Sensitivity Analysis of the DEM Model Numerical Parameters on the Value of the Angle of Repose of Lunar Regolith Analogs

Przemysław Młynarczyk; Adam Kolusz; Alberto Gallina

doi:10.2478/arsa-2023-0022

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Sensitivity Analysis of the DEM Model Numerical Parameters on the Value of the Angle of Repose of Lunar Regolith Analogs

Artificial Satellites

Volume 58 (2023): Issue s1 (December 2023)

By: Przemysław Młynarczyk, Adam Kolusz and Alberto Gallina

Open Access

|Dec 2023

Figures & Tables

Geometrical setup for the DEM repose angle test in three views

Subsequent steps of the repose angle test

Table 1.

Particles’ material parameters

Parameter	Value
Density (bulk density) (kg/m³)	2900 (1740)
Young's modulus (MPa)	45
Poisson's ratio (-)	0.5

Example of the 3D DEM obtained pile (A), averaged particles pile (B), and the result of the angle of repose evaluation (C)

Table 2.

Materials’ interaction parameters used in the grain size and contact model analyses

Parameter	Particle–particle	Particle–boundary
Static friction (−)	0.7	0.7
Dynamic friction (−)	0.7	0.7
Tangential stiffness ratio (−)	1	1
Adhesive distance (m)	0.0001	0.0001
Force fraction (−)	0.2	0
Restitution coefficient (−)	0.2	0.3

Angle of repose versus particle size (left) and computational time versus particle size (right) diagrams from the simulation results

Morris plot of the repose angle. The diagram shows that the rolling resistance is the most important factor with a significant linear correlation with the repose angle.

Table 3.

AR for different DEM contact models

Tangential forces models	Normal forces models
Tangential forces models	Hertzian spring dashpot	Linear spring dashpot	Hysteretic linear spring
Mindlin–Deresiewicz	42.58	-	-
Linear spring Coulomb limit	43.00	45.03	41.40

[i] The AR values are expressed in degrees.

Table 4.

Computation time for different DEM contact models

Tangential forces models	Normal forces models
Tangential forces models	Hertzian spring dashpot	Linear spring dashpot	Hysteretic linear spring
Mindlin–Deresiewicz	117.73	-	-
Linear spring Coulomb limit	122.93	181.41	237.09

[i] The CPU time is in min.

Table 5.

Ranges of variability of the contact model parameters used in the sensitivity analysis

	Parameter	Lower limit	Upper limit
p1	Friction coefficient (f)	0.2	0.5
p2	Adhesive distance (δ_adh)	0.0005	0.0015
p3	Force fraction (f_adh)	0.1	0.4
p4	Restitution coefficient (ɛ)	0.1	0.4
p5	Rolling resistance (f_r)	0.2	0.8
p6	Tangential stiffness ratio (r_K)	0.2	1.0

Morris plot of the simulation time. The diagram shows that the adhesive distance is the predominant factor on the simulation time.

Table 7.

Sensitivity analysis results

Friction coefficient	Adhesive distance (m)	Force fraction	Restitution coefficient	Rolling resistance	Tangential stiffness ratio	Angle of repose (deg)
0.2	0.0011	0.16	0.34	0.32	0.52	33.84
0.2	0.0011	0.16	0.34	0.32	1	34.45
0.8	0.0005	0.16	0.22	0.2	0.2	35.88
0.2	0.0005	0.4	0.16	0.68	0.68	36.42
0.2	0.0009	0.28	0.28	0.68	0.36	37.40
0.2	0.0005	0.22	0.34	0.68	0.68	37.40
0.2	0.0011	0.16	0.34	0.68	0.52	37.87
0.2	0.0005	0.4	0.34	0.68	0.68	38.47
0.2	0.0015	0.1	0.1	0.68	0.84	38.47
0.8	0.0011	0.16	0.22	0.2	0.2	38.69
0.44	0.0005	0.22	0.22	0.32	0.52	39.97
0.8	0.0011	0.16	0.22	0.2	0.68	40.73
0.44	0.0005	0.22	0.22	0.32	1	41.63
0.56	0.0009	0.28	0.28	0.32	0.36	41.63
0.32	0.0011	0.4	0.22	0.2	0.68	41.86
0.2	0.0011	0.4	0.16	0.68	0.68	42.43
0.32	0.0011	0.4	0.22	0.2	0.2	42.55
0.32	0.0011	0.4	0.4	0.2	0.68	42.99
0.44	0.0005	0.4	0.22	0.32	1	43.69
0.8	0.0005	0.4	0.22	0.32	1	44.26
0.44	0.0011	0.22	0.22	0.32	0.52	45.72
0.2	0.0015	0.28	0.1	0.68	0.84	46.94
0.8	0.0005	0.34	0.4	0.56	0.2	47.00
0.2	0.0015	0.28	0.28	0.68	0.84	47.20
0.2	0.0015	0.28	0.28	0.68	0.36	47.54
0.68	0.0011	0.4	0.4	0.56	0.68	47.95
0.44	0.0005	0.34	0.4	0.56	0.2	48.32
0.32	0.0011	0.4	0.4	0.56	0.68	48.56
0.56	0.0011	0.16	0.34	0.68	0.52	48.68
0.2	0.0015	0.4	0.34	0.44	0.36	49.37
0.68	0.0005	0.22	0.4	0.56	0.68	49.69
0.8	0.0005	0.16	0.22	0.56	0.2	49.86
0.56	0.0011	0.4	0.16	0.32	0.2	50.49
0.56	0.0009	0.4	0.16	0.44	0.84	51.93
0.56	0.0005	0.34	0.16	0.68	0.52	52.16
0.56	0.0015	0.4	0.34	0.44	0.84	52.42
0.56	0.0009	0.28	0.28	0.68	0.36	52.70
0.56	0.0009	0.22	0.16	0.8	0.84	53.48
0.8	0.0005	0.34	0.22	0.56	0.2	53.65
0.56	0.0009	0.4	0.34	0.44	0.84	54.97
0.8	0.0005	0.4	0.22	0.68	1	55.15
0.56	0.0009	0.4	0.16	0.8	0.84	57.67
0.56	0.0015	0.4	0.34	0.44	0.36	58.06
0.56	0.0011	0.16	0.16	0.68	0.52	59.11
0.68	0.0011	0.22	0.4	0.56	0.68	59.65
0.8	0.0005	0.4	0.4	0.68	1	61.26
0.56	0.0011	0.4	0.16	0.68	0.2	61.70
0.56	0.0011	0.4	0.16	0.68	0.68	63.71
0.56	0.0011	0.34	0.16	0.68	0.52	64.06

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/arsa-2023-0022 | Journal eISSN: 2083-6104 | Journal ISSN: 1509-3859 (formerly 0208-841X)

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 188 - 202

Submitted on: Dec 16, 2022

Accepted on: Jun 1, 2023

Published on: Dec 29, 2023

Published by: Polish Academy of Sciences, Space Research Centre

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

DEM,

Related subjects:

© 2023 Przemysław Młynarczyk, Adam Kolusz, Alberto Gallina, published by Polish Academy of Sciences, Space Research Centre
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 58 (2023): Issue s1 (December 2023)

Sensitivity Analysis of the DEM Model Numerical Parameters on the Value of the Angle of Repose of Lunar Regolith Analogs

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Table 1.

Figure 3.

Table 2.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Figure 6.

Table 7.

Paradigm

My account