Comp. Part. Mech.
DOI 10.1007/s40571-016-0102-y
A hybrid FEM-DEM approach to the simulation of fluid flow
laden with many particles
Marcus V. S. Casagrande1 · José L. D. Alves1 · Carlos E. Silva1 · Fábio T. Alves1 ·
Renato N. Elias1,2 · Alvaro L. G. A. Coutinho1,2
Received: 1 September 2015 / Revised: 7 December 2015 / Accepted: 6 January 2016
© OWZ 2016
Abstract In this work we address a contribution to the
study of particle laden fluid flows in scales smaller than
TFM (two-fluid models). The hybrid model is based on a
Lagrangian–Eulerian approach. A Lagrangian description is
used for the particle system employing the discrete element
method (DEM), while a fixed Eulerian mesh is used for the
fluid phase modeled by the finite element method (FEM).
The resulting coupled DEM-FEM model is integrated in time
with a subcycling scheme. The aforementioned scheme is
applied in the simulation of a seabed current to analyze which
mechanisms lead to the emergence of bedload transport and
sediment suspension, and also quantify the effective viscos-
ity of the seabed in comparison with the ideal no-slip wall
condition. A simulation of a salt plume falling in a fluid col-
umn is performed, comparing the main characteristics of the
system with an experiment.
Keywords Discrete element method · Hybrid models ·
Particle methods · Finite element method
1 Introduction
The interest of the scientific community in the study of gran-
ular flow has significantly increased in recent decades. This
is due to several factors particularly by innovations in large
number of industrial processes, in which the transfers of
B Marcus V. S. Casagrande
marcusscasagrande@gmail.com
1
Laboratory for Computational Methods in Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering, COPPE/Federal University
of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2 High Performance Computing Center, COPPE/Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
momentum between discrete and continuous phases signifi-
cantly affect flow dynamics as a whole [1]. Also, according
to Topin et al. [1], examples of multiphase systems in which
their dynamics are dictated by the coexistence of granular
phase and saturated liquid include slurry transportation in
pipelines, dispersal of fuel fragments into coolant water dur-
ing a (hypothetic) nuclear accident, sedimentation in water
treatment, fluidization in catalyst reactors, and debris flow
[1]. Additionally, understanding turbidity currents (typically
a gravity or density current) can help explain where and how
organic matter was deposited and perhaps transformed by
other processes of geological scale into hydrocarbons. Flu-
idized beds are widely used in many industrial processes, and
are one of the main possible applications of a hybrid discrete
element-finite element (DEM-FEM for short) code.
Some macroscopic models obtained through experimen-
tal observations and theoretical works can reproduce simple
mechanical behavior [2–5]. However, the physical mech-
anisms occurring at the particles’ scale are usually more
complex phenomena, such as hydrodynamic instability, col-
lapse, transport, etc. The most complete numerical approach
to simulate a granular flow is to solve the solid phase as
individual particles and the fluid phase at the voids between
particles as a continuum. However, no general method is effi-
cient enough to afford the computational cost of resolving the
fluid flow in the gaps between closed-spaced particles [6],
therefore, Hoef et al. [7] presents different modeling strate-
gies to balance computational cost and accuracy.
For industrial scale studies, the domain has a dimension of
order of magnitude of 10 m, demanding fast results for a large
domain, so the indicated model is the discrete bubble model
that treats the gas bubble as discrete entities. The two-fluid
model is an Eulerian–Eulerian model that provides a contin-
uous description for both phases. It is widely used because
of the relative fast speed; however, the integration between
123

the solid and fluid phases are carried out through drag force
correlations. Such correlations may not be accurate, since
they cannot represent the full details of interactions between
particles and particle–fluid interactions.
In this work we describe a contribution to the study of
particulate systems in scales smaller than two-fluid models
(TFM). The hybrid model is based on a Lagrangian–Eulerian
approach, that is, the unresolved discrete particle method
(UDPM) according to Hoef et al. [7]. In this approach,
a Lagrangian description is used for the particle system
employing DEM, while a fixed Eulerian mesh is used for
the fluid phase modeled by FEM. This technique has been
successfully applied to the study of fluidized bed in catalytic
reactors [8]. The momentum exchange between the fluid
and solid phases is considered through the insertion of a
source/sink term in the momentum equation of the fluid and a
force-displacement law for the solid phase. Darcy’s equation
is used to create a linear relationship between the fluid veloc-
ity and the pressure gradient generated by the particles, while
Wen & Yu experimental correlation is used to define the non-
linear region [9]. The terms responsible for the momentum
exchange depends directly on the local porosity, which varies
in time due to the spatial rearrangement of particles. Thus, in
each time instant it is necessary to assess the local porosity
throughout the domain and map it accordingly.
The goal of this work is to present the methodology uti-
lized to couple, in a two-directional way, a continuum fluid
solver based on the finite element method (FEM) with a
discontinuous discrete code based on the discrete element
method (DEM). Fluid motion for the incompressible and
viscous fluid is governed by Navier–Stokes equations, which
are solved by an appropriate FEM implementation [10]. Clo-
sure equations are used to compute drag and lift forces over
the particles in the DEM framework [11]. Volume averaged
momentum sink terms are included in the fluid equations.
The resulting coupled DEM-FEM model is integrated in time
with a subcycling scheme. Care is taken on mapping parti-
cles onto a particular tetrahedral mesh arrangement under
the assumption that porosity is constant in each tetrahedron.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the
next section we briefly review the governing equations for
particle and fluid motion. In Sect. 3 we discuss the numerical
implementation. In Sect. 4 we show a validation example,
a channel flow simulation, and the numerical simulation of
a salt plume. The paper ends with a summary of our main
conclusions.
2 Governing equations
In this paper a three-dimensional Lagrangian approach is
used with the DEM to describe the particles, and a three-
123
Comp. Part. Mech.
dimensional Eulerian finite element is used to describe the
fluid behavior.
2.1 Particle motion
The solid fraction of matter is represented by a set of individ-
ual particles, the motion of each particle being determined
by the integration of the Newton–Euler equations of motion,
considering contact forces between particles and external
forces acting on them [12]. Historically, this approach was
first introduced by Cundall and Strack [13], applied to gran-
ular materials and named Distinct Element Method (DEM);
however, later DEM became more usual.
According to O’Sullivan [14], there are two main clas-
sifications for the simulation of particle’s interaction: the
hard-sphere model and the soft-sphere model. In the hard-
sphere model the particles are modeled as rigid bodies and
interact through instantaneous collisions. However, in the
soft-sphere model, the equations of motion of each particle
are solved numerically, requiring a contact force model. The
spring-damper model is the most widely used, showing a
good compromise between accuracy and efficiency.
Due to the large number of possible simultaneous contacts,
directly related to the high concentration of particles, the
soft-sphere model is the most suitable and, therefore, imple-
mented in this work. The equation of motion of each particle
can be written as
m ẍi = f i (1)
J θ̈i = Mi , (2)
where ẍi is the particles’ acceleration, m is the particles’
mass, J is the inertia moment, θ̈i is the particles’ angular
acceleration, f i is the resultant force and Mi the resultant
moment both acting on a particle, and the index i refers to
spatial direction.
The resultant moment and force may arise from several
different phenomena, but the most important for multiphase
systems are
f i = f iG + f iB + f iC + f iD (3)
f iG = mgi (4)
f iB = Vp ρf gi , (5)
where f iG is the gravity force, f iB is the buoyancy, f iC is the
contact force, f iD is the drag force (or the coupling force),
gi is the gravity acceleration, Vp is the particle’s volume,
and ρf is the specific mass of the fluid. Other possible forms
of interaction between particles (e.g., adhesion, aggregation,
and disaggregation) can be naturally treated within DEM
framework [15–19].
Comp. Part. Mech.

surface, modifying the effective force acting over the parti-

cle. According to Hoomans et al. [22], the drag force acting
on a particle surrounded by other particles can be modeled
as

1 3 β  p
f iD = π dp u i − vi , (11)
6 (1 − ε)
Fig. 1 Contact model between two spheres a normal direction b tan-
gential direction where dp is the particle’s diameter, β is the momentum trans-
fer coefficient, ε is the porosity, u i is the fluid’s velocity, and
p
vi is the particle’s velocity [23].
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the contact force comes from the According to Kuipers et al. [24], for porosities lower than
soft-sphere model, consisting of stiffness and damping linear 0.80, β is defined by the Ergun equation in the following
elements [14] in the normal and tangential directions of the form:
sphere contact. Additionally, for the tangential direction the
Coulomb friction law is considered. (1 − ε)2 μf ρf  p
β = 150 + 1.75 (1 − ε) u i − vi  (12)
ε 2
dp dp
f n = K n δn + Cn δ̇n (6)
   δ̇t where ρf is the fluid’s specific mass and μf is the dynamic
f t = − min |μcoulomb f n | , K t δt + Ct δ̇t   , (7)
δ̇t  viscosity.
The first term present in the Ergun equation derives from
where f n is the normal force, K n is the normal stiffness coef- Darcy’s Law using the Kozeny–Carman equation, so it is
ficient, Cn is the normal damping coefficient, δn is the normal predominantly governed by laminar flow, while the second
penetration at the sphere, δ̇n is the normal penetration rate, term is more significant in turbulent flows.
f t is the tangential force, μcoulomb is the friction coefficient, However, for porosities higher than 0.80, Ergun equation
K t is the tangential stiffness coefficient, Ct is the tangential is no longer valid, and the following correlation, related with
damping coefficient, δt is the relative tangential slip between hindered settling, is presented by Wen and Yu [25]:
two spheres in contact, and δ̇t is its rate (the relative tangen-
3 ε (1 − ε)  p
tial velocity). The relative tangential velocity produces a slip β = Cd ρf u i − vi  ε−2.65 , (13)
between particles which can be computed as 4 dp

 where Cd is the drag of an isolated particle, modeled by Rowe

δt = δ̇t dt (8) and Henwood [26] as

f iC = f n n̂ i + f t tˆi , (9) 
Rep (1 + 0.15(Rep )
24 0.687 ), Rep ≤ 1000
Cd = , (14)
0.44 Rep ≥ 1000
where n̂ i and tˆi are unit vectors, pointing in the normal and
tangential directions. Finally, the resultant moment is the
where the Reynolds number is defined as
cross product of the tangential force ( f t tˆi ) and the radial
vector to the contact point (0.5 · dp n̂ j ).  p
ερf u i − vi  dp
Rep = . (15)
μf
Mi = −0.5 · dp f t εi jk n̂ j tˆk (10)
2.2 Fluid motion
Once the particles have been mapped in the Eulerian
domain (in the present work discretized by a tetrahedral Fluid motion is governed by the Navier–Stokes equation for
mesh), the fluid velocity is interpolated at particle positions. incompressible Newtonian fluid flow, according to
The drag forces acting in each particle are computed through
empirical laws involving the relative velocity between the ∂u i ∂u i ∂p ∂ 2ui
particle and the fluid. ρf + ρf u j = − + μf + ρf gi (16)
∂t ∂x j ∂ xi ∂x j∂x j
For a single particle immersed in a fluid medium, the drag
force is well determined and is correlated with Reynolds subject to the incompressibility constraint
number [20,21], while a system composed by many particles
poses additional complexities. The presence of surrounding ∂u j
= 0, (17)
particles reduces fluid space, increasing the shear at particle ∂x j

123
 Comp. Part. Mech.

Fig. 2 DEM/FEM coupling

structure

where ρf is the fluid’s specific mass, p is the pressure, μf is

the dynamic viscosity, gi is the gravity acceleration, and u i
is the velocity of the fluid in the xi direction.
The software EdgeCFD [27–29], developed in-house, is a
stabilized finite element solver for Navier–Stokes equations
of incompressible flows using edge-based data structure. It
is currently the main tool in the group to simulate fluid prob-
lems.
However, when there is a two-phase flow, assuming the
fluid is incompressible and has a constant specific mass,
according to Bouillard et al. [30], the volume averaged
Navier–Stokes equations become
 
∂ εu j ∂ε
= − (18)
∂x j ∂t
∂ε u i ∂ε u i
ρf + ρf u j
∂t ∂x j
∂p ∂ 2ui
= −ε + ε μf + ερf gi − Ffpi (19) Fig. 3 DEM subcycling diagram
∂ xi ∂x j∂x j
 p 
Ffpi = β u i − vi . (20) allows relatively large time steps without loss of accuracy
for the fluid solution. On the other hand, small time steps
The last term,Ffp , represents the momentum transfer from are mandatory in DEM solvers to capture the high-frequency
the particle to the fluid, acting as a source/sink term, which content of particle-to-particle interactions, demanding a sub-
will be further discussed in Sect. 3. cycle approach [31], i.e., the computation of various DEM
The solution of continuity and volume averaged Navier– cycles for each FEM/CFD cycle.
Stokes equations, Eqs. (18) and (19), can be found by the After DEM cycle ending, the source/sink terms Ffp are
FEM; however, the assumption of a field of local porosity evaluated for each finite element in the mesh and proceed-
in the neighborhood of each particle adds complexity to the ing to a new step of the Navier–Stokes equations integration
problem. The particular approach used in the present work for the FEM/CFD cycle. The diagram with the main DEM
to circumvent this complexity is addressed in Sect. 3. subcycle steps is presented in Fig. 3.

2.3 General aspects of the coupled implementation

The overall flowchart for the coupling is presented in Fig. 2.
After the solution of fluid equations (FEM/CFD cycle), the
drag forces for each particle are calculated, which allows the
progress of the solution for particle motion (DEM cycle).
EdgeCFD, the FEM solver, is a fully implicit velocity-
pressure solver for the time integration of incompressible
Navier–Stokes equations. The implicit nature of the operator
3 Numerical implementation
A FEM program for incompressible flow (EdgeCFD) is used
to solve the fluid equations. This program was first designed
and optimized to solve Eqs. (16) and (17) using linear tetra-
hedra. For the integration of particle motion equations, an
explicit first-order scheme is used to update the velocities
and the positions of the particles.

123
Comp. Part. Mech.
Fig. 4 Particle–fluid
interaction diagram
As mentioned in Sect. 2.2, porosity adds complexity to
solving Eqs. (18) and (19) when compared to the standard
Navier–Stokes solver. In the present work, it is assumed that
the variations of the porosity field in time and space are of
second order, being negligible compared to the other terms
in the equations. This assumption simplifies Eqs. (18) and
(19), which can be rewritten as
∂u j
= 0 (21)
∂x j
∂u i ∂u i
ρf + ρf u j
∂t ∂x j
∂p ∂ 2ui Ffpi
=− + μf + ρf gi − . (22)
∂ xi ∂x j∂x j ε ticle is a key parameter to the computations. However, each
As can be observed, in this form, these equations present a
slight difference from the standard Navier–Stokes equations,
i.e., the additional source/sink term, Ffpi /ε. This term can be
interpreted as the total momentum per unit of volume trans-
ferred from the particle to the fluid, and can be treated as
a body force in the FEM framework. Therefore, the numer-
ical solution procedure is the same as for the conventional
Navier–Stokes equations, enabling a least invasive coupling.
The solution of the fluid equations requires additionally
the specification of the source term (Ffpi ) and the porosity
(ε). Thus, the overall procedure necessary to determine the
source term and porosity within the particle fluid interaction
subroutine is illustrated in Fig. 4.
The particle–fluid interaction subroutine consists of six
main tasks: the particles mapping in elements mesh, the com-
pute porosity per element, the particle loop, the source term
average on element, and the nodal distribution of source term.
The particles mapping in element mesh is a computational
search of the location of each particle relative to each element
of the fluid mesh. It creates a list that identifies the element
of the fluid mesh that each particle is located. This procedure
can be computationally costly since particles are changing
positions continuously. This mapping is a requirement for
the compute porosity per element task, which defines the
porosity field (ε). Since these procedures can be complex
and has a considerable impact at the total calculation time,
they are explained in detail in Sect. 3.1.
Once the porosity field has been determined, the next step
is the computation of the source/sink term. According to Eqs.
(11)–(15), the relative velocity between the fluid and the par-
particle has its own velocity and the fluid velocity changes
with the particle location. The adopted procedure to calcu-
late the relative velocity is to interpolate, for each particle,
the velocity at the particle location (fluid velocity interpola-
tion for each particle). Fluid velocities are interpolated within
each tetrahedron with standard volume shape functions [32];
thus, the relative velocity can be computed.
After velocities have been calculated, the sequence requir-
es the computation of the Reynolds number from Eq. (15),
then the drag coefficient from Eq. (14), the drag force
from Eq. (11), the momentum transfer coefficient from
Eqs. (13) and (12), and finally, the source/sink term from
Eq. (20).
Figure 5 illustrates a fixed control volume comprising sev-
eral spherical particles. A complete numerical solution for
this problem would require fluid mesh boundaries represent-
ing particles, but it demands a very small mesh size due to
limited space between them, which needs to be updated every
123

Fig. 5 Momentum transfer diagram between particle and fluid ele-
ment. a Flow through a particulate medium, b spatial distribution of
particles, c transferred momentum from each particle inside the trian-
gular element, d equivalent transferred momentum to the element mesh
time step due to particle motion, exponentially increasing
computational cost.
An alternative approach, computationally feasible, is to
consider the whole control volume as a continuous porous
medium. According to Shimizu [9] and Asgian et al. [33],
for laminar fluid flow Darcy’s law can predict the pressure
gradient of a porous medium, meanwhile Kozeny–Carman
equation [34] relates the equivalent permeability of a packed
bed of solid spheres. For a wider range of Reynolds number,
the empirically based Ergun’s equation predicts the pres-
sure gradient for turbulent flow (Eq. 12 ). Additionally, for
lower porosities, the correlation of Wen and Yu [25] is used
(Eq. 13).
Accordingly, the source/sink term determines, for each
particle, the pressure drop of an equivalent porous medium
formed by several of particles with the same conditions (e.g.,
relative velocity, size, distribution). Thus, each particle inside
a fluid element will return a different source/sink term, and
the final value for the fluid element is the average of the
source/sink terms from every single particle inside the fluid
element (source term average on element). Figure 6 illus-
trates how the momentum is transferred from a set of particles
to the fluid element. After the pressure drop is calculated for
each element, the last step is the nodal distribution of source
term.
3.1 Particle mapping
Evaluation of current element porosity requires mapping all
the particles within the element at a given time step. In an
123
Comp. Part. Mech.
Fig. 6 Structured grid and its mapping indexes
unstructured mesh, this is usually a very expensive task [35].
A structured mesh generator was specifically developed for
the purpose of particle mapping.
3.1.1 Structured mesh
The structured mesh is divided into a Cartesian grid of rectan-
gular box cells, which can be identified by their respective
rows, columns, and layers (Fig. 6). Each cell has a unique
combination of indexes and identifier. They have a finite
length in each Cartesian direction and, as such, particles can
have their positions tested against the cells [36], as described
in Eqs. (23) through (25).
i p = int[(xp − xmin )/ x ] + 1 (23)
jp = int[(yp − ymin )/ y ] + 1 (24)
kp = int[(z p − z min )/ z ] + 1 (25)
i cell = n y · n x · (kp − 1) + n x · ( jp − 1) + i p , (26)
where i p , jp , kp are the row, column, and layer, respectively,
of the particle; xp , yp , z p are the coordinates of the particle;
xmin , ymin , z min are the minimum coordinates of the struc-
tured mesh; x , y , z are the lengths of rows, columns
and layers, respectively, in the structured mesh; i cell is the
identifier for the cell; and n x and n y are the number of rows
and columns, respectively, in the structured mesh. The int
function truncates its argument to an integer.
Since EdgeCFD was designed for tetrahedral-based
meshes, the cells are further divided into tetrahedra. To keep
the mesh as compact as possible, the hexahedral cells are
subdivided into 5 tetrahedra (Fig. 7), the smallest possible
Comp. Part. Mech.

Fig. 7 Cell subdivision.

Central tetrahedron in red

Substituting each vertex in turn for the particle, the four

volume coordinates of the particle can be calculated, as
shown in Eqs. (28) through (30), where x p , y p , and z p are
the coordinates of the particle being mapped. If all of the
volume coordinates are positive in sign, the particle is con-
sidered inside the element.
⎡ ⎤
Fig. 8 Tree diagram of the mesh data structure, where T are the tetra- x p x j x k xl
hedra 1 ⎢ yp y j yk yl ⎥
η1 = det ⎢ ⎥
⎣ z p z j z k zl ⎦ (28)
6 · Vi jkl
Fig. 9 Tetrahedral element and
particle 1 1 1 1
⎡ ⎤
x i x p x k xl
1 ⎢ yi yp yk yl ⎥
η2 = det ⎢ ⎥
⎣ z i z p z k zl ⎦ (29)
6 · Vi jkl
1 1 1 1
⎡ ⎤
x i x j x p xl
1 ⎢ yi y j yp yl ⎥
η3 = det ⎢ ⎥
⎣ z i z j z p zl ⎦ (30)
6 · Vi jkl
number of tetrahedral per cell [32]. The resulting data struc- 1 1 1 1
⎡ ⎤
ture is shown in Fig. 8. xi x j xk xp
1 ⎢ yi y j yk yp ⎥
η4 = det ⎢ ⎥
⎣ zi z j zk zp ⎦ . (31)
3.1.2 Element identification 6 · Vi jkl
1 1 1 1
To evaluate element porosity, it must further be identified in
Given the pre-arranged element construction within the cell,
which element of the cell each particle is. The use of volume
it is possible to determine in which element the particle
coordinates allows for such evaluation [32]. The volume of
resides by testing only against the central tetrahedron, which
any tetrahedral element can be calculated through the use of
is readily mapped within the cell. If the particle is not within
Eq. (27).
the central element, one of its four volume coordinates will
⎡ ⎤ return negative, thus indicating through which facet of the
xi xj xk xl central tetrahedron the particle is outside, directly indicating
1 ⎢ yi yj yk yl ⎥
Vi jkl = det ⎢
⎣ zi
⎥, (27) the correct element. This simplifies the entire mapping to
6 zj zk zl ⎦ four direct tests per particle.
1 1 1 1 It is important to note that cell subdivision into five tetra-
hedra introduces the problem of lack of element face compat-
where x, y, and z are the coordinates of each vertex of the ibility between neighboring cells. To circumvent this issue,
tetrahedron (Fig. 9). two different mirrored configurations of cell subdivisions are

123

Fig. 10 “Odd” and “even” cell configurations side-by-side
needed, an “odd” configuration and an “even” configuration
(Fig. 10), according to its identifier, as calculated by Eq. (26).
3.2 Porosity
The determination of the spatial distribution of porosity is
essential for the evaluation of the sink/source term for the
fluid and drag forces for the particles. Utilizing an adequate
homogenization model, the spatial distribution of discrete
particles can be transferred to a continuous medium [37].
In the present work, it is assumed that instant porosity is
homogenous within each element [8].
Element porosity is the ratio of non-solid volume within
the element over the total element volume [21]. The solid
volume inside the element is assumed as the sum of the vol-
ume of each particle mapped inside the element. As such,
element porosity εelk of element k is a unique propriety that
depends entirely on the particles located within it. Therefore,
Eq. (31) can be used to evaluate the porosity of an element
k, that is,
π
Velk − 6 dp3i
i
εelk = , (32)
Velk
where Velk is the element’s volume, as calculated by Equation
(27), and dpi is the diameter of each particle mapped within
the element. It was assumed that each particle is completely
inside the element that contains the particle center. Therefore,
particles intersecting multiple elements will only contribute
to a single element porosity.
123
Comp. Part. Mech.
4 Numerical examples
4.1 Single particle and two-way coupling
The first problem addressed consists of a single particle in
sedimentation within a column of fluid under the effect of
gravity. The sedimentation of a particle within a viscous fluid
less dense than the particle achieves a maximum terminal
velocity, vf , determined by the balance of gravitational force
and hydrodynamic forces (drag and buoyancy).
The Stokes’ law determines the drag force of a sphere
immersed in the laminar flow of a viscous fluid [20]. It can
be used to estimate the terminal velocity of the particle.
When considering two-way coupling, the relative move-
ment between particle and fluid influences not only the
trajectory of the particle but also the flow of the fluid.
The current test cases employed six different particle
diameters ranging from 0.208 to 0.76 mm, with a constant
specific mass of 2650 kg/m3 . Fluid properties are specific
mass of 1000 kg/m3 and dynamic viscosity of 0.000100 Pas.
Simulation time spans one second. The time step for particle
motion is set at 1 × 10−5 s, while for the fluid solution time
step is set to 0.01 s, yielding 1000 particle substeps for each
CFD step.
The fluid domain is a rectangular box with square base
(44 × 44 × 80 mm). Mesh size is set at 4 mm cells, providing
11 × 11 × 20 cells and 12100 tetrahedral elements.
Results of the numerical experiment are shown in Table 1.
It compares final velocity of the particle for two-way cou-
pling, Stokes’ law and actual experiments performed by
Hallermeier [21], while the Reynolds number is based on
the experimental final velocity of the particle.
The results show good agreement between experimental
and numerical results, presenting deviation of at most 12 %
in terminal velocity. Since the Stokes’ law is based on lam-
inar theory, it is valid only when Reynolds number is very
small, much less than one, and it is expected that the error
of Stokes terminal velocity grows with the Reynolds num-
ber. Therefore, the results using Stokes’ law are consistent,
presenting great discrepancy at higher Reynolds, up to 3.7
times.
4.2 Sensitivity analysis for mesh density
For this analysis, a fixed particle diameter of 0.76 mm is taken
for varying mesh size. The fluid and time step properties are
the same as the previous experiment. Five different mesh
sizes were tested, ranging from 3D to 10D, where D is the
particle’s diameter.
Two sets of experiments were conducted with this setup.
The first set considers the particle initially centered relative
to the mesh cell as depicted in Fig. 11.
Comp. Part. Mech.

Table 1 Results for single

Diameter (mm) Reynolds exp. vf exp. (m/s) vf two-way (m/s) vf Stokes (m/s)
particle sedimentation
0.208 58 0.028 0.026 0.039
0.25 83 0.033 0.034 0.056
0.29 113 0.039 0.041 0.076
0.42 244 0.058 0.064 0.159
0.59 496 0.084 0.092 0.313
0.76 836 0.110 0.117 0.519

Fig. 11 Initial centered positioning of particle

Fig. 13 Convergence of particle final velocity for different mesh sizes

Fig. 12 Velocity over time for cell centered initial positioning

Fig. 14 Porosity over time for cell m centered initial positioning

Figure 12 shows the results for particle velocity over time

for the first set of experiments in which the particle is centered
at the fluid cell. A discrepancy between terminal velocities
for each mesh size is evident. This can be attributed to the
error in the evaluation of element porosity. The forces both
the fluid and particle are subjected to are directly related
to the porosity, which, in turn, depend on the ratio of par-
ticle and element volume. In the case of a single particle,
the theoretical porosity is unitary. The larger the mesh, the
closer the calculated porosity will approach the unity, which
explains the observed convergence of terminal velocity with
increasing mesh size. Figure 13 displays a plot of the obtained
terminal velocity as function of relative mesh size.
Figure 14 shows the variation of calculated element poros-
ity for the element in which the particle is mapped over time.
As the particle is centered in the mesh cell, as it settles
down it only passes within the central tetrahedron of each
cell. Therefore, it is expected that the porosity remains con-
stant throughout the simulation. It can be observed that the
larger the mesh size, the larger the porosity and porosity value
approaches the unity.
The second set considers the particle shifted towards a
corner of the mesh cell as depicted in Fig. 15. Figure 16
shows the results for particle velocity over time for the second
battery. Oscillations in the velocity are evident. Figure 17
elucidates the nature of such oscillation.
Figure 17 shows the variation of calculated element poros-
ity for the element in which the particle is mapped over time.
Since the tetrahedra on the edge of the cell have half the

123

Fig. 15 Initial offset positioning of particle
Fig. 16 Velocity over time for offset initial positioning
Fig. 17 Porosity over time for offset initial positioning
volume of the central tetrahedron, a fixed particle volume
causes a fluctuation in calculated porosity. A larger mesh
size causes a smoother convergence, due to the smaller repre-
sentability of the particle in the larger volume. Alternatively,
a different mapping scheme utilizing an uniform mesh could
potentially eliminate this fluctuation.
The oscillation in porosity modifies the velocity through
the calculation of the force terms in a non-linear fashion. It
is important to study the impact of such fluctuations in the
velocity to provide further insight into the approach.
Table 2 presents the amplitude of the oscillations in per-
centage of average porosity and terminal velocity. In all cases,
123
Comp. Part. Mech.
Table 2 Comparison of oscillation for offset initial positioning
Cell size/particle Amplitude of Amplitude of terminal
diameter Ratio porosity (%) velocity (%)
3 6.2 9.3
4 2.5 5.0
5 1.3 2.6
7 0.46 1.0
10 0.16 0.33
Fig. 18 Particles configuration after settling
the oscillation in terminal velocity is larger than the oscilla-
tion in porosity, indicating a possible amplification of effects.
Acceptable results were observed in cell size to particle
diameter ratios of 5 or greater, with negligible deviations in
ratios over 10. However, it must be noted that a larger mesh
size disturbs both the convergence and discretization of the
fluid, which might invalidate the overall solution.
4.3 Channel flow
The aim of this case is to compare the velocity profile of
the fluid near the bottom of the channel using the no-slip
boundary condition at the bottom wall and using a bed of
particles to represent the soil (Fig. 18).
The simulation addresses the channel flow inlet configu-
ration shown in Fig. 20. Representing the soil, a polydisperse
distribution comprising 4800 particles with diameter ranging
from 0.2 mm to 0.3 mm was settled in a channel of rectangular
cross section with 12 mm height, 1.8 mm width, and 12 mm
length. For this case, no tangential forces where computed,
since the pack is almost stationary. The additional proper-
ties utilized in the numerical simulation are listed in Table 3.
The entire channel was discretized with 6000 tetrahedra as
depicted in Fig. 19.
Comp. Part. Mech.

Table 3 Physical properties

Property Value (SI units)
attributed to the simulation of
channel flow Time step for fluid solver 5.0 × 10−3 s
Simulation time 5.0 s
Dynamic viscosity (μf ) 0.001 Pa s
Fluid specific mass (ρ f ) 1000.0 kg/m3
Fluid domain size 12.0 × 12.0 × 1.8 mm
Mesh Structured, 6000 tetrahedra with 0.6 mm side
Time step for DEM solver 10−5 s (500 subcycles)
Number of particles 4800
Particle specific mass 2170.0 kg/m3
Contact stiffness (K n ) 105 N/m
Contact damping (Cn ) 0.026 N s/m
Particle diameter (dp ) [0.20 mm, 0.30 mm]

at outlet. Each marker represents a measure realized at the

respective node of the mesh.
It can be observed from the graph that the slopes of the
profiles are slightly different. This difference is due to the
interaction of the fluid and the particle that has a different
effect than the no-slip wall condition. To assess this differ-
ence, both slopes were calculated resulting in a 1.86◦ for
the no-slip condition seabed and a 2.82◦ for the particulate
seabed. The ratio between both slopes is 152 %; therefore,
the effective viscosity of the fluid in the particulate seabed
is 50 % greater than the effective viscosity of the fluid in
the no-slip condition seabed. Furthermore, these results are
qualitative, since no experiments or mesh sensitivity has been
realized.

4.4 Salt plume falling in a fluid column

Due to the lack of physical experiments involving particles

Fig. 19 Fluid mesh utilized for simulations
The employed boundary conditions are inlet velocity of
30.0 mm/s at the left wall for the nodes above the seabed and
0.0 mm/s for the nodes bellow seabed (if applied), no-slip at
the bottom wall, free slip at the upper wall, no penetration
at side walls, and outlet at the right wall (Fig. 20). At time t
= 0 s the particles are frozen and the sink term is nulled so
the fluid develops a steady-state profile. This methodology
was applied to facilitate the convergence. At t = 0.05 s the
particles were released and the sink term computed.
The solution was achieved after the simulation reaches the
steady state. Fig. 21 illustrates the obtained velocity profiles
with controlled parameters, this work presents a comparison
between a numerical simulated and a qualitative experiment
of a salt plume. This experiment consists of a batch of salt
released in a recipient filled with water. The main objective
of this case is to compare the numerical and experimental
features of the salt plume that develops.
A minimal characterization of the salt batch was per-
formed over a sample of 300 salt grains, measuring grain
sizes using digital imaging and a caliper as a reference scale.
While the characterized sample does show slight deviation
from a Gaussian distribution, to simplify the construction of
the model, one was assumed for the entire set, using com-
puted statistical values of the sample data. Computed values
for mean and standard deviation yielded d̄p = 309.0 µm
and σ = 114.0 µm, respectively. The bar chart for the mea-
surements and the assumed Gaussian distribution used in
the numerical model are overlaid in Fig. 22. The additional

123
 Comp. Part. Mech.

Fig. 20 Channel flow inlet

boundary conditions for no-slip
wall (left) and particle bed
(right)

Fig. 22 Salt grain size distribution

Table 4 Data for the salt plume numerical experiment

Property Value (SI units)

Time step for fluid solver 10−3 s

Simulation time 1.0 s
Dynamic viscosity (μf ) 0.001 Pa s
Fluid specific mass (ρ f ) 1000.0 kg/m3
Fluid domain size 0.10 × 0.10 × 0.25 m
Fig. 21 Fluid velocity profiles at outlet Mesh Structured, 12500 tetrahedra with
0.01 m side
Time step for DEM solver 10−5 s (100 subcycles)
properties utilized in the numerical simulation are listed in
Number of particles 28224
Table 4.
Particles specific mass 2170.0 kg/m3
The salt plume was represented numerically by a set of
28224 spherical particles organized in a volume 20 × 20 × Contact stiffness (K n ) 100 N/m
40 mm volume in a fluid domain with 100 × 100 × 250 mm. Contact damping (Cn ) 8.5 × 10−4 N s/m
The salt plume is centered at the fluid column axis at a height Particles diameter (dp ) Gaussian Distribution
(d̄p = 309.0 µm; σ = 114.0 µm)
of 200 mm from the bottom (Fig. 23). The diameter of the

123
Comp. Part. Mech.

particles was generated randomly according to the adjusted

Gaussian distribution. The boundary condition for the fluid
is no-slip on every wall. For this case, no tangential forces
where computed due to the low rate of contact between par-
ticles.
Time evolution of the numerical experiment is presented
in Figs. 24 and 25. The formation of a dome shape is the main
feature observed. The dome shape formation mechanism is
due to the recirculation of the fluid. Initially, the fluid and
particles are in repose. After the particles start to move down-
ward driven by the gravity force, a drag force is generated
at the particle and, consequently, the same force acts on the
fluid through the momentum source. This momentum source
impels the fluid in the center of the domain downward that,
because of incompressibility, impels the surrounding fluid
upward, causing the circulation of the fluid. The circulation
creates a radial component of the fluid velocity that transports
the particles radially, creating the dome profile.
A sequence of snapshots for the experimental test is dis-
played in Fig. 26. A dome shape similar to the one obtained
Fig. 23 Salt plume initial setup
in the numerical simulation is observed. The set of images

Fig. 24 Evolution of the numerical “salt plume”

Fig. 25 Evolution of fluid velocity field of the numerical “salt plume”

123

Fig. 26 Evolution of the experimental “salt plume”
shows an initial small conglomerate of salt grains that gradu-
ally evolves into a dome shape with a tail of grains, the same
features that can be observed in the numerical simulation,
despite the salt plume not being perfectly centered. It should
be considered that the numerical and experimental results
have inherent differences in some aspects, such as the cubic
shape of salt grains, chemical interaction between salt and
water, and initial conditions of salt grains. These deviations
may preclude a quantitative comparison between numerical
and experimental results.
It is important to highlight that such features can only be
observed in a two-way coupled simulation, since the parti-
cles’ motion due to gravity starts the fluid flow which in turn
is responsible for the dome-torus shape in the particles’ tra-
jectory. A one-way fluid-to-particle approach would have the
fluid remain at rest as dampened particles fell in a straight line
due to gravity, whereas a one-way particle-to-fluid approach
would have the fluid recirculating while particles fell in free-
fall due to gravity.
5 Conclusions
In this work, a multiphase hybrid solid-fluid computational
tool was developed coupling the DEM with the Finite Ele-
ment Method (FEM), with the objective of simulating particle
laden flows in scales smaller than two-fluid models.
Verification of the code is obtained through a set of
test cases, especially through the sedimentation case. In
this particular case, numerical, experimental, and analyti-
cal solutions for the terminal velocity of sedimentation of
a single particle immersed in fluid were compared. During
laminar flow regime, the numerical solutions showed good
agreement with experimental and analytical data. During
transient/turbulent flow, where the analytical results are no
longer valid, there was good agreement between numerical
and experimental data.
Additionally, the sedimentation simulations helped gauge
the influence of the FEM mesh size relative to the particle
123
Comp. Part. Mech.
diameter. In the studied cases, severe deviations are observed
when the mesh size approaches particle diameter. These devi-
ations are due to the assumption of constant porosity within
each finite element, which is determined by the fraction of
particles found within it. Despite these issues, the numerical
experiments presented good results for mesh sizes approxi-
mately 10 times as large as particle diameter.
In all cases, several DEM subcycles were computed for
each CFD cycle. Through careful investigation, a two orders
of magnitude ratio, i.e., 100 DEM subcycles for each CFD
cycle, demonstrated to be the most effective in all cases pre-
sented. The exact ratio is directly dependent of the stiffness
and mass of the particles and the fluid flow regime, but the
dynamic interaction between particles will generally require
a much smaller time step than the fluid dynamics.
The implemented code is capable of simulating com-
plex phenomena in a macroscopic scale through a detailed
description of the rheology and dynamics at the particle scale.
In the case of channel flow, it was demonstrated that the
tool could be used to simulate local effects with the purpose
of better understanding differences between simplified and
more complete analyses. Finally, the case of the salt plume
showed remarkable qualitative resemblance between numer-
ical and experimental data and allowed for a more thorough
understanding of the formation of the dome feature due to
the recirculation of fluid.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial
support provided by Petrobras S.A., the Brazilian Oil Company, CNPq,
the National Research Counsil, and ANP, the National Petroleum
Agency.
References
1. Topin V, Dubois F, Monerie Y, Perales F, Wachs A (2011) Micro-
rheology of dense particulate flows: application to immersed
avalanches. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 166(1):63–72
2. Chhabra RP (2012) Bubbles, drops, and particles in non-Newtonian
fluids. CRC press, Boca Raton
3. Peker SM, Helvaci SS (2011) Solid-liquid two phase flow. Elsevier,
Amsterdam
Comp. Part. Mech.
4. Phillips RJ, Armstrong RC, Brown RA, Graham AL, Abbott JR
(1992) constitutive equation for concentrated suspensions that
accounts for shear-induced particle migration. Phys Fluids A
4(1):30–40
5. Zhang DZ, Prosperetti A (1997) Momentum and energy equations
for disperse two-phase flows and their closure for dilute suspen-
sions. Int J Multiph Flow 23(3):425–453
6. Wu S, Yuan L (2015) A hybrid FD-DEM solver for rigid particles
in viscous fluid. Comput Fluids 118:159–166
7. Van der Hoef MA, Annaland MS, Deen NG, Kuipers JAM (2008)
Numerical simulation of dense gas-solid fluidized beds: a multi-
scale modeling strategy. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40:47–70
8. Hoomans BPB, Kuipers JAM, Briels WJ, Van Swaaij WPM (1996)
Discrete particle simulation of bubble and slug formation in a two-
dimensional gas-fluidised bed: a hard-sphere approach. Chem Eng
Sci 51(1):99–118
9. Shimizu Y (2004) Fluid coupling in PFC2D and PFC3D. Numerical
modeling in micromechanics via particle methods. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd international PFC symposium, Kyoto, pp 281–287
10. Elias RN, Martins MAD, Coutinho ALGA (2005) Parallel edge-
based inexact newton solution of steady incompressible 3D navier-
stokes equations., Euro-Par 2005 parallel processingSpringer,
Berlin, pp 1237–1245
11. Cho SH, Choi HG, Yoo JY (2005) Direct numerical simulation of
fluid flow laden with many particles. Int J Multiph Flow 31(4):435–
451
12. Radjaï F, Dubois F (2011) Discrete-element modeling of granular
materials. Wiley-ISTE, New York
13. Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Geotechnique (Thomas Telford) 29(1):47–65
14. O’Sullivan C (2011) Particulate discrete element modelling: a geo-
mechanics perspective. Taylor & Francis, New York
15. Kobayashi T, Kawaguchi T, Tanaka T, Tsuji Y (2002) DEM analysis
on flow pattern of Geldart’s group A particles in fluidized bed. In:
Proceedings of the world congress on particle technology, pp 21–25
16. Li J, Kuipers JAM (2002) Effect of pressure on gas-solid flow
behavior in dense gas-fluidized beds: a discrete particle simulation
study. Powder Technol 127(2):173–184
17. Li J, Kuipers JAM (2003) Gas-particle interactions in dense gas-
fluidized beds. Chem Eng Sci 58(3):711–718
18. Moon SJ, Kevrekidis IG, Sundaresan S (2006) Particle simulation
of vibrated gas-fluidized beds of cohesive fine powders. Ind Eng
Chem Res 45(21):6966–6977
19. Ye M, Van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM (2005) The effects of par-
ticle and gas properties on the fluidization of Geldart A particles.
Chem Eng Sci 60(16):4567–4580
20. Batchelor GK (2000) An introduction to fluid dynamics. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge
21. Hallermeier RJ (1981) Terminal settling velocity of commonly
occurring sand grains. Sedimentology 28(6):859–865
22. Hoomans BPB, Kuipers JAM, Van Swaaij WPM (2000) Granular
dynamics simulation of segregation phenomena in bubbling gas-
fluidised beds. Powder Technol 109(1):41–48
23. Anderson TB, Jackson R (1967) Fluid mechanical description
of fluidized beds. Equations of motion. Ind Eng Chem Fundam
6(4):527–539
24. Kuipers JAM, Van Duin KJ, Van Beckum FPH, Van Swaaij WPM
(1992) A numerical model of gas-fluidized beds. Chem Eng Sci
47(8):1913–1924
25. Wen CY, Yu YH (1966) Mechanics of fluidization. Chem Eng Prog
Symp Ser 62:100–111
26. Rowe PN, Henwood GA (1961) Drag forces in a hydraulic model
of a fluidized bed-part I. Trans Inst Chem Eng 39:43–54
27. Elias RN, Coutinho ALGA (2007) Stabilized edge-based finite ele-
ment simulation of free-surface flows. Int J Numer Methods Fluids
54((6–8)):965–993
28. Guerra GM, Zio S, Camata JJ, Rochinha FA, Elias RN, Paraizo
PLB, Coutinho ALGA (2013) Numerical simulation of particle-
laden flows by the residual-based variational multiscale method.
Int J Numer Methods Fluids 73(8):729–749
29. Lins EF, Elias RN, Rochinha FA, Coutinho ALGA (2010)
Residual-based variational multiscale simulation of free surface
flows. Comput Mech 46(4):545–557
30. Bouillard JX, Lyczkowski RW, Gidaspow D (1989) Porosity dis-
tribution in a fluidized bed with an immersed obstacle. AlIChE J
35(6):908–922
31. Belytschko T, Yen HJ, Mullen R (1979) Mixed methods for time
integration. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 17:259–275
32. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL, Zhu JZ (2013) The finite ele-
ment method: its basis and fundamentals, 7th edn. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Saint Louis
33. Asgian MI, Cundall PA, Brady BH (1995) Mechanical stability
of propped hydraulic fractures—a numerical study. J Pet Technol
(Society of Petroleum Engineers) 47(3):203–208
34. Bear J (2012) Hydraulics of groundwater. Courier Dover Publica-
tions, New York
35. Lohner R (1995) Robust, vectorized search algorithms for interpo-
lation on unstructured grids. J Comput Phys 118(2):380–387
36. Munjiza AA (2004) The combined finite-discrete element method.
Wiley, Chichester
37. Zhu HP, Zhou ZY, Yang RY, Yu AB (2007) Discrete particle simu-
lation of particulate systems: theoretical developments. Chem Eng
Sci 62(13):3378–3396
123