Parallel analysis system for free-surface flow using MPS method with explicitly represented polygon wall boundary model

Abstract

This study develops a parallel solver of free-surface flow based on a mesh-free particle method, the explicit MPS method, with polygon boundary representation. We adopt the explicitly represented polygon (ERP) wall boundary model, which expresses wall boundaries as arbitrarily shaped triangular polygons. A bucket-based domain decomposition algorithm for dynamic load balancing is expanded to the polygon-based computation of the ERP model. The validity and parallel efficiency of the developed solver are tested by analyzing a dam break problem, and the numerical results are compared with experimental results. Our developed solver can simplify the evaluation of the integrity of coastal structures since it can be easily connected to finite element analyses of the structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Lucy LB (1977) A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astron J 82:1013–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ (1977) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 181(3):375–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Koshizuka S, Oka Y (1996) Moving-particle semi-implicit method for fragmentation of incompressible fluid. Nucl Sci Eng 123(3):421–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Xie J, Nistor I, Murty T (2012) A corrected 3-D SPH method for breaking Tsunami wave modelling. Nat Hazards 60(1):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Murotani K, Koshizuka S, Tamai T, Shibata K, Mitsume N, Yoshimura S, Tanaka S, Hasegawa K, Nagai E, Fujisawa T (2014) Development of hierarchical domain decomposition explicit MPS method and application to large-scale tsunami analysis with floating objects. J Adv Simul Sci Eng 1(1):16–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Isshiki M, Asai M, Eguchi S, Otani H (2016) 3D tsunami run-up simulation and visualization using particle method with GIS-based geography model. J Earthq Tsunami 10(5):1640020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gotoh H, Khayyer A (2018) On the state-of-the-art of particle methods for coastal and ocean engineering. Coast Eng J 60(1):79–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Zhang GM, Batra RC (2004) Modified smoothed particle hydrodynamics method and its application to transient problems. Comput Mech 34(2):137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Khayyer A, Gotoh H (2011) Enhancement of stability and accuracy of the moving particle semi-implicit method. J Comput Phys 230(8):3093–3118

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Marrone S, Antuono M, Colagrossi A, Colicchio G, Le Touzé D, Graziani G (2011) \(\delta \)-SPH model for simulating violent impact flows. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 200(13–16):1526–1542

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Khayyer A, Gotoh H, Shimizu Y, Gotoh K (2017) On enhancement of energy conservation properties of projection-based particle methods. Eur J Mech B/Fluids 66:20–37

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Khayyer A, Gotoh H, Shimizu Y (2019) A projection-based particle method with optimized particle shifting for multiphase flows with large density ratios and discontinuous density fields. Comput Fluids 179:356–371

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Monaghan JJ (1994) Simulating free surface flows with SPH. J Comput Phys 110(2):399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Monaghan J, Kos A, Issa N (2003) Fluid motion generated by impact. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 129(6):250–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Feldman J, Bonet J (2007) Dynamic refinement and boundary contact forces in SPH with applications in fluid flow problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 72(3):295–324

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Monaghan JJ, Kajtar JB (2009) SPH particle boundary forces for arbitrary boundaries. Comput Phys Commun 180(10):1811–1820

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Libersky LD, Petschek AG, Carney TC, Hipp JR, Allahdadi FA (1993) High strain Lagrangian hydrodynamics: a three-dimensional SPH code for dynamic material response. J Comput Phys 109(1):67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Morris JP, Fox PJ, Zhu Y (1997) Modeling low Reynolds number incompressible flows using SPH. J Comput Phys 136(1):214–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Colagrossi A, Landrini M (2003) Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics. J Comput Phys 191(2):448–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Oger G, Doring M, Alessandrini B, Ferrant P (2006) Two-dimensional SPH simulations of wedge water entries. J Comput Phys 213(2):803–822

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Delorme L, Colagrossi A, Souto-Iglesias A, Zamora-Rodriguez R, Botia-Vera E (2009) A set of canonical problems in sloshing, part I: pressure field in forced roll -comparison between experimental results and SPH. Ocean Eng 36(2):168–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ferrand M, Laurence DR, Rogers BD, Violeau D, Kassiotis C (2013) Unified semi-analytical wall boundary conditions for inviscid, laminar or turbulent flows in the meshless SPH method. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 71(4):446–472

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mayrhofer A, Ferrand M, Kassiotis C, Violeau D, Morel FX (2015) Unified semi-analytical wall boundary conditions in SPH: analytical extension to 3-D. Numer Alg 68(1):15–34

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Mitsume N, Yoshimura S, Murotani K, Yamada T (2015) Explicitly represented polygon wall boundary model for explicit MPS method. Comput Part Mech 2(1):73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Shakibaeinia A, Jin YC (2010) A weakly compressible MPS method for modeling of open-boundary free-surface flow. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 63(10):1208–1232

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kitsionas S, Whitworth AP (2002) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics with particle splitting, applied to self-gravitating collapse. Mon Not R Astron Soc 330(1):129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Shibata K, Koshizuka S, Matsunaga T, Masaie I (2017) The overlapping particle technique for multi-resolution simulation of particle methods. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 325:434–462

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Khayyer A, Tsuruta N, Shimizu Y, Gotoh H (2019) Multi-resolution MPS for incompressible fluid-elastic structure interactions in ocean engineering. Appl Ocean Res 82:397–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ji Z, Fu L, Hu XY, Adams NA (2019) A new multi-resolution parallel framework for SPH. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 346:1156–1178

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ferrari A, Dumbser M, Toro EF, Armanini A (2009) A new 3D parallel SPH scheme for free surface flows. Comput Fluids 38(6):1203–1217

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Crespo AJC, Domínguez JM, Rogers BD, Gómez-Gesteira M, Longshaw S, Canelas R, Vacondio R, Barreiro A, García-Feal O (2015) DualSPHysics: open-source parallel CFD solver based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH). Comput Phys Commun 187:204–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    LexADV: Development of a Numerical Library based on Hierarchical Domain Decomposition for Post Petascale Simulation. https://adventure.sys.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/lexadv/

  33. 33.

    Karypis G, Kumar V (1998) A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. SIAM J Sci Comput 20(1):359–392

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    The Stanford 3D Scanning Repository. http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/

  35. 35.

    Harada T, Koshizuka S, Shimazaki K (2008) Improvement of wall boundary calculation model for MPS method. Trans Jpn Soc Comput Eng Sci 2008:20080006 (in Japanese)

  36. 36.

    Lobovský L, Botia-Vera E, Castellana F, Mas-Soler J, Souto-Iglesias A (2014) Experimental investigation of dynamic pressure loads during dam break. J Fluids Struct 48:407–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Stansby PK, Chegini A, Barnes TCD (1998) The initial stages of dam-break flow. J Fluid Mech 374:407–424

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Marrone S, Colagrossi A, Le Touzé D, Graziani G (2010) Fast free-surface detection and level-set function definition in SPH solvers. J Comput Phys 229(10):3652–3663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Shibata K, Masaie I, Kondo M, Murotani K, Koshizuka S (2015) Improved pressure calculation for the moving particle semi-implicit method. Comput Part Mech 2(1):91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Joint Usage/Research Center for Interdisciplinary Large-scale Information Infrastructures, Japan (Project ID: jh180060-NAH). This work was supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (Grant Number 18K18062).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naoto Mitsume.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Computation of the closest point on polygons

Appendix: Computation of the closest point on polygons

We take a triangle ABC that consists of points A, B, and C. The closest point on ABC corresponding to polygon k and particle i is computed as follows.

We define the constants \(v_A\), \(v_B\), and \(v_C\) as

$$\begin{aligned} v_A&= d_3 d_6 - d_5 d_4, \\ v_B&= d_5 d_2 - d_1 d_6, \\ v_C&= d_1 d_4 - d_3 d_2, \end{aligned}$$

where \(d_i(i = 1, 2, \cdots , 6)\) are the following:

$$\begin{aligned} d_1 = \varvec{x}_{AB} \cdot \varvec{x}_{Ai},&\qquad d_2 = \varvec{x}_{AC} \cdot \varvec{x}_{Ai}, \qquad \\ d_3 = \varvec{x}_{AB} \cdot \varvec{x}_{Bi},&\qquad d_4 = \varvec{x}_{AC} \cdot \varvec{x}_{Bi}, \qquad \\ d_5 = \varvec{x}_{AB} \cdot \varvec{x}_{Ci},&\qquad d_6 = \varvec{x}_{AC} \cdot \varvec{x}_{Ci}. \end{aligned}$$
  1. 1.

    If

    $$\begin{aligned} d_1 \le 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_2 \le 0, \end{aligned}$$

    point i orthogonally projects outside ABC within the Voronoi region of A. Then, the closest point is given by A, that is,

    $$\begin{aligned} \varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k} = \varvec{x}_{A}, \end{aligned}$$

    and the point in barycentric coordinates is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \{ \xi , \eta \} = \{ 1, 0 \}. \end{aligned}$$
  2. 2.

    If

    $$\begin{aligned} d_3 \ge 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_4 \le d_3, \end{aligned}$$

    point i projects outside ABC within the Voronoi region of B. Then, the closest point is given by B, that is,

    $$\begin{aligned} \varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k} = \varvec{x}_{B}, \end{aligned}$$

    and the point in barycentric coordinates is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \{ \xi , \eta \} = \{ 0, 1 \}. \end{aligned}$$
    (30)
  3. 3.

    If

    $$\begin{aligned} v_C \le 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_1 \ge 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_3 \le 0, \end{aligned}$$

    point i projects outside ABC within the edge region of AB. Then, the closest point is on the edge AB and is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k} = \varvec{x}_{A} + \frac{d_1}{d_1 - d_3} \varvec{x}_{AB} \end{aligned}$$

    and the point in barycentric coordinates is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \{ \xi , \eta \} = \left\{ 1- \frac{d_1}{d_1 - d_3}, \frac{d_1}{d_1 - d_3} \right\} . \end{aligned}$$
  4. 4.

    If

    $$\begin{aligned} d_6 \ge 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_5 \le d_6, \end{aligned}$$

    point i projects outside ABC within the Voronoi region of C. Then, the closest point is given by C, that is,

    $$\begin{aligned} \varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k} = \varvec{x}_{C} \end{aligned}$$

    and the point in barycentric coordinates is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \{ \xi , \eta \} = \{0, 0 \}. \end{aligned}$$
  5. 5.

    If

    $$\begin{aligned} v_B \le 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_2 \ge 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_6 \le 0, \end{aligned}$$

    point i projects outside ABC within the edge region of AC. Then, the closest point is on the edge AC and is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k} = \varvec{x}_{A} + \frac{d_2}{d_2 - d_6} \varvec{x}_{AC} \end{aligned}$$

    and the point in barycentric coordinates is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \{ \xi , \eta \} = \left\{ 1- \frac{d_2}{d_2 - d_6}, 0 \right\} . \end{aligned}$$
  6. 6.

    If

    $$\begin{aligned} v_A \le 0 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_4 \ge d_3 \ \ \wedge \ \ d_5 \ge d_6, \end{aligned}$$

    point i projects outside ABC within the edge region of BC. Then, the closest point is on the edge BC and is given by

    $$\begin{aligned}&\varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k} = \varvec{x}_{B} + \frac{(d_4-d_3)}{(d_4-d_3) + (d_5-d_6)} \varvec{x}_{BC} \\&\{ \xi , \eta \} = \left\{ 0 \ , 1- \frac{(d_4-d_3)}{(d_4-d_3) + (d_5-d_6)} \right\} . \end{aligned}$$
  7. 7.

    If none of the above conditions hold, i orthogonally projects inside ABC. Then the closest point is in the triangle ABC and is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \varvec{x}^{\mathrm {near}}_{i,k}&= \frac{v_A}{v_A+v_B+v_C} \varvec{x}_A + \frac{v_B}{v_A+v_B+v_C} \varvec{x}_B \\&\qquad + \frac{v_C}{v_A+v_B+v_C} \varvec{x}_C \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

    and the point in barycentric coordinates is given by

    $$\begin{aligned} \{ \xi , \eta \} = \left\{ \frac{v_A}{v_A+v_B+v_C}, \ \frac{v_B}{v_A+v_B+v_C} \right\} . \end{aligned}$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mitsume, N., Yamada, T. & Yoshimura, S. Parallel analysis system for free-surface flow using MPS method with explicitly represented polygon wall boundary model. Comp. Part. Mech. 7, 279–290 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-019-00269-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mesh-free particle method
  • Polygon wall boundary model
  • Free-surface flow
  • Domain decomposition
  • Dynamic load balancing