Comparison study of MPM and SPH in modeling hypervelocity impact problems

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Formulation of a dynamic material point method (MPM) for geomechanical problems (2013, background): “[112] showed in particular example of hypervelocity impact that the SPH time step size was reduced by a factor of 3.”
Imposition of essential boundary conditions in the material point method (2018, background): “18 A key feature of the MPM is the lack of any link between the background grid of elements on which calculation takes place and the MPs that represent the problem domain, and a key challenge is how to impose boundary conditions, which are required on the former but defined on the latter.”
Meshfree Methods: Progress Made after 20 Years (2017, unknown): “…” to reassociate connectivity for penetration and fragment-impact problems (Johnson et al. 1996; Li et al. 2012, 2013; Libersky et al. 1997; Ma et al. 2009; Parks et al. 2008; Rabczuk and Belytschko 2007; Rabczuk and Eibl 2003; Rabczuk et al. 2004; Randles and Libersky 1996; Ren and Li…”
A convected particle domain interpolation technique to extend applicability of the material point method for problems involving massive deformations (2011, methodology): “MPM and GIMP have been successfully used in simulation of a range of complicated engineering problems including finite deformation plasticity, thin membranes, cracks and fracture, sea ice dynamics, granular materials, multiscale problems, hypervelocity impact, and dynamic analysis of saturated porou”