Comparison of Material Point Method and Finite Element Method for Post-Failure Large Deformation Geotechnical Analysis

Arif Yunando Sunanhadikusuma, Ezra Y. S. Tjung, Aswin Lim
{"title":"Comparison of Material Point Method and Finite Element Method for Post-Failure Large Deformation Geotechnical Analysis","authors":"Arif Yunando Sunanhadikusuma, Ezra Y. S. Tjung, Aswin Lim","doi":"10.22146/jcef.3524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Finite Element Method (FEM) has been the state-of-the-art method in geotechnical analysis since it first formulated in the 40s. It capable to handle Multiphysics simulation, soil-structure and soil-water interaction, and time history analysis. Though powerful, the standard Lagrangian FEM suffers mesh distortion when handling large strain deformation problem. This mesh entanglement problem makes post-failure analysis is considerably challenging to model if not impossible to do using FEM. The Material Point Method (MPM) then later introduced to solve these large strain deformation problems. Adapted from the Particle in Cell (PIC) method, MPM is a hybrid method that combines Eularian and Lagrangian approach by utilizing moving material points which are moving over spatially fixed computational mesh. This approach enables MPM to calculate not only fluid mechanics such in PIC but also solid mechanics and its intermediatory states. To demonstrate the capability of MPM and its consistency with FEM in geotechnical analysis, this article presents a comparison of FEM and MPM analysis on a hypothetical slope using Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. The simulation shows that both FEM and MPM analyses are consistent to each other especially in small strain scheme. However, in large strain deformation, MPM is still able to get convergent result while FEM is not. The MPM simulation is also able to animate post failure behavior clearly, calculate post-failure strains and stresses distribution, and present final geometry of the model.","PeriodicalId":31890,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/jcef.3524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Finite Element Method (FEM) has been the state-of-the-art method in geotechnical analysis since it first formulated in the 40s. It capable to handle Multiphysics simulation, soil-structure and soil-water interaction, and time history analysis. Though powerful, the standard Lagrangian FEM suffers mesh distortion when handling large strain deformation problem. This mesh entanglement problem makes post-failure analysis is considerably challenging to model if not impossible to do using FEM. The Material Point Method (MPM) then later introduced to solve these large strain deformation problems. Adapted from the Particle in Cell (PIC) method, MPM is a hybrid method that combines Eularian and Lagrangian approach by utilizing moving material points which are moving over spatially fixed computational mesh. This approach enables MPM to calculate not only fluid mechanics such in PIC but also solid mechanics and its intermediatory states. To demonstrate the capability of MPM and its consistency with FEM in geotechnical analysis, this article presents a comparison of FEM and MPM analysis on a hypothetical slope using Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. The simulation shows that both FEM and MPM analyses are consistent to each other especially in small strain scheme. However, in large strain deformation, MPM is still able to get convergent result while FEM is not. The MPM simulation is also able to animate post failure behavior clearly, calculate post-failure strains and stresses distribution, and present final geometry of the model.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
破坏后大变形岩土力学分析的材料点法与有限元法比较
有限元法(FEM)自上世纪40年代首次提出以来,一直是岩土工程分析中最先进的方法。它能够处理多物理场模拟,土壤-结构和土壤-水相互作用,以及时间历史分析。标准拉格朗日有限元法虽然功能强大,但在处理大应变变形问题时存在网格畸变。这种网格纠缠问题使得失效后分析即使不是不可能用有限元法进行建模,也是相当具有挑战性的。随后引入了材料点法(MPM)来解决这些大应变变形问题。MPM是一种结合欧拉方法和拉格朗日方法的混合方法,它是由粒子在细胞(PIC)方法演变而来的,利用在空间固定的计算网格上移动的移动材料点。这种方法使MPM不仅可以计算PIC等流体力学,还可以计算固体力学及其中间状态。为了证明点阵法在岩土分析中的能力及其与有限元法的一致性,本文采用Mohr-Coulomb本构模型对一个假设边坡进行了有限元分析与点阵法分析的比较。仿真结果表明,有限元分析和点法分析结果基本一致,特别是在小应变方案下。然而,在大应变变形情况下,点法仍能得到收敛结果,而有限元却不能。MPM模拟还能够清楚地显示破坏后的动态行为,计算破坏后的应变和应力分布,并给出模型的最终几何形状。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Airline Choice Decision for Jakarta-Denpasar Route During the Covid-19 Pandemic Comparative Seismic Analysis of G+20 RC Framed Structure Building for with and without Shear Walls Proposal and Evaluation of Vertical Vibration Theory of Air Caster Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Regular and Vertically Irregular Residential Buildings in Nepal Numerical Study on the Effects of Helix Diameter and Spacing on the Helical Pile Axial Bearing Capacity in Cohesionless Soils
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1