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

net/publication/323495851

Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared

with mass-damping at no extra computational cost

Article  in  Granular Matter · May 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10035-018-0794-1

CITATIONS READS

0 82

1 author:

Ali Yousefi

10 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Discrete Element Modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Yousefi on 11 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Size-dependent damping model for DEM:
improved equilibrium compared with
mass-damping at no extra computational
cost

Ali Yousefi

Granular Matter

ISSN 1434-5021
Volume 20
Number 2

Granular Matter (2018) 20:1-14

DOI 10.1007/s10035-018-0794-1

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer
Nature. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Granular Matter (2018) 20:21
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-018-0794-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium

compared with mass-damping at no extra computational cost
Ali Yousefi1,2

Received: 18 September 2017

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
In the framework of discrete element method, a new damping model is introduced. Unlike the global mass-damping, the new
model applies an approximately equal damping ratio to all particles in a granular assembly. This model does not require exact
stiffness calculations, hence not involved in the unnecessary cost. The new and global damping models were compared based on
overall equilibrium of samples during quasi-static simulations. The equilibrium status was quantified by the unbalanced force
ratio (UFR) and moment index. Moment index, proposed herein, was designed to indicate the relative magnitude of unbalanced
moments. Larger unbalanced forces and moments, measured by UFR and moment index respectively, indicate larger inertial
effects, and being further away from quasi-static conditions. Two samples with different particle size distributions (PSD)
were tested in triaxial compression simulations under drained conditions using both damping models and various damping
ratios at different strain rates. The damping ratios that resulted in the best equilibrium, so-called optimum damping ratios,
were determined and typical values were suggested for each model. Applying damping ratios greater than the optimum values
reduced the kinetic energy however worsened the equilibrium of particles by adding to unbalanced forces and moments.
With the optimum damping ratios and at an equal loading rate, the new damping model proved superiority over global mass-
damping by establishing better force and moment equilibriums while providing the same mechanical response. The new
damping model allows application of higher strain rates for quasi-static simulations, consequently leads to shorter runtimes,
especially for samples with wide PSDs.

Keywords Size-dependent · Damping ratio · Mass-damping · Input parameters · Quasi-static · Discrete element method

1 Introduction any granular assembly subjected to movement. In real inter-

In physics, damping is any effect that tends to reduce the
amplitude of vibrations. In real oscillators, damping slows
the motion of the system. In engineering, damping models
are applied to simulate the decay of the oscillations in a sys-
tem after a disturbance is applied.
When boundaries of a real granular assembly are moved,
the disturbance is transferred to the particles, and they dis-
place, deform, and break to balance the external load; then,
they oscillate about the steady state positions until they
find new static-equilibrium positions and stop from vibrat-
ing which is due to damping. Damping occurs naturally in
B Ali Yousefi
ali_yousefi@mail.com
1 anism stops dissipating energy if the normal contact force
California, USA
2 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
particle contacts there is damage to surface asperities and
plastic yielding from the initial contact formation [1]. Also,
irreversible plastic strains develop in solid particle materials
as the stress continues to increase [2]. These damages and
yielding dissipate energy in real particulate assemblies.
However, the discrete element method (DEM) that is used
to simulate the behavior of rigid particulate assemblies lacks
a “material damping” [3] induced by inelastic deformations.
The consequence for such a DEM model is that if there is
no yielding by contact separation or frictional sliding, parti-
cles will vibrate constantly like a highly complex system of
connected mass-springs.
A Coulomb friction mechanism is usually implemented in
the tangential component of the contact force model which
causes damping in frictional sliding. However, this mech-
exceeds a threshold and the contact sticks. In other words, the
shear component of the contact force has to reach a threshold

0123456789().: V,-vol 123

 Author's personal copy
21 Page 2 of 14
value for the contact to start sliding and dissipating energy
which is not always the case. Where contact damping and
material yielding are not implemented, the contact force does
not have a damping mechanism by itself. On the other hand,
contact separation does not occur often in quasi-static load-
ing of dense granular assemblies. Therefore, it is inevitable to
apply an artificial damping to establish equilibrium in DEM
when modeling loading with quasi-static conditions [4].
In quasi-static DEM simulations, damping models are
intended to improve the particles equilibrium through dis-
sipating the kinetic energy which results in the vibrations
within as few computation cycles as possible in order to save
the runtime. In most DEM models, the damping effect is
applied using mass-proportional model (aka global mass-
damping) [4] or non-viscous local damping [5], both in the
particle level, or viscous dashpot damping model [4] in the
contact level. The most commonly used model is the global
mass-damping which can be envisioned as the effect of dash-
pots connecting each particle to the ground according to
the author [4]. The viscous damping force that each parti-
cle receives is proportional to its mass; hence, it is called
mass-damping.
The mass-proportional damping is a special case of
Rayleigh damping [6] which itself can be considered as a
special case of a more general class of structural damping
systems introduced in [7]. This class is represented by the
following “Caughey” series:

N −1  j
C=M α j M −1 K (1)
j=0
where C, M, and K are N × N damping, mass, and stiffness
matrices of a multi-degree-of-freedom structural system,
respectively, and α j ’s are damping factors. For example, in
m
[8] the application of M M −1 K proportional damping
for dynamic structural systems investigated with m value
tuned to target a specific frequency range of vibrations. If
the damping matrix can be described by the Caughey series,
the structural system possesses classical normal modes. In
linear systems, the dynamic analysis can be simplified using
superposition of the normal modes. This has resulted in the
widespread use of Rayleigh damping in structural models,
for instance.
However, this is not why mass-damping is popular in
DEM applications; since, mass and stiffness matrices are not
formed in the common explicit formulation of DEM. Instead,
the equilibrium equations are solved for each particle in the
assembly, separately, at every time step. The demanding com-
putation is the main downside of DEM, and mass-damping
is popular because it requires the least computational effort
among all damping models. The local damping involves in
123
A. Yousefi
a little computation as well; however, it lacks any physical
analogy, hence is not as popular as mass-damping.
In addition to selection of an appropriate damping model,
care should be taken in the selection of the damping parame-
ters. While damping is a means to overcome the non-physical
nature of the contact constitutive models used in DEM with
rigid particles, it is difficult to select a physically meaningful
value for the damping parameters or to relate the damping
models to physical phenomena. Particularly, when a non-
linear contact model (e.g. Hertz model) is used, selecting a
meaningful value for the artificial damping parameters can-
not be simply justified physically.
However, the simulated behavior of granular assemblies
is influenced by the choice of the damping parameters. For
example, a discussion is included in [9] on the sensitivity
of the response to the damping factor adopted for the mass-
damping model, indicating that this parameter can affect both
the macro- and particle-scale responses. It was concluded
that with increasing damping the volume change and peak
shear strength of the material increase whereas velocities of
particles decrease.
According to [10], using high damping ratios in undrained
loading tests not only changes the material behavior but
aggravates the overall equilibrium in the samples, and its
effect can be regarded similar to the effect of an increased
strain rate. Thus, to prevent erroneous outcomes, it has been
recommended to use the minimum damping that yields stable
results in order to minimize the interference in the response
of DEM models. Therefore, a minimum damping ratio that
effectively minimizes the excessive particle oscillations and
enhances the overall particles equilibrium without affect-
ing the material response, so-called optimum damping ratio,
needs to be determined.
2 Indices for monitoring equilibrium status
and optimum damping ratio
In quasi-static simulations, it is important to monitor the par-
ticles equilibrium to ensure the static equilibrium is met with
an acceptable error. The better is the overall equilibrium of
particles (or equilibrium status for brevity), the more suc-
cessful is implied the performance of a damping model. In
order to assess the equilibrium status within an assembly, it
has been recommended monitoring the magnitude of the par-
ticles’ unbalanced forces by comparing them to the contact
forces to ensure that the out-of-balance forces are relatively
small [11].
For this purpose, quantifiable measures should be used
to standardize and simplify this procedure. In the present
study, two indices—one based on unbalanced forces, the
other one based on unbalanced moments—were used to eval-
uate the performance of the conventional mass-damping and
 Author's personal copy
Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared with mass-damping at no…
n p  
the newly-introduced damping systems in establishing equi-
librium. Both indices indicate the ratio of the magnitude of
particles’ inertial effects to the magnitude of particles’ static
effects on average. Hence, the smaller is the equilibrium
index, the better is implied the overall equilibrium of par-
ticles. The optimum damping ratio has been defined in this
way as a damping ratio value that leads to the least index
value. Either of the above-mentioned indices can be used for
determining the optimum damping ratio.
2.1 Unbalanced force indices
The unbalanced force index was proposed in [9], as follows:
 mation of the magnitudes of the unbalanced moments in the

 2
 np
 p=1 f pr es /n p
=
n c
Iuf (2)
c=1 ( f c ) /n c
2 vector components of the moments. The moment index is
f pr es is the resultant of the contact forces (i.e., out-of-balance
or unbalanced force) acting on particle p, and f c is the con-
tact force for contact c, while there are n p particles and n c
contacts in the system.
A variation of Iuf , called UFR, i.e. unbalanced force ratio
was defined in [12] as:
n p  r es  The mass damping is applied in the equilibrium equations
p=1  f p  /n p
UFR =
n c (3) of particles. The equation of translational motion (i.e. force
c=1 | f c | /n c
This index shows the relative magnitude of the average out-
of-balance forces which is used to quantify the equilibrium
status.
Iuf and UFR are statistical indices. In the present study, a
new index was introduced for the comparison purpose. The
new index is called moment index. The moment index is
intended to evaluate the unbalanced moments of particles,
which is not covered in UFR.
2.2 Proposed moment index
For non-spherical particles, especially for particles with
highly asymmetrical shapes, the moment equilibrium error
may be unsatisfactorily large while the force equilibrium is
acceptable. Thus, it is important to check the moment equi-
librium status as well as the force equilibrium status. Iuf and
UFR can be used to check the force equilibrium. However,
they do not provide any information about the out-of-balance
moments. The moment index can be used to monitor the rel-
ative magnitude of the out-of-balance moments.
We define the moment index as the ratio of the sum of the
magnitudes of the unbalanced moments of the particles per
volume of the assembly to the magnitude of the octahedral
stress of the assembly.
Page 3 of 14 21
Mp
p=1
IMom = (4)
V |σoct |
M p is the unbalanced moment of particle p, n p is the number
of total particles, V is the volume of the sample, including
the volume occupied by the particles and inter-particle voids,
and σoct is the octahedral stress of the assembly defined by:
1  
σoct = √ σ1 ê1 + σ2 ê2 + σ3 ê3 (5)
3
where σi is the stress in the ith principal direction, êi .
Instead of the vector sum of the particle moments, sum-
numerator of Eq. (4) preserves the unbalanced moment con-
tribution of each particle by preventing from negating the
dimensionless and independent of the choice of density and
elastic modulus of the particles, and the characteristic length
of the model.
3 Implementation of mass-damping models
in discrete element method
equilibrium equation) for particle i, is:
Mi Ẍ i + Ci Ẋ i = Fi (6)
where Mi is the particle mass (as a 3 × 3 diagonal matrix),
Ẋ i and Ẍ i are the velocity and acceleration (vectors) at a
specific time t, respectively, Ci is the viscous damping coef-
ficient (diagonal matrix) for translational motion, and Fi is
the resultant of the contact forces (as a vector) acting on the
particle, also known as out-of-balance or unbalanced force.
In a mass-damping model, Ci is determined by:
C i = A i Mi (7)
where Ai is the mass-damping factor (diagonal matrix) for
particle i in translational motion.
For an arbitrarily-shaped (symmetric or asymmetric) par-
ticle, particle i, the general equation of rotational motion (i.e.
moment equilibrium equation) in the local coordinate sys-
tem of the particle—centered on the particle’s center of mass
with its axes fixed to the particle and aligned with the parti-
cle’s principal axes of inertia—is expressed by the following
Euler’s equation:
 
Ii θ̈i + θ̇i × Ii θ̇i + Di θ̇i = Ti (8)
123
 Author's personal copy
21 Page 4 of 14 A. Yousefi

where “×” denotes cross product, Ii is the (3 × 3) iner-
tia matrix, θ̇i and θ̈i are rotational velocity and acceleration
(vectors) of particle i, respectively, Ti is the resultant of the
contact moments acting on the particle (as a vector), and Di
is the viscous damping coefficient (diagonal matrix) for rota-
tion which is determined in the mass-damping model using:
Di = Bi Ii (9)
where Bi is the mass-damping factor (diagonal matrix) for
particle i in rotational motion.
Mass-damping model can simply be implemented in
the explicit solution of the force equilibrium equation, i.e.
Eq. (6). To update the particle positions assuming Eq. (7),
and by employing Velocity Verlet integration approach with
a time increment of t, the velocity at the next time step is
obtained by:
Then, using Eq. (9), a relationship is established between ηi
and Bi as:
1
ηi = Bi i−1 (12)
2
In the next sections, the original global mass-damping model
is explained in detail followed by introducing the size-
dependent damping.
3.1 Conventional mass-proportional damping
(global mass-damping)
The conventional mass-damping model—hereafter referred
to as the old damping (OD)—is applied using Eqs. (6)–(9). In
this model, a constant mass damping factor, α0 (in the scalar
form for example), is used for all the six degrees-of-freedom
of a particle. This value is also applied to all differently-sized

−1 
particles equally in an assembly, i.e.
(t+t/2) 1 1 1 1 (t−t/2)
Ẋ i = Î + Ai Î − Ai Ẋ i
t 2 t 2
 For i = 1 to n; α0 = constant
+ Mi−1 Fi
(t−t/2)
(10) Ai = Bi = α0 Î (13)
n = Number of particles

where Î is the (3 × 3) identity matrix. Note that Eq. According to Eqs. (11) and (12), this assumption translates
(10) can readily be derived using Eqs. (6) and (7) and to:
(t) (t+t/2) (t−t/2) (t)
assuming Ẋ i = 21 Ẋ i + Ẋ i and Ẍ i = α0 −1 α0 −1
  ξi = ωi , ηi =  (14)
1 (t+t/2) (t−t/2)
− Ẋ i 2 2 i
t Ẋ i .
Then, using the velocities the particle displacements are It is evident that the damping ratios that are applied in
determined and the position vectors are updated. the OD model to different particles are not equal as they
A similar approach is adopted for the moment equilibrium depend on the natural frequencies referring to Eq. (14). This
equation if the rotational degrees of freedom are uncoupled model allocates greater damping ratios to low frequencies
which is the case for spherical particles. For general particle rather than high frequencies, and vice versa. This results in
shapes, time marching approach is explained elsewhere. For the reduced efficiency of this model in dissipating exces-
the implementation of mass-damping in time integration for sive kinetic energy of vibrations. In [5] this drawback is
spheroidal particles, as used in this study, interested readers acknowledged by mentioning that: “The mass-damping [fac-
can refer to [13]. tor] is applied equally to all nodes while in reality different
According to classical dynamics, the critical damping amounts of damping [factor] may be appropriate for different
coefficient (matrix) of particle i in translational motion is regions”. The proposed size-dependent damping model—
Ccri = 2ωi Mi where ωi is the natural frequency (diag- hereafter referred to as the new damping (ND)—overcomes
onal matrix) in translational motion for the particle. The this issue by assigning approximately equal damping ratios
damping ratio (diagonal matrix) for this particle in trans- to all particles with different sizes.
lational motion, ξi , is defined through Ci = ξi Ccri . Then,
using Eq. (7), a relationship is established between ξi and 3.1.1 Nominal damping ratio for OD model
Ai as:
As in [10], the following equation is used in this study to
1
ξi = Ai ωi−1 (11) calculate α0 for the OD model:
2

Similarly, the critical damping coefficient (matrix) of particle α0 = 2ωmax

#
ξ0 (15)
i in rotational motion is Dcri = 2i Ii where i is the natural
frequency (diagonal matrix) in the rotational motion for the In Eq. (15), ωmax
# is approximately equal to the maximum
particle. The damping ratio (diagonal matrix) for this particle frequency that occurs in the assembly. Adopted
 from [10],
in rotational motion, ηi , is defined through Di = ηi Dcri . this value is obtained from ωmax
# = 1
Rmin
E
ρ where Rmin is

123
 Author's personal copy
Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared with mass-damping at no…
the average size of the smallest particle (i.e. the radius of a
sphere with an equal volume to that of the particle) and E
and ρ are the elastic modulus and density of the particles’
material, respectively. Despite the fact that different damping
ratios are applied to the particles with different sizes accord-
ing to Eq. (14), ξ0 has been selected as a nominal value to
represent the damping ratio value for the OD model to be
used in the comparisons with the ND model in the present
study.
3.2 Proposed size-dependent damping
It was shown that the OD model is not able to allocate an equal
damping ratio to all particles with different sizes. Instead, it
applies an equal damping factor to all particles with different
sizes through Eq. (13) in Eqs. (6)–(9). In contrast, the ND
model is intended to customize the damping factor for each
individual particle in the assembly based on the particle size
in order that an approximately equal damping ratio is applied
to the particles.
In order to apply an equal damping ratio value, ξ0 (as a
scalar), to all of the six degrees-of-freedom of all particles,
the damping factors, Ai and Bi , in Eqs. (7) and (9) should be
obtained from Eqs. (11) and (12) assuming ξi = ηi = ξ0 Î as
follows:
Ai = 2ξ0 ωi , Bi = 2ξ0 i (16)
The natural frequencies of a particle’s vibrations (i.e. ωi and
i ) depend on the stiffness involved in the movement of
that particle. The stiffness of the particle is sum of the stiff-
ness contributions from each contact that the particle forms
with adjacent particles. Each contact stiffness contribution
depends on the contact orientation, contact overlap and the
sizes of both particles in the contact. DEM simulations are
generally very expensive in terms of computational cost. It
is wise to keep the models as simple as possible and avoid
less important calculations. Therefore, the frequency that is
needed to apply a specific damping ratio has been obtained
in an approximate way that does not require the exact stiff-
ness calculations. As a result, the ND model only accounts
for the size-dependency and the other influencing factors are
neglected for simplicity and to avoid unnecessarily increase
of the computational burden, so this model is called size-
dependent damping.
For this aim, the following relationship was suggested in
[10] to approximate the natural frequency of particle i with
an average radius of Ri :
 size-dependent damping models for a mono-dispersed sam-
1 E
ωi# = (17)
Ri ρ of the particle-size differences on the performance of the
Page 5 of 14 21
This value, which was interpreted from the sonic wave veloc-
ity in particulate media, does not suggest any difference
between the six degrees-of-freedom of an arbitrarily-shaped
particle. Nonetheless, this rough approximation considerably
improves the efficiency of the ND damping model in the
absence of a more accurate value for the natural frequencies
in Eq. (16) as demonstrated in the forthcoming numerical
examples.
Therefore, considering ωi ≈ i ≈ ωi# Î, Eq. (16)
becomes:
Ai = Bi = 2ξ0 ωi# Î (18)
Assuming αi = 2ξ0 ωi# Î, and using Eq. (17), Eq. (18) is
rewritten as:

2ξ0
For i = 1 to n; αi = E
ρ
Ri Ai = Bi = αi Î (19)
n = Number of particles
The ND model can be simply implemented using the same
Eqs. (6)–(9) and Eq. (19) with no considerable change in the
computational cost compared to the OD model.
Unlike the OD model, the damping factor of the ND
model, αi (as a scalar) is not constant. Instead, this value
for each particle is inversely proportional to the average size
of that particle.
It is important to note that in the ND model, the actual
damping ratio of particles are approximately equal to the
intended value, ξ0 ; because, the reference frequencies of the
particles are approximate as mentioned. This is due to the
fact that the exact stiffness calculation was avoided as it is
unnecessarily costly. Therefore, the ND model preserves the
simplicity of mass-damping while improving the equilibrium
as demonstrated in the numerical examples, subsequently.
4 Numerical tests schedule
The numerical tests were conducted to evaluate the efficiency
of the introduced size-dependent damping model—proposed
to achieve a better equilibrium status (i.e. less force and
moment indices)—and compare it to the efficiency of the con-
ventional damping model. Another objective was to assess
the functionality of the proposed moment index and com-
pare it to that of the unbalanced force ratio. In addition, it
was intended to determine an appropriate damping value for
the conventional and size-dependent damping models appli-
cable for shearing at different strain rates.
The response of the models using the conventional and
ple would be the same, thus in order to study the effect
123
 Author's personal copy
21 Page 6 of 14 A. Yousefi

Table 1 Particle sizes and particle size distribution of Sample A

Particle type Particle Minor radii Major Nominal par- Number of Weight Accumulated
number aspect ratio (mm) radius ticle size, d particles ratio (%) weight ratio
(mm) (mm) (%)

1 1.2 1.0 1.2 2.13 7284 10 10

2 1.3 3.0 3.9 6.55 498 20 30
3 1.4 5.0 7.0 11.19 150 30 60
4 1.5 7.0 10.5 16.03 68 40 100

Table 2 Particle sizes and particle size distribution of Sample B

Particle type Particle Minor radii Major radius Nominal par- Number of Weight Accumulated
number aspect ratio (mm) (mm) ticle size, d particles ratio (%) weight ratio
(mm) (%)

1 1.2 5.5 6.6 11.69 1448 10 10

2 1.3 6.0 7.8 13.10 2056 20 30
3 1.4 6.5 9.1 14.54 2252 30 60
4 1.5 7.0 10.5 16.03 2244 40 100

100%
Table 3 presents the input parameters of the samples. 14
90% different damping ratios ranging from 0 to 5% (i.e. 0, 0.05,
80% 0.1, 0.12, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 2, 5%) were
Accumulated Weight Ratio

70% applied in order to determine the optimum damping values

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Sample A
10%
Sample B
0%
1 10
Nominal Particle Size:[mm]
Fig. 1 Particle size distribution of Samples A and B (semi-log)
conventional and size-dependent damping models, two poly-
dispersed samples with 8000 particles, Samples A and B,
with different particle size distributions (PSD) were created.
The PSDs of Samples A and B are shown in Tables 1
and 2, respectively, as well as in Fig. 1. The nominal particle
size, d, refers to the diameter of a sphere with volume equal
to the volume of the particle. Sample A is well-graded with
particles distributed within a wide range of particle sizes from
dmin = 2.13 mm to dmax = 16.03 mm, resulting in a size
disparity ratio equal to dmax /dmin = 7.53. Sample B has
a narrower PSD ranging from dmin = 11.69 mm to dmax =
16.03 mm and resulting in a size disparity ratio equal to 1.37.
The initial void ratios of Samples A and B are 0.419 and
0.632, respectively.
for each damping model.
The dimensionless strain rate, ε , was introduced in [10] as
strain rate, ε̇, normalized by the critical time step of a partic-
ulate assembly, i.e. ε = ε̇/tc , where the critical time step
√
is estimated by tc = 2Rmin ρ/E. They demonstrated that
ε , unlike ε̇, is independent of ρ, E, and the characteristic
length scale of the assembly, L 0 (e.g. L 0 = 2Rmin ). On the
other hand, the simulation runtime is a function of the num-
100 ber of computation cycles, Ncyc , for a sample with certain
number of particles for a loading test up to a specific strain
ε
of ε, i.e. Ncyc = ε̇t . The time step, t, is selected less than
tc to ensure computational stability, i.e. t = ct tc where
ct is the time step ratio with a value less than one. Thus,
ε
Ncyc = ct ε̇t c
and Ncyc = ctεε . For a constant ct , while
Ncyc is a function of ε̇ and tc , it is merely a function of ε .
Hence, the simulation runtime is inversely proportional to ε
and invariant with t. As a result, ε is a sole parameter that
indicates the simulation runtime for a sample with specific
number of particles. Therefore, ε is a better metric to repre-
sent the deformation rate. On this account, the deformation
rates are presented in the dimensionless form in this study.
To perform triaxial compression tests, uniform strain field
was applied in the vertical direction while the confining pres-
sure was maintained at 390 kPa in the lateral directions by
means of a servo-controlled mechanism.
The samples were sheared at four different dimensionless
strain rates, equal to 10−8 , 10−7 , 10−6 , and 10−5 , and up to

123
 Author's personal copy
Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared with mass-damping at no… Page 7 of 14 21

1.00%
Table 3 Features of the simulation code and input parameters of Sam-
ples A and B UFR (Sample A, ND, = 0.5%)
IMom (Sample A, ND, = 0.5%)
Computation code ELLIPSE3D
Particle shape Ellipsoid

Index Value
Contact laws Hertz–Mindlin
Boundary conditions Periodic 0.10%

Aspect ratios of sample 1, 1, 1

(cuboid) UFR, A6-ND-0.50
Initial stress state of samples σ11 = σ22 = σ33 = 390 kPa I_Mom, A6-ND-0.50

Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.3 UFR B7-OD-1.00

Inter-particle friction 0.2
coefficient in shrinkage phase
of sample preparation (μ0 )
Inter-particle friction 0.5
coefficient in loading stage
(μ)
Time step ratio (ct ) 0.32
Density, ρ 2650 kg/m3
Elastic modulus, E 7.8 × 107 kPa
10% strain in the major loading direction in order to enable
the study of the damping effect at different deformation rates.
It was ensured that the peak states had been captured
before the loading ends at 10% strain. Note that the index
values were evaluated at 250 points (i.e., one point at every
0.04% strain) and averaged between 0 and 10% strain.
5 Numerical test results
By analysis and interpretation of the test results, we aim to
compare the two indices of equilibrium status, determine an
optimum value for the damping ratio based on each index,
investigate the relationship between the moment index value
and damping ratio, and dimensionless strain rate, determine
suitable strain rate for quasi-static loading, determine the
improvement in the runtime achieved by using the ND model
compared to the OD model, as well as presenting some obser-
vations regarding ξ ε value followed by investigating the
consequences of using zero damping.
5.1 Comparison of UFR and IMom
Comparison of the UFR and IMom values indicated that the
two indices are closely valued and show similar trends with
changes of damping ratio, ξ , and the dimensionless strain
rate, ε ; that is, when UFR increases, IMom increases and
vice versa. For example, for either sample with a specific
damping ratio using the same damping model, an increase
of the shearing rate increases both indices. The values of
the two indices are very close for the models with Sample
A, whereas IMom yields smaller values for the models with
UFR, (Sample B, OD, = 1.0%)
IMom (Sample
I_Mom, B, OD,
B7-OD-1.00 = 1.0%)
0.01%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
Applied Strain,
Fig. 2 Evolution of UFR and moment index with applied strain for two
samples with two damping models
Sample B (2–3 times smaller) compared to the UFR values.
In Fig. 2 where the UFR and moment index of two sample
models are shown, the two indices exhibit the same pattern
of variations.
5.2 Optimum damping ratio, ξopt , based on the
moment index
Figure 3 shows the moment index values that were obtained
for Sample A with the old damping model and different
damping ratios at different loading speeds. It is evident that
at every dimensionless strain rate, with the increase of the
damping ratio from 0, the index value decreases from its
value at ξ = 0 to a minimum value. The damping ratio which
results in the minimal index value is called the optimum
damping ratio, ξopt . From this point forward, with further
increase in the damping ratio, the moment index increases. It
indicates that ξ = ξopt is the best value for the damping ratio
to achieve and attain state of equilibrium in the assembly.
An optimum damping value for each loading speed is also
observed for Sample B with the old damping model, with
reference to Fig. 4. As shown in Figs. 5 and 6 the same
observation applies to Samples A and B, respectively, with
the new damping model. In addition, in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and
6, the optimum damping ratio for each loading speed was
determined by fitting a smooth curve to the data points, and
the index values were interpolated at the optimum damping
points. The optimum damping ratios for Samples A and B
with different loading rates and using the conventional and
size-dependent damping models based on the moment index
have been collected in Fig. 7. This figure indicates that at
low deformation rates, which suit the quasi-static regime,
the optimum damping ratios for Samples A and B using the
new damping model are about 0.5 and 0.4%, respectively,
whereas using the old damping model for Samples A and B

123
 Author's personal copy
21 Page 8 of 14 A. Yousefi

100.00% 10.000%

10.00% 1.000%
Moment Index, IMom

Moment Index, IMom

1.00% 0.100%

0.10% 0.010%
1E-05 1E-05
1E-06 1E-06
= 1E-07
1E-07
1E-08 1E-08

0.01% opt 0.001% opt

0.05% 0.50% 5.00% 0.05% 0.50% 5.00%

Damping Ratio, Damping Ratio,

Fig. 3 Moment index versus damping ratio for Sample A with old Fig. 6 Moment index versus damping ratio for Sample B with new
damping model at different dimensionless strain rates (log–log scale) damping model at different dimensionless strain rates (log–log scale)

10.000%
at low speeds, the optimum damping ratios are about 0.25–
0.35%. It was learned that the value of the optimum damping
1.000% ratio depends on the particle size distribution to some extent,
and this agrees with the results of [14] from the experimental
Moment Index, IMom

tests.
0.100%
For Sample B, which has particle sizes within a narrow
range, the optimum damping ratios at different strain rates
are close for the new and old damping models, as expected. In
0.010%
1E-05
1E-06
Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6, it is evident that at lower strain rates, IMom
1E-07 values grow faster with damping ratio around the optimum
1E-08

0.001% opt value noticing the log scale. Therefore, it is important to

0.05% 0.50% 5.00% pick an appropriate damping ratio in quasi-static simulations
Damping Ratio, where a relatively low strain rate is applied.

Fig. 4 Moment index versus damping ratio for Sample B with old
damping model at different dimensionless strain rates (log–log scale) 5.3 Optimum damping ratio, ξopt , based on UFR

100.00% The optimum damping ratio value can alternatively be deter-

mined based on the UFR, as shown in Fig. 8. It is evident that
the optimum damping values, which are calculated based on
10.00%
the UFR and IMom , are very close, especially at the lower
Moment Index, IMom

strain rates usually intended for maintaining the quasi-static

conditions.
1.00%

5.4 Relationship between moment index and

0.10%
1E-05
dimensionless strain rate
1E-06
1E-07
1E-08 Figure 9 shows the moment index values at optimum damp-
0.01% opt
ing ratios versus dimensionless strain rate for Samples A and
0.05% 0.50% 5.00%
B using the old and new damping models. Strong linear rela-
Damping Ratio,
tionships are inferred in the log–log scale (i.e., power fit in
Fig. 5 Moment index versus damping ratio for Sample A with new normal scales) between IMom and ε at ξ = ξopt for Sam-
damping model at different dimensionless strain rates (log–log scale) ples A and B using the old and new damping models. This
type of relationships is still in effect for ξ > ξopt . How-
ever, for ξ < ξopt , the linear relationship in log–log scales
is not valid. It is clear that the moment index increases with

123
 Author's personal copy
Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared with mass-damping at no… Page 9 of 14 21

0.6% 10.000%

0.5%
1.000%

Moment Index, IMom

opt

0.4%
0.100%
Optimum Damping Ratio,

0.3% A-OD
IMom = 336.46( )0.7511, R² = 0.9970
0.010%
IMom = 629.92( )0.8300, R² = 0.9995 A-ND

IMom = 1124.07( )0.9661, R² = 0.9997 B-OD

0.2%
IMom = 1047.28( )0.9607, R² = 0.9990 B-ND
0.001%
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05
0.1%
A-ND A-OD Applied Strain Rate,

B-ND B-OD Fig. 9 Moment index at ξ = ξopt for Samples A and B using old (OD)
0.0%
and new (ND) damping models at different dimensionless loading rates
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05
(log–log scale)
Applied Dimensionless Strain Rate,

Fig. 7 Optimum damping ratios of Samples A and B versus dimension-

less strain rate using old (OD) and new (ND) damping models based on performance of the new damping model was better than that
moment index (semi-log scale) (connecting lines are drawn for visibil-
of the old damping model in terms of equilibrium where the
ity)
particle-size disparity is high.
0.6%

5.5 Quasi-static strain rate and improvement gained

0.5% using the proposed damping model

We defined quasi-static dimensionless strain rate, εQS  , as the

opt

0.4%
Optimum Damping Ratio,

highest dimensionless strain rate above which the quasi-static

conditions are violated. To have the quasi-static conditions
0.3% fulfilled, the loading rate has to be small enough to pre-
vent large inertial forces from building up in the model. It
0.2% is important to determine the largest strain rate at which the
quasi-static condition can be maintained in order to perform
the simulation in the shortest runtime possible. According
0.1%
A-ND A-OD to Eq. (6), the out-of-balance force of each particle in every
direction is equal to the sum of the inertial force and the
B-ND B-OD
0.0% damping force of the particle in that direction. By monitor-
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05
ing the unbalanced forces of the particles, one needs to ensure
Applied Dimensionless Strain Rate, that the inertial forces are relatively small when they are com-
pared to the inter-particles contact forces. Alternatively, the
Fig. 8 Optimum damping ratios of Samples A and B versus dimension-
less strain rate using old (OD) and new (ND) damping models based on unbalanced moments of particles can be examined referring
the UFR (semi-log scale) (connecting lines are drawn for visibility) to Eq. (8). For this purpose, the value of the moment index
is monitored. We assume that the quasi-static condition is
maintained if IMom ≤ 0.1%. This conservative assumption
increase in the dimensionless strain rate. Moreover, in Fig. 9, has been put to test by the author for many cases. Where the
it is evident that the moment index values for Sample B at dif- moment index is smaller or equal to 0.1%, the peak mobilized
ferent strain rates are almost identical using the old and new friction angle is only negligibly greater than its quasi-static
damping models as expected due to the lower particle size value which is determined by the asymptotic φ value in the φ
differences. However, the moment index values at ξ = ξopt versus ε curve. Other values such as maximum volumetric
for Sample A using the old and new damping models at dif- strain and average coordination number approach to con-
ferent loading speeds differ. The new damping model results stant values when IMom ≤ 0.1%. Hence, we define εQS  as

in a lower moment index for Sample A indicating that the the strain rate corresponding to IMom = IQS = 0.1%.

123
 Author's personal copy
21 Page 10 of 14 A. Yousefi

Table 4 Quasi-static strain rates 

Sample Damping model ξopt (%) εQS Relative improvement
and optimum damping ratios of
Samples A and B with old and
A OD 0.23 4.38 × 10−8 1
new damping models
A ND 0.51 1.03 × 10−7 2.35
B OD 0.34 5.46 × 10−7 1
B ND 0.40 5.42 × 10−7 0.99

Since there is a strong relationship between IMom and ε 30

Mobilized Friction Angle, , in degrees

when ξ = ξopt , we can calculate εQS  from this relationship
25
by letting IMom = 0.1%. In this way, the quasi-static strain
rates of Samples A and B with the old and new damping
20
models have been calculated and shown in Table 4. Appar-
 for Sample B is almost equal using the old and new
ently, εQS 15
damping models. This was expected because the particles of
Sample B are distributed in a narrow size range, and thus the 10
new size-dependent damping model cannot make a remark-
able difference. However, for Sample A the quasi-static strain 5
A-OD
rate with the new damping model is as large as 2.35 times A-ND
the quasi-static strain rate with the old damping model. This 0
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
means that where using the OD model, the runtime required
Applied Strain in Major Direction,
to perform a simulation on Sample A is 23.5 days, for exam-
ple, to keep the moment index below 0.1%, obtaining the Fig. 10 Friction angle evolved with applied strain for Sample A with
same equilibrium index can be accomplished using the ND old (OD) and new (ND) damping models with optimum damping ratio
model in 10 days. This is a significant improvement over the and quasi-static strain rates
conventional mass-damping model for speeding up the DEM
simulations when the sample contains particles with a large 3.5%
size disparity. In addition, it is evident that the size disparity
 3.0%
has an adverse effect on εQS using both damping models,
Volumetric Strain, v=ΔV/V0

because Sample A with a larger size disparity has a smaller 2.5%

 than Sample B with a small size disparity.
εQS
2.0%
It was aimed to compare the responses of Sample A
obtained using the old and new damping models with the 1.5%
optimum damping ratios at quasi-static strain rates that
1.0%
were determined with each damping models, separately. The
damping ratios and the dimensionless strain rates of the two 0.5% A-OD
models are shown in Table 5. Figures 10 and 11 show the A-ND
0.0%
friction angle and the volumetric strain of the two mod- 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
els, respectively, that evolved with the applied strain where -0.5%
Applied Strain in Major Direction,
almost identical response curves are observed for the two
models. Therefore, using the new size dependent damping Fig. 11 Volumetric strain evolved with applied strain for Sample A
model reproduces the behavior obtained using the old damp- with old (OD) and new (ND) damping models with optimum damping
ratio and quasi-static strain rates
ing model, but in less runtime where the same equilibrium
status is intended.

5.6 Investigations related to ξ ε  value

Table 5 Dimensionless strain rates and damping ratios for Sample A
with old (OD) and new (ND) damping models selected for comparison In Fig. 12, the variations of the peak mobilized friction angles,
φPeak , with the dimensionless strain rate are shown for four
Model ε ξ (%)
sample models with constant damping ratios close to the opti-
Sample A with OD 4 × 10−8 0.25 mum values. It is clear that where the damping ratios are
Sample A with ND 1 × 10−7 0.50 constant the friction angles of the assemblies increase as the
dimensionless strain rate increases. Where there is a large

123
 Author's personal copy
Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared with mass-damping at no… Page 11 of 14 21

40 40
A-OD ( = 0.2%)

Peak Mobilized Friction Angle, , in degrees

1E-05
A-ND ( = 0.5%) 1E-06
1E-07
Peak Mobilized Fricon Angle, , in degrees
B-OD ( = 0.3%)
35 1E-08
B-ND ( = 0.4%)
35

30

30
25

25 20
1E-12 1E-11 1E-10 1E-09 1E-08 1E-07 1E-06

Fig. 14 Peak friction angle for Sample B with new damping model
20 versus product of damping ratio and dimensionless strain rate (semi-
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 log scale)
Applied Dimensionless Strain Rate,

Fig. 12 Friction angle versus dimensionless strain rate for Samples 24

Mobilized Friction Angle, , in degrees

A and B with old (OD) and new (ND) damping models and constant
damping ratios (semi-log scale)

23
Peak Mobilized Fricon Angle, , in degrees

55
1E-05
1E-06
50
1E-07
1E-08
45 22

40 B5
B6
35 B7
21
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
30
Applied Strain in Major Direction,
25
Fig. 15 Friction angle of models with equal ξ ε values evolved with
applied strain. Solid line indicates the model with ξ < ξopt ; dotted and
20
0.05% 0.50% 5.00%
dashed lines indicate the models with ξ > ξopt
Damping Ratio,

Fig. 13 Peak friction angle for Sample A with old damping model
versus damping ratio values at various dimensionless strain rates (semi- with ND model in Fig. 14. It is evident that, at low ξ ε values,
log scale) φPeak is almost constant, and as ξ ε increases, φPeak increases.
With further increases in ξ ε , the increase of φPeak acceler-
ates more. This was also observed for Sample B with OD
difference in the peak mobilized friction angles for any two model and Sample A with both damping models.
adjacent dimensionless strain rate values, it indicates that the Interestingly, the increase of φPeak occurs monotonically
quasi-static conditions are not met. This is more pronounced with increase in ξ ε , indicating that the increase of φPeak
for Sample A in Fig. 12. with increase in ξ and increase of φPeak with increase in ε
Moreover, as shown in Fig. 13 for Sample A with OD occurs at the same rate. Therefore, it is concluded that φPeak
model, φPeak increases with the increase of the damping ratio. is a function of ξ ε . This is in line with the findings of [10]
This was also observed for Sample A with ND model and that showed a specific sample yields the same mechanical
Sample B with both damping models. The increase is more response under undrained loading conditions when subjected
noticeable for the models that were subjected to higher defor- to different ξ and ε values but with an equal ξ ε value. How-
mation rates. The variation of the strength parameter, φPeak , ever, they emphasized that the observation was limited to a
with ξ ε values in semi-log scales is shown for Samples B certain range of the parameters.

123
 Author's personal copy
21 Page 12 of 14 A. Yousefi

1.8% 2E+10

Normalized Kinetic Energy, EK/ '2: [J]

2E+10
1.5%
2E+10
ΔV/V0

1.2% 1E+10

1E+10
v

0.9%
Volumetric Strain,

1E+10

0.6% 8E+09

6E+09
0.3% B5
B6
4E+09 B5
B7 2E+09 B6
0.0% B7
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 0E+00
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
-0.3%
Applied Strain in Major Direction, Applied Strain in Major Direction,

Fig. 16 Volumetric strain of models with equal ξ ε values evolved with
applied strain. Solid line indicates the model with ξ < ξopt ; dotted and
dashed lines indicate the models with ξ > ξopt
6.0
Fig. 19 Kinetic energy normalized by the squared of dimensionless
strain rate for models with equal ξ ε values evolved with applied strain.
Solid line indicates the model with ξ < ξopt ; dotted and dashed lines
indicate the models with ξ > ξopt

5.5
Coordination Number, Cn

For example, the responses of Models B5, B6, and B7,

which have equal ξ ε value of 5 × 10−9 , are presented in
5.0
Figs. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, and summarized in Table 6. Note
that for Model B5, we have ξ < ξopt , while for Models B6
4.5 and B7 we have ξ > ξopt . Figure 15 shows that B6 and
B7 produce the almost same friction angle, while B5 shows
4.0 a lower peak friction angle. Figure 16 shows that B6 and
B5
B6 B7 exhibit almost the same volumetric behavior, while B5
B7 shows less dilative behavior. As indicated in Fig. 17 B6 and
3.5
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% B7 show the same coordination number whereas B5 shows
Applied Strain in Major Direction, a lower coordination number. Figure 18 shows that B5 has a
much higher moment index than B6 and B7, which exhibit
Fig. 17 Coordination number of models with equal ξ ε values evolved
with applied strain. Solid line indicates the model with ξ < ξopt ; dotted
equal moment indices. According to Table 6, the average
and dashed lines indicate the models with ξ > ξopt total kinetic energy, E kin (i.e. sum of the translational and
rotational contributions of the kinetic energy averaged on the
6% strain range) is different for each of the models. However, the
kinetic energy normalized by the square of ε is interestingly
5%
the same for all of the three models referring to Table 6 and
Fig. 19. The same was observed for Samples A and B with
Moment Index, IMom

4%
OD or ND damping models and any equal ξ ε values.
B5 Therefore, it is concluded that two models with equal val-
3% B6
B7 ues of the product of damping ratio and dimensionless strain
2%
rate, regardless of the damping model used, produce the same
response (except particle velocities) if they are subjected to
1% the damping ratios greater than the optimum damping ratios.
However, the particle velocities differ in such models; the
0% model with a higher strain rate has higher particle veloci-
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
ties, and the normalized particle velocities by the square of
Applied Strain in Major Direction,
dimensionless strain rate are the same. Therefore, a model
Fig. 18 Moment index of models with equal ξ ε values evolved with with a dimensionless strain rate equal to ε and a damping
applied strain. Solid line indicates the model with ξ < ξopt ; dotted and ratio of ξ that is excessively higher than the optimum damp-
dashed lines indicate the models with ξ > ξopt ing ratio, ξopt , is equivalent to a model with the optimum
damping ratio and a higher dimensionless strain rate equal

123
 Author's personal copy
Size-dependent damping model for DEM: improved equilibrium compared with mass-damping at no…
Table 6 Models with an equal
Model ξ (%) ξopt (%)
ξ ε value for Sample B with old
damping model
B5 0.05 0.44
B6 0.50 0.34
B7 5.00 0.33
Italics indicate models with damping ratios greater than or equal to the optimum damping ratio
to ξ ε /ξopt which is in line with the findings of [10] for the
undrained tests. On the other hand, a model with a damping
ratio that is less than the optimum damping ratio results in
a worse equilibrium status than the model with the optimum
damping ratio and a lower strength. Consequently, determin-
ing the optimum damping ratio for DEM models is critical,
particularly for the quasi-static analyses.
6 Concluding remarks
A new damping model—namely size-dependent damping—
was proposed. This model indicated a superior performance
over the conventional mass-damping by exhibiting lower
force and moment imbalances for the samples with high
particle size disparity compared to the conventional mass-
damping model at any corresponding strain rate. This helps
to elevate the upper limiting quasi-static strain rate, and thus
reduces necessary runtimes for the quasi-static loading sim-
ulations. Using the new damping model provided the same
behaviors as those obtained using the conventional mass-
damping model.
A new index was proposed to quantify the equilibrium sta-
tus of DEM models—namely, the moment index. This index
indicates the relative magnitude of out-of-balance moments.
The performance of the new index was tested and compared
to an existing index, UFR (unbalanced force ratio). While
the UFR is intended to check the force equilibrium status,
the moment index can be used to monitor the moment equi-
librium status of samples.
The optimum damping ratio, at a specific strain rate, was
defined as the damping ratio at which the imbalance of mod-
els in terms of the moment index or the UFR is minimized. At
any specific strain rate, there is a damping value, namely the
optimum damping, above and below which the imbalance is
heightened. The optimum damping ratio was determined for
two samples that were sheared at different strain rates using
either the conventional or size-dependent damping models.
The optimum damping ratio showed slight dependency on
the particle size distribution of samples and the strain rate at
which the samples were sheared. At low deformation rates
suitable for quasi-static analyses, it can be recommended to
use the damping ratios equal to 0.3 and 0.5% for the conven-
tional and new damping models, respectively.
Page 13 of 14 21
ε φPeak IMom (%) UFR (%) E kin (J) E kin
(J)
ε2
1.E−05 23.20 5.03 12.79 1.29E+00 1.29E+10
1.E−06 23.60 0.22 0.53 1.32E−02 1.32E+10
1.E−07 23.90 0.21 0.50 1.28E−04 1.28E+10
It was learned that the equilibrium status for a model wors-
ens as the strain rate increases. A clear power relationship
was observed between the moment index value and the strain
rate for the models with damping ratios greater than the opti-
mum damping ratio. The moment index which quantifies the
imbalance measure of models depends not only on the strain
rate but also on the damping ratio.
The quasi-static strain rate was defined as the upper
limit of strain rate for quasi-static simulations based on
the moment index value. The moment index reaches the
minimum value at the optimum damping value. Therefore,
in order for minimizing simulation runtimes, the optimum
damping ratio has to be applied along with the quasi-static
strain rate.
It was found that the dimensionless quasi-static strain rate
is less for the sample with a higher particle size disparity
meaning that longer simulation runtimes are required for
samples with wide PSDs compared to samples with narrow
PSDs.
It was observed that the peak friction angle of the assem-
blies increases with the increase in the strain rate and damping
ratio. Moreover, the peak friction angle is proportional to the
product of damping ratio and dimensionless strain rate, ξ ε .
However, at very low ξ ε values, the peak friction angle is
almost constant.
In agreement with the results of [10] for the undrained
tests, it was confirmed that when the product of the damp-
ing ratio and strain rate is constant for a specific model and
the damping ratio is greater than the optimum value, the
models with any combinations of damping ratio and strain
rate present the same mechanical behavior (except particle
velocities) under drained conditions. Therefore, selecting a
damping ratio that is excessively higher than the optimum
value is equivalent to shearing the same sample at a higher
strain rate with the optimum damping ratio, which should be
avoided due to the worse equilibrium.
Finally, researchers are encouraged to compare the per-
formance of the size-dependent damping model with those
of other damping mechanisms, such as contact damping, and
local damping in maintaining equilibrium. Better equilibrium
allows application of higher strain rates and leads to shorter
runtimes.
123
 Author's personal copy
21 Page 14 of 14
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Cavarretta, I., Coop, M., O’Sullivan, C.: The influence of particle
characteristics on the behaviour of coarse grained soils. Geotech-
nique 60(5), 413–424 (2010)
2. Thornton, C., Ning, Z.: A theoretical model for the stick/bounce
behaviour of adhesive, elastic-plastic spheres. Powder Technol. 99,
154–162 (1998)
3. Munjiza, A.: The Combined Finite-Discrete Element Methods.
Wiley, New York (2004)
4. Cundall, P., Strack, O.: A discrete numerical model for granular
assemblies. Geotechnique 29(1), 47–65 (1979)
5. Cundall, P.: Distinct element models of rock and soil structure.
In: Brown, E. (ed.) Analytical and Computational Methods in
Engineering Rock Mechanics. Allen and Unwin, London, England
(1987)
6. Rayleigh, L.: Theory of Sound (Two Volumes), 2nd edn. Dover
Publications, New York (1877). (1945 re-issue)
123
View publication stats
A. Yousefi
7. Caughey, T.K., O’Kelly, M.E.J.: Classical normal modes in damped
linear dynamic systems. J. Appl. Mech. 32(3), 583–588 (1965)
8. Munjiza, A., Owen, D.R.J., Crook, A.J.L.: An M(M−1 K)m pro-
portional damping in explicit integration of dynamic structural
systems. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 41(7), 1277–1296 (1998)
9. Ng, T.-T.: Input parameters of discrete element methods. J. Eng.
Mech. 132(7), 723–729 (2006)
10. Yousefi, A., Ng, T.-T.: Dimensionless input parameters in discrete
element modeling and assessment of scaling techniques. Comput.
Geotech. 88, 164–173 (2017)
11. Itasca. PFC3D Version 4.0 Particle Flow Code in Three Dimen-
sions, Theory and Implementation Volume. Itasca Consulting
Group, Minneapolis, MN (2008)
12. Ng, T.-T., Zhou, W., Ma, G., Chang, X.L.: Damping and particle
mass in DEM simulations under gravity. J. Eng. Mech. 141(6),
04014167 (2014)
13. Lin, X., Ng, T.T.: A three-dimensional discrete element model
using arrays of ellipsoids. Geotechnique 47(2), 319–329 (1997)
14. Zhou, W., Ma, X., Ng, T.T., Ma, G., Li, S.L.: Numerical and exper-
imental verification of a damping model used in DEM. Granul.
Matter 18(1), 1–12 (2016)