The material-point method for granular materials

By Scott Bardenhagen, Jeremiah U. Brackbill, Deborah Sulsky. 2000

446 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Mechanics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa4d22e2506d32e7cc79e4f61ee88b2108887f4c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computational Mechanics

1. Issam K. J. al Kafaji
2. J. Nairn
3. Xiong Zhang
4. James Guilkey
5. C. Hammerquist
6. S. Ma
7. B. Li
8. F. Habbal

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. J. Nairn
2. Issam K. J. al Kafaji
3. B. Li
4. F. Habbal
5. Xiong Zhang
6. S. Ma
7. Magdalena Ortiz
8. Kam-Yim Sze

Citations in the corpus

• An energy‐consistent material‐point method for dynamic finite deformation plasticity (2006, unknown): “The frictional contact algorithms developed for MPM [10], [18] need modification to ensure that energy is consistently dissipated.”
• Optimal transportation meshfree approximation schemes for fluid and plastic flows (2010, methodology): “Some of the automatic contact-detection and enforcement properties of particle-in-cell methods [10] and the material-point method [55] are expected to carry over to the OTM framework, which bodes well for the ability of the OTM method to deal effectively and efficiently with complex contact situatio”
• Material Point Method Calculations with Explicit Cracks (2003, methodology): “First, the methods in Bardenhagen, Brackbill, and Sulsky (2000) and Bardenhagen, Guilkey, Roessig, Brackbill, Witzel, and Foster (2001) were for contact between dissimilar materials; here contact is within the same material but on two sides of a crack.”
• iGIMP: An implicit generalised interpolation material point method for large deformations (2017, background): “Since its inception, the MPM has been developed and improved as well as being used in a number of applications including granular materials [41,50,80,81], fracture [16,25,43,69,70,82] and geotechnical applications [20,21,37,36,42,46,54,55,63,68,72,83–86].”
• Comparison study of MPM and SPH in modeling hypervelocity impact problems (2009, background): “The cost of these contact algorithms is linear in the number of bodies because it can be applied to all bodies with one sweep over the computational grid without iteration, so they are able to account for the interactions between a large number of bodies, such as grains [50,52].”
• An explicit material point finite element method for hyper‐velocity impact (2006, methodology): “A contact–impact algorithm similar to that proposed in Reference [20] is implemented in EPFE-3D to deal with the contact between the projectile and plate.”
• An Improved Contact Algorithm for the Material Point Method and Application to Stress Propagation in Granular Material (2001, methodology): “Advantages of the MPM algorithm include the absence of mesh tangling problems, error–free advection of material properties (internal variables in particular) via the motion of the material points, and an efficient setting for the implementation of material contact.”
• Formulation of a dynamic material point method (MPM) for geomechanical problems (2013, methodology): “[9] developed a frictional contact algorithm to model interaction between grains in granular materials.”
• Solution of quasi‐static large‐strain problems by the material point method (2010, methodology): “The application field of MPM has been extended to include problems of flow of a granular material [14–17] and plastic forming [15].”