Erratum: Application of a particle-in-cell method to solid mechanics

By Deborah Sulsky. 1995

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Learning to Simulate Complex Physics with Graph Networks (2020, methodology): “Other techniques, such as “position-based dynamics” (PBD) (M ¨ uller et al., 2007) and “material point method” (MPM) (Sulsky et al., 1995), are more suitable for interacting, deformable materials.”
Examination and Analysis of Implementation Choices within the Material Point Method (MPM) (2008, methodology): “The Material Point Method was introduced by Sulsky, Chen, and Schreyer (1994); Sulsky, Zhou, and Schreyer (1995) as a solid mechanics extension to FLIP (Fluid-Implicit Particle) [Brackbill and Ruppel (1986); Brackbill, Kothe, and Ruppel (1988)],a“full-particle”ParticleIn Cell(PIC) fluids simulatio”
Animating sand as a fluid (2005, methodology): “Material Point Method[ 52 ], which has been used to model granular materials at”
B-spline based boundary conditions in the material point method (2019, methodology): “The MPM, developed originally by Sulsky and co-workers [5,6], discretises a problem domain by a finite number of particles, or material points (MPs), on which the material properties and history dependent variables are prescribed and carried throughout a simulation.”
An explicit material point finite element method for hyper‐velocity impact (2006, methodology): “On the other hand, it yields the same results as the MPM if the grid covers the entire material domain at all time steps.”
Large deformation finite element analyses in geotechnical engineering (2015, methodology): “[30], which are the concern of this paper; and particle-based methods such as material point method [32,4].”
Second‐order convected particle domain interpolation (CPDI2) with enrichment for weak discontinuities at material interfaces (2013, background): “The conventional MPM [13, 14], which considers each particle as a concentrated mass, is well known to suffer from a ‘cell crossing instability’ in large deformation problems caused by a jump discontinuity in the gradient of low-order shape functions across cell boundaries.”
The material-point method for granular materials (2000, methodology): “The method has been applied to impact and penetration problems, wave propagation and to manufacturing problems [18, 19, 20, 21, 22].”
Large deformation FEMLIP drained analysis of a vertical cut (2012, methodology): “To overcome the difficulties of the classical numerical methods, we propose an alternative framework: the finite element method with Lagrangian integration points (FEMLIP) [22, 23], which is derived from the particle in cell method [30].”
ChainQueen: A Real-Time Differentiable Physical Simulator for Soft Robotics (2018, unknown): “The material point method has been extensively developed from both a solid mechanics [9] and computer graphics [10] perspective.”
The Generalized Interpolation Material Point Method (2004, methodology): “Although derived differently, the MPM algorithm and its predecessors, [Brackbill, Kothe, and Ruppel (1988); Sulsky, Chen, and Schreyer (1994); Sulsky, Zhou, and Schreyer (1995); Brackbill and Ruppel (1986)], also use the same functions to interpolate to and from the computational grid.”
The affine particle-in-cell method (2015, methodology): “Furthermore, we demonstrate that the method is applicable to both incompressible liquids and Material Point Method (MPM) simulations [Sulsky et al. 1995].”