Advertisement

Development of a 3D Hybrid Finite-Discrete Element Simulator Based on GPGPU-Parallelized Computation for Modelling Rock Fracturing Under Quasi-Static and Dynamic Loading Conditions

  • Daisuke Fukuda
  • Mojtaba Mohammadnejad
  • Hongyuan LiuEmail author
  • Qianbing Zhang
  • Jian Zhao
  • Sevda Dehkhoda
  • Andrew Chan
  • Jun-ichi Kodama
  • Yoshiaki Fujii
Original Paper

Abstract

As a state-of-the-art computational method for simulating rock fracturing and fragmentation, the combined finite-discrete element method (FDEM) has become widely accepted since Munjiza (2004) published his comprehensive book of FDEM. This study developed a general-purpose graphic-processing-unit (GPGPU)-parallelized FDEM using the compute unified device architecture C/C ++ based on the authors’ former sequential two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Y-HFDEM IDE (integrated development environment) code. The theory and algorithm of the GPGPU-parallelized 3D Y-HFDEM IDE code are first introduced by focusing on the implementation of the contact detection algorithm, which is different from that in the sequential code, contact damping and contact friction. 3D modelling of the failure process of limestone under quasi-static loading conditions in uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) tests and Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) tests are then conducted using the GPGPU-parallelized 3D Y-HFDEM IDE code. The 3D FDEM modelling results show that mixed-mode I–II failures are the dominant failure mechanisms along the shear and splitting failure planes in the UCS and BTS models, respectively, with unstructured meshes. Pure mode I splitting failure planes and pure mode II shear failure planes are only possible in the UCS and BTS models, respectively, with structured meshes. Subsequently, 3D modelling of the dynamic fracturing of marble in dynamic Brazilian tests with a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus is conducted using the GPGPU-parallelized 3D HFDEM IDE code considering the entire SHPB testing system. The modelled failure process, final fracture pattern and time histories of the dynamic compressive wave, reflective tensile wave and transmitted compressive wave are compared quantitatively and qualitatively with those from experiments, and good agreements are achieved between them. The computing performance analysis shows the GPGPU-parallelized 3D HFDEM IDE code is 284 times faster than its sequential version and can achieve the computational complexity of O(N). The results demonstrate that the GPGPU-parallelized 3D Y-HFDEM IDE code is a valuable and powerful numerical tool for investigating rock fracturing under quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions in rock engineering applications although very fine elements with maximum element size no bigger than the length of the fracture process zone must be used in the area where fracturing process is modelled.

Keywords

Rocks 3D fracture process analysis FDEM Quasi-static loading Dynamic loading Parallel computation GPGPU CUDA C/C++ 

List of Symbols

A

Shape parameter of softening curve

b, B and Bij

Exponent, shape parameter of softening curve, and left Cauchy–Green strain, respectively

η and ηcrit

Viscous damping coefficient, and critical viscous damping coefficient, respectively

c, crock, C, CKLMN

Cohesion, cohesion of rock, shape parameter of softening curve, and effective elastic stiffness tensor, respectively

Dij, D, f(D)

Rate of deformation tensor, damage variable, and characteristic function, respectively

δij

Kronecker delta

Δuslide

Relative displacement vector

E and Erock

Young’s modulus, and Young’s modulus of rock, respectively

EMN

Green–Lagrange strain tensor

εinci, εrefl and εtans

Axial strains in the incident, reflection and transmission bars, respectively

ϕ and ϕrock

Internal friction angle, and internal friction angle of rock, respectively

fIB and fTB

Axial compressive forces in incident and transmission bars, respectively

fint, fcoh, fcon, fext and fcon_tan

Equivalent nodal forces corresponding to internal load, cohesive force, contact force, external load, and contact tangential force, respectively

FiK

Deformation gradient

g

Gravitational acceleration

GfI, GfI_rock, GfII and GfII_rock

Mode I fracture energy, mode I fracture energy of rock, mode II fracture energy, and model II fracture energy of rock, respectively

μfric

Friction coefficient

h and have

Element length, and average element length, respectively

J

Determinant of the deformation gradient

KIC

Mode I fracture toughness

M

Lumped nodal mass vector

N, NBpG, Nthread and NTpB

Number of elements, number of “blocks” per “grid”, number of threads, and number of “threads” per “block”, respectively,

λ and µ

Lame constants

ρ and ρrock

Density, and density of rock, respectively

o, op, ot, omax, ooverlap and on

Crack opening displacement, “artificial” elastic limit of o, critical value of o, maximum value of o, normal overlap, and nominal normal overlap, respectively

Popen, Ptan, Poverlap and Pn_con

Artificial penalty terms for opening in the normal direction, sliding in the tangential direction, and overlapping in the normal direction and normal “contact penalty”, respectively

s, sp, st and smax

Crack sliding displacement, “artificial” elastic limit of s, critical values of s, and maximum values of s respectively

SKL

Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor

σij

Cauchy stress tensor

σcoh

Normal cohesive traction

σinci, σrefl and σtans

Axial stresses in the incident, reflection, and transmission bars, respectively

Δt and t

Time step increment and current time step, respectively

T, Ts and Ts_rock

Transition force, tensile strength, and tensile strength of rock, respectively

τcoh

Shear cohesive traction

u

Nodal displacement vector

vi

Initial velocity

νrock

Poisson’s ratio of rock

Abbreviations

BEM

Boundary element method

BTS

Brazilian tensile strength

CE6

6-Node initially zero-thickness cohesive element

CPU

Central-processing-unit

CUDA

Compute unified device architecture

CZM

Cohesive zone model

DEM

Distinct element method

DDA

Discontinuous deformation analysis

DFPA

Dynamic fracture process analysis

ECDA

Efficient contact detection activation

ECZM

Extrinsic cohesive zone model

FDEM

Combined finite-discrete element method

FDM

Finite difference method

FEM

Finite element method

FPZ

Fracture process zone

GPGPU

General-purpose graphic-processing-unit

HPC

High-performance-computing

ICZM

Intrinsic cohesive zone model

IB

Incident bar

ISRM

International Society for Rock Mechanics

MPI

Message-passing interface

1D

One-dimensional

OpenCL

Open computing language

OpenMP

Open multi-processing

PC

Personal computer

SBFEM

Scaled boundary finite element method

SHPB

Split Hopkinson pressure bar

SPH

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics

TET4

4-Node tetrahedral finite element

TB

Transmission bar

3D

Three-dimensional

TtoP

TET4 to point—contact interaction between the contactor 4-node tetrahedral finite element and the target point

TtoT

TET4 to TET4—contact interaction between the contactor 4-node tetrahedral finite element and the target 4-node tetrahedral finite element

2D

Two-dimensional

UCS

Uniaxial compressive strength

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI for Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (Grant numbers 18K14165) for the first author. The corresponding author would like to acknowledge the support of Australia-Japan Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government (AJF Grant no. 17/20470), Australia Academy of Science (AAS Grant no. RI8) and Institution Research Grant Scheme (IRGS Grant no. L0018929) and Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Grant nos. 51574060 and 51079017), in which the corresponding author is the international collaborator. Moreover, all authors would like to thank the editor-in-chief, i.e. Prof G. Barla, and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that significantly contributed to improving the final version of the paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The first author and the corresponding author declare that the received funds do not lead to any conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

References

  1. An B, Tannant DD (2007) Discrete element method contact model for dynamic simulation of inelastic rock impact. Comput Geosci 33:513–521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2006.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An HM, Liu HY, Han H, Zheng X, Wang XG (2017) Hybrid finite-discrete element modelling of dynamic fracture and resultant fragment casting and muck-piling by rock blast. Comput Geotech 81:322–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayachit U (2015) The ParaView Guide: a parallel visualization application. Kitware Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Batinić M, Smoljanović H, Munjiza A, Mihanović A (2018) GPU based parallel FDEM for analysis of cable structures. Građevinar 69:1085–1092Google Scholar
  5. Brooks Z, Ulm FJ, Einstein HH (2012) Role of microstructure size in fracture process zone development of marble. In: Proceedings of the 46th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, Chicago, Illinois, 24–27 June 2012. American Rock Mechanics Association. Document ID: ARMA-2012-421. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ARMA-2012-421
  6. Broome ST, Pfeifle TW, Sussman AJ (2012) Phase 1 and 2 mechanical property test results for borehole U-15n in support of NCNS source physics experiment. Technical report. Sandia National Laboratories. https://www.osti.gov. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  7. Burtscher M, Pingali K (2011) An efficient CUDA implementation of the tree-based barnes hut n-body algorithm, Chap 6. In: Hwu WW (ed) GPU computing gems - emerald edition. Elsevier, pp 75–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-384988-5.00006-1
  8. Camacho GT, Ortiz M (1996) Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int J Solids Struct 33:2899–2938.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(95)00255-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elmo D, Stead D (2010) An integrated numerical modelling-discrete fracture network approach applied to the characterisation of rock mass strength of naturally fractured pillars. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-009-0027-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erarslan N, Liang ZZ, Williams DJ (2012) Experimental and numerical studies on determination of indirect tensile strength of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:739–751.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-011-0205-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairhurst C (1964) On the validity of the ‘Brazilian’ test for brittle materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1:535–546.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(64)90060-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukuda D, Nihei E, Cho SH, Kodama J, Fujii Y (2017) Comparison of FEM-based 3-D dynamic fracturing simulations using intrinsic and extrinsic cohesive zone models. In: Proceedings of the 4th ISRM young scholars symposium on rock mechanics, Jeju, Korea, 10–13 May 2017. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Document ID: ISRM-YSS-2017-026. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ISRM-YSS-2017-026
  13. Fukuda D, Mohammadnejad M, Liu HY, Dehkhoda S, Chan A, Cho SH, Min GJ, Han H, Kodama J, Fuji Y (2019) Development of a GPGPU-parallelized hybrid finite-discrete element method for modelling rock fracture. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Godinez HC, Rougier E, Osthus D, Lei Z, Knight E, Srinivasan G (2018) Fourier amplitude sensitivity test applied to dynamic combined finite-discrete element methods-based simulations. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo L (2014) Development of a three-dimensional fracture model for the combined finite-discrete element method. Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamdi P, Stead D, Elmo D (2014) Damage characterization during laboratory strength testing: a 3D-finite-discrete element approach. Comput Geotech 60:33–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinze T, Jansen G, Galvan B, Miller SA (2016) Systematic study of the effects of mass and time scaling techniques applied in numerical rock mechanics simulations. Tectonophysics 684:4–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hondros G (1959) The evaluation of Poisson’s ratio and the modulus of materials of low tensile resistance by the Brazilian (indirect tensile) test with particular reference to concrete. Aust J Appl Sci 10:243–268Google Scholar
  19. Iqbal MJ, Mohanty B (2006) Experimental calibration of ISRM suggested fracture toughness measurement techniques in selected brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 40:453–475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-006-0107-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lei Z, Rougier E, Knight EE, Munjiza A (2014) A framework for grand scale parallelization of the combined finite discrete element method in 2d. Comput Part Mech 1:307–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-014-0026-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li D, Wong LNY (2013) The Brazilian disc test for rock mechanics applications: review and new insights. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:269–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-012-0257-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lisjak A, Grasselli G (2014) A review of discrete modeling techniques for fracturing processes in discontinuous rock masses. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2013.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lisjak A, Kaifosh P, He L, Tatone BSA, Mahabadi OK, Grasselli G (2017) A 2D, fully-coupled, hydro-mechanical, FDEM formulation for modelling fracturing processes in discontinuous, porous rock masses. Comput Geotech 81:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lisjak A, Mahabadi OK, He L, Tatone BSA, Kaifosh P, Haque SA, Grasselli G (2018) Acceleration of a 2D/3D finite-discrete element code for geomechanical simulations using General Purpose GPU computing. Comput Geotech 100:84–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu Q, Deng P (2019) A numerical investigation of element size and loading/unloading rate for intact rock in laboratory-scale and field-scale based on the combined finite-discrete element method. Eng Fract Mech 211:442–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu HY, Kang YM, Lin P (2015) Hybrid finite–discrete element modeling of geomaterials fracture and fragment muck-piling. Int J Geotech Eng 9:115–131.  https://doi.org/10.1179/1939787913y.0000000035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu HY, Han H, An HM, Shi JJ (2016) Hybrid finite-discrete element modelling of asperity degradation and gouge grinding during direct shearing of rough rock joints. Int J Coal Sci Technol 3:295–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-016-0142-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukas T, Schiava D’Albano GG, Munjiza A (2014) Space decomposition based parallelization solutions for the combined finite-discrete element method in 2D. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:607–615.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma G, Zhang Y, Zhou W, Ng T-T, Wang Q, Chen X (2018) The effect of different fracture mechanisms on impact fragmentation of brittle heterogeneous solid. Int J Impact Eng 113:132–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahabadi OK (2012) Investigating the influence of micro-scale heterogeneity and microstructure on the failure and mechanical behaviour of geomaterials. University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahabadi OK, Cottrell BE, Grasselli G (2010) An example of realistic modelling of rock dynamics problems: FEM/DEM simulation of dynamic Brazilian test on barre granite. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:707–716.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-010-0092-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mahabadi OK, Lisjak A, Munjiza A, Grasselli G (2012) Y-Geo: new combined finite-discrete element numerical code for geomechanical applications. Int J Geomech 12:676–688.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahabadi O, Kaifosh P, Marschall P, Vietor T (2014) Three-dimensional FDEM numerical simulation of failure processes observed in Opalinus Clay laboratory samples. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:591–606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahabadi O, Lisjak A, He L, Tatone B, Kaifosh P, Grasselli G (2016) Development of a new fully-parallel finite-discrete element code: Irazu. In: Proceedings of the 50th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, Houston, Texas, 26–29 June 2016. American Rock Mechanics Association. Document ID: ARMA-2016-516. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ARMA-2016-516
  35. Mohammadnejad M, Liu H, Dehkhoda S, Chan A (2017) Numerical investigation of dynamic rock fragmentation in mechanical cutting using combined FEM/DEM. In: Proceedings of the 3rd nordic rock mechanics symposium (NRMS), Helsinki, Finland, 11–12 Oct 2017, pp 116–124. ISBN 978-951-758-622-1Google Scholar
  36. Mohammadnejad M, Liu H, Chan A, Dehkhoda S, Fukuda D (2018) An overview on advances in computational fracture mechanics of rock. Geosyst Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2018.1448006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munjiza A (2004) The combined finite-discrete element method. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Munjiza A, Owen DRJ, Bicanic N (1995) A combined finite-discrete element method in transient dynamics of fracturing solids. Eng Comput 12(2):145–174.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02644409510799532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Munjiza A, Andrews KRF, White JK (1999) Combined single and smeared crack model in combined finite-discrete element analysis. Int J Numer Meth Eng 44:41–57.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990110)44:1%3c41:AID-NME487%3e3.0.CO;2-A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Munjiza A, Xiang J, Garcia X, Latham JP, D’Albano GGS, John NWM (2010) The virtual geoscience workbench, VGW: open source tools for discontinuous systems. Particuology 8:100–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2009.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Munjiza AA, Knight EE, Rougier E (2011) Computational mechanics of discontinue. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Munjiza A, Knight E, Rougier E (2015) Large strain finite element method: a practical course. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Munshi A, Gaster B, Mattson TG, Fung J, Ginsburg D (2011) OpenCL programming guide. Addison-Wesley Professional, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. NVIDIA (2018) Cuda C programming guide. http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  45. Osthus D, Godinez HC, Rougier E, Srinivasan G (2018) Calibrating the stress-time curve of a combined finite-discrete element method to a split Hopkinson pressure bar experiment. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 106:278–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rockfield (2005) Rockfield Software Ltd. http://www.rockfield.co.uk/elfen.htm. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  47. Rogers S, Elmo D, Webb G, Catalan A (2015) Volumetric fracture intensity measurement for improved rock mass characterisation and fragmentation assessment in block caving operations. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48:633–649.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0592-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rougier E, Knight EE, Sussman AJ, Swift RP, Bradley CR, Munjiza A, Broome ST (2011) The combined finite-discrete element method applied to the study of rock fracturing behavior in 3D. In: Proceedings of the 45th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, San Francisco, California, 26–29 June 2011. American Rock Mechanics Association. Document ID: ARMA-11-517. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ARMA-11-517
  49. Rougier E, Knight EE, Broome ST, Sussman AJ, Munjiza A (2014) Validation of a three-dimensional finite-discrete element method using experimental results of the split Hopkinson pressure bar test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Satish N, Harris M, Garland M (2009) Designing efficient sorting algorithms for manycore GPUs. In: Proceedings of 2019 IEEE international symposium on parallel & distributed processing, Rome, Italy, 23–29 May 2009. IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2009.5161005 (INSPEC Accession Number 10761736)
  51. Sato K, Hashida T (2006) Fracture toughness evaluation based on tension-softening model and its application to hydraulic fracturing. Pure Appl Geophys 163:1073–1089.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-006-0066-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Solidity (2017) Solidity Project. http://solidityproject.com/. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  53. Tatone BSA, Grasselli G (2015) A calibration procedure for two-dimensional laboratory-scale hybrid finite-discrete element simulations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 75:56–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tijssens MGA, Sluys BLJ, van der Giessen E (2000) Numerical simulation of quasi-brittle fracture using damaging cohesive surfaces. Eur J Mech A Solids 19(5):761–779.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0997-7538(00)00190-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xiang J, Munjiza A, Latham J-P, Guises R (2009) On the validation of DEM and FEM/DEM models in 2D and 3D. Eng Comput 26:673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xiang J, Latham J-P, Farsi A (2016) Algorithms and capabilities of solidity to simulate interactions and packing of complex shapes. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on discrete element methods. Springer proceedings in physics, vol 188. Springer, Singapore.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1926-5_16
  57. Yan C, Jiao Y-Y (2018) A 2D fully coupled hydro-mechanical finite-discrete element model with real pore seepage for simulating the deformation and fracture of porous medium driven by fluid. Comput Struct 196:311–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yan C, Zheng H (2017) FDEM-flow3D: a 3D hydro-mechanical coupled model considering the pore seepage of rock matrix for simulating three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing. Comput Geotech 81:212–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yao W, He T, Xia K (2017) Dynamic mechanical behaviors of Fangshan marble. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:807–817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang ZX (2016) Rock fracture and blasting: theory and applications. Elsevier Inc.  https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-01408-6 (ISBN: 978-0-12-802688-5)Google Scholar
  61. Zhang QB, Zhao J (2013) Determination of mechanical properties and full-field strain measurements of rock material under dynamic loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:423–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang QB, Zhao J (2014) A review of dynamic experimental techniques and mechanical behaviour of rock materials. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(4):1411–1478.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0463-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang Z, Paulino G, Celes W (2007) Extrinsic cohesive modelling of dynamic fracture and microbranching instability in brittle materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 72:893–923.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang L, Quigley SF, Chan AHC (2013) A fast scalable implementation of the two-dimensional triangular discrete element method on a GPU platform. Adv Eng Softw 60–61:70–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringHokkaido UniversityHokkaidoJapan
  2. 2.College of Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Minerals Resources Business UnitQueensland Centre for Advanced TechnologiesBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations