Soil – Machine Interaction: Simulation and Testing

  • Mustafa AlsalehEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG, volume 11)


Researchers at Caterpillar have been using Finite Element Analysis or Method (FEA or FEM), Mesh Free Models (MFM) and Discrete Element Models (DEM) extensively to model different earthmoving operations. Multi-body dynamics models using both flexible and rigid body have been used to model the machine dynamics. The proper soil and machine models along with the operator model can be coupled to numerically model an earthmoving operation. The soil – machine interaction phenomenon has been a challenging matter for many researchers. Different approaches, such as FEA, MFM and DEM are available nowadays to model the dynamic soil behavior; each of these approaches has its own limitations and applications. To apply FEA, MFM or DEM for analyzing earthmoving operations the model must reproduce the mechanical behavior of the granular material. In practice this macro level mechanical behavior is not achieved by modeling the exact physics of the microfabric structure but rather by approximating the macrophysics; that is using continuum mechanics or/and micromechanics, which uses length scales, that are larger than the physical grain size. Different numerical approaches developed by Caterpillar Inc. researchers will be presented and discussed.


Soil Machine Soil dynamics DEM FEM MFM Analytic methods Machine testing 



The author would like to acknowledge the applied research management team for their continuous support for this area of research.


  1. J. Bonet, S. Kulasegaram, Correction and stabilization of smooth particle hydrodynamics methods with applications in metal forming. IJNME 52, 1203–1220 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Bonet, T.-S.L. Lok, Variational and momentum preserving aspects of smooth particle hydrodynamic formulations. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 180, 97–115 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. P.A. Cundall, A computer model for simulating progressive large scale movements in blocky rock systems, in Proceedings of the Symposium International Society Rock Mechanics, Nancy, Paper II-8 (1971)Google Scholar
  4. R.A. Gingold, J.J. Monaghan, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and applications to non-spherical stars, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 181, 375 (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. L.D. Libersky, A.G. Petschek, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics with strength of materials, in Proceedings, The Next Free Lagrange Conference, vol. 395, ed. by H. Trease, J. Fritts, W. Crowley (Springer, New York, 1991), pp. 248–257Google Scholar
  6. L.D. Libersky, A.G. Petschek, T.C. Carney, J.R. Hipp, F.A. Allahdadi, High strain Lagrangian hydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 109, 67–75 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. L.B. Lucy, A Numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astron. J. 82, 1013 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. G. Pande, G. Beer, J.R. Williams, Numerical Methods in Rock Mechanics (Wiley, Chichester, 1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. P.W. Randles, L.D. Libersky, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some recent improvements and applications. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 139, 375–408 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J.R. Williams, G. Hocking, G.G.W. Mustoe, The theoretical basis of the discrete element method, in NUMETA 1985, Numerical Methods of Engineering, Theory and Applications (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Jan 1985)Google Scholar
  11. J.R. Williams, G. Hocking, G.G.W. Mustoe, The theoretical basis of the discrete element method, in NUMETA ‘85 Conference, Sansea, 1985Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virtual Product Development TechnologyCaterpillar Inc.MossvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations