Modeling damage and plasticity in aggregates with the material point method (MPM)

  • Samuel J. RaymondEmail author
  • Bruce D. Jones
  • John R. Williams


In order to simulate the failure of aggregate materials, a coupled damage and plasticity model is used with the material point method (MPM). A pressure-dependent J2 plasticity law, the Drucker–Prager model, is combined with the Grady–Kipp damage evolution model. This allows the simulation of both simple brittle failure and more complex, multi-mode failure cases. The meshfree method, MPM, employs Lagrangian particles to follow the geometry and stores the state of the material on those particles. The large deformations and complex physics associated with fracturing can be handled in a straightforward manner using MPM. This work first describes the two models used to quantify failure in the context of the MPM algorithm. Validation of the model is carried out by studying the stress and failure response of the well-studied Brazilian Test. The framework is then compared against real experimental data of uniaxial compression of gypsum samples with an embedded flaw. Finally, as an additional use case, protection strategies for Roman Columns in Pompeii are evaluated.


MPM Damage Brittle failure Rock mechanics 


  1. 1.
    Nelson TI, Bolen WP (2007) Construction aggregates. Min Eng 59:26–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baronio G, Binda L, Lombardini N (1997) The role of brick pebbles and dust in conglomerates based on hydrated lime and crushed bricks. Constr Build Mater 11(1):33–40Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamad Fursan (2016) Formulation of the axisymmetric CPDI with application to pile driving in sand. Comput Geotech 74:141–150Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belytschko T, Black T (1999) Elastic crack growth in finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 620:601–620zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray JP, Monaghan JJ, Swift RP (2001) SPH elastic dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190(49–50):6641–6662zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nairn J (2003) Material point method calculations with explicit cracks. Comput Model Eng Sci C 4(6):649–663zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fagan Timothy, Lemiale Vincent, Nairn John, Ahuja Yogita, Ibrahim Raafat, Estrin Yuri (2016) Detailed thermal and material flow analyses of friction stir forming using a three-dimensional particle based model. J Mater Process Technol 231:422–430Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nairn John (2006) On the calculation of energy release rates for cracked laminates with residual stresses. Int J Fract 139(2):267–293zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alonso Eduardo E, Zabala F (2011) Progressive failure of Aznalcóllar dam using the material point method. Géotechnique 61(9):795–808Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamad Fursan M, Vermeer Pieter A, Moormann C (2013) Failure of a geotextile-reinforced embankment using the material point method (MPM). In: 3rd International conference on particle based methods fundamentals and applications, vol 1, p 70569Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kamrin K, Rycroft CH, Nave JC (2012) Reference map technique for finite-strain elasticity and fluid-solid interaction. J Mech Phys Solids 60(11):1952–1969MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bardenhagen SG, Brackbill JU, Sulsky D (2000) The material-point method for granular materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 187(99):529–541zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wieckowski Z, Youn Sung K, Yeon JH (1999) A particle-in-cell solution to the silo discharging problem. Int J Numer Methods Eng 45:1203–1225zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wieckowski ZdzisŁaw (2004) The material point method in large strain engineering problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:4417–4438zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raymond S, Lemiale V, Ibrahim R, Lau R (2014) A meshfree study of the Kalthoff–Winkler experiment in 3D at room and low temperatures under dynamic loading using viscoplastic modelling. Eng Anal Bound Elem 42:20–25MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sulsky D, Chen Z, Schreyer HL (1994) A particle method for history-dependent materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 118:179–196MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harlow FH, Amsden AA (1971) A numerical fluid dynamics calculation method for all flow speeds. J Comput Phys 8(2):197–213zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sulsky D, Zhou S, Schreyer HL (1995) Application of a particle-in-cell method to solid mechanics. Comput Phys Commun 87:236–252zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abe K, Soga K, Bandara S (2013) Material point method for coupled hydromechanical problems. J Geotech 140:1–16Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abe K, Konagai K (2015) Numerical simulation of a series of flume tests with dry and wet sands by using depth averaged material point method. In: Geomechanics from micro to macro, pp 971–976Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raymond S, Aimene YE, Nairn J, Ouenes A (2015) Coupled fluid-solid geomechanical modeling of multiple hydraulic fractures interacting with natural fractures and the resulting proppant modeling proppant distribution in the presence of natural fractures using the material point method (MPM). In: SPE Canada unconventional resources conferenceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lemiale V, Nairn J, Hurmane A (2010) Material point method simulation of equal channel angular pressing involving large plastic strain and contact through sharp corners. Comput Model Eng Sci C 70(1):41–66Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sulsky D, Kaul A (2004) Implicit dynamics in the material-point method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:1137–1170MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sulsky D, Schreyer HL, Peterson K, Kwok R, Coon M (2007) Using the material-point method to model sea ice dynamics. J Geophys Res Ocean 112:1–18Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sulsky D, Peterson K (2011) Toward a new elastic-decohesive model of Arctic sea ice. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom 240(20):1674–1683Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abe K, Nakamura S, Nakamura H (2015) Large deformation analysis of slope models together with weak layers on shaking table by using Material Point Method. In: Computer methods and recent advances in geomechanics, 2010, pp 1805–1810Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deb D, Pramanik R (2013) Failure process of brittle rock using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Eng Mech 139:1551–1565Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaeger JC, Cook Neville GW, Zimmerman R (2009) Fundamentals of rock mechanics. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grady DE, Kipp ME (1980) Continuum modelling of explosive fracture in oil shale. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17(3):147–157Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Melosh HJ, Ryan EV, Asphaug E (1992) Dynamic fragmentation in impacts: hydrocode simulation of laboratory impacts. J Geophys Res Planets 97(E9):14735–14759Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Das R, Cleary PW (2010) Effect of rock shapes on brittle fracture using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Theor Appl Fract Mech 53(1):47–60Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wieghold S, Liu Z, Raymond SJ, Meyer LT, Williams, JR, Buonassisi T, Sachs EM (2018) Detection of sub-500-\(\mu \)m cracks in multicrystalline silicon wafer using edge-illuminated dark-field imaging to enable thin solar cell manufacturing. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells (Manuscript submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Douillet-Grellier T, Jones BD, Pramanik R, Pan K, Albaiz A, Williams JR (2016) Mixed-mode fracture modeling with smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Comput Geotech 79:73–85Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nairn John (2013) Modeling imperfect interfaces in the material point method using multimaterial methods. Comput Model Eng Sci C 92(1):271–299MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wong NY (2008) Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and Carrara marble. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raymond Samuel J, Jones Bruce, Williams John R (2018) A strategy to couple the material point method (MPM) and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) computational techniques. Comput Part Mech 5(1):49–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© OWZ 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations