Advertisement

Study on the fully coupled thermodynamic fluid–structure interaction with the material point method

  • Yu-Chen Su
  • Jun Tao
  • Shan JiangEmail author
  • Zhen ChenEmail author
  • Jian-Ming Lu
Article

Abstract

The material point method (MPM) has not been evaluated in a systematic manner for the fully coupled thermodynamic fluid–structure interaction (FSI) cases. Since the constitutive models and heat transfer in solid and fluid materials are quite different, a fully coupled computational scheme is designed in this paper for simulating the FSI with the MPM, in which the governing equations for both solid and fluid material points are related to each other. A simply supported beam with a temperature difference between the top and bottom, and a cantilever beam immersed in an isothermal fluid environment are firstly considered for demonstrating the reasonable agreement with available analytical solutions. The aforementioned beam samples are then, respectively, immersed in a fluid environment involving heat transfer to study the thermal effect on the dynamic structural responses. It is illustrated that the thermal effect would induce a thermal pressure wave propagating from the high- to low-temperature ends. Furthermore, this pressure wave would affect the vibration responses of both the cantilever and simply supported beams in different ways due to its wavefront direction that is, respectively, perpendicular and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cantilever and simply supported beams. The thermal pressure waves with the two propagating directions would also affect the buckling and flexural behaviors, respectively. The obtained results demonstrate the potential of the proposed numerical scheme in evaluating fully coupled thermodynamic FSI responses such as composites subject to extreme loadings.

Keywords

FSI MPM Heat transfer Coupled thermodynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by a subcontract from the University of Mississippi as part of a major research grant with the US Army Corp of Engineers laboratory (Engineering Research and Development Center at Vicksburg, MS). The authors appreciate the review comments on the original version of the paper, as well as the suggestions made by Dr. Rajendran at University of Mississippi when revising the paper. This work was also partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the Contract No. MOST 107-2221-E-492-014. JL appreciates the computational time and resources as obtained from National Center for High-Performance Computing, Taiwan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bathe KJ, Zhang H (2004) Finite element developments for general fluid flows with structural interactions. Int J Numer Methods Eng 60(1):213–232CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bungartz HJ, Schäfer M (eds) (2006) Fluid–structure interaction: modelling, simulation, optimisation, vol 53. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sigrist JF (2015) Fluid–structure interaction: an introduction to finite element coupling. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vierendeels J, Dumont K, Dick E, Verdonck P (2005) Analysis and stabilization of fluid–structure interaction algorithm for rigid-body motion. AIAA J 43(12):2549–2557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowell EH, Hall KC (2001) Modeling of fluid–structure interaction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 33(1):445–490CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hübner B, Walhorn E, Dinkler D (2004) A monolithic approach to fluid–structure interaction using space–time finite elements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193(23–26):2087–2104CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kareem A (1992) Dynamic response of high-rise buildings to stochastic wind loads. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 42(1–3):1101–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farhat C, Lesoinne M, Le Tallec P (1998) Load and motion transfer algorithms for fluid/structure interaction problems with non-matching discrete interfaces: momentum and energy conservation, optimal discretization and application to aeroelasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 157(1–2):95–114MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamakoti R, Shyy W (2004) Fluid–structure interaction for aeroelastic applications. Prog Aerosp Sci 40(8):535–558CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piperno S (1997) Explicit/implicit fluid/structure staggered procedures with a structural predictor and fluid subcycling for 2D inviscid aeroelastic simulations. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 25(10):1207–1226MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bazilevs Y, Hsu MC, Kiendl J, Wüchner R, Bletzinger KU (2011) 3D simulation of wind turbine rotors at full scale. Part II: fluid–structure interaction modeling with composite blades. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65(1–3):236–253CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsu MC, Bazilevs Y (2012) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of wind turbines: simulating the full machine. Comput Mech 50(6):821–833CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bazilevs Y, Hsu MC, Scott MA (2012) Isogeometric fluid–structure interaction analysis with emphasis on non-matching discretizations, and with application to wind turbines. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 249:28–41MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirt CW, Amsden AA, Cook JL (1974) An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds. J Comput Phys 14(3):227–253CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takashi N, Hughes TJ (1992) An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element method for interaction of fluid and a rigid body. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 95(1):115–138CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donea J, Giuliani S, Halleux JP (1982) An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element method for transient dynamic fluid–structure interactions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 33(1–3):689–723CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Von Estorff O, Firuziaan M (2000) Coupled BEM/FEM approach for nonlinear soil/structure interaction. Eng Anal Bound Elem 24(10):715–725CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mittal R, Iaccarino G (2005) Immersed boundary methods. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 37:239–261MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu Y, Cai XC (2014) A fully implicit domain decomposition based ALE framework for three-dimensional fluid–structure interaction with application in blood flow computation. J Comput Phys 258:524–537MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basting S, Quaini A, Čanić S, Glowinski R (2017) Extended ALE method for fluid–structure interaction problems with large structural displacements. J Comput Phys 331:312–336MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soares D Jr, Von Estorff O, Mansur WJ (2005) Efficient non-linear solid–fluid interaction analysis by interactive BEM/FEM coupling. Int J Numer Methods Eng 64(11):1416–1431CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elleithy WM, Al-Gahtani HJ, El-Gebeily M (2001) Iterative coupling of BE and FE methods in elastostatics. Eng Anal Bound Elem 25(8):685–695CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sulsky D, Chen Z, Schreyer HL (1994) A particle method for history-dependent materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 118(1–2):179–196MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bardenhagen SG, Brackbill JU, Sulsky D (2000) The material-point method for granular materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 187(3–4):529–541CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zheng Y, Gao F, Zhang H, Lu M (2013) Improved convected particle domain interpolation method for coupled dynamic analysis of fully saturated porous media involving large deformation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 257:150–163MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jiang S, Chen Z, Sewell TD, Gan Y (2015) Multiscale simulation of the responses of discrete nanostructures to extreme loading conditions based on the material point method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 297:219–238MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jiang S, Tao J, Sewell TD, Chen Z (2017) Hierarchical multiscale simulations of crystalline β-octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (β-HMX): generalized interpolation material point method simulations of brittle fracture using an elastodamage model derived from molecular dynamics. Int J Damage Mech 26(2):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    He N, Liu Y, Zhang X (2017) Seamless coupling of molecular dynamics and material point method via smoothed molecular dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 112(4):380–400MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    York AR, Sulsky D, Schreyer HL (2000) Fluid-membrane interaction based on the material point method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 48(6):901–924CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lian YP, Liu Y, Zhang X (2014) Coupling of membrane element with material point method for fluid–membrane interaction problems. Int J Mech Mater Des 10(2):199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu W, Chen Z (2006) Model-based simulation of the synergistic effects of blast and fragmentation on a concrete wall using the MPM. Int J Impact Eng 32(12):2066–2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li JG, Hamamoto Y, Liu Y, Zhang X (2014) Sloshing impact simulation with material point method and its experimental validations. Comput Fluids 103:86–99MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang F, Zhang X, Sze KY, Lian Y, Liu Y (2017) Incompressible material point method for free surface flow. J Comput Phys 330:92–110MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bardenhagen SG, Kober EM (2004) The generalized interpolation material point method. Comput Model Eng Sci 5(6):477–496Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tao J, Zheng Y, Chen Z, Zhang H (2016) Generalized interpolation material point method for coupled thermo-mechanical process. Int J Mech Mater Des 12(4):577–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tao J, Zhang H, Zheng Y, Chen Z (2018) Development of generalized interpolation material point method for simulating fully coupled thermomechanical failure evolution. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 332(15):325–342MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gan Y, Chen Z, Gangopadhyay K, Bezmelnitsyn A, Gangopadhyay S (2010) An equation of state for the detonation product of copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite composites. J Nanopart Res 12(3):719–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hu W, Chen Z (2003) A multi-mesh MPM for simulating the meshing process of spur gears. Comput Struct 81(20):1991–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang X, Chen Z, Liu Y (2016) The material point method—a continuum-based particle method for extreme loading cases. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sack RL (1989) Matrix structural analysis. PWS-KENT, BostonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Becker P, Idelsohn SR, Oñate E (2015) A unified monolithic approach for multi-fluid flows and fluid–structure interaction using the particle finite element method with fixed mesh. Comput Mech 55(6):1091–1104MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chopra AK (2007) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 2nd edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Van Eysden CA, Sader JE (2006) Resonant frequencies of a rectangular cantilever beam immersed in a fluid. J Appl Phys 100(11):114916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lindeburg MR, McMullin KM (2014) Seismic design of building structures: a professional’s introduction to earthquake forces and design details. Professional Publications Inc., BelmontGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Coombs WM, Charlton TJ, Cortis M, Augarde CE (2018) Overcoming volumetric locking in material point methods. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 333:1–21MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hamad F, Więckowski Z, Moormann C (2017) Interaction of fluid–solid–geomembrane by the material point method. Comput Geotech 81:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© OWZ 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environment EngineeringUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA
  3. 3.National Center for High-Performance ComputingNational Applied Research LaboratoriesTainan CityTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSouthern Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTainan CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations