A convected-particle tetrahedron interpolation technique in the material-point method for the mesoscale modeling of ceramics

  • R. B. LeavyEmail author
  • J. E. Guilkey
  • B. R. Phung
  • A. D. Spear
  • R. M. Brannon
Original Paper


Convected particle domain interpolation, which is known to boost the accuracy of the material-point method, is applied in a form called convected-particle tetrahedron interpolation (CPTI). CPTI exploits the efficiency of tetrahedral tessellations to represent complex structural geometries, while still solving field equations on a rectilinear background grid. Advantages include anti-locking and an ability to handle extremely large deformations without suffering typical Eulerian advection errors. CPTI is demonstrated to resolve long-standing errors caused by spuriously ragged (stair-stepped) surfaces, and it is also shown to accommodate mathematically rigorous evaluation of surface integrals in models for contact and friction. Benefits of this work are illustrated in mesoscale simulations of an aluminum oxynitride ceramic.


Material point method Convected particle domain interpolation Ceramics Crystal plasticity Aluminum oxynitride Verification 



The authors acknowledge the early CPDI contributions of Ali Sadeghirad at the University of Utah. John Clayton, Rich Becker and Jeff Lloyd of the Army Research Lab (ARL) are acknowledged for assistance in mesoscale modeling and crystal-plasticity guidelines in traditional finite elements. Brian Schuster, Tomoko Sano and Sikhanda Satapathy assisted in the aluminum oxynitride characterization. The HEDM analysis and reconstruction of AlON, which informed the simulations was conducted under cooperative agreement W911NF-12-2-0065 by C.M. Hefferan, J. Lind, S. Madalli, and R.M. Suter. Additional support was supplied by the University of Utah’s CHPC, Schlumberger, Inc., the Office of Naval Research (ONR-MURI), Sandia National Laboratories, ARL student support and High Performance Computing (HPC) resources.


  1. 1.
    Davison de St. Germain J, McCorquodale J, Parker S, Johnson C (2000) Uintah: a massively parallel problem solving environment. In: The ninth international symposium on high-performance distributed computing, pp 33–41Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    York A, Sulsky D, Schreyer H (2000) Fluid-membrane interaction based on the material point method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 48:901–924CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bardenhagen S, Guilkey J, Roessig K, Brackbill J, Witzel W, Foster J (2001) An improved contact algorithm for the material point method and application to stress propagation in granular material. Comput Model Eng Sci 2:509–522zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schreyer H, Sulsky D, Zhou S (2002) Modeling delamination as a strong discontinuity with the material point method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:2483–2507CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadeghirad A, Brannon R, Guilkey J (2013) Second-order convected particle domain interpolation (CPDI2) with enrichment for weak discontinuities at material interfaces. Int J Numer Methods Eng 95(11):928–952MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guo Y, Nairn J (2006) Three-dimensional dynamic fracture analysis using the material point method. CMES 16(3):141Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Homel MA, Herbold EB (2017) Field-gradient partitioning for fracture and frictional contact in the material point method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 109(7):1013–1044MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sulsky D, Chen A, Schreyer H (1994) A particle method for history-dependent materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 118(1–2):179–196MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sulsky D, Zhou S, Schreyer H (1995) Application of a particle-in-cell method to solid mechanics. Comput Phys Commun 87:236–252CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bardenhagen S, Kober E (2004) The generalized interpolation material point method. CMES 5:477–495Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sadeghirad A, Brannon R, Burghardt J, Guilkey J (2010) The convected particle domain interpolation (CPDI) method: a means of approximating gimp integrals on massively distorted domains having fractional particles per cell. In: MPM workshop, August 2010. Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang H, Gao F, Zheng Y, Wang K (2012) Coupling convected particle domain interpolation method for dynamic analysis of saturated porous media involving large deformation. Chin J Appl Mech 29:494–500Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bardenhagen S (2002) Energy conservation error in the material point method for solid mechanics. J Comput Phys 180:383–403CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sadeghirad A, Brannon RM, Burghardt J (2011) A convected particle domain interpolation technique to extend applicability of the material point method for problems involving massive deformations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 86(12):1435–1456MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Homel MA, Brannon RM, Guilkey J (2016) Controlling the onset of numerical fracture in parallelized implementations of the material point method (MPM) with convected particle domain interpolation (CPDI) domain scaling. Int J Numer Methods Eng 107(1):31–48CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen VP, Thanh Nguyen C, Rabczuk T, Natarajan S (2016) On a family of convected particle domain interpolations in the material point method. Finite Elem Anal Des 126:50–64MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moaveni S (2003) Finite element analysis: theory and application with ANSYS. Pearson Education India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mark E et al (2007) Enhancements to the extensible data model and format (xdmf). In: DoD high performance computing modernization program users group conference. IEEE, 2007, pp 322–327Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schroeder W, Martin K, Lorensen B (2006) The visualization toolkit: an object-oriented approach to 3D graphics. Kitware, Inc., 28 Corporate Drive, Clifton Park, NY 12065Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Squillacote A (2008) The paraview guide, vol 3, Kitware, Inc., 28 Corporate Drive, Clifton Park, NY 12065Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Childs H, Brugger E, Whitlock B, Meredith J, Ahern S, Pugmire D, Biagas K, Miller M, Harrison C, Weber G H, Krishnan H, Fogal T, Sanderson A, Garth C, Bethel EW, Camp D, Rubel O, Durant M, Favre JM, Navrátil P (2012) VisIt: an end-user tool for visualizing and analyzing very large data. In: High performance visualization—enabling extreme-scale scientific insight, NA, pp 357–372Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nairn JA (2007) Numerical implementation of imperfect interfaces. Comput Mater Sci 40(4):525–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nairn J (2013) Modeling imperfect interfaces in the material point method using multimaterial methods. Comput Model Eng Sci 92:271–299MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matouš K, Maniatty AM (2004) Finite element formulation for modelling large deformations in elasto-viscoplastic polycrystals. Int J Numer Methods Eng 60(14):2313–2333MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ni J, Maniatty A, Liu Y, Hao J (2015) Crystal plasticity finite element analysis of electromigration-induced deformation behavior in lead-free solder joints. In: 2015 IEEE 65th Electronic components and technology conference (ECTC). IEEE, pp 1023–1028Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spear AD, Hochhalter JD, Cerrone AR, Li SF, Lind JF, Suter RM, Ingraffea AR (2016) A method to generate conformal finite-element meshes from 3d measurements of microstructurally small fatigue-crack propagation. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 39(6):737–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bozek J, Hochhalter J, Veilleux M, Liu M, Heber G, Sintay S, Rollett A, Littlewood D, Maniatty A, Weiland H et al (2008) A geometric approach to modeling microstructurally small fatigue crack formation: I. Probabilistic simulation of constituent particle cracking in aa 7075-t651. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 16(6):065007Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brannon RM (2018) Rotation, reflection, and frame changes. IOP Publishing, pp 2053–2563.
  29. 29.
    Kamojjala K, Brannon R, Sadeghirad A, Guilkey J (2015) Verification tests in solid mechanics. Eng Comput 31(2):193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright T, Ramesh K (2009) Statistically informed dynamics of void growth in rate dependent materials. Int J Impact Eng 36(10–11):1242–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu X, Ramesh K, Wright T (2003) The effects of thermal softening and heat conduction on the dynamic growth of voids. Int J Solids Struct 40(17):4461–4478CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clayton J, Kraft R, Leavy RB (2012) Mesoscale modeling of nonlinear elasticity and fracture in ceramic polycrystals under dynamic shear and compression. Int J Solids Struct 49(18):2686–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brannon RM, Fossum AF, Strack OE (2009) Kayenta: theory and user’s guide. Technical report SAND2009-2882, Sandia National LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brannon R, Jensen K, Nayak D (2018) Hypervariate constitutive modeling illustrated via aleatory uncertainty in a foundation model. J Eur Ceram Soc 38(8):2971–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brannon RM (2007) Elements of phenomenological plasticity: geometrical insight, computational algorithms, and topics in shock physics. In: Horie Y (ed) Shock wave science and technology reference library. Springer, Berlin, pp 225–274.
  36. 36.
    Strack O, Leavy R, Brannon R (2015) Aleatory uncertainty and scale effects in computational damage models for failure and fragmentation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 102(3–4):468–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kamojjala K, Brannon R (2014) Data relocalization to mitigate slow convergence caused by under-resolved stress fields in computational damage mechanics. J Eur Ceram Soc 34(11):2723–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huq F, Brannon R, Graham-Brady L (2016) An efficient binning scheme with application to statistical crack mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 105(1):33–62MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwer LE (2009) Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. In: 20th international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology. FinlandGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wallstedt P, Guilkey J (2008) An evaluation of explicit time integration schemes for use with the generalized interpolation material point method. J Comput Phys 227:9628–9642MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kumar AV, Padmanabhan S, Burla R (2008) Implicit boundary method for finite element analysis using non-conforming mesh or grid. Int J Numer Methods Eng 74(9):1421–1447MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Clayton JD, Leavy RB, Kraft RH (2012) Dynamic compressibility, shear strength, and fracture behavior of ceramic microstructures predicted from mesoscale models. In: American Institute of Physics conference series, vol 1426, pp 1039–1044Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jung J. Presto 4.16 users guide, SAND 2010 3112Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pyle DM, Lu J, Littlewood DJ, Maniatty AM (2013) Effect of 3d grain structure representation in polycrystal simulations. Comput Mech 52(1):135–150CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McCauley JW, Patel P, Chen M, Gilde G, Strassburger E, Paliwal B, Ramesh K, Dandekar DP (2009) Alon: a brief history of its emergence and evolution. J Eur Ceram Soc 29(2):223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCauley JW, Corbin ND (1979) Phase relations and reaction sintering of transparent cubic aluminum oxynitride spinel (alon). J Am Ceram Soc 62(9–10):476–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Clayton JD (2011) A nonlinear thermomechanical model of spinel ceramics applied to aluminum oxynitride AlON. J Appl Mech 78(1):011013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Satapathy S, Ahart M, Dandekar D, Russell M, Schuster B, Khoma P (2016) Single-crystal elastic properties of aluminum oxynitride (AlON) from brillouin scattering. J Am Ceram Soc 99(4):1383–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zener C (1947) Contributions to the theory of beta-phase alloys. Phys Rev 71(12):846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hashin Z, Shtrikman S (1962) A variational approach to the theory of the elastic behaviour of polycrystals. J Mech Phys Solids 10(4):343–352MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lienert U, Li S, Hefferan C, Lind J, Suter R, Bernier J, Barton N, Brandes M, Mills M, Miller M, Jakobsen B, Pantleon W (2011) High-energy diffraction microscopy at the advanced photon source. J Miner Met Mater Soc 63(7):70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hefferan C, Li S, Lind J, Suter R (2010) Tests of microstructure reconstruction by forward modeling of high energy X-ray diffraction microscopy data. Powder Diffr 25(2):132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hefferan C, Lind J, Madalli S, Suter R. AlON HEDM reconstruction, unpublished research. Cooperative cooperative agreement W911NF- 12-2-0065Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Li S, Suter R (2013) Adaptive reconstructive method for three-dimensional orientation imaging. J Appl Crystallogr 46(2):512–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Groeber M, Jackson M (2014) DREAM.3D: a digital representation environment for the analysis of microstructure in 3D. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 3(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Owen SJ, Shelton TR (2015) Evaluation of grid-based hex meshes for solid mechanics. Eng Comput 31(3):529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Blacker TD, Bohnhoff WJ, Edwards TL (1994) Cubit mesh generation environment, volume 1: users manual. Technical report Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (United States)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Richardson LF (1911) Ix. The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems involving differential equations, with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 210(459-470):307–357 (Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bishop JE, Strack OE (2011) A statistical method for verifying mesh convergence in monte carlo simulations with application to fragmentation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 88(3):279–306MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bishop JE, Emery JM, Field RV, Weinberger CR, Littlewood DJ (2015) Direct numerical simulations in solid mechanics for understanding the macroscale effects of microscale material variability. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 287:262–289MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Leavy RB, Brannon RM, Strack OE (2010) The use of sphere indentation experiments to characterize ceramic damage models. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 7(5):606–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Leavy RB, Clayton JD, Strack OE, Brannon RM, Strassburger E (2013) Edge on impact simulations and experiments. Proc Eng 58:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Becker R (2004) Effects of crystal plasticity on materials loaded at high pressures and strain rates. Int J Plast 20(11):1983–2006CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Impact Physics BranchArmy Research LabAberdeen Proving GroundUSA

Personalised recommendations