil, the corresponding
values of particle stiffness were 1  103, 2.8  103, and
7  103 N/m. For all the soil conditions, the bond normal
and shear stiffness was 1.0  107 Pa/m.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Thanks
are given to the Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-
sity of Manitoba for providing the direct shear testing
facility.
Overall bond stiffness, k n (Pa/m)
Firm Compact
6.5E+03 8.2E+03 1.0E+07
2.8E+03 7.0E+03
References
[1] Camusso M, Barla M. Microparameters calibration for loose and
cemented soil when using particle methods. Int J Geomech
2009;9(5):217–29.
[2] Coetz ee CJ, Basson AH, Vermeer PA. Discrete and continuum
modeling of excavator bucket filling. J Terramech 2007;44:177–86.
[3] Coetzee CJ, Els DNJ. Calibration of discrete element parameters and
the modelling of silo discharge and bucket filling. Comput Electron
Agric 2009;65:198–212.
[4] Gitau AN, Gumbe LO, Mwea SK. Mechanical behavior of a Hard-
setting luvisol soil as influenced by soil water and effective confining
stress. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR Ejournal.
Manuscript LW 07 021, vol. X. March; 2008.
[5] Itasca, 2008. Theory and Background. PFC3D (particle flow code in 3
Dimensions), Version 4.0 Minneapolis, MN: Itasca Consulting Group,
Inc.; 2002.
[6] Kadau D, Schwesig D, Theuerkauf J, Wolf DE. Influence of particle
elasticity in shear testers. Granular Matter 2006;8:35–40.
[7] Kézdi A. Soil physics: selected topics, developments in geotechnical
engineering, vol. 25. New York: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.; 1979.
[8] Khot LR, Salokhe VM, Jayasuriya HPW, Nakashima H. Experi-
mental validation of distinct element simulation for dynamic wheel–
soil interaction. J Terramech 2007;8:429–37.
[9] Landry H, Lague C, Roberge M. Discrete element representation of
manure products. J Comput Electron Agric 2006;51(1–2):17–34.
[10] Liu SH, Sun D, Matsuoka H. On the interface friction in direct shear
test. Comput Geotech 2005;32:317–25.
[11] McKyes E. Agricultural engineering soil mechanics. Elsevier; 1989.
291 pp.
[12] McKyes E. Soil cutting and tillage. New York: Elsevier Scientific Pub.
Co.; 1985.
[13] Momozu M, Oida A, Yamazaki M, Koolen AJ. Simulation of a soil
loosening process by means of the modified distinct element method. J
Terramech 2003;39:207–20.
[14] Potyondy DO, Cundall PA. A bonded-particle model for rock. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:1329–64.
[15] Thorton C, Zhang L. Numerical simulations of the direct shear test.
Chem Eng Technol 2003;26(2):153–6.
[16] Upadhyaya SK, Chancellor WJ, Perumpral JV, Schafer RL, Gill WR,
VandenBerg GE. Advances in soil dynamics. ASAE monograph
number 12, vol. 1. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE; 1994 [Chapter 2].
[17] van der Linde J. Discrete element modeling of a vibratory subsoiler.
Matieland, South Africa: Department of Mechanical and Mecha-
tronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch; 2007.
[18] Zhang R, Li J. Simulation on mechanical behavior of cohesive soil by
distinct element method. J Terramech 2006;43:303–16.