You are on page 1of 18

BACKGROUNDS BACKGROUNDS

Two Models of Deformable Body


continuum rigid-body spring deformation expressed in terms of field variables assembly of rigid-bodies connected by spring

Distinct Element Method (DEM)


simple treatment of failure: breakage of spring non-rigorous determination of spring constants
breakage of spring

deformable body

particle modeling

DEM analysis

spring constant need to be determined in terms of material parameters

MATHEMATICAL INTERPLETATION OF MATHEMATICAL INTERPLETATION OF RIGID-BODY SPRING MODEL RIGID-BODY SPRING MODEL
Non-Overlapping Functions for Discretization
ordinary FEM u1 DEM u1 u2

u2

smooth but overlapping functions are used for discretization

characteristic functions of domain are used for discretization

PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION FOR PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION FOR FUNCTION AND DERIVATIVE FUNCTION AND DERIVATIVE
Discretization of Function f(x) in terms of { (x)}
f d ( x ) = f ( x )

Discretization of Derivative f,i(x) in terms of { (x)}


different from {}

form of discretization

g id ( x ) = g i ( x )

form of discretization

E f ({f }) = (f ( x ) f d ( x )) 2 ds
V

derivative of {} is not bounded but integratable

minimize Ef

f =

1 V ds V

f ds

g i =

1 V ds

( ds )f
V ,i

optimal coefficients for given Voronoi blocks {} and Delaunay triangles {}

1-D PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION 1-D PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION


f d ( x ) = f ( x )

xn
mother points

xn+1

average value taken over interval for is coefficient of characteristic function

df ( x ) = g( x ) = g ( x ) dx
y n-1 yn y n+1
middle point of neighboring mother points average slope of interval for is coefficient of characteristic function

2-D PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION 2-D PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION


dual domain decomposition Voronoi blocks for function Delaunay triangles for derivative

function and derivative are discretized in terms of sets of non-overlapping characteristic functions, such that function and derivative are uniform in Voronoi blocks and Delaunay triangles,

COMPARISON OF PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION COMPARISON OF PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION WITH ORDINARY DISCRETIZATION WITH ORDINARY DISCRETIZATION
f1 f2 f3

f1

ordinary discretization with linear function

x1 f2
f1 f2 f3

+
particle discretization

=
x2

f3 x3

particle discretization of derivative

derivative of particle discretization coincides with slope of plane which is formed by linearly connecting Voronoi mother points

PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION TO PARTICLE DISCRETIZATION TO CONTINUUM MECHANICS PROBLEM CONTINUUM MECHANICS PROBLEM
Conjugate Functional
J (u , ) = ij ij 1 ijcijkl kl ds 2
V

ij = ij

u i = u i

hypo-Voronoi for displacement Delaunay for stress: coefficients are analytically obtained by stationarizing J

FEM-: FEM with Particle Discretization


stiffness matrix of FEM- coincides with stiffness matrix of FEM with uniform triangular element including rigid-body-rotation, FEM- gives accurate and efficient computation for field with singularity

FAILURE ANALYSIS OF FEM- FAILURE ANALYSIS OF FEM-


stiffness matrix of FEM-
strain energy due to relative deformation of 1 and 2 through movement of 3 for indirect interaction for direct interaction

[k11 ] [k12 ] [k13 ] [k ] [k ] [k ] 22 23 21 [k 31 ] [k 32 ] [k 33 ]

x1

([k
[k12 ] = [k
direct 12

]T = [k ij ] ji
indirect 12

)
2 x2 3 x3

] + [k

cut two springs of direct and indirect interaction together or separately, according to certain failure criterion of continuum

FAILURE MODELING BY BREAKING SPRINGS FAILURE MODELING BY BREAKING SPRINGS

region with reduced strain energy broken edge P O

0.000520

Analytical FEM-beta FEM

0.000510

J-integral

0.000500

3 A 1 Q B

0.000490 0 0.000480 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Number of Elements

relative error of J-integral is around a few percents

EXAMPLE PROBLEM EXAMPLE PROBLEM


Simulation of Crack Growth Check of Convergence
displacement strain/strain energy

Pattern of Crack Growth


can small difference in initial configuration cause large difference in crack growth?

uniform tension

CONVERGENCE OF SOLUTION CONVERGENCE OF SOLUTION


0.006

0.006

... =2.09 ... Best Performance


0.004

0.004

0.002

d
0.002
0.000 2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

0.000 5 10

104

103

102

NDF

displacement norm w.r.t. mesh quality

displacement norm w.r.t. NDF

displacement norm:

d =

|| u u || dv || u || dv
2 B 2 B

CHECK OF CRACK GROWTH CHECK OF CRACK GROWTH

pattern of crack growth yy

evolution of normal strain distribution

EXAMPLE: PLATE WITH 3 HOLES EXAMPLE: PLATE WITH 3 HOLES


simulation of crack growth: crack stems from holes

case a slight difference in location of 3rd hole

case b

DIFFERENCE IN CRACK GROWTH: DIFFERENCE IN CRACK GROWTH: DISTRIBUTION OF NORMAL STRAIN DISTRIBUTION OF NORMAL STRAIN

case a

case b

SIMULATION OF BRAZILIAN TEST SIMULATION OF BRAZILIAN TEST

Brazilian test

SIMULATION OF FOUR POINT BENDING TEST SIMULATION OF FOUR POINT BENDING TEST
four point bending test

11 0.01 0.00 -0.01

FOUR POINT BENDING WITH FOUR POINT BENDING WITH IDEARLY HOMOGENEOUS MATERIALS IDEARLY HOMOGENEOUS MATERIALS

11 0.01 0.00 -0.01

FEM- puts two source of local heterogeneity, 1) mesh quality for particle discretization and 2) crack path along Voronoi boundary. An ideally homogeneous material which is modeled with best mesh quality sometimes fail to simulate crack propagation.

CONCLUDING REMARKS CONCLUDING REMARKS


Particle Discretization
discretization scheme using set of non-overlapping characteristic functions

Continuum Mechanics Problem


essentially same accuracy as FEM with uniform strain applicable to non-linear plasticity

Failure Analysis
simple but robust treatment of failure Monte-Carlo simulation for studying local heterogeneity effects on failure - candidates of failure patterns are pre-determined by spatial discretization