The damped Linear Spring contact model is based on the work by Cundall and Strack
            (Cundall and Strack
            1979).
        Also set the yield strength in units of Pa for each particle or Geometry that has
            an interaction. 
EDEM offers a reasonable default value for
            this parameter estimated from the material's Shear Modulus. You can, however, overwrite
            this default value. A linear spring with stiffness k is in parallel with a dashpot with
            coefficient, c. The magnitude of the normal force between two particles, F
N,
            is defined as: 
                    
                 Where k is the linear spring stiffness, c is the
                dashpot coefficient, δ is the overlap, and δdot is the overlap velocity.
                You can apply a similar force to the tangential direction.
The spring
                stiffness and the dashpot coefficient are the parameters in this model and it is
                common practice to estimate the spring stiffness and calculate the dashpot
                coefficient based on this stiffness. The simulation Time Step is then estimated
                based on the spring stiffness.
The spring constant and dashpot coefficient can
                be calculated based on a combination of material properties and kinematic
                constraints. One common method is obtained by equating the maximum strain energy in
                a purely Hertzian contact (Ehertzian) with the maximum strain energy of
                the existing contact (Emax) as follows:
                        
                     Where the equivalent mass m*, the
                equivalent radius R*, and the equivalent Young’s modulus E* were defined
                earlier. V is the typical impact velocity.
For two identical spherical
                particles with masses of 7.63e-03 kg, radius of 9mm and Young’s modulus of 2.6e+08
                Pa, colliding at a velocity of 3 m/s, k ≈ 2.0e+05 N/m.
The impact velocity in
                an EDEM simulation can usually be taken as a
                characteristic velocity in the simulation. You can base this velocity as the maximum
                velocity in the simulation, for example, for a blending operation with the blender
                operating at Ω rad/s, the characteristic velocity is equal to r Ω m/s, where r is
                the radius of the blender. The dashpot coefficient is related to the Coefficient of
                Restitution as follows: 
                        
                     Where e is the Coefficient of
                Restitution.
Note: e remains constant with the impact speed
                (assuming other model parameters are constant).
The tangential stiffness is
            usually estimated as a ratio to the normal spring stiffness (
Cundall and Strack
                1979). v has the tangential stiffness equal to the normal stiffness. The
            dashpot coefficient is calculated using the tangential stiffness in the previous
            equation. The tangential force is defined as:
                    
                 
            Where kt and ct are the tangential spring and dashpot
                coefficient, μ is the Coefficient of Friction.
The simulation Time Step is
                usually a small percentage of the contact duration of the particles. The contact
                duration for the Linear Spring model is obtained using the normal stiffness is
                defined as:
                        
                     Where β = π /ln(e) and e is the Coefficient of
                Restitution.
For e = 0.5, the contact time is 0.00043 sec. The simulation Time
                Step must be less than this value for better integration of the particle states. It
                is recommended to have a value of about 5-10 % of this contact time for accurate
                results. The details of the soft particle contact model are relatively unimportant
                due to the fact that a lumped parameter approach which neglects the details of the
                contact force (Coefficient of Restitution) is sufficient to describe the collision
                dynamics.
Note: You can increase the simulation Time Step
                and then try to fix a stiffness that will not allow for excessive overlap. However,
                since the stiffness and Time Step are not based on physical laws, the accuracy of
                the results is not guaranteed: you might obtain a qualitative similarity but not a
                quantitative one. We recommend to calculate the stiffness based on the material
                properties and fix the Time Step in 
EDEM.
There is no
                    general consensus on the best contact model. The Linear Spring model is simpler
                    than Hertz-Mindlin due to less computational overhead. However, in both models
                    the contact force is discontinuous at the first and last point of contact, and
                    energy dissipation is poor in systems with small relative velocities.
For
                    the same stiffness, a larger force is obtained for the same Time Step in a
                    Hertz-Mindlin model in comparison with the Linear Spring model. Hence, a larger
                    Time Step can be used with a Linear Spring contact model. Remove the default
                    Hertz-Mindlin (no-slip) contact model from the list when using this
                model.
 
                        
                            | Interaction | 
                            Configurable Parameters  | 
                            Position | 
                        
                    
                        
                            | 
                                 Particle to Particle, 
                                Particle to Geometry 
                             | 
                            Set the characteristic velocity of the spring for the material
                                interaction. Ensure that the velocity is the same for both
                                particle-to-particle and particle-to-Geometry. | 
                            Last |