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

net/publication/230554860

An elastoplastic contact force-displacement model in the normal direction:

Displacement-driven version

Article  in  Proceedings of The Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · November 1999
DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1999.0488

CITATIONS READS

103 441

2 authors, including:

Loc Vu-Quoc
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
94 PUBLICATIONS   4,183 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Loc Vu-Quoc on 04 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An elastoplastic contact force–displacement
model in the normal direction:
displacement-driven version
By L o c V u-Q u o c a n d X i a n g Z h a n g
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Received 19 March 1998; revised 26 October 1998; accepted 18 February 1999

We present an elastoplastic normal force–displacement (NFD) model for spheres in

collision. Among several possible applications of this model are the granular-flow
simulations using a discrete-element method. The proposed NFD model is consistent
with the formalism of the continuum theory of elastoplasticity, and is validated with
nonlinear finite-element analyses. A key feature of this NFD model is the additive
decomposition of the radius of the contact area into an elastic part and a plastic
part. Further, the contact curvature is corrected, and the Hertzian contact mechan-
ics generalized, to account for plastic deformation. The present displacement-driven
version of the elastoplastic NFD model—whose force-driven version was presented
by Vu-Quoc, Zhang & Lesburg in 1998—is developed particularly for granular flow
simulations. Results of sphere-on-sphere collisions are discussed. In particular, the
resulting coefficient of restitution varies with the incoming velocity. A comparison of
the results obtained from the present NFD models with those from other models is
given.
Keywords: granular flow; discrete-element method; force–displacement models;
normal direction; contact mechanics; elastoplasticity

1. Introduction
There are two methods that can be used to develop a computer simulation of the
motion of particles. One method is to use a continuum model to describe the macro-
scopic motion of the particles as a whole (Bishara et al. 1981). Computer simulation
of a particulate system using a continuum model is efficient, but requires the particle
system to be nearly homogeneous, i.e. the particles in the system should be almost
evenly distributed and have the same bulk properties everywhere in the system (see
Lu et al. 1995). The other method is to use a discrete model that considers the motion
of each single particle individually (Cundall & Strack 1979). The discrete-element
method (DEM) is regarded as a relatively reliable method of studying the behaviour
of dry granular materials, especially when there is no uniformity in the bulk density,
velocity and other flow properties, or when there is considerable uncertainty in the
flow regime.
In DEM, the ordinary differential equations describing the motion of the particles
are integrated numerically using a step-by-step integration procedure. Assume that

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999) 455, 4013–4044 c 1999 The Royal Society


4013
4014 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

(i )R
i

2(ij ) α

j
(j)R

Figure 1. Two spheres in contact in the normal direction.

the position and the velocity of all particles are known at time tn−1 . The task is to
compute the forces and moments that act on each particle at tn , and then to compute
the new position and velocity of each particle. Therefore, it is crucial to correctly
evaluate the contact forces between the particles in collision. We refer the interested
reader to Vu-Quoc et al. (1999b) for more details on DEM simulation algorithms.
We present here a general elastoplastic model that describes the force–displacement
(FD) relationship of the contact between two spheres in the normal direction. This
model accounts for the effects of both the elastic deformation and the plastic defor-
mation on the normal FD (NFD) relationship. When applied to DEM simulations,
the model parameters of the present elastoplastic NFD model are to be measured
for different materials and geometry of the particles.
The role of finite-element analysis (FEA) of contact problems in the development
of the present NFD model is twofold.

1. To observe the behaviour of the contact radius under elastoplastic contact,

and from that observation, to help create a model by introducing the addi-
tive decomposition of the contact radius and by generalizing Hertzian contact
mechanics to account for plastic deformation. The decomposition of the elasto-
plastic contact radius as proposed here is similar to the decomposition of the
elastoplastic strain into an elastic part and a plastic part in continuum plas-
ticity.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4015

2. To obtain the values of the model parameters for a specific material and geom-
etry of a particle.
Before we present our elastoplastic NFD model, we first recall briefly some concepts
of contact mechanics and some existing NFD models.

(a) Elastic contact in normal direction: Hertz theory

In DEM simulations, most FD laws for elastic contact of two spherical particles in
the normal direction are based on Hertz theory (Hertz 1882; Johnson 1985). Consider
two spheres, sphere (i) and sphere (j), in contact with each other as shown in figure 1,
and subjected to a normal contact force P (which could include inertial forces when
the two spheres collide against each other dynamically). Let (i) R and (j) R be the
radii of sphere (i) and sphere (j), respectively. The material properties of sphere (i)
are denoted by (i) E for the Young’s modulus and by (i) ν for the Poisson’s ratio;
similarly for sphere (j). We define the equivalent Young’s modulus E ∗ as follows:


∗ 1 − ((i) ν)2 1 − ((j) ν)2 −1
E := + (1.1)
(i) E (j) E

and the relative radius R∗ of contact curvature as follows:

 −1
∗ 1 1
R := + . (1.2)
(i) R (j) R

According to Hertz theory for the elastic contact of two spheres in the normal direc-
tion, the radius of the circular contact area a (see figure 1) is expressed as
 1/3
3P R∗
a= . (1.3)
4E ∗
The normal displacement (ij) α, i.e. half of the approach of the two sphere centres,
can be calculated using†

1/3
a2 9P 2
2(ij) α = = . (1.4)
R∗ 16R∗ (E ∗ )2
The normal traction p, i.e. the distribution of pressure on the contact area, proposed
by Hertz, is

 2 1/2
r
p = p0 1 − , (1.5)
a
where r is the distance from the centre of the contact area, and p0 the maximum
normal pressure at the centre of the contact area; p0 is given by

1/3
3P 6P (E ∗ )2
p0 = = . (1.6)
2πa2 π 3 (R∗ )2
† Even though α is the standard notation for the relative approach of distant points, it is more
convenient in our work to use 2α to describe the same quantity.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4016 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

For the special case of two identical spheres in contact, with

(i) R = (j) R = R, (i) E = (j) E = E, (i) ν = (j) ν = ν.

The equivalent Young’s modulus is
E
E∗ =
2(1 − ν 2 )

and the radius of relative contact curvature is R∗ = 12 R. Therefore, the radius a of

the contact area can be expressed as

1/3
3P R(1 − ν 2 )
a= , (1.7)
4E
and the normal displacement (ij) α as†

2 1/3
a2 9P (1 − ν 2 )2
(ij) α = = . (1.8)
R 16RE 2

(b) NFD models for elastoplastic contact

The FD law based on Hertz theory gives a nonlinear elastic relationship between
the normal displacement (ij) α and the normal contact force P . Consequently, when
simulating a sphere colliding with a rigid half-space, the ratio of the rebounding
velocity to the incoming velocity of the sphere, i.e. the coefficient of restitution,
obtained using the Hertz FD law, is e = 1.0. For most collision problems plastic
deformation occurs, causing a dissipation of energy and thus making the coefficient
of restitution e less than one, i.e. e < 1.0. To account for the effect of plastic defor-
mation, Walton & Braun (1986) proposed a bilinear FD law for normal contact of
spheres based on FEA results (see Walton et al. 1984; Walton 1993).
Based on FEA results, the simple NFD model proposed by Walton & Braun (1986)
is a bilinear function of the form (figure 2)

K1 α, for loading,
P = (1.9)
K2 (α − α0 ), for unloading,

where P is the normal contact force between two particles, α is the normal displace-
ment (half of the relative displacement between the two sphere centres), K1 and K2
are the slopes of the straight lines representing the loading and unloading paths, and
α0 is the residual displacement after complete unloading.
In the Walton & Braun (1986) NFD model for DEM simulation of sphere collisions,
it can be easily proved that the coefficient of restitution e and the stiffnesses K1 , K2
are related to each other according to:
 
ABC K1
e= = . (1.10)
AOC K2
1
† When (i) R = (j) R = R, we have R∗ = 2
R, and thus formula (1.8) does not have the factor 2 as in
formula (1.4).

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4017

1
K1
K2

B C
α0 α
O

Figure 2. Normal FD model by Walton & Braun (1986).

In simulations, the loading stiffness K1 and the unloading stiffness K2 are constants
for spheres. Therefore, the coefficient of restitution e produced by the Walton &
Braun (1986) NFD model is a constant (i.e. independent of the incoming velocity)
for a given pair of spheres in contact. The constancy of the coefficient of restitution
e with respect to the incoming velocity of impact is, however, not in agreement
with experimental results: e is not a material property, but depends on the plastic
deformation incurred at impact, and thus on the incoming velocity (Smith & Liu
1992; Goldsmith 1960). For use in simulations, two of the three parameters (e, K1
and K2 ) need to be extracted from experimental data, with the third parameter
deduced from the two measured ones.
It should be noted that there is an inconsistency in the NFD model and in the
tangential force–displacement (TFD) model as proposed in Walton & Braun (1986).
There, while the NFD model accounts for plastic deformation, the TFD model—
being a simplification of the Mindlin & Deresiewicz (1953) theory for elastic frictional
contact—does not. A TFD model that accounts for plastic deformation, and is consis-
tent with the NFD model discussed herein, is reported in Vu-Quoc & Zhang (1999b).
Ning & Thornton (1993) and Thornton (1997) proposed a simplified theoretical
model for the normal contact interaction between two elastic–perfectly plastic spheres
for DEM simulation. The Thornton (1997) NFD model assumes that quasi-static
contact mechanics theories are valid during the impact of a sphere. During an elastic
loading, the normal traction (i.e. the distribution of normal pressure on the contact
area) and the NFD relationship follow Hertz theory; when plastic deformation occurs,
the normal traction is less than or equal to a contact yield stress, denoted by (σY )Th ,
everywhere inside the contact area, as shown in figure 3. Thornton (1997) believes
that there is a linear relationship between the normal displacement α and the normal
contact force P after the incipient plastic deformation. For unloading after the plastic
deformation occurs, Thornton (1997) follows the normal FD law proposed by Hertz,

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4018

;
(σ Y)Th

(Pmax)Th

PY
σz

O
O
L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

αY
Hertz

(a)Th

αp α max
r

Figure 3. Normal traction in the Thornton (1997) NFD model.

(Pmax)Hz
P

Hertz

Figure 4. NFD curve(s) of the Thornton (1997) model. Linear P versus α relationship
for P > PY during loading.

but uses a larger radius Rp ∗ of relative contact curvature resulting from irreversible
plastic deformation. The Thornton (1997) NFD model yields the normal FD curve(s)
shown in figure 4.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4019

The coefficient of restitution e from the Thornton (1997) NFD model is a function
of incoming velocity vin expressed as follows:

 2 1/2  
   2 −1 1/4
6 √ 1 vY v Y vY vY
e = ( 5 3) 1 − + 2 1.2 − 0.2 ,
6 vin vin vin vin
(1.11)
where vY is defined as the yield velocity, i.e. the relative incoming velocity when
incipient plastic deformation develops (below this velocity, no plastic deformation
occurs), and is given by

1/2
(σY )5Th (R∗ )3
vY = 3.194 , (1.12)
(E ∗ )4 m∗
where m∗ is the equivalent mass for the collision, defined as
 −1
∗ 1 1
m := + .
(i) m (j) m

The contact yield stress (σY )Th is the maximum normal pressure on the contact area
(p0 ) when yield begins. Hertz theory together with the von Mises criterion are used
to obtain (σY )Th = 1.61σY , where σY is the yield stress of the sphere material (see
also Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999), and Johnson (1985, p. 155)). The radius R∗ of the
relative contact curvature and the equivalent Young’s modulus E ∗ are given by (1.2)
and (1.1), respectively, according to Hertz theory.
We will show later that the Thornton (1997) NFD model produces FD curves
that are too soft compared with the FEA results.† The contact yield stress, i.e. the
maximum normal traction in the contact area, obtained from FEA results, is larger
than (σY )Th = 1.61σY .
In reality, the coefficient of restitution e decreases with the increase in the incoming
velocity vin , since the amount of plastic deformation, and hence the amount of energy
dissipated, increases. Even though the Thornton (1997) NFD model does produce
a decreasing e with respect to an increasing vin , unlike the constant e produced by
the Walton & Braun (1986) NFD model, the results from the Thornton (1997) NFD
model are different from the FEA results, and thus from the NFD model proposed
in the present paper (see §§ 2 b, 3 c and 4 b).
There are other NFD models, such as that employed by Tsuji et al. (1993) and
Mishra (1995), in which a dashpot is used to account for the energy dissipation
caused by plastic deformation. The spring–dashpot model is most widely used as an
NFD model for DEM simulations. This model has the advantages of being simple,
direct and easy to implement. In DEM simulations, however, the energy dissipation
in the spring–dashpot model depends, highly on the dashpot coefficient and the
relative velocity in a collision. There is no solid basis for obtaining the coefficient
of the dashpot for these kinds of NFD models. The dependence of the model on
the collision velocity also prevents the use of quasi-static simulation to correctly
evaluate the energy dissipation caused by plastic deformation. For the above reasons,
the spring–dashpot NFD model is regarded as a primitive NFD model for DEM
simulations.
† In fact, there was no validation of the theory proposed in Thornton (1997) until now.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4020 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

discretized
zone
sphere

frictionless rigid planar surface

Figure 5. A sphere contact with a frictionless rigid planar surface.

2. Finite-element analysis of normal contact problems

In this section, we present the FEA results of normal contacts between two identical
spheres. The case of two identical spheres in contact, subjected to the normal force
only, can be analysed in an efficient manner by considering a single sphere contacting
a frictionless rigid surface, as a result of the symmetry in the problem. Using the
nonlinear finite-element code Abaqus, ver. 5.4, we constructed an axisymmetric FE
model of a sphere contacting a frictionless rigid surface, as shown in figure 5. The
sphere material is elastic–perfectly plastic. Invoking the Saint-Venant principle, we
only discretized the domain within the square of the dashed line shown in figure 5.
Figure 6 depicts the discretization of our axisymmetric finite-element model, which
has a much finer mesh around the contact area than the discretization used in Walton
(1993).
The finite-element mesh shown in figure 6 represents an axisymmetric model of half
of a sphere using 2141 axisymmetric six-node triangular elements (CAX6 element in
Abaqus) with 4442 nodes. The contact surface between the sphere and the rigid
plane is modelled using a one-dimensional two-node axisymmetric surface element
(IRS22A element in Abaqus). To ensure accurate results of the contact radius, we
refined the mesh in the domain close to the contact area, where the stress level and
the deformation are significant. In this domain, the size of a triangular element and
a contact element is of the order of 2.3 × 10−5 m, which is much less than the contact
radius of the order considered here (which is about 1.1 × 10−3 m, (see Zhang (1998)
and Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999) for more details)). Each loading and unloading cycle
of the normal force is carried out using more than 30 steps.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4021

z x
Figure 6. Axisymmetric FEA mesh for normal contact problems.

ABC: Pmax = 500 N

F
1500
ADE: Pmax = 1000 N

AFG: Pmax = 1500 N

D
1000
P (N)

B
500

A
C E G
0 1 2 3 4
t
Figure 7. Loading paths for the normal force P .

The sphere has a radius of R = 0.1 m, with the material properties of an aluminium
alloy: Young’s modulus E = 7.0×1010 N m−2 (70 GPa), Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3, yield
stress σY = 1.0 × 108 N m−2 (100 MPa). The perfectly plastic material model was
selected for the behaviour of the sphere material in the plastic regime. Using the von
Mises yield criterion and Hertz contact theory, the normal contact force at incipient
yield PY = 36.4 N is obtained (see (3.7) in § 3 b).
Figure 7 shows three loading paths for the normal force P used in the FEA. We
refer the interested reader to Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999), Vu-Quoc & Zhang (1999a)
and Vu-Quoc et al. (1999b) for more details on the FEA models and FEA results of
contact problems, including the elastic and elastoplastic contact problems for both
normal contacts and tangential frictional contacts.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4022 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

6 × 108

FE (P = 1500)
Hertz

4 × 108
p (N m–2)

2 × 108

r = 1.13 × 10–3 m
r = aHz = 1.14 × 10 –3
m
r = 1.17 × 10–3 m
0
0 0.4 × 10–3 0.8 × 10–3 1.2 × 10–3 1.6 × 10–3
r (m)
Figure 8. Normal pressure at maximum normal force Pmax = 1500 N: comparison between
FEA results and Hertz theory.

(a) Elastic normal contact problem

To validate our FE discretization and analysis procedure before performing the
FEA for elastoplastic contact problems, we applied the loading path AFG (Pmax =
1500 N, see figure 7), with the elastic material properties of aluminium as listed
above, and without considering the yield condition and plastic deformation. Our
FEA results showed excellent agreement with Hertzian contact-mechanics results in
(1.6)–(1.8).
Figure 8 shows the comparison of normal pressure distributions (normal traction)
for the normal force at the maximal value, i.e. Pmax = 1500 N. The solid curve joins
the horizontal axis at r = 1.14 × 10−3 m, indicating that the contact radius by Hertz
theory is aHz = 1.14 × 10−3 m. As shown in figure 8, the contact radius extracted
from FEA results falls into the interval [1.13 × 10−3 m, 1.17 × 10−3 m]. The maximal
difference between the theoretical value and the computed value for the contact
radius is less than 2.7%. It should also be noticed that there is a sharp drop of
normal pressure at the centre of the contact area (r = 0.0) in the FEA results.
We attribute this behaviour to the numerical characteristics of the finite-element
modelling of our axisymmetric problem. The variation of the contact radius versus
the magnitude of the normal force P for the complete loading path AFG is shown in
figure 9, where it can be seen that there is very good agreement with Hertz theory.
We refer the interested reader to Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999) and Zhang (1998) for
more details.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4023

1.2 × 10–3

0.8 × 10–3
a (m)

FE loading
FE unloading
0.4 × 10–3 Hertz theory

0
0 500 1000 1500
P (N)
Figure 9. Contact area radius a versus normal force P : comparison between FEA results and
Hertz theory.

(b) Elastoplastic normal contact problems

In our elastoplastic FEA, we employ the elastic–perfectly plastic material model
for the sphere shown in figure 5. The material properties were listed earlier, at the
beginning of § 2. We forewarn the readers that even though elastic–perfectly plastic
material is used in our FEA, the resulting behaviour of the contact radius, when
decomposed into an elastic part and a plastic part, behaves in a similar manner to an
elastic–plastic material with hardening. The reason is certainly due to the influence of
the mechanics of contact and the spherical geometry on top of the material behaviour.
In this subsection I present the FEA results corresponding to the loading paths
depicted in figure 7: ABC (Pmax = 500 N), ADE (Pmax = 1000 N) and AFG (Pmax =
1500 N). We refer the interested reader to Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999) for more FEA
results and more detailed discussions.
The FEA results for the normal force P versus the normal displacement α, for the
three loading paths in figure 7, are shown in figure 10, together with the P –α curve
from Hertz theory. We draw the reader’s attention to the following points.
(i) When the normal force P is smaller than the incipient yield normal force PY ,
the P –α curve obtained from FEA agrees very well with Hertz theory (elastic–
frictional contact).
(ii) When the normal forces P exceed PY , the P –α curves are not straight lines as
assumed in Thornton (1997).
A more detailed comparison between the results produced by Thornton (1997)
and the present FEA results will be given in § 3 c. The coefficient of restitution
corresponding to a loading path is obtained by taking the square root of the ratio of
the restoring energy to the storing energy, i.e. the square root of the ratio of the area

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4024 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

(Pmax)AFG = 1500

Hertz
ABC (e = 0.841)
ADE (e = 0.776)
AFG (e = 0.737)
(Pmax)ADE = 1000
P (N)

(Pmax)ABC = 500

0
0 0.4 × 10–5 0.8 × 10–5 1.2 × 10–5 1.6 × 10–5
α (m)

Figure 10. FEA results: normal force P versus normal displacement α for loading histories
ABC (Pmax = 500 N), ADE (Pmax = 1000 N) and AFG (Pmax = 1500 N).

under the unloading curve to the area under the loading curve on figure 10. This
coefficient of restitution is expressed as

area under unloading curve
e= . (2.1)
area under loading curve
The coefficient of restitution e is not constant, but varies with the loading path
considered. For the loading path ABC (Pmax = 500 N), we obtain eABC = 0.841. For
the loading path AFG (Pmax = 1500 N), we obtain eAFG = 0.737. There is thus a
14% decrease in the value of e as the amount of plastic deformation increases when
going from the loading path ABC to the loading path AFG. The higher the maximal
normal force, the smaller the corresponding coefficient of restitution. In a collision
between two spheres, experimental evidence shows that the coefficient of restitution e
decreases with increasing magnitude of the incoming velocity, which in turn increases
the maximum normal force Pmax (see Goldsmith (1960) and Kangur & Kleis (1988)).
Figure 11 depicts the distribution of the normal pressure† on the contact sur-
face for the three maximal normal forces corresponding to the three loading paths
in figure 7. It is observed that the distributions of the normal pressure p for these
three force levels have a flat top at (σz )max  2.25 × 108 (N m−2 ) > 2.00σY . Even
though the shape of the distribution of the normal pressure is similar to that sug-
gested in Thornton (1997), the maximum normal stress is, however, not fixed, and is
† Note that with the same FE discretization, we obtained excellent agreement between the theoretical
results and the computed results for the normal pressure distribution. See Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999)
and Zhang (1998) for more details.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4025

6 × 108
(Pmax)AFG
pHz for Hertz
= 1500 N
ABC
(Pmax)ADE ADE
pHz for
= 1000 N AFG
4 × 108

(Pmax)ABC
pHz for
p (N m–2)

= 500 N

2 × 108

0
0 0.4 × 10–3 0.8 × 10–3 1.2 × 10–3 1.6 × 10–3
r (m)

Figure 11. Distribution of normal pressure p on the contact surface for three normal force
levels: broken lines with symbols (◦, ×, +), FEA results; solid lines, Hertz theory pHz .

much larger than predicted by Thornton (1997) (recall that the contact yield stress,
(σY )Th = 1.61σY ). As a result, the radius aFE of the contact area obtained from
FEA is less than the radius aTh of the contact area produced by Thornton (1997),
i.e. aFE < aTh for the same normal force level. A more detailed comparison between
the results produced by FEA and those by Thornton (1997) will be given in § 3 c. It
can be seen from the FEA results that the maximum normal stress is always less than
the maximum normal pressure produced by Hertz theory when plastic deformation
occurs. Consequently, the contact-area radius in elastoplastic contact is larger than
the contact-areas radius aHz in Hertz theory (elastic contact):
aTh > aFE > aHz . (2.2)

(c) Decomposition of contact radius

From §§ 2 a and 2 b, there are two facts about the radius of the circular contact
area: (i) in the elastic range, FEA results agree with Hertz theory, i.e. aFE = aHz
given in (1.3); and (ii) in the plastic range, the contact radius aFE obtained from
FEA is larger than the contact radius aHz from Hertz theory for the elastic contact,
i.e. aFE > aHz for the same normal force. Let aep denote the contact radius in
an elastoplastic contact. Consistent with the formalism of the continuum theory
of elastoplasticity, we propose the following additive decomposition of the contact
radius aep :
aep = ae + ap , (2.3)

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4026 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

4 × 10–4
ap (m)

2 × 10–4

PY = 36.45 N
loading
unloading
–2 × 10–4

0 500 1000 1500

P (N)

Figure 12. Plastic contact radius ap versus normal contact force P for the loading path AFG
(Pmax = 1500 N): symbols (+, ◦), FEA results; solid line, model for loading; dashed line, model
for unloading.

where ae = aHz is the elastic part determined by Hertz theory as given by (1.3) and
ap is the plastic part of the contact radius. The above decomposition is motivated by
the permanent deformation left after complete unloading; in other words, the contact
radius goes to a non-zero residual value (denoted later by ares ) as the normal force P
goes to zero. Further, it should be noted that the elastic part of the contact radius
is nonlinear with respect to P , as can be seen from (1.3).
With aep obtained from FEA, and with ae obtained from (1.3) (Hertz theory), the
plastic contact radius ap can be deduced using (2.3), i.e.
ap = aep − ae , (2.4)
and plotted against the normal load P , as shown in figure 12, for the loading path
AFG (Pmax = 1500 N) shown in figure 7. We observe that the plastic contact radius
ap is approximately linear during the loading phase when P > PY , while remaining
mostly constant during much of the unloading phase. Extensive FEA results confirm
the behaviour of ap versus P as shown in figure 12; we refer the interested reader to
Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999) for more details. Here, we propose the following model
for ap versus P :

Ca P − PY  (m), for loading,
ap = (2.5)
Ca Pmax − PY  (m), for unloading,

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4027

where Ca = 2.33 × 10−7 N m−1 for the present example is a constant obtained from a
least-square fit of the FEA results, and   denotes the MacCauley bracket defined by

0, for x
0,
x = (2.6)
x, for x > 0.

Remark 2.1. We emphasize here that the value of Ca cited above is particular
to the present geometry and material of the sphere, which was chosen to serve as an
example. For a different geometry and material, the value of Ca must be evaluated
by various means: (i) FEA (as in the present paper); (ii) experiment (Zhang & Vu-
Quoc 1999); or (iii) analysis (future publication).

3. Elastoplastic NFD model

In DEM simulations, the contact forces are evaluated based on the relative displace-
ment between particles (spheres), i.e. the FD models employed are of the displace-
ment-driven type. We present in this section the formulation and the pseudo-code for
a displacement-driven version of a new NFD model for elastoplastic contact between
spheres. A comparison of the FD (P –α) curves obtained from our NFD model, from
FEA and from Thornton (1997) is also presented. We refer the interested reader to
Vu-Quoc et al. (1999a) for the theoretical aspects of the force-driven version of this
elastoplastic NFD model.

(a) Elastoplastic NFD model: basic formulation

Recall the additive decomposition of the elastoplastic contact radius aep into an
elastic part (ae ) and a plastic part (ap ). We observe that the relationship between
ap and the normal load P given by (2.5) parallels that between the plastic strain p
and the stress σ in uniaxial problems in the classical model of elastoplasticity with
isotropic hardening, in which the following relationships hold:
ep = e + p , (3.1)
where ep is the elastoplastic strain, e is the elastic strain and p is the plastic strain,
which is related to the stress σ by

Kσ − σY , for loading,
p = (3.2)
Kσmax − σY , for unloading,

where K is the coefficient of isotropic hardening. Figures 13 and 14 depict relations

(3.2) and (2.5), respectively. The similarity between the continuum theory of elasto-
plasticity with hardening and the elastoplastic contact between spheres forms a point
of departure in the construction of our elastoplastic NFD model.
When the normal force P exceeds the yield normal force PY , a plastic contact area
begins to develop. This irreversible plastic deformation tends to flatten the contact
surface after complete unloading as opposed to the complete recovery of the original
sphere surface after an elastic unloading (see figure 15). In other words, the effect of
irreversible plastic deformation increases the radius of curvature compared with the
original curvature upon complete unloading, i.e. Rp > R. The larger the amount of

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4028 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

εp
unloading

ng
adi
lo

O σY σ max σ

Figure 13. p –σ curve for linear isotropic hardening material.

ap
unloading
ares

ng
a di
lo

O PY Pmax P

Figure 14. ap –P curve for normal contact between elastic–perfectly plastic spheres.

plastic deformation, the larger Rp will be. Let Rp∗ denote the radius of the relative
contact curvature after plastic deformation occurred. We postulate the following
relationship between Rp∗ and R∗ (the radius of the relative curvature without plastic
deformation) based on our observation of FEA results as follows:

Rp∗ = CR (P )R∗ , (3.3)

where CR (P ) is an adjustment coefficient, greater than or equal to 1.0 and dependent

on the normal force P . For elastic contact, CR = 1.0 and CR (P )R∗ = R∗ . For
elastoplastic contact where plastic deformation is involved, CR > 1.0 and CR (P )R∗ >
R∗ . Hence, for an elastoplastic contact, the relationship (1.4) between the radius of
contact area a (aep for elastoplastic contact) and the normal displacement α can be
replaced by

(aep )2 (aep )2
2(ij) α = = . (3.4)
Rp∗ CR (P )R∗

For identical spheres with radius R, we simplify (3.4), using (1.2), to

(aep )2
(ij) α = . (3.5)
CR R

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4029

Rp

plane of contact ap
ae
aep

Figure 15. Plastic deformation increases the radius of relative contact curvature.

Based on our FEA results, we postulate the following expression for CR (P ):


1.0, for P
PY ,
CR (P ) = (3.6)
1.0 + Kc P − PY , for P > PY ,
for the normal contact between two identical elastic–perfectly plastic spheres, where
Kc is a constant. For the contact problems presented in § 2 b, the value of Kc extracted
from the FEA results is 2.69×10−4 N−1 (see Vu-Quoc et al. (1999a) for more details).
Remark 3.1. Similar to remark 2.1, the value of Kc presented was for the par-
ticular example chosen to illustrate the workability of the model. For a different
geometry and material of the sphere, the coefficient Kc must be evaluated using one
of the three methods mentioned in remark 2.1.
During unloading, after a loading phase with plastic deformation, the value of
the plastic contact radius at the beginning of the unloading phase is assumed to
remain constant throughout the unloading phase, and is denoted by apres , i.e. the
residual (non-recoverable) plastic contact radius (see figure 14). In addition, the
relative contact radius remains fixed at (CR )P =Pmax R∗ , and the FD relationship is
nonlinear elastic after Hertz theory, throughout the unloading phase.
In summary, our elastoplastic NFD model is constructed based on (1.3), (2.3),
(2.5) and (3.4). In the displacement-driven version of this NFD model, the normal
displacement (ij) α is given (input), whereas the elastoplastic contact radius aep and
the normal contact force P (output) are solved for using these equations in a manner
described in § 3 b.
The two important parameters in our model are Ca and Kc , which are functions
of the other parameters such as σY , E, ν, R, etc. Similar to the idealization of

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4030 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

elastoplastic behaviour (Lubliner 1990), the NFD model presented here is general,
and the model parameters of course depend on the material and the geometry of
the particles. To illustrate the workability of our model, the values of the model
parameters that appear in this paper correspond to a specific material and geometry.
One should not use these values for other examples without verifying their validity.
This situation is similar to the case where one should not use a set of plasticity model
parameters for a given material (e.g. mild steel) to model the behaviour of another
material (e.g. powder) using the same plasticity model. While the plasticity model
employed is in itself general, the values of the model parameters have to be changed
depending on the material under study. In exactly the same manner, the NFD model
proposed in this paper is in itself general, whereas the values of the model parameters
have to be measured depending on the material and the geometry of the particles.
Further theoretical work can be done to relate these model parameters to other basic
parameters (e.g. σY , E, ν, R, etc.).
From experimental observations idealized plasticity models have been proposed,
with model parameters (e.g. σY , K, etc.) to be measured from experiments. On the
other hand, steel itself if looked at closely is not homogeneous, but is a polycrystal
(Lemaitre & Chaboche 1990). Thus a more fundamental question is how to come up
with a homogenized plasticity model (with parameters evaluated) from single-crystal
plasticity. Here, we follow a similar philosophy: (i) use numerical experiments to
observe the behaviour of certain critical quantities (e.g. the contact radius, normal
stress distribution on contact surface, etc.) so that a model can be invented; (ii)
propose simple experiments to measure the model parameters (Zhang & Vu-Quoc
1999); and (iii) indicate fundamental future work to link the model parameters to
other model parameters of the material (e.g. σY , E, ν) and of the geometry of the
particle (e.g. R).

(b) Algorithm for elastoplastic NFD model: displacement-driven version

The DEM simulation of granular flow is based on the numerical solution of the
ordinary differential equations of motion using a step-by-step integration procedure.
Assume that at time tn−1 , the normal force Pn−1 and the normal displacement αn−1
are known. With the geometric and mechanical properties of the moving spheres
known, the normal displacement αn at time tn = tn−1 + ∆t can be computed by
integrating the equation of motion of the moving spheres. The goal is to compute
the normal force Pn at time tn , resulting from the displacement αn . For simplicity,
we only present the formulae for the normal contact between two identical spheres
in this subsection. The algorithm for two different spheres in contact is similar to
the one presented here.
Let R be the radius of two identical spheres in contact; E is the Young’s modulus
of the sphere material, ν its Poisson’s ratio and σY its yield stress. First, we establish
a criterion based on the normal force for incipient plastic deformation. Based on the
stress analysis in Hertz theory and on the von Mises yield criterion, the incipient
yield normal force PY can be computed using

π 3 R2 (1 − ν 2 )2
PY = [AY (ν)σY ]3 , (3.7)
6E 2

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4031

where AY (ν) is a scalar depending only on the Poisson’s ratio.† We refer the inter-
ested reader to Vu-Quoc & Lesburg (1999) for the detailed derivation of (3.7).
For material with ν = 0.3 (as in the problems considered in our FEA), we have
AY (0.3) = 1.61. Consequently, at incipient yield, the contact area radius aY and the
normal displacement αY can be computed using (1.7) and (1.8), i.e.

1/3
3PY R(1 − ν 2 )
aY = (3.8)
4E

and

αY = (aY )2 /R. (3.9)

During loading, as long as αn is less than or equal to the incipient yield displace-
ment αY , the NFD relationship follows Hertz theory. The normal contact force Pn
can be computed using (1.8), i.e.
4ER1/2 3/2
Pn = α . (3.10)
3(1 − ν 2 ) n
When αn > αY , from (3.5), we have
(aep
n )
2
αn = . (3.11)
CR (Pn )R
Let aep
n be decomposed according to (2.3), and CR (Pn ) as given in (3.6); we obtain

[1.0 + Kc (Pn − PY )]Rαn = (aen + apn )2 , (3.12)

where aen and apn can be expressed in terms of Pn using (1.7) and (2.5). We thus have

1/3
1/2 3R(1 − ν 2 )
{[1.0 + Kc (Pn − PY )]Rαn } = Pn1/3 + Ca (Pn − PY ). (3.13)
4E
With the definition

1/3
1 3R(1 − ν 2 )
c1 := , (3.14)
Ca 4E
relation (3.13) can be rewritten as
1
F(Pn ) = (Pn − PY ) + c1 Pn1/3 − {[1.0 + Kc (Pn − PY )]Rαn }1/2 = 0. (3.15)
Ca
The nonlinear equation (3.15) can be solved for the normal force Pn using the
Newton–Raphson method as follows:
F(Pni−1 )
Pni = Pni−1 − , (3.16)
F  (Pni−1 )
† Based on the stress analysis in Hertz theory, we can find the point close to the contact surface that
has the maximum value of the second invariant J2 of the stress deviator. Applying the von Mises yield
criterion to the stress state at this point, the value of AY (ν) can be computed.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4032 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

where the Pni denotes the ith iterative value of Pn , and the derivative of the function
F(·) at Pni−1 is
1/2
1 Kc R1/2 αn
F  (Pni−1 ) = 1 + 13 c1 (Pni−1 )(Pni−1 )−2/3 − . (3.17)
2Ca [1 + Kc (Pni−1 − PY )]1/2
The initial guess for the Newton–Raphson procedure in (3.16) and (3.17) can be
obtained by extrapolating from the previously computed solution:
Pn−1 − Pn−2
Pn0 = Pn−1 + (αn − αn−1 ). (3.18)
αn−1 − αn−2
After having computed the normal force Pn , the elastic contact area radius aen can
be determined by (1.7), and the plastic contact area radius apn can be determined by
(2.5).
A negative increment of the normal force, i.e. ∆Pn = Pn − Pn−1 < 0, indicates
that the normal force is unloading after it reaches the maximal normal force Pmax ;
the normal displacement at that turning point is recorded as αmax . Let aemax and
apmax be the corresponding elastic and plastic contact area radii, respectively, at
the turning point. The FD relationship for unloading is nonlinear elastic with the
modified radius Rp∗ = CR (Pmax )R of relative contact curvature now held fixed at the
last value reached at P = Pmax . The residual normal displacement αres can therefore
be determined using
(aemax )2
αres = αmax − . (3.19)
CR (Pmax )R
During unloading, the plastic contact area radius remains constant, i.e.
apn = apmax . (3.20)
The elastic contact area radius aen is determined by Hertz theory for an equivalent
contact with relative contact curvature 1/(CR (Pmax )R) and normal displacement
αn − αres . Hence, from (1.8), we obtain

aen = [CR (Pmax )R(αn − αres )]1/2 (3.21)

and


4E
Pn = (aen )3 . (3.22)
3R(1 − ν 2 )
The detailed pseudo-code for the implementation of the proposed elastoplastic
NFD model is presented in algorithm 3.2.
Algorithm 3.2. Elastoplastic NFD model: displacement-driven version.
1 Data : R, E, ν, σY .
2 Calculate PY via (3.7).
3 Calculate αY via (3.9).
4 Input : displacements {αn−2 , αn−1 , αn } and forces {Pn−2 , Pn−1 }.
5 Goal : compute Pn , aep e p
n , an , an .
6 Calculate ∆αn = αn − αn−1 .

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4033

7
1
if ∆αn = 0
ep p
8 Update Pn = Pn−1 , aep e e p
n = an−1 , an = an−1 , an = an−1 .

9
1
elseif ∆αn > 0 (loading)
10 Set Pinc = true.

11
2
if αn
αY (elastic)
12 Calculate Pn via (3.10). (Pn < PY )
13 Calculate aen via (1.7).
14 apn = 0 by (2.5).
15 aep e
n = an by (2.3).

16
2
elseif αn > αY (elastoplastic)
17 Find Pn via algorithm 3.3.
18 Calculate aen via (1.7).
19 Calculate apn via (2.5).
20 Calculate aep
n via (2.3).

21
2
endif

22
1
elseif ∆αn < 0 (unloading)

23
3
if Pinc = true
24 Set Pmax = Pn−1 .
25 Set αmax = αn−1 .
26 Set apmax = apn−1 .
27 Calculate αres via (3.19).
28 Set Pinc = false.

29
3
endif
30 Set apn = apmax as in (3.20).
31 Calculate aen via (3.21).
32 Calculate Pn via (3.22).
33 Calculate aepn via (2.3).

34
1
endif
Algorithm 3.3. Solving (3.15) for Pn : Newton–Raphson method.
1 Data : Tolerance (Tol).
2 Compute Pn0 via (3.18).

3
4
while F(Pni ) > Tol.
4 Set i = i + 1.
5 Calculate Pni via (3.16).

6
4
endwhile
7 Set Pn = Pni .

(c) Comparison with other models

To compare the proposed elastoplastic NFD model with FEA results and other
models, we performed nonlinear elastoplastic FEA for the problem of a sphere being
pressed against a frictionless rigid surface as shown in figure 5, with the loading paths
ABC, ADE and AFG shown in figure 7. The geometric and material properties are
the same as listed in § 2. In FEA, the NFD relationship is produced in a force-driven
manner, i.e. the normal force path is the input and the normal displacement path is
the output of the computation. The normal contact displacement αFE obtained from
the FEA is then used as the input to calculate the corresponding normal force P by

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4034 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

1500
eFE = 0.7372, (Pmax)FE = 1500 N
epm = 0.7541, (Pmax)pm = 1495 N
eTh = 0.5641, (Pmax)Th = 770.5 N

1000 Hertz (elastic)

normal force, P (N)

FEA (elasto–plastic)
present model
Thornton (1997)

500

0
0 0.4 × 10–5 0.8 × 10–5 1.2 × 10–5 1.6 × 10–5
normal displacement α (m)

Figure 16. Normal force P versus normal displacement α by different models using the
displacement history generated by FEA for the loading path AFG in figure 7.

the Matlab code implemented with the displacement-driven versions of both the
proposed elastoplastic NFD model and the Thornton (1997) NFD model. The FD
curves as well as the related coefficients of restitution generated by our elastoplastic
NFD model are compared with FEA results and with the results generated using
the Thornton (1997) NFD model in figure 16 for the case where Pmax = 1500 N. We
refer the interested reader to Zhang (1998) for more details on the other cases.
Figure 16 shows various P versus α curves produced by Hertz theory, FEA, the pro-
posed elastoplastic NFD model and the Thornton (1997) NFD model. Except for the
FEA results, which were produced by using the loading path AFG (Pmax = 1500 N)
shown in figure 7 as input, all other results were produced in the displacement-driven
manner using the displacement results of FEA. The coefficient of restitution from
the results of the proposed elastoplastic NFD model is epm = 0.7541, while the
coefficient of restitution from FEA results is eFE = 0.7372; the difference is only
2.3%. It can be seen that the P –α curve produced by the proposed elastoplastic
NFD model agrees with the P –α curve produced by FEA. The maximum normal
force (Pmax )pm from the proposed NFD model is 1495 N; the difference is only 0.3%.
The P –α curve produced by the Thornton (1997) NFD model is, however, much
too soft, i.e. one obtains a much smaller maximum contact force (Pmax )Th for the
same displacement level, as compared with FEA results. At the maximum normal
displacement αmax  1.56 × 10−5 m, the normal force by the Thornton (1997) NFD
model, (Pmax )Th = 770.5 N, is about half of the corresponding FEA force level,

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4035

1.5 × 10–3
aep
ae
radii of contact areas: aep, ae, ap (m)

ap

1 × 10–3

0.5 × 10–3

PY = 36.45 N

0
0 500 1000 1500
normal load P (N)
Figure 17. Contact areas radii aep , ae , ap versus normal force P by the proposed elastoplastic
NFD model for the loading path: AFG in figure 7.

(Pmax )FE = 1500 N. The corresponding coefficient of restitution from the Thornton
(1997) NFD model is eTh = 0.5641, suggesting a much larger energy dissipation ratio
(i.e. the area enclosed by loading and unloading curve and the x-axis), resulting in
a difference with the FEA coefficient of restitution of about 23.5%.
Figure 17 shows the contact areas radii aep , ae and ap versus the normal force
P as produced by the proposed elastoplastic NFD model for loading path AFG
(Pmax = 1500 N) shown in figure 7. In our elastoplastic NFD model, the ae –P curve
is based on Hertz theory, according to (1.7), and agrees well with FEA results as
shown in figure 9. The ap –P curve follows (2.5), and agrees with FEA results shown
in figure 12. The total contact area radius aep shown in figure 17 is simply the sum
of ae and ap , as per (2.3).
For the loading path ADE (Pmax = 1000 N) shown in figure 7, the results from the
proposed NFD model also agree closely with FEA results (see Zhang (1998) for more
details). The corresponding coefficient of restitution from the proposed elastoplastic
NFD model is epm = 0.7994, while the coefficient of restitution from FEA results is
eFE = 0.7757; the difference between them is small (3.1%). The maximum normal
force (Pmax )pm from the proposed NFD model is 962.1 N, which differs from the FEA
maximum force (Pmax )FE = 1000 N by 3.8%. The coefficient of restitution from the
Thornton (1997) NFD model is eTh = 0.6091, which differs from eFE and eep by
about 22%. The results from the Thornton (1997) NFD model display a much too
soft behaviour, as in the previous case, with much smaller maximum force and much
larger energy dissipation ratio. Quantitatively, the maximal force (Pmax )Th obtained
from the Thornton (1997) NFD model is (Pmax )Th = 559.6 N at the maximum
displacement αmax  1.14 × 10−5 m and differs from the FEA force level by 44%.
Similar results are obtained for the loading path ABC (Pmax = 500 N) shown in
figure 7. We refer the interested reader to Zhang (1998) for more details.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4036 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

vout

vin

Figure 18. A sphere colliding with a frictionless rigid planar surface.

In summary, the proposed elastoplastic NFD model produces not only an accurate
P –α relationship, but also correct coefficient of restitution and energy dissipation
compared with FEA results. The Thornton (1997) NFD model produces a much
softer P –α relationship, a smaller coefficient of restitution and a larger energy dissi-
pation ratio for the same maximum normal displacement level.

4. Simulation of spheres in collisions

Using the proposed elastoplastic NFD model, we carry out the simulation of a sphere
in normal collision against a frictionless rigid planar surface with various magnitudes
of the incoming velocity; see figure 18, in which vin designates the incoming velocity
and vout the outgoing velocity. Due to symmetry, this collision problem is equivalent
to two identical spheres colliding with each other with the relative incoming velocity
of 2vin and the relative outgoing velocity 2vout . Also, in our simulation, the properties
of the sphere are those for the sphere described in § 2, i.e. radius R = 0.1 m, Young’s
modulus E = 7.0 × 1010 N m−2 , Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3 and yield stress σY =
1.0 × 108 N m−2 . The normal force at incipient yield given by (3.7) is PY = 36.4 N.
The mass m of the sphere is determined by
m = ρ 43 πR3 , (4.1)
where ρ is the density of the sphere material. For our simulation we choose the density
to be the same as that of aluminium, i.e. ρ = 2.699 × 103 kg m−3 , thus leading to
the sphere mass of m = 11.306 kg.
We also simulate the above sphere collision problem using the Thornton (1997)
NFD model. The results produced by both the proposed elastoplastic NFD model
and the Thornton (1997) NFD model—such as the outgoing velocities, coefficient of
restitution, contact force histories, etc.—are presented and compared.

(a) Simulation algorithm

Since the tangential force and the rotation of the sphere are absent, the algorithm is
much simpler than when these two quantities are present (see Vu-Quoc et al. 1999b).
Let x be the distance from the sphere centre to the rigid surface. Initially, at time

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4037

t0 = 0, set the initial position of the sphere centre to x0 and the velocity at t1/2 to
vin , i.e. v1/2 = vin . A typical time-step is as follows: assume that at time tn−1 , the
position xn−1 and the velocity vn−1/2 are known. The velocity is evaluated at half
time-steps in the leap-frog algorithm. At time tn = tn−1 + ∆t, the position xn of the
sphere can be calculated by
xn = xn−1 + vn−1/2 ∆t, (4.2)
where ∆t is the integration time-step size. For the simulation results shown in fig-
ures 19 and 20, the time-step size is set to ∆t = 1.0 × 10−6 s.†
If xn
R, the sphere is in contact with the rigid surface. In this case, the normal
contact displacement αn can be evaluated by
αn = R − xn . (4.3)
If ∆αn = αn − αn−1 > 0, the collision is in the compression (loading) stage, i.e. P
increases; else if ∆αn = αn −αn−1 < 0, the collision is in the rebounding (unloading)
stage, i.e. P decreases. The normal contact force Pn at time tn can be computed using
algorithm 3.2. Then the acceleration v̇n of the sphere at time tn can be determined
by Newton’s second law as
v̇n = −Pn /m, (4.4)
where v̇n is the acceleration of the mass centre of the sphere, and the negative sign
indicates that the normal contact force is in the opposite direction to the incoming
velocity. Since the acceleration due to gravity is not considered in the simulation, the
sphere moves at constant velocity when there is no contact, with the plane remaining
fixed. Therefore, the velocity of the sphere at time tn+1/2 can be expressed as
vn+1/2 = vn−1/2 + v̇n ∆t. (4.5)
Attention should be paid to the stage when the sphere is separating from the rigid
surface. Since the normal contact force should always be positive or zero, when P
is decreasing and reaches zero, the sphere is considered separated from the surface.
Consequently, P is then set to be zero thereafter, even though the normal displace-
ment may not be zero (there maybe some residual normal displacement due to plastic
deformation as shown in figure 16).
The coefficient of restitution for such a collision can be defined as
e := −vout /vin , (4.6)
or equivalently based on the energy dissipation as follows:
 1/2
area under unloading curve
e :=
area under loading curve
 1/2
loading

 1
2 (αi − αi−1 )(Pi + Pi+1 ) 


 i∈{αi −αi−1 >0} 
= unloading
 .
 (4.7)
 
 − 12 (αj − αj−1 )(Pj + Pj+1 ) 
j∈{αj −αj−1 <0}

† See Zhang (1998) for more details.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4038 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

In our simulation, both (4.6) and (4.7) yield the same numerical result for the coeffi-
cient of restitution. When we use the Thornton (1997) NFD model in our simulation,
the coefficient of restitution computed using (4.7) agrees with expression (1.11).

(b) Simulation results and comparison with Thornton (1997)

The simulation of a sphere in normal collision with the rigid planar surface is
carried out with various magnitudes of the incoming velocity. With the convergent
criterion for the Newton–Raphson method (see algorithm 3.3) set to
Pni − Pni−1

0.005, (4.8)
Pni
and with the time-step size for numerical integration set to ∆t = 1.0 × 10−6 s,
the maximal number of Newton–Raphson iterations in our simulation was two. To
limit the length of the paper, we will present only the results for the case where
vin = 0.04 m s−1 , since the results and conclusions for the other cases were similar to
this case; we refer the interested reader to Zhang (1998) for more details, in particular
for vin = 0.02 m s−1 , vin = 0.10 m s−1 .
Figure 19 shows the contact force P versus contact time and the P versus α rela-
tionship for the sphere collision problem with incoming velocity vin = 0.04 m s−1 .
There are large differences in the results obtained from the proposed NFD model
and the Thornton (1997) NFD model. To begin, the values of the outgoing velocity
vout and of the coefficient of restitution e are clearly different. Further, the maxi-
mum normal force obtained from the proposed elastoplastic NFD model, (Pmax )ep =
1435 N, is much larger than that obtained from the Thornton (1997) NFD model,
(Pmax )Th = 957 N. It is noted that this displacement-driven simulation produces a
value of (Pmax )ep that is close to the maximum applied normal force Pmax = 1500 N
in the force-driven FEA using the loading path AFG in figure 7. It follows that
the P –α relationship produced by the proposed NFD model, as shown in the bottom
part of figure 19, is close to the P –α relationship for the proposed NFD model shown
in figure 16; the same can be said for the coefficient of restitution. The coefficient
of restitution eTh by the Thornton (1997) NFD model in the current simulation is
eTh = 0.5331, suggesting a larger energy dissipation by the collision than that from
the proposed NFD model for the same incoming velocity. We notice that the simi-
larity between the FD relationships and coefficients of restitution depends only on
the maximum value of the normal force, and not the rate of loading and unloading.
The reason is that both the proposed elastoplastic NFD model and the Thornton
(1997) NFD model are based on time-independent plasticity. Again, it should also be
noticed that the collision times from the two models are different: τep  1.00 × 10−3 s
from the proposed NFD model and τTh  1.20 × 10−3 s from the Thornton (1997)
NFD model. See remark 4.1 for an explanation on the difference in the collision time
of the two models.
Remark 4.1. In the above simulation results, the P –α relationship obtained from
the Thornton (1997) NFD model is much softer than that from the proposed NFD
model (see figures 16 and 19). Let KTh and Kep be the tangential stiffness in the P –α
relationship for the Thornton (1997) NFD model and for the proposed NFD model,
respectively. We have KTh < Kep . The collision time from the Thornton (1997) NFD

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4039

(a)
2500
time-step size: ∆t = 1.0 × 10–6 sec present model
Thornton (1997)
2000
present model Thornton (1997)
vin = 0.04 m s–1 vin = 0.04 m s–1
normal force P (N)

1500 vout = –0.0304 m s–1 vout = –0.0214 m s–1

1000

500

0
–3
0 0.4 × 10 0.8 × 10–3 1.2 × 10–3
time t (s)
(b)
1500

present model Thornton (1997)

e = 0.7587 e = 0.5331
Pmax = 1435 N Pmax = 957 N
normal force P (N)

1000

present model
Thornton (1997)

500

0
0 1 × 10–5 2 × 10–5

normal displacment α (m)

Figure 19. Simulation of a sphere in collision with a frictionless planar surface for incoming
velocity vin = 0.04 m s−1 : top, time history of P ; bottom, P versus α.

model is larger than that from the proposed model, i.e. τTh > τep . Assume that we
are working with linear models to simplify the discussion. Based on the impulse
principle, we have

2mvin = P̄Th τTh = P̄ep τep , (4.9)

where P̄Th is the average normal force from the Thornton (1997) NFD model and
P̄ep is the average normal force from the proposed NFD model. Since τTh > τep , we

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4040 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

have P̄Th < P̄ep . This simple argument explains the reason for obtaining (Pmax )Th <
(Pmax )ep as shown above.
A similar situation occurs when we use the same normal force model, but different
tangential force models as in Vu-Quoc & Zhang (1999a). The difference in the flow
velocity is not as pronounced as the difference in the force statistics.
Figure 20 shows the simulation results in the velocities and coefficient of restitution
produced from the proposed elastoplastic NFD model and from the Thornton (1997)
NFD model. The incoming velocity vin ranges from 0.02 to 0.20 m s−1 . The top part
of figure 20 shows the outgoing velocity vout versus the incoming velocity vin . For a
given incoming velocity, the outgoing velocity from the Thornton (1997) NFD model
is less than the corresponding outgoing velocity from our elastoplastic NFD model.
The bottom part of figure 20 shows the coefficient of restitution e versus the velocity
ratio vin /vY . With the incoming velocity for incipient yield determined by (1.12) to
be vY = 1.67 × 10−3 m s−1 ,† the velocity ratio vin /vY thus ranges from 12 to 120.
From figure 20, the coefficient of restitution from the proposed elastoplastic NFD
model is larger than that from the Thornton (1997) NFD model for a given incoming
velocity. In other words, the kinetic energy dissipation caused by plastic deformation
produced by the proposed elastoplastic NFD model is less than that corresponding
value produced by the Thornton (1997) NFD model. Since (i) both models are quasi-
static models, and (ii) quasi-static FEA results agree with the proposed elastoplastic
NFD model, while the Thornton (1997) NFD model produces softer P –α relations
in all tests, the proposed NFD model is the more accurate and reliable of the two.
Remark 4.2. It is not guaranteed that an NFD model that produces an accept-
able coefficient of restitution e can produce an accurate NFD relationship. Recall
that the coefficient of restitution e is usually obtained from the square root of the
ratio of the released energy to the stored energy, i.e. the square root of the ratio of
the area under the unloading curve to the area under the loading curve. For example,
in figure 21, two different NFD relationships are depicted, with the solid line rep-
resenting either the presented NFD model or the Thornton (1997) NFD model and
the dotted line representing the Walton & Braun (1986) NFD model. It is possible
that even though the two NFD relationships are completely different, the resulting
coefficients of restitution may be very close, i.e.
area of BAC area of EDF
 . (4.10)
area of OAC area of ODF
Hence, it is not sufficient to use the coefficient of restitution to compare the accuracy
of NFD models. A combination of both NFD relationship and coefficient of restitution
is necessary (see, for example, Zhang & Vu-Quoc 1999).

5. Conclusion
We have presented an NFD model (displacement-driven version) for DEM simulation
of elastoplastic collisions between spheres. The development of this elastoplastic NFD
model is aimed to construct a set of consistent NFD and TFD models accounting
† Recall that we are dealing here with the case of a sphere colliding against a rigid surface. For
the collision of two identical spheres, the relative incipient-yield incoming velocity is doubled to 2vY 
3.34 × 10−3 m s−1 .

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4041

(a)

0.1

0.08
vout (– m s–1)

0.06

0.04
present model
Thornton (1997)
0.02

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

–1
vin (m s )
(b)

0.9
present model
Thornton (1997)
0.8
– 1.67 × 10 m s
~ –3 –1
vY
coefficient of restitution e

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
vin/vY

Figure 20. Simulation of a sphere in collision with a frictionless planar surface: top, outgoing
velocity vout versus incoming velocity vin ; bottom, coefficient of restitution e versus impact
velocity ratio vin /vY , where vY = 1.67 × 10−3 m s−1 determined by (1.12).

for both elastic deformation and plastic deformation. The proposed NFD model is
simple and easy to implement. It produces an accurate coefficient of restitution and
an accurate FD relationship compared with FEA. The proposed NFD model, which
is based on the additive decomposition of the contact-area radius into an elastic part

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

4042 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

P A

O B E C F α

Figure 21. Sharply different NFD models may yield similar coefficients of restitution.

and a plastic part, together with a new elastoplastic tangential FD (TFD) model
(Vu-Quoc & Zhang 1999b) form a consistent set of elastoplastic FD models, which is
proposed for the first time for granular flow simulation. The starting point of the new
and consistent elastoplastic TFD model is the improved elastic TFD model discussed
in Vu-Quoc & Zhang (1999a). Consistent with the present elastoplastic NFD model,
we use the same additive decomposition of the contact radius into an elastic part
and a plastic correction part to account for the effects of plastic deformation in the
TFD relationship. The results also agree well with numerical experiments similar
to those obtained in this paper. Existing models do not provide such consistency,
e.g. while the NFD model in Walton & Braun (1986) accounts for plastic deforma-
tion, the TFD model there does not. Many other ad hoc and inconsistent models
have often been used (see a detailed discussion in Vu-Quoc & Zhang (1999c)). In
addition, the proposed NFD model produces a coefficient of restitution that varies
with the incoming velocity, agreeing with experimental observations. We also note
that the Newton–Raphson iterations converge very quickly in all numerical examples
presented here.
The present elastoplastic NFD model to account for plastic deformation is general.
On the other hand, the values of the model parameters that appear in this paper are
not universal, but depend on the material and the geometry of the particles, and are
thus functions of other more basic parameters. The model parameters (e.g. Ca and
Kc ) can be obtained either from FEA results or from a set of simple experiments
(Zhang & Vu-Quoc 1999). Further theoretical work can be done to connect these
model parameters to other basic parameters related to the material model (e.g. σY ,
K, E, ν, etc.) and to the geometry (e.g. R) of the particles.
As mentioned above, another way to obtain the values of the model parameters
is by experiment. For very small inhomogeneous particles, we propose two simple
experiments and a method of extraction of the NFD model parameters. Particles
of this type are, for example, soybeans. Thus we are not using FEA to obtain the

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 An elastoplastic contact FD model in the normal direction 4043

values of the model parameters; it is impossible to use FEA in this case, since it
is very difficult to model accurately the inhomogeneous material inside the particle.
We refer the interested reader to Zhang & Vu-Quoc (1999) for the experiments and
a method of extraction of the necessary model parameters.
We thank Lee Lesburg for his discussions. The support of the US National Science Foundation
is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Bishara, A. G., El-Azazy, S. S. & Huang, T.-D. 1981 Practical analysis of cylindrical farm silos
based on finite element solutions. ACI Jl 78, 456–462.
Cundall, P. & Strack, O. 1979 A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique
29, 47–65.
Goldsmith, W. 1960 Impact: the theory and physical behaviour of colliding solids. London:
Edward Arnold.
Hertz, H. 1882 Über die Berührung fester elastischer Körper (On the contact of elastic solids).
J. Reine Angewandte Math. 92, 156–171.
Johnson, K. L. 1985 Contact mechanics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
Kangur, K. F. & Kleis, I. R. 1988 Experimental and theoretical determination of the coefficient
of velocity restitution upon impact. Mech. Solids 23, 182–185.
Lemaitre, J. & Chaboche, J. L. 1990 Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge University Press.
Lu, Z., Negi, S. C. & Jofriet, J. D. 1995 A hybrid FEM and DEM model for numerical analysis
of granular material flow. ASAE meeting presentation, paper no. 954450.
Lubliner, J. 1990 Plasticity theory. New York: Macmillan.
Mindlin, R. D. & Deresiewicz, H. 1953 Elastic spheres in contact under varying oblique forces.
ASME Jl Appl. Mech. 20, 327–344.
Mishra, B. K. 1995 Ball charge dynamics in a planetary mill. KONA Powder Particle 13, 151–
158.
Ning, Z. & Thornton, C. 1993 Elastic–plastic impact of fine particles with a surface. In Powders
and grains (ed. C. Thornton), pp. 33–38. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Smith, C. E. & Liu, P.-P. 1992 Coefficients of restitution. ASME Jl Appl. Mech. 59, 963–969.
Thornton, C. 1997 Coefficient of restitution for collinear collisions of elastic perfectly plastic
spheres. ASME Jl Appl. Mech. 64, 383–386.
Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T. & Tanaka, T. 1993 Discrete particle simulation of two-dimensional
fluidized bed. Powder Technol. 77, 79–87.
Vu-Quoc, L. & Lesburg, L. 1999 Contact force–displacement relations for spherical particles
accounting for plastic deformation. (Submitted.)
Vu-Quoc, L. & Zhang, X. 1999a An accurate and efficient tangential force–displacement model
for elastic–frictional contact in particle-flow simulations. Mech. Mater. 31, 235–269.
Vu-Quoc, L. & Zhang, X. 1999b Tangential force–displacement model for elastoplastic frictional
contact: displacement-driven version with DEM implementation and simulations. (Submit-
ted.)
Vu-Quoc, L. & Zhang, X. 1999c Simulation of chute flow of ellipsoidal particles using an improved
tangential force–displacement model. Mech. Mater. (In the press.)
Vu-Quoc, L., Zhang, X. & Lesburg, L. 1999a A normal force–displacement model for contacting
spheres accounting for plastic deformation: force-driven formulation. ASME Jl Appl. Mech.
(Submitted.)
Vu-Quoc, L., Zhang, X. & Walton, O. R. 1999b A 3D discrete element method for dry granu-
lar flows of ellipsoidal particles. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.
Invited paper for the special issue on Dynamics of Contact/Impact Problems. (In the press.)

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

 4044 L. Vu-Quoc and X. Zhang

Walton, O. R. 1993 Numerical simulation of inelastic, frictional particle–particle interactions.

In Particulate two-phase flow (ed. M. C. Roco), ch. 25, pp. 884–911. Stoneham, MA:
Butterworth–Heinemann.
Walton, O. R. & Braun, R. L. 1986 Viscosity, granular-temperature, and stress calculations for
shearing assemblies of inelastic, frictional disks. J. Rheology 30, 949–980.
Walton, O. R., Brandeis, J. & Cooper, J. M. 1984 Modeling of inelastic, frictional, contact forces
in flowing granular assemblies. In Proc. 21st Annual Meeting of The Society of Engineering
Science, Blacksburg, VA, p. 257.
Zhang, X. 1998 On computer simulation of dry particle systems using discrete element method
and the development of DEM contact force–displacement models. PhD thesis, University of
Florida.
Zhang, X. & Vu-Quoc, L. 1999 A method to extract the mechanical properties of particles in
collision based on a new elastoplastic normal force–displacement model. Int. Jl Plasticity.
(Submitted.)

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999)

View publication stats