Normalized SPH with stress points

By P. Randles, L. Libersky. 2000

269 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Computational Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ee67c236ef04a20069024622673ba64f605ef8d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

In Computational Mechanics

In Mechanics of Materials

Citations in the corpus

Implementation of regularized isogeometric boundary element methods for gradient‐based shape optimization in two‐dimensional linear elasticity (2016, background): “Background meshes [15] or other advanced techniques must thus be used, such as direct nodal integration [16–18], stabilized nodal integration [19], stress point integration [20, 21] and support-based integration [22, 23], which complicate the approach and somewhat detract from the ‘meshfree’ concept”
A coupled SPH-DEM model for fluid-structure interaction problems with free-surface flow and structural failure (2016, unknown): “Even though some researchers [60, 61] proposed to eliminate the rank-deficiency by introducing additional integration points (e.”
Meshless methods: A review and computer implementation aspects (2008, methodology): “Note that there is a subtle difference between 380 the stress point integration of Randles and Libersky [89] and Belytschko et al.”
A three dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks (2007, methodology): “In most SPH procedures (see eg. Randles and Libersky [40, 41 ], Dilts [17, 18]), an Eulerian kernel is used:”
Simulation of high velocity concrete fragmentation using SPH/MLSPH (2003, methodology): “Since the standard SPH-method has the problem to interpolate exactly when the particles are unevenly spaced and sized many attempts were made to improve the SPH approximation technique, see [3–10].”
Meshfree Methods: Progress Made after 20 Years (2017, unknown): “…instability, and spatial instability of SPH have been examined (Belytschko et al. 2000; Liu et al. 1995b; Swegle et al. 1994, 1995), and formulations have been proposed to correct the deficiencies in SPH (Bonet and Kulasegaram 2000; Dilts 1999; Monaghan 2000; Randles and Libersky 1996, 2000).”
Current achievements and future perspectives for projection-based particle methods with applications in ocean engineering (2016, methodology): “Randles and Libersky (2000) later extended this method to higher dimensions.”
A new support integration scheme for the weakform in mesh‐free methods (2010, methodology): “Randles and Libersky [16] called this method the stress point integration method and developed and applied it to two- and three-dimensional problems.”
A stabilized Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics, Taylor–Galerkin algorithm for soil dynamics problems (2013, methodology): “This method has been extended to 2D problems by Randles and Libersky [47, 63].”
Strain Smoothing for Stabilization and Regularization of Galerkin Meshfree Methods (2007, methodology): “Randles et al. [ 12 ] introduced stress point method to enhance collocation formulation for 2 J. S. Chen, W. Hu, M. Puso, Y. Wu, and X. Zhang”
Convergence and stabilization of stress‐point integration in mesh‐free and particle methods (2008, methodology): “Stress-point integration for multi-dimensions was proposed by Randles and Libersky [23], who use only the stress points for quadrature.”
An accelerated, convergent, and stable nodal integration in Galerkin meshfree methods for linear and nonlinear mechanics (2016, methodology): “Stress points have also been utilized to avoid the instability [21, 22], but this technique requires additional stabilization such as least-squares to ensure stability and accuracy [31].”
Stable particle methods based on Lagrangian kernels (2004, background): “[42] extended stress point integration to higher dimensions to stabilize the normalized form of SPH.”