<script type="text/javascript"
  src="https://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML">
</script>
<script type="text/x-mathjax-config">
  MathJax.Hub.Config({ TeX: { equationNumbers: {autoNumber: "AMS"} } });
</script>

"LAMMPS WWW Site"_lws - "LAMMPS Documentation"_ld - "LAMMPS Commands"_lc :c

:link(lws,http://lammps.sandia.gov)
:link(ld,Manual.html)
:link(lc,Commands_all.html)

:line

pair_style granular command :h3

[Syntax:]

pair_style granular cutoff :pre

cutoff = global cutoff (optional).  See discussion below. :ul

[Examples:]

pair_style granular
pair_coeff * * hooke 1000.0 50.0 tangential linear_nohistory 1.0 0.4 damping mass_velocity :pre

pair_style granular
pair_coeff * * hooke 1000.0 50.0 tangential linear_history 500.0 1.0 0.4 damping mass_velocity :pre

pair_style granular
pair_coeff * * hertz 1000.0 50.0 tangential mindlin 1000.0 1.0 0.4 :pre

pair_style granular
pair_coeff * * hertz/material 1e8 0.3 0.3 tangential mindlin_rescale NULL 1.0 0.4 damping tsuji :pre

pair_style granular
pair_coeff 1 * jkr 1000.0 500.0 0.3 10 tangential mindlin 800.0 1.0 0.5 rolling sds 500.0 200.0 0.5 twisting marshall
pair_coeff 2 2 hertz 200.0 100.0 tangential linear_history 300.0 1.0 0.1 rolling sds 200.0 100.0 0.1 twisting marshall :pre

pair_style granular
pair_coeff 1 1 dmt 1000.0 50.0 0.3 0.0 tangential mindlin NULL 0.5 0.5 rolling sds 500.0 200.0 0.5 twisting marshall
pair_coeff 2 2 dmt 1000.0 50.0 0.3 10.0 tangential mindlin NULL 0.5 0.1 rolling sds 500.0 200.0 0.1 twisting marshall :pre

[Description:]

The {granular} styles support a variety of options for the normal,
tangential, rolling and twisting forces resulting from contact between
two granular particles. This expands on the options offered by the
"pair gran/*"_pair_gran.html pair styles. The total computed forces
and torques are the sum of various models selected for the normal,
tangential, rolling and twisting modes of motion.

All model choices and parameters are entered in the
"pair_coeff"_pair_coeff.html command, as described below.  Unlike
e.g. "pair gran/hooke"_pair_gran.html, coefficient values are not
global, but can be set to different values for different combinations
of particle types, as determined by the "pair_coeff"_pair_coeff.html
command.  If the contact model choice is the same for two particle
types, the mixing for the cross-coefficients can be carried out
automatically. This is shown in the last example, where model
choices are the same for type 1 - type 1 as for type 2 - type2
interactions, but coefficients are different. In this case, the
mixed coefficients for type 1 - type 2 interactions can be determined from
mixing rules discussed below.  For additional flexibility,
coefficients as well as model forms can vary between particle types,
as shown in the fourth example: type 1 - type 1 interactions are based
on a Johnson-Kendall-Roberts normal contact model and 2-2 interactions
are based on a DMT cohesive model (see below).  In that example, 1-1
and 2-2 interactions have different model forms, in which case mixing of
coefficients cannot be determined, so 1-2 interactions must be
explicitly defined via the {pair_coeff 1 *} command, otherwise an
error would result.

:line

The first required keyword for the {pair_coeff} command is the normal
contact model. Currently supported options for normal contact models
and their required arguments are:

{hooke} : \(k_n\), \(\eta_\{n0\}\) (or \(e\))
{hertz} : \(k_n\), \(\eta_\{n0\}\) (or \(e\))
{hertz/material} : E, \(\eta_\{n0\}\) (or \(e\)), \(\nu\)
{dmt} : E, \(\eta_\{n0\}\) (or \(e\)), \(\nu\), \(\gamma\)
{jkr} : E, \(\eta_\{n0\}\) (or \(e\)), \(\nu\), \(\gamma\) :ol

Here, \(k_n\) is spring stiffness (with units that depend on model
choice, see below); \(\eta_\{n0\}\) is a damping prefactor (or, in its
place a coefficient of restitution \(e\), depending on the choice of
damping mode, see below); E is Young's modulus in units of
{force}/{length}^2, i.e. {pressure}; \(\nu\) is Poisson's ratio and
\(\gamma\) is a surface energy density, in units of
{energy}/{length}^2.

For the {hooke} model, the normal, elastic component of force acting
on particle {i} due to contact with particle {j} is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{ne, Hooke\} = k_N \delta_\{ij\} \mathbf\{n\}
\end\{equation\}

Where \(\delta_\{ij\} = R_i + R_j - \|\mathbf\{r\}_\{ij\}\|\) is the particle
overlap, \(R_i, R_j\) are the particle radii, \(\mathbf\{r\}_\{ij\} =
\mathbf\{r\}_i - \mathbf\{r\}_j\) is the vector separating the two
particle centers (note the i-j ordering so that \(F_\{ne\}\) is
positive for repulsion), and \(\mathbf\{n\} =
\frac\{\mathbf\{r\}_\{ij\}\}\{\|\mathbf\{r\}_\{ij\}\|\}\).  Therefore,
for {hooke}, the units of the spring constant \(k_n\) are
{force}/{distance}, or equivalently {mass}/{time^2}.

For the {hertz} model, the normal component of force is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{ne, Hertz\} = k_N R_\{eff\}^\{1/2\}\delta_\{ij\}^\{3/2\} \mathbf\{n\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(R_\{eff\} = \frac\{R_i R_j\}\{R_i + R_j\}\) is the effective
radius, denoted for simplicity as {R} from here on.  For {hertz}, the
units of the spring constant \(k_n\) are {force}/{length}^2, or
equivalently {pressure}.

For the {hertz/material} model, the force is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{ne, Hertz/material\} = \frac\{4\}\{3\} E_\{eff\} R_\{eff\}^\{1/2\}\delta_\{ij\}^\{3/2\} \mathbf\{n\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(E_\{eff\} = E = \left(\frac\{1-\nu_i^2\}\{E_i\} +
\frac\{1-\nu_j^2\}\{E_j\}\right)^\{-1\}\) is the effective Young's
modulus, with \(\nu_i, \nu_j \) the Poisson ratios of the particles of
types {i} and {j}. Note that if the elastic modulus and the shear
modulus of the two particles are the same, the {hertz/material} model
is equivalent to the {hertz} model with \(k_N = 4/3 E_\{eff\}\)

The {dmt} model corresponds to the
"(Derjaguin-Muller-Toporov)"_#DMT1975 cohesive model, where the force
is simply Hertz with an additional attractive cohesion term:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{ne, dmt\} = \left(\frac\{4\}\{3\} E R^\{1/2\}\delta_\{ij\}^\{3/2\} - 4\pi\gamma R\right)\mathbf\{n\}
\end\{equation\}

The {jkr} model is the "(Johnson-Kendall-Roberts)"_#JKR1971 model,
where the force is computed as:

\begin\{equation\}
\label\{eq:force_jkr\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{ne, jkr\} = \left(\frac\{4Ea^3\}\{3R\} - 2\pi a^2\sqrt\{\frac\{4\gamma E\}\{\pi a\}\}\right)\mathbf\{n\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, {a} is the radius of the contact zone, related to the overlap
\(\delta\) according to:

\begin\{equation\}
\delta = a^2/R - 2\sqrt\{\pi \gamma a/E\}
\end\{equation\}

LAMMPS internally inverts the equation above to solve for {a} in terms
of \(\delta\), then solves for the force in the previous
equation. Additionally, note that the JKR model allows for a tensile
force beyond contact (i.e. for \(\delta < 0\)), up to a maximum of
\(3\pi\gamma R\) (also known as the 'pull-off' force).  Note that this
is a hysteretic effect, where particles that are not contacting
initially will not experience force until they come into contact
\(\delta \geq 0\); as they move apart and (\(\delta < 0\)), they
experience a tensile force up to \(3\pi\gamma R\), at which point they
lose contact.

:line

In addition, the normal force is augmented by a damping term of the
following general form:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{n,damp\} = -\eta_n \mathbf\{v\}_\{n,rel\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\mathbf\{v\}_\{n,rel\} = (\mathbf\{v\}_j - \mathbf\{v\}_i)
\cdot \mathbf\{n\} \mathbf\{n\}\) is the component of relative velocity along
\(\mathbf\{n\}\).

The optional {damping} keyword to the {pair_coeff} command followed by
a keyword determines the model form of the damping factor \(\eta_n\),
and the interpretation of the \(\eta_\{n0\}\) or \(e\) coefficients
specified as part of the normal contact model settings. The {damping}
keyword and corresponding model form selection may be appended
anywhere in the {pair coeff} command.  Note that the choice of damping
model affects both the normal and tangential damping (and depending on
other settings, potentially also the twisting damping).  The options
for the damping model currently supported are:

{velocity}
{mass_velocity}
{viscoelastic}
{tsuji} :ol

If the {damping} keyword is not specified, the {viscoelastic} model is
used by default.

For {damping velocity}, the normal damping is simply equal to the
user-specified damping coefficient in the {normal} model:

\begin\{equation\}
\eta_n = \eta_\{n0\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\eta_\{n0\}\) is the damping coefficient specified for the normal
contact model, in units of {mass}/{time}.

For {damping mass_velocity}, the normal damping is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\eta_n = \eta_\{n0\} m_\{eff\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\eta_\{n0\}\) is the damping coefficient specified for the normal
contact model, in units of {mass}/{time} and
\(m_\{eff\} = m_i m_j/(m_i + m_j)\) is the effective mass.
Use {damping mass_velocity} to reproduce the damping behavior of
{pair gran/hooke/*}.

The {damping viscoelastic} model is based on the viscoelastic
treatment of "(Brilliantov et al)"_#Brill1996, where the normal
damping is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\eta_n = \eta_\{n0\}\ a m_\{eff\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, {a} is the contact radius, given by \(a =\sqrt\{R\delta\}\)
for all models except {jkr}, for which it is given implicitly according
to \(\delta = a^2/R - 2\sqrt\{\pi \gamma a/E\}\).  For {damping viscoelastic},
\(\eta_\{n0\}\) is in units of 1/({time}*{distance}).

The {tsuji} model is based on the work of "(Tsuji et
al)"_#Tsuji1992. Here, the damping coefficient specified as part of
the normal model is interpreted as a restitution coefficient
\(e\). The damping constant \(\eta_n\) is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\eta_n = \alpha (m_\{eff\}k_n)^\{1/2\}
\end\{equation\}

For normal contact models based on material parameters, \(k_n =
4/3Ea\).  The parameter \(\alpha\) is related to the restitution
coefficient {e} according to:

\begin\{equation\}
\alpha = 1.2728-4.2783e+11.087e^2-22.348e^3+27.467e^4-18.022e^5+4.8218e^6
\end\{equation\}

The dimensionless coefficient of restitution \(e\) specified as part
of the normal contact model parameters should be between 0 and 1, but
no error check is performed on this.

The total normal force is computed as the sum of the elastic and
damping components:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_n = \mathbf\{F\}_\{ne\} + \mathbf\{F\}_\{n,damp\}
\end\{equation\}

 :line

The {pair_coeff} command also requires specification of the tangential
contact model. The required keyword {tangential} is expected, followed
by the model choice and associated parameters. Currently supported
tangential model choices and their expected parameters are as follows:

{linear_nohistory} : \(x_\{\gamma,t\}\), \(\mu_s\)
{linear_history} : \(k_t\), \(x_\{\gamma,t\}\), \(\mu_s\)
{mindlin} : \(k_t\) or NULL, \(x_\{\gamma,t\}\), \(\mu_s\)
{mindlin_rescale} : \(k_t\) or NULL, \(x_\{\gamma,t\}\), \(\mu_s\) :ol

Here, \(x_\{\gamma,t\}\) is a dimensionless multiplier for the normal
damping \(\eta_n\) that determines the magnitude of the tangential
damping, \(\mu_t\) is the tangential (or sliding) friction
coefficient, and \(k_t\) is the tangential stiffness coefficient.

For {tangential linear_nohistory}, a simple velocity-dependent Coulomb
friction criterion is used, which mimics the behavior of the {pair
gran/hooke} style. The tangential force (\mathbf\{F\}_t\) is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_t =  -min(\mu_t F_\{n0\}, \|\mathbf\{F\}_\mathrm\{t,damp\}\|) \mathbf\{t\}
\end\{equation\}

The tangential damping force \(\mathbf\{F\}_\mathrm\{t,damp\}\) is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\mathrm\{t,damp\} = -\eta_t \mathbf\{v\}_\{t,rel\}
\end\{equation\}

The tangential damping prefactor \(\eta_t\) is calculated by scaling
the normal damping \(\eta_n\) (see above):

\begin\{equation\}
\eta_t = -x_\{\gamma,t\} \eta_n
\end\{equation\}

The normal damping prefactor \(\eta_n\) is determined by the choice
of the {damping} keyword, as discussed above.  Thus, the {damping}
keyword also affects the tangential damping.  The parameter
\(x_\{\gamma,t\}\) is a scaling coefficient. Several works in the
literature use \(x_\{\gamma,t\} = 1\) ("Marshall"_#Marshall2009,
"Tsuji et al"_#Tsuji1992, "Silbert et al"_#Silbert2001).  The relative
tangential velocity at the point of contact is given by
\(\mathbf\{v\}_\{t, rel\} = \mathbf\{v\}_\{t\} - (R_i\Omega_i +
R_j\Omega_j) \times \mathbf\{n\}\), where \(\mathbf\{v\}_\{t\} =
\mathbf\{v\}_r - \mathbf\{v\}_r\cdot\mathbf\{n\}\{n\}\),
\(\mathbf\{v\}_r = \mathbf\{v\}_j - \mathbf\{v\}_i\).
The direction of the applied force is \(\mathbf\{t\} =
\mathbf\{v_\{t,rel\}\}/\|\mathbf\{v_\{t,rel\}\}\|\) .

The normal force value \(F_\{n0\}\) used to compute the critical force
depends on the form of the contact model. For non-cohesive models
({hertz}, {hertz/material}, {hooke}), it is given by the magnitude of
the normal force:

\begin\{equation\}
F_\{n0\} = \|\mathbf\{F\}_n\|
\end\{equation\}

For cohesive models such as {jkr} and {dmt}, the critical force is
adjusted so that the critical tangential force approaches \(\mu_t
F_\{pulloff\}\), see "Marshall"_#Marshall2009, equation 43, and
"Thornton"_#Thornton1991.  For both models, \(F_\{n0\}\) takes the
form:

\begin\{equation\}
F_\{n0\} = \|\mathbf\{F\}_ne + 2 F_\{pulloff\}\|
\end\{equation\}

Where \(F_\{pulloff\} = 3\pi \gamma R \) for {jkr}, and
\(F_\{pulloff\} = 4\pi \gamma R \) for {dmt}.

The remaining tangential options all use accumulated tangential
displacement (i.e. contact history). This is discussed below in the
context of the {linear_history} option, but the same treatment of the
accumulated displacement applies to the other options as well.

For {tangential linear_history}, the tangential force is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_t =  -min(\mu_t F_\{n0\}, \|-k_t\mathbf\{\xi\} + \mathbf\{F\}_\mathrm\{t,damp\}\|) \mathbf\{t\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\mathbf\{\xi\}\) is the tangential displacement accumulated
during the entire duration of the contact:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\xi\} = \int_\{t0\}^t \mathbf\{v\}_\{t,rel\}(\tau) \mathrm\{d\}\tau
\end\{equation\}

This accumulated tangential displacement must be adjusted to account
for changes in the frame of reference of the contacting pair of
particles during contact. This occurs due to the overall motion of the
contacting particles in a rigid-body-like fashion during the duration
of the contact. There are two modes of motion that are relevant: the
'tumbling' rotation of the contacting pair, which changes the
orientation of the plane in which tangential displacement occurs; and
'spinning' rotation of the contacting pair about the vector connecting
their centers of mass (\(\mathbf\{n\}\)).  Corrections due to the
former mode of motion are made by rotating the accumulated
displacement into the plane that is tangential to the contact vector
at each step, or equivalently removing any component of the tangential
displacement that lies along \(\mathbf\{n\}\), and rescaling to
preserve the magnitude.  This follows the discussion in
"Luding"_#Luding2008, see equation 17 and relevant discussion in that
work:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\xi\} = \left(\mathbf\{\xi'\} - (\mathbf\{n\} \cdot \mathbf\{\xi'\})\mathbf\{n\}\right) \frac\{\|\mathbf\{\xi'\}\|\}\{\|\mathbf\{\xi'\}\| - \mathbf\{n\}\cdot\mathbf\{\xi'\}\}
\label\{eq:rotate_displacements\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\mathbf\{\xi'\}\) is the accumulated displacement prior to the
current time step and \(\mathbf\{\xi\}\) is the corrected
displacement. Corrections to the displacement due to the second mode
of motion described above (rotations about \(\mathbf\{n\}\)) are not
currently implemented, but are expected to be minor for most
simulations.

Furthermore, when the tangential force exceeds the critical force, the
tangential displacement is re-scaled to match the value for the
critical force (see "Luding"_#Luding2008, equation 20 and related
discussion):

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\xi\} = -\frac\{1\}\{k_t\}\left(\mu_t F_\{n0\}\mathbf\{t\} + \mathbf\{F\}_\{t,damp\}\right)
\end\{equation\}

The tangential force is added to the total normal force (elastic plus
damping) to produce the total force on the particle. The tangential
force also acts at the contact point (defined as the center of the
overlap region) to induce a torque on each particle according to:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\tau\}_i = -(R_i - 0.5 \delta) \mathbf\{n\} \times \mathbf\{F\}_t
\end\{equation\}

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\tau\}_j = -(R_j - 0.5 \delta) \mathbf\{n\} \times \mathbf\{F\}_t
\end\{equation\}

For {tangential mindlin}, the "Mindlin"_#Mindlin1949 no-slip solution is used, which differs from the {linear_history}
option by an additional factor of {a}, the radius of the contact region. The tangential force is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_t =  -min(\mu_t F_\{n0\}, \|-k_t a \mathbf\{\xi\} + \mathbf\{F\}_\mathrm\{t,damp\}\|) \mathbf\{t\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, {a} is the radius of the contact region, given by \(a =\sqrt\{R\delta\}\)
for all normal contact models, except for {jkr}, where it is given
implicitly by \(\delta = a^2/R - 2\sqrt\{\pi \gamma a/E\}\), see
discussion above. To match the Mindlin solution, one should set \(k_t
= 8G\), where \(G\) is the shear modulus, related to Young's modulus
\(E\) by \(G = E/(2(1+\nu))\), where \(\nu\) is Poisson's ratio. This
can also be achieved by specifying {NULL} for \(k_t\), in which case a
normal contact model that specifies material parameters \(E\) and
\(\nu\) is required (e.g. {hertz/material}, {dmt} or {jkr}). In this
case, mixing of the shear modulus for different particle types {i} and
{j} is done according to:

\begin\{equation\}
1/G = 2(2-\nu_i)(1+\nu_i)/E_i + 2(2-\nu_j)(1+\nu_j)/E_j
\end\{equation\}

The {mindlin_rescale} option uses the same form as {mindlin}, but the
magnitude of the tangential displacement is re-scaled as the contact
unloads, i.e. if \(a < a_\{t_\{n-1\}\}\):

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\xi\} = \mathbf\{\xi_\{t_\{n-1\}\}\} \frac\{a\}\{a_\{t_\{n-1\}\}\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(t_\{n-1\}\) indicates the value at the previous time
step. This rescaling accounts for the fact that a decrease in the
contact area upon unloading leads to the contact being unable to
support the previous tangential loading, and spurious energy is
created without the rescaling above ("Walton"_#WaltonPC ). See also
discussion in "Thornton et al, 2013"_#Thornton2013 , particularly
equation 18(b) of that work and associated discussion.

:line

The optional {rolling} keyword enables rolling friction, which resists
pure rolling motion of particles. The options currently supported are:

{none}
{sds} : \(k_\{roll\}\), \(\gamma_\{roll\}\), \(\mu_\{roll\}\)  :ol

If the {rolling} keyword is not specified, the model defaults to {none}.

For {rolling sds}, rolling friction is computed via a
spring-dashpot-slider, using a 'pseudo-force' formulation, as detailed
by "Luding"_#Luding2008. Unlike the formulation in
"Marshall"_#Marshall2009, this allows for the required adjustment of
rolling displacement due to changes in the frame of reference of the
contacting pair.  The rolling pseudo-force is computed analogously to
the tangential force:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{roll,0\} =  k_\{roll\} \mathbf\{\xi\}_\{roll\}  - \gamma_\{roll\} \mathbf\{v\}_\{roll\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\mathbf\{v\}_\{roll\} = -R(\mathbf\{\Omega\}_i -
\mathbf\{\Omega\}_j) \times \mathbf\{n\}\) is the relative rolling
velocity, as given in "Wang et al"_#Wang2015 and
"Luding"_#Luding2008. This differs from the expressions given by "Kuhn
and Bagi"_#Kuhn2004 and used in "Marshall"_#Marshall2009; see "Wang et
al"_#Wang2015 for details. The rolling displacement is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\xi\}_\{roll\} = \int_\{t_0\}^t \mathbf\{v\}_\{roll\} (\tau) \mathrm\{d\} \tau
\end\{equation\}

A Coulomb friction criterion truncates the rolling pseudo-force if it
exceeds a critical value:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{F\}_\{roll\} =  min(\mu_\{roll\} F_\{n,0\}, \|\mathbf\{F\}_\{roll,0\}\|)\mathbf\{k\}
\end\{equation\}

Here, \(\mathbf\{k\} =
\mathbf\{v\}_\{roll\}/\|\mathbf\{v\}_\{roll\}\|\) is the direction of
the pseudo-force.  As with tangential displacement, the rolling
displacement is rescaled when the critical force is exceeded, so that
the spring length corresponds the critical force. Additionally, the
displacement is adjusted to account for rotations of the frame of
reference of the two contacting particles in a manner analogous to the
tangential displacement.

The rolling pseudo-force does not contribute to the total force on
either particle (hence 'pseudo'), but acts only to induce an equal and
opposite torque on each particle, according to:

\begin\{equation\}
\tau_\{roll,i\} =  R_\{eff\} \mathbf\{n\} \times \mathbf\{F\}_\{roll\}
\end\{equation\}

\begin\{equation\}
\tau_\{roll,j\} =  -\tau_\{roll,i\}
\end\{equation\}

:line

The optional {twisting} keyword enables twisting friction, which
resists rotation of two contacting particles about the vector
\(\mathbf\{n\}\) that connects their centers. The options currently
supported are:

{none}
{sds} : \(k_\{twist\}\), \(\gamma_\{twist\}\), \(\mu_\{twist\}\)
{marshall} :ol

If the {twisting} keyword is not specified, the model defaults to {none}.

For both {twisting sds} and {twisting marshall}, a history-dependent
spring-dashpot-slider is used to compute the twisting torque. Because
twisting displacement is a scalar, there is no need to adjust for
changes in the frame of reference due to rotations of the particle
pair. The formulation in "Marshall"_#Marshall2009 therefore provides
the most straightforward treatment:

\begin\{equation\}
\tau_\{twist,0\} = -k_\{twist\}\xi_\{twist\} - \gamma_\{twist\}\Omega_\{twist\}
\end\{equation\}

Here \(\xi_\{twist\} = \int_\{t_0\}^t \Omega_\{twist\} (\tau)
\mathrm\{d\}\tau\) is the twisting angular displacement, and
\(\Omega_\{twist\} = (\mathbf\{\Omega\}_i - \mathbf\{\Omega\}_j) \cdot
\mathbf\{n\}\) is the relative twisting angular velocity. The torque
is then truncated according to:

\begin\{equation\}
\tau_\{twist\} = min(\mu_\{twist\} F_\{n,0\}, \tau_\{twist,0\})
\end\{equation\}

Similar to the sliding and rolling displacement, the angular
displacement is rescaled so that it corresponds to the critical value
if the twisting torque exceeds this critical value:

\begin\{equation\}
\xi_\{twist\} = \frac\{1\}\{k_\{twist\}\} (\mu_\{twist\} F_\{n,0\}sgn(\Omega_\{twist\}) - \gamma_\{twist\}\Omega_\{twist\})
\end\{equation\}

For {twisting sds}, the coefficients \(k_\{twist\}, \gamma_\{twist\}\)
and \(\mu_\{twist\}\) are simply the user input parameters that follow
the {twisting sds} keywords in the {pair_coeff} command.

For {twisting_marshall}, the coefficients are expressed in terms of
sliding friction coefficients, as discussed in
"Marshall"_#Marshall2009 (see equations 32 and 33 of that work):

\begin\{equation\}
k_\{twist\} = 0.5k_ta^2
\end\{equation\}

\begin\{equation\}
\eta_\{twist\} = 0.5\eta_ta^2
\end\{equation\}

\begin\{equation\}
\mu_\{twist\} = \frac\{2\}\{3\}a\mu_t
\end\{equation\}

Finally, the twisting torque on each particle is given by:

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\tau\}_\{twist,i\} = \tau_\{twist\}\mathbf\{n\}
\end\{equation\}

\begin\{equation\}
\mathbf\{\tau\}_\{twist,j\} = -\mathbf\{\tau\}_\{twist,i\}
\end\{equation\}

:line

The {granular} pair style can reproduce the behavior of the
{pair gran/*} styles with the appropriate settings (some very
minor differences can be expected due to corrections in
displacement history frame-of-reference, and the application
of the torque at the center of the contact rather than
at each particle). The first example above
is equivalent to {pair gran/hooke 1000.0 NULL 50.0 50.0 0.4 1}.
The second example is equivalent to
{pair gran/hooke/history 1000.0 500.0 50.0 50.0 0.4 1}.
The third example is equivalent to
{pair gran/hertz/history 1000.0 500.0 50.0 50.0 0.4 1}.

:line

LAMMPS automatically sets pairwise cutoff values for {pair_style
granular} based on particle radii (and in the case of {jkr} pull-off
distances). In the vast majority of situations, this is adequate.
However, a cutoff value can optionally be appended to the {pair_style
granular} command to specify a global cutoff (i.e. a cutoff for all
atom types). Additionally, the optional {cutoff} keyword can be passed
to the {pair_coeff} command, followed by a cutoff value.  This will
set a pairwise cutoff for the atom types in the {pair_coeff} command.
These options may be useful in some rare cases where the automatic
cutoff determination is not sufficient, e.g.  if particle diameters
are being modified via the {fix adapt} command. In that case, the
global cutoff specified as part of the {pair_style granular} command
is applied to all atom types, unless it is overridden for a given atom
type combination by the {cutoff} value specified in the {pair coeff}
command.  If {cutoff} is only specified in the {pair coeff} command
and no global cutoff is appended to the {pair_style granular} command,
then LAMMPS will use that cutoff for the specified atom type
combination, and automatically set pairwise cutoffs for the remaining
atom types.

:line

Styles with a {gpu}, {intel}, {kk}, {omp}, or {opt} suffix are
functionally the same as the corresponding style without the suffix.
They have been optimized to run faster, depending on your available
hardware, as discussed on the "Speed packages"_Speed_packages.html doc
page.  The accelerated styles take the same arguments and should
produce the same results, except for round-off and precision issues.

These accelerated styles are part of the GPU, USER-INTEL, KOKKOS,
USER-OMP and OPT packages, respectively.  They are only enabled if
LAMMPS was built with those packages.  See the "Build
package"_Build_package.html doc page for more info.

You can specify the accelerated styles explicitly in your input script
by including their suffix, or you can use the "-suffix command-line
switch"_Run_options.html when you invoke LAMMPS, or you can use the
"suffix"_suffix.html command in your input script.

See the "Speed packages"_Speed_packages.html doc page for more
instructions on how to use the accelerated styles effectively.

:line

[Mixing, shift, table, tail correction, restart, rRESPA info]:

The "pair_modify"_pair_modify.html mix, shift, table, and tail options
are not relevant for granular pair styles.

Mixing of coefficients is carried out using geometric averaging for
most quantities, e.g. if friction coefficient for type 1-type 1
interactions is set to \(\mu_1\), and friction coefficient for type
2-type 2 interactions is set to \(\mu_2\), the friction coefficient
for type1-type2 interactions is computed as \(\sqrt\{\mu_1\mu_2\}\)
(unless explicitly specified to a different value by a {pair_coeff 1 2
...} command). The exception to this is elastic modulus, only
applicable to {hertz/material}, {dmt} and {jkr} normal contact
models. In that case, the effective elastic modulus is computed as:

\begin\{equation\}
E_\{eff,ij\} = \left(\frac\{1-\nu_i^2\}\{E_i\} + \frac\{1-\nu_j^2\}\{E_j\}\right)^\{-1\}
\end\{equation\}

If the {i-j} coefficients \(E_\{ij\}\) and \(\nu_\{ij\}\) are
explicitly specified, the effective modulus is computed as:

\begin\{equation\}
E_\{eff,ij\} = \left(\frac\{1-\nu_\{ij\}^2\}\{E_\{ij\}\} + \frac\{1-\nu_\{ij\}^2\}\{E_\{ij\}\}\right)^\{-1\}
\end\{equation\}

or

\begin\{equation\}
E_\{eff,ij\} = \frac\{E_\{ij\}\}\{2(1-\nu_\{ij\})\}
\end\{equation\}

These pair styles write their information to "binary restart
files"_restart.html, so a pair_style command does not need to be
specified in an input script that reads a restart file.

These pair styles can only be used via the {pair} keyword of the
"run_style respa"_run_style.html command.  They do not support the
{inner}, {middle}, {outer} keywords.

The single() function of these pair styles returns 0.0 for the energy
of a pairwise interaction, since energy is not conserved in these
dissipative potentials.  It also returns only the normal component of
the pairwise interaction force.  However, the single() function also
calculates 12 extra pairwise quantities.  The first 3 are the
components of the tangential force between particles I and J, acting
on particle I.  The 4th is the magnitude of this tangential force.
The next 3 (5-7) are the components of the rolling torque acting on
particle I. The next entry (8) is the magnitude of the rolling torque.
The next entry (9) is the magnitude of the twisting torque acting
about the vector connecting the two particle centers.
The last 3 (10-12) are the components of the vector connecting
the centers of the two particles (x_I - x_J).

These extra quantities can be accessed by the "compute
pair/local"_compute_pair_local.html command, as {p1}, {p2}, ...,
{p12}.

:line

[Restrictions:]

All the granular pair styles are part of the GRANULAR package.  It is
only enabled if LAMMPS was built with that package.  See the "Build
package"_Build_package.html doc page for more info.

These pair styles require that atoms store torque and angular velocity
(omega) as defined by the "atom_style"_atom_style.html.  They also
require a per-particle radius is stored.  The {sphere} atom style does
all of this.

This pair style requires you to use the "comm_modify vel
yes"_comm_modify.html command so that velocities are stored by ghost
atoms.

These pair styles will not restart exactly when using the
"read_restart"_read_restart.html command, though they should provide
statistically similar results.  This is because the forces they
compute depend on atom velocities.  See the
"read_restart"_read_restart.html command for more details.

[Related commands:]

"pair_coeff"_pair_coeff.html
"pair gran/*"_pair_gran.html

[Default:]

For the {pair_coeff} settings: {damping viscoelastic}, {rolling none},
{twisting none}.

[References:]

:link(Brill1996)
[(Brilliantov et al, 1996)] Brilliantov, N. V., Spahn, F., Hertzsch,
J. M., & Poschel, T. (1996).  Model for collisions in granular
gases. Physical review E, 53(5), 5382.

:link(Tsuji1992)
[(Tsuji et al, 1992)] Tsuji, Y., Tanaka, T., & Ishida,
T. (1992). Lagrangian numerical simulation of plug flow of
cohesionless particles in a horizontal pipe. Powder technology, 71(3),
239-250.

:link(JKR1971)
[(Johnson et al, 1971)] Johnson, K. L., Kendall, K., & Roberts,
A. D. (1971).  Surface energy and the contact of elastic
solids. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 324(1558), 301-313.

:link(DMT1975)
[Derjaguin et al, 1975)] Derjaguin, B. V., Muller, V. M., & Toporov,
Y. P. (1975). Effect of contact deformations on the adhesion of
particles. Journal of Colloid and interface science, 53(2), 314-326.

:link(Luding2008)
[(Luding, 2008)] Luding, S. (2008). Cohesive, frictional powders:
contact models for tension. Granular matter, 10(4), 235.

:link(Marshall2009)
[(Marshall, 2009)] Marshall, J. S. (2009). Discrete-element modeling
of particulate aerosol flows.  Journal of Computational Physics,
228(5), 1541-1561.

:link(Silbert2001)
[(Silbert, 2001)] Silbert, L. E., Ertas, D., Grest, G. S., Halsey,
T. C., Levine, D., & Plimpton, S. J. (2001).  Granular flow down an
inclined plane: Bagnold scaling and rheology. Physical Review E,
64(5), 051302.

:link(Kuhn2004)
[(Kuhn and Bagi, 2005)] Kuhn, M. R., & Bagi, K. (2004). Contact
rolling and deformation in granular media.  International journal of
solids and structures, 41(21), 5793-5820.

:link(Wang2015)
[(Wang et al, 2015)] Wang, Y., Alonso-Marroquin, F., & Guo,
W. W. (2015).  Rolling and sliding in 3-D discrete element
models. Particuology, 23, 49-55.

:link(Thornton1991)
[(Thornton, 1991)] Thornton, C. (1991). Interparticle sliding in the
presence of adhesion.  J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 24 1942

:link(Mindlin1949)
[(Mindlin, 1949)] Mindlin, R. D. (1949). Compliance of elastic bodies
in contact.  J. Appl. Mech., ASME 16, 259-268.

:link(Thornton2013)
[(Thornton et al, 2013)] Thornton, C., Cummins, S. J., & Cleary,
P. W. (2013).  An investigation of the comparative behaviour of
alternative contact force models during inelastic collisions. Powder
Technology, 233, 30-46.

:link(WaltonPC)
[(Otis R. Walton)] Walton, O.R., Personal Communication
