MPM Methods and Simulation Timing

From OSUPDOCS
Revision as of 09:38, 6 September 2013 by Nairnj (talk | contribs) (→‎CPDI)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

These command select the MPM method to use and control time step and total time for the simulation.

Theory: Shape Functions

Many tasks in MPM involve extrapolations from particles to the grid or from the grid to the particles. These extrapolations are controlled by "Shape Functions," and the various MPM methods correspond to various methods for evaluating the shape functions. In the most generalized description of MPM (called GIMP for General Interpolation Material Point[1]), the shape function (Sip) and shape function gradient (Gip) for the node i/particle p pair are:

      [math]\displaystyle{ S_{ip} = {\int_{\Omega_p} \chi_p(\vec x)N_i(\vec x) dV\over \int_{\Omega_p} \chi_p(\vec x) dV}\qquad{\rm and}\qquad G_{ip} = {\int_{\Omega_p} \chi_p(\vec x)\nabla N_i(\vec x) dV\over \int_{\Omega_p} \chi_p(\vec x) dV} }[/math]

where Ωp is the domain for particle p, χp(x) is the particle basis shape function for particle p, and Ni(x) is grid shape function for node i. The various MPM methods depend on the technique used for evaluating the shape function integrals. The chart on the right shows an MPM "genealogy" or shows how the various MPM methods descend from GIMP.

The first decision is to chose χp(x); the chart shows three options. The choice of the Dirac delta function (δ(x)) leads to classic MPM methods. The choice of a Heaviside function (i.e., χp(x) = 1 in Ωp and 0 elsewhere) leads to a family of Heaviside GIMP methods. Finally the choice of some other function (e.g., a Gaussian centered on the particle) could lead to other MPM methods, but is currently an unexplored area.

Delta Function GIMP Methods - Classic MPM

If χp(x) = δ(x), the shape functions reduce to the the grid shape function (e.g., Sip = Ni(xp)), which recovers "Classic MPM" or the original derivation of MPM.[2] Note that "Classic GIMP predates GIMP even though it descends from GIMP in the MPM "genealogy." Although Classic MPM is the most efficient method, it is rarely used because it is not very robust for large displacement problems. Whenever particle cross cell boundaries, they can cause noise that soon leads to unsatisfactory results. These cell-crossing artifacts can be eliminated (or greatly reduced) by using different χp(x).

Heaviside GIMP Methods

MPM results are greatly improved by choosing χp(x) to be a Heaviside function. With this function, the shape function integrals reduce to integrals over the particle domain of the grid-based shape function, which are normalized to particle volume (see chart). All current MPM methods descend from this selection. The specific descendant methods depend on how they integrate over the particle domain.

uGIMP

The simplest approach is to assume the particle domain has the same shape as the initial domain and merely translates with particle motion. This method, which is called uGIMP (for undeformed GIMP), has the greatest efficiency because shape functions can be explicitly calculated for all possible particle locations relative to a regular grid. uGIMP works well from small to fairly large deformation and greatly reduces cell-crossing artifacts. Very large tension strains (>50%), however, can cause undeformed particle domains to become numerically separated, which can lead to non-physical fracture of the object. When this occurs, one option is to use a different method that accounts for deformed particle domain.

Finite GIMP

In finite GIMP, the integral is over the deformed particle domain. Although this has been shown to give improved results in 1D (where it is practical[1]), it is too inefficient for arbitarary deformation of 2D and 3D particle domains. As a result, exactly-integrated, finite GIMP is not used.

CPDI

A useful improvement for large to massive deformation is CPDI or the Convected Partical Domain Integration approach.[3] In CPDI, the integral over the deformed particle domain is make practical by approximating the integrand. In brief:

  1. The deformed particle domain is discretized by isoparametric finite elements. In practice, the discretization uses a single element, but it could use more.
  2. The Integrand for Sip and Gip are then approximate by expanding them in the finite element shape functions:
          [math]\displaystyle{ N_i(\vec x) \approx \sum_j N_i(c_j) M_j(x) }[/math]
    where cj are nodes of the deformed particles domain (e.g., usually corners of the domain) and Mj(x) are isoparametric finite element shape functions for the elements choose to discretize the deformed particle domain.
  3. Integration over deformed domain can be evaluated to give Sip and Gip in terms for Ni(cj).

Two versions of CPDI have appeared. The first version finds the corners of the deformed domain using the deformation gradient on the particle.[3] If r0 is a vector from the particle to any edge location in the undeformed domain, the r = Fpr0, where Fp is the deformation gradient on the particle, is the vector in the deformed domain. When using this approach, an initial 2D rectangle domain deforms to a parallelogram and an initial 3D orthogonal box deforms to a parallelepiped. The subclasses of this method depend on the specific finite element type used to map that particle domain:

  • lCPDI for "linear" CPDI: this method maps the corners of the domain to linear elements (4 node element in 2D and 8 node element in 3D). These isoparametric elements have linear shape functions.
  • qCPDI for "quadratic" CPDI: this method additional maps midpoints of edges to nodes (e.g., 8 node element in 2D) resulting in isoparametric elements with quadratic shape functions.
  • (other): this option leaves open function development such as different shape functions of discretization of each zone into more than one element.


In CPDI2, the corner locations are separately tracked during the analysis and their current locations are used to define the deformed particle domain. For example, a 2D domain deforms to an arbitrary quadrilateral and a 2D domain an arbitrary 8-cornered domain.

Theory:Stress and Strain Updates

Commands

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 S. G. Bardenhagen, J. E. Guilkey, K. M. Roessig, J. U. Brackbill, W. M. Witzel, and J. C. Foster, "An Improved Contact Algorithm for the Material Point Method and Application to Stress Propagation in Granular Material," Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 2, 509-522 (2001).
  2. D. Sulsky, Z. Chen, and H. L. Schreyer, "A Particle Method for History-Dependent Materials,&wuot; Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 118, 179-186 (1994).
  3. 3.0 3.1 A. Sadeghirad, R. M. Brannon, and J. Burghardt, "A convected particle domain interpolation technique to extend applicability of the material point method for problems involving massive deformations," Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2011)