On the improvement of computational efficiency of smoothed particle hydrodynamics to simulate flexural failure of ice

Research Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The finite element method (FEM) has been extensively applied to model failure of ice but suffers from mesh distortion especially when fracture or fragmentation is involved. The smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method can avoid this class of problems and has been successfully applied to simulate fracture of solids. However, the associated computational cost is increased considerably for SPH simulations. Reducing the computational time without any significant decrease in accuracy is naturally quite critical for SPH to be considered as an efficient numerical tool to simulate failure. Thus, the focus of the present article was to investigate the feasibility of different approaches of domain decomposition, mass scaling, time scaling and coupled SPH–FEM techniques to improve the computational resource requirement. The accuracy, efficiency and limitations of each of these approaches were discussed and the results were compared with analytical solution and four-point beam bending experiments. The results drawn from the comparisons substantiate that domain decomposition, mass scaling and process time scaling can be adequately used for quasi-static cases to reduce the CPU requirements as long as the kinetic energy is constantly monitored to ensure that inertial effects are negligible. Furthermore, as the computational time primarily depends on the number of discrete particles in a simulation, coupled SPH–FEM method was identified as a viable alternative to reduce the simulation time and the results from such coupled simulations seem to agree well with the published experimental data. This study showed that the proposed methods were not only able to emulate the failure mechanisms observed during the experimental investigations but also reduce the computational resource requirements associated with pure SPH simulations, without any significant reduction in numerical accuracy and stability.

Keywords

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) Finite element method (FEM) SPH–FEM Adaptive coupling Ice beam Four-point bending 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Dr. Bernt Johan Leira for his comments. We would also like to thank Dr. Daniel Hilding for sharing insights on limitations of coupling techniques.

References

  1. Anghileri M, Castelletti L-M, Invernizzi F, Mascheroni M (2005) A survey of numerical models for hail impact analysis using explicit finite element codes. Int J Impact Eng 31:929–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attaway S, Heinstein M, Swegle J (1994) Coupling of smooth particle hydrodynamics with the finite element method. Nucl Eng Des 150:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barcarolo DA (2013) Improvement of the precision and the efficiency of the SPH method: theoretical and numerical study. Ecole Centrale de Nantes (ECN), Doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar
  4. Barreiro A, Crespo AJC, Dominguez JM, Garcia-Feal O, Zabala I, Gomez-Gesteira M (2016) Quasi-static mooring solver implemented in SPH. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy 2:381–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40722-016-0061-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carney KS, Benson DJ, DuBois P, Lee R (2006) A phenomenological high strain rate model with failure for ice. Int J Solids Struct 43:7820–7839CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen H, Xu J, Wang CH (2013) U.S. Patent No. 8,374,833. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, U.SGoogle Scholar
  7. Cleary PW, Das R (2008) The potential for SPH modelling of solid deformation and fracture. In: IUTAM symposium on theoretical, computational and modelling aspects of inelastic media. Springer,New York, pp 287–296Google Scholar
  8. Colagrossi A, Landrini M (2003) Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics. J Comput Phys 191:448–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00324-3 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Das J (2017) Modeling and validation of simulation results of an ice beam in four-point bending using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 27:82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das J, Polić D, Ehlers S, Amdahl J (2014) Numerical simulation of an ice beam in four-point bending using SPH. In: ASME 2014 33rd International conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb D, Pramanik R (2013) Failure process of brittle rock using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. J Eng Mech 139(11):1551–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derradji-Aouat A (2003) Multi-surface failure criterion for saline ice in the brittle regime. Cold Reg Sci Technol 36:47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enkvist E (1972) On the ice resistance encountered by ships operating in the continuous mode of icebreaking (No. 24)Google Scholar
  14. Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ (1977) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 181:375–389CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Gürtner A (2009) Experimental and numerical investigations of ice-structure interaction. PhD thesis, Norwegian Uniersity of Science and Technology, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallquist JO (2006) LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Ito R (2008) Computational efficiency improvements in cylindrical SPH analysis of hypervelocity impacts. Jpn Soc Aeronaut Space Sci 56:407–415Google Scholar
  18. Johnson GR (1994) Linking of Lagrangian particle methods to standard finite element methods for high velocity impact computations. Nucl Eng Des 150:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kala J, Hušek M (2016) Improved element Erosion function for concrete-like materials with the SPH method shock and vibration 2016Google Scholar
  20. Keegan MH, Nash D, Stack M (2013) Numerical modelling of hailstone impact on the leading edge of a wind turbine blade EWEA Annual Wind Energy Event 2013Google Scholar
  21. Kim E (2014) Experimental and numerical studies related to the coupled behavior ofice mass and steel structures during accidental collisions. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim H, Kedward KT (2000) Modeling Hail ice impacts and predicting impact damage initiation in composite structures. AIAA J 38:1278–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim H, Welch DA, Kedward KT (2003) Experimental investigation of high velocity ice impacts on woven carbon/epoxy composite panels. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 34:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolari K, Kuutti J, Kurkela J (2009) Fe-simulation of continuous ice failure based on model update technique. In: Proceedings of the international conference on port and ocean engineering under arctic conditions, vol POAC09-104Google Scholar
  25. Kujala P, Riska K, Varsta P, Koskivaara R, Nyman T (1990) Results from in situ four point bending tests with Baltic sea ice. In: Helsinki University of Technology/Laboratory of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, IAHR Ice SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  26. Lacome JL (2001) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Lapoujade V, Mouteliere C, Millecamps A (2014) Advanced MPP decomposition of a SPH Model 13th International LS-DYNA users conferenceGoogle Scholar
  28. Libersky LD, Petschek AG, Carney TC, Hipp JR, Allahdadi FA (1993) High strain Lagrangian hydrodynamics: a three-dimensional SPH code for dynamic material response. J Comput Phys 109(1):67–75CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu GR, Liu MB (2003) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: a meshfree particle method. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu M, Liu G (2010) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH): an overview and recent developments. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17:25–76MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu Z, Amdahl J, Løset S (2011) Plasticity based material modelling of ice and its application to ship-iceberg impacts. Cold Reg Sci Technol 65:326–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma G, Wang X, Ren F (2011) Numerical simulation of compressive failure of heterogeneous rock-like materials using SPH method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maattanen M (1975) On the flexural strength of brackish water ice by in-situ tests. In: Proceedings of the POAC, pp 349–359Google Scholar
  34. Monaghan JJ (2005) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics Reports on progress in physics 68:1703Google Scholar
  35. Nishiura D, Furuichi M, Sakaguchi H (2015) Computational performance of a smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulation for shared-memory parallel computing. Comput Phys Commun 194:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olovsson L, Simonsson K (2006) Iterative solution technique in selective mass scaling. Commun Numer Methods Eng 22:77–82CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Prior AM (1994) Applications of implicit and explicit finite element techniques to metal forming. J Mater Process Technol 45:649–656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-0136(94)90413-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Renshaw CE, Schulson EM (2001) Universal behaviour in compressive failure of brittle materials. Nature 412:897–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soa T (2011) Numerical simulations of a sea ice beam in four-point pending. Master’s thesis, Aalto University, EspooGoogle Scholar
  40. Stansby PK, Ma Q (2016) Foreword to special issue on particle methods for flow modeling in ocean engineering. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy 2:249–250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40722-016-0065-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swaddiwudhipong S, Islamb M, Liu Z (2010) High velocity penetration/perforation using coupled smooth particle hydrodynamics-finite element method. Int J Protect Struct 1:489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swegle J, Hicks D, Attaway S (1995) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics stability analysis. J Comput Phys 116:123–134MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Tang XW, Zhou YD, Liu YL (2013) Factors influencing quasistatic modeling of deformation and failure in rock-like solids by the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Math Probl Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/852875
  44. Timco GW, O’Brien S (1994) Flexural strength equation for sea ice cold regions. Sci Technol 22:285–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-232X(94)90006-X
  45. Varsta P (1983) On the mechanics of ice load on ships in level ice in the Baltic SeaGoogle Scholar
  46. Villumsen MF, Fauerholdt TG (2008) Simulation of metal cutting using smooth particle hydrodynamics. LS-DYNA Anwenderforum, C-III, P 17Google Scholar
  47. Wang J, Derradji-Aouat A (2009) Implementation, verification and validation of the multi-surface failure envelope for ice in explicit FEA. In: Proceedings of the international conference on port and ocean engineering under arctic conditions, vol POAC09-112Google Scholar
  48. Wei Z, Dalrymple RA (2016) Numerical study on mitigating tsunami force on bridges by an SPH model. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy 2:365–380.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40722-016-0054-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine TechnologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations