Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Computation of Three-Dimensional Linear Elasticity

Problem using Mesh and Mesh-free Particle
Modelling Techniques
Adamu Musa Mohammed1*, Abdulrahman A. Abdulrasheed2, Usman Dadum Hamza3
Department of Chemical Engineering
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi
Bauchi State, Nigeria

Abstract:- Mathematical models, which have already up of particles which are arranged in an orderly manner to
become essential tools in modern engineering, can be form the solid three-dimensional(3D) geometry.
used to forecast and simulate the multi physical
behaviour of various engineering systems and problems, Elaborately, it can be said that traditionally, computer
whether in their simpler or complex forms. In this work, simulations are carried out over system domains made of
a linear elasticity problem involving a rectangular meshed (grided) surfaces. According to Ji et al., (2010)[7],
geometry of a wooden bar with an imposed load at one “traditional modelling approaches make use of parametric
end and fixed at the other end was simultaneously solved patches, implicit surface, or subdivision surfaces that have
by mesh and mesh-free particle methods. Elmer, a finite been well integrated into 2D or 3D software”. The steps in a
element program, was utilized for the mesh-based mesh-based simulation process include creating a geometry,
method, whereas Lattice Spring Model was used for the meshing it, and solving the model equations with a piece of
particle method. In the mesh-based technique, a software. The system is first converted into a geometry, then
Poisson's ratio of 0.37 was typically used. discretized into a mesh of a specific size, and finally the
Comparatively, the Poisson's ratio for a lattice spring model, which is typically a differential equation, is solved.
was discovered to always be 0.25 when using the particle The operation is often carried out in three steps (mesh
technique, which is consistent with earlier findings in the creation, solution, and postprocessing) after the geometry
literature. A numerical comparison of the data reveals has been constructed, and this sometimes requires the use of
that, despite the two methods' differing Poisson's ratios, three different pieces of software.On the other hand,
they provide results that are very similar. In fact, the meshfree particle methods (MPMs) or particle
resulting stresses are only partially dependent on the techniques[8], [9]generally refer to the class of meshfree
Poisson’s ratio. When, in the mesh-based method, the methods that use a collection of a finite number of discrete
Poisson ratio is changed to 0.25, the values for the particles to describe the state of a system and to record the
maximum stress are only slightly lower than those for movement of the system. Each particle in this context is
0.37. either directly linked to a single discrete physical object or
makes up and represents a portion of the continuum problem
Keywords:- Mesh; Mesh-free; Modeling; Elasticity; Young domain. Recently a meshfree CFD model was used by [10]
Modulus; Poisson’s ratio; Elmer; LSM; LAMMPS. Particle- to compute a linear elasticity problem, also [11]used
based modelling technique. meshfree enriched finite element formulation for
micromechanical modelling of 3D particulate rubber
I. INTRODUCTION composites. Molecular Dynamics (MD), Monte Carlo (MC),
the Discrete Element Method (DEM), the Dissipative
It was mentioned that the advent of simulation has Particle Method (DPD), Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics
reduced, drastically, the risk and cost by avoiding the danger (SPH), and others are examples of common MPMs.
and loss of life during testing. It is also true that with
computer simulations many conditions can be varied and Details of the theories behind the techniques were
outcomes investigated without risk [1] and certain covered in [2] for the mesh-based approached and [4] and
behaviours can be studied easily or closely by either [5] for the particle-based approach, respectively.
speeding up or slowing down the simulation.
II. METHODOLOGY
As already published in our previous works [2]–[4],
the modelling and simulation of a particular problem can be The two approaches were used to quantify the
done either by the traditional mesh-based method or mesh- maximum von Mises stress on a rectangular wooden bar
free particle method (MPM). The mesh-based method made of pine wood. The bar geometry was created and
considered the whole geometry as a continuum entity. The meshed using Gmsh (with a structured mesh) and then
geometry is then created and the surfaces and volume exported to Elmer for calculations. Linear Elasticity
gridded with either structured or unstructured mesh using a equation in Elmer was applied and the boundary conditions
mesh generator software such as GridPro, Gmsh, Gambit etc defined. After the computation, the Elmer result file (vtu
[5]. In the particle method however, the geometry is made- file) is uploaded onto a post-processing software ‘Paraview’
for post-processing.

IJISRT23MAY1897 www.ijisrt.com 2509

Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
For the particle-based simulations, a molecular For the particle geometry, however, the particles and
dynamic software known as LAMMPS (Large-scale bonds between them were created using MATLAB code
Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator) was used with each node of the square represented by a spherical
and the script file was written, using MATLAB codes, for particle and the distance between the particle (bond length)
the same structure. And this time, the number of nodes is 0.0125m (which is the same size as that obtained from
obtained from the structured mesh were represented by mesh).
particles instead if mesh. The principle of LSM (Lattice
Spring Model) was employed where the particles are The computation was done by a Finite Element
connected to each other by a means of a spring [12], [13]. Method (FEM) software Elmer where the in-built linear
With the equation relating the applied force to the distance elasticity model was used. The model was set up with the
the particle moves (1) a connection is made between the preconditions that specified the maximum number of
applied force and the spring property (spring constant). iteration equal 500, the steady state simulation type, and a
Backward Differentiation Formula (BDF) boundary
𝐹 = 𝑘(𝑟 − 𝑟0 ). (1) condition was employed. The equation was specified, and
the material was chosen as a pine wood from the material
where 𝐹 is the applied force, 𝑟0 is the initial distance library with a density of 550kgm-3. The Young modulus of
between two particles, 𝑟 is the instantaneous distance, and 𝑘 10 x1019 Nm-2 and the Poisson’s ratio of 0.37 were used.
the spring constant. The boundary condition state that the force of 200N was
applied at one end and the other end was held constant.
According to [12], in a regular cubic lattice structure,
the spring constant is related to the bulk modulusof the
material and the young modulus by (2) and (3).
5 𝑘
𝐾 = 3𝑟 (2)
0

And

𝐸 = 3𝐾(1 − 2𝑏) (3)

where 𝐾 is the bulk modulus, 𝐸 the Young modulus,

and 𝑏 the poison ratio.
Fig. 1: A wooden bar geometry with structured mesh
For 3-dimentional spring model (cubic lattice), the
Poison’s ratio 𝑏 is constrained to 0.25 [12] and (3) becomes In the particle method the geometry consists of 3645
3
number of particles and 27,100 number of bonds. The mass
𝐸 = 2 𝐾. (4) of particle is gotten from the specified density and the
volume of the material. The same was applied for the force
From (2) and (4), therefore, the spring constant is then used and this gives the per atom mass and per atom force
related to the young modulus[14]of the material as given in and the simulation boundary was set to be periodic at x,y
(5) and z directions. Table 1 present some of the parameters
𝐸𝑟
𝑘 = 2.50 . (5) used during the simulation.

Therefore, for any given value of E, the k can be Table 1: Simulation Parameters
evaluated and used as the spring constant in the particle Mesh (Elmer)
simulation. Parameter Symbol Value
The simulation was run in LAMMPS, and the dumb Length,z z 1.0 m
file (result file) is visualized with Ovito software (another
Widthx x 1.0 × 10−1 m
visualization software) for post-processing. In the post
processing, properties such as von Mises stress and the Thickness y y 5.0 × 10−2 m
material displacement (bending due to load) were
calculated. Applied forceF F 2,000 N
Acceleration g g 9.88 m s−2
III. GEOMETRY AND MODEL
Density of the bar 𝜌 550 kg m−3
The geometry is that of a rectangular wood bar of
dimension 𝑥 = 0.1 m, 𝑦 = 0.05 m and 𝑧 = 1.0 m. Both Yong modulusE E 1.0 × 10−10 N m−2
approaches (mesh and particle-based) were used to build the Poison ratiob b 0.37 [-]
geometry of that dimension with one represented by mesh
and the other, by particles. A mesh generating software Boundary Condition _ BDF
Gmsh was used to create the geometry and the structured Mesh-Free (LSM)
mesh (grid). The surface of the geometry was grided with an
equal size box (squares) of dimension 0.0125m.

IJISRT23MAY1897 www.ijisrt.com 2510

Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Parameter Symbol Value When we compare the mesh-based method with
Poisson’s ratio 0.37, which correspond to the given Young
Number particles _ 3,645 modulus, and the particle method (with Poisson’s ratio
Number of bonds _ 27,100 always 0.25) it is interesting to note that, despite the
difference in the Poisson’s ratio between the two methods,
Mass of each particle _ 7.55 × 10−4 kg the values obtained are very close. This shows that
Particle spacing l l 1.25 × 10−2 m differences in Poisson ratios result in relatively modest
differences in stresses. This fact will be useful whenever
Bar thickness 𝑑 d 5.0 × 10−2 m the LSM is used to model solid structures. In fact, even if,
Elastic constant k k 1000 kg s−2 by using the LSM, we are limited equal to 0.25, which can
be different from the actual Poisson ration of the material
Time step Δt 1 × 10−6 s under investigation, we expect only small differences due to
this limitation.
In the LSM, the Poisso’n ratio is always 0.25 [12] and
this cannot be changed when employing the mesh-free B. Displacement
particle method. Therefore, we tried to adjust the Poison The displacement was also provided in terms of colour
ratio in the mesh-based method from the given 0.37 to 0.25 coding, similar to what was stated in section IV(A). The
(similar to that of the particle method) to compare the maximum displacements for the two methods are essentially
results. identical, with the particle method having a maximum
displacement of 6.10x10-2 m and the mesh-base method
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION having a maximum displacement of 6.13x10-2 m (Fig. 3).
Even though these values were produced using Poisson's
Here, the findings from both methods were presented ratios of 0.25 and 0.37 respectively, as was steted in the
and analysed critically. In order to highlight the similarities section above, the discrepancies are barely noticeable.
between the two and the areas where they differ, a
comparative analysis was done.

A. Stress Distribution
The von Mises stress is computed, and the distribution is
presented by colour coding the structure using ParaView
(for mesh-based method) and Ovito (for the particle
method). With a Poisson’s ratio of 0.37 and 0.25 for Elmer
and LSM respectively, the results obtained for the maximum
stress and the maximum displacement were very similar.
The area of maximum stress can be seen as the most reddish
colour while the lowest stress is the most blueish as shown
in Fig. 2 (see the colour guide in the Figure). The maximum
stress in (A) is 5.2 x 107 N m-2 while it is 5.24 x 107 N m-2 in
(B). Fig. 3: Maximum displacement (a) ParaView (mesh-based)
and (b) Ovito (particle-based).

Again, this shows how both methods, for a given

simple geometry, can give almost same result with little
variation. When the problem involves a simple geometry,
one has a choice of using either of the method because there
is no significant difference or advantage in term of
convenience, but when the problem involves fluid structure
interactions, it is easy to handle it with particle method as
we can see in the next chapters.

V. CONCLUSION

In this work, a linear elasticity problem was simulated

Fig. 2: The von Mises stress from (A) the ParaView (mesh- with both mesh and particle-based modelling approach. The
based) and (B) Ovito (particle-based). result shows that there is no significant difference between
When a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25 was used in the Elmer, the two methods except little variation. The LSM equation
the result shows a small decrease in value for displacement always used 0.25 as Poisson’s ratio [12] whereas the
as well as the stress. The maximum von Mises stress Poisson’s ratio given for this problem in Elmer was 0.37
became 5.0 x 107 N m-2. This is expected because the [16]. Though there is freedom of choosing any Poisson’s
maximum stress increase with increasing the Poisson’s ratio ratio with mesh-based method, however, there is not such
[15] and vice vasa. freedom when using the LSM (particle) method. Moreover,
the displacement of the bar due to the applied force was

IJISRT23MAY1897 www.ijisrt.com 2511

Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
more precise with the particle method because each Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1141, no. 1, p. 012047, Jul.
particle’s deformation can be accounted for (deformation at 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1141/1/012047.
any position), unlike the mesh-based method that only gives [11.] C. T. Wu and M. Koishi, “Three-dimensional
the overall deformation. meshfree-enriched finite element formulation for
micromechanical hyperelastic modeling of particulate
ACKNOWLEDGMENT rubber composites: THREE-DIMENSIONAL
MESHFREE-ENRICHED FINITE ELEMENT
The Nigerian Petroleum Technology Development FORMULATION,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng, vol.
Fund (PTDF), Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi 91, no. 11, pp. 1137–1157, Sep. 2012, doi:
and the University of Birmingham Bluebear services are 10.1002/nme.4306.
acknowledged for the funding and opportunity given to me [12.] M. Kot, H. Nagahashi, and P. Szymczak, “Elastic
to carry out this work. moduli of simple mass spring models,” Vis Comput,
REFERENCES vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1339–1350, Oct. 2015, doi:
10.1007/s00371-014-1015-5.
[1.] E. Armengaud et al., “Combining the Advantages of [13.] A. Alexiadis, “A new Framework for Modelling the
Simulation and Prototyping for the Validation of Dynamics and the Breakage of Capsules, Vesicles
Dependable Communication Architectures: the and Cells in Fluid Flow,” Procedia IUTAM, vol. 16,
TEODACS Approach,” SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – pp. 80–88, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.piutam.2015.03.010.
Electron. Electr. Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 309–318, [14.] D. Sanfilippo, B. Ghiassi, A. Alexiadis, and A. G.
Apr. 2009, doi: 10.4271/2009-01-0763. Hernandez, “Combined Peridynamics and Discrete
[2.] A. M. Mohammed, M. Iqbal, N. V. Rees, and A. Multiphysics to Study the Effects of Air Voids and
Alexiadis, “Computational study of mass transfer at Freeze-Thaw on the Mechanical Properties of
surfaces structured with reactive nanocones,” Applied Asphalt,” Materials, vol. 14, no. 7, p. 1579, Mar.
Mathematical Modelling, vol. 74, pp. 373–386, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14071579.
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2019.04.057. [15.] A. A. Abd-Elhady and H. E.-D. M. Sallam, “Effect of
[3.] A. M. Mohammed, M. Ariane, and A. Alexiadis, Poisson’s Ratio on Stress/Strain Concentration at
“Using Discrete Multiphysics Modelling to Assess Circular Holes in Elastic Plates Subjected to Biaxial
the Effect of Calcification on Hemodynamic and Loading — Three Dimensional Finite Element
Mechanical Deformation of Aortic Valve,” Analysis,” in Characterization of Minerals, Metals,
ChemEngineering, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 48, Aug. 2020, and Materials 2016, S. J. Ikhmayies, B. Li, J. S.
doi: 10.3390/chemengineering4030048. Carpenter, J.-Y. Hwang, S. N. Monteiro, J. Li, D.
[4.] A. M. Mohammed, M. Ariane, and A. Alexiadis, Firrao, M. Zhang, Z. Peng, J. P. Escobedo-Diaz, and
“Fluid-Structure Interaction in Coronary Stents: A C. Bai, Eds., Cham: Springer International
Discrete Multiphysics Approach,” ChemEngineering, Publishing, 2016, pp. 45–55. doi: 10.1007/978-3-
vol. 5, no. 3, p. 60, Sep. 2021, doi: 319-48210-1_6.
10.3390/chemengineering5030060. [16.] Lyly et al, “ELMER - A finite element solver for
[5.] C. Geuzaine and J.-F. Remacle, “Gmsh: A 3-D finite multiphysics.,” 2000, 1999.
element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-
processing facilities,” International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 79, no. 11,
pp. 1309–1331, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1002/nme.2579.
[6.] Z. Ji, L. Liu, and Y. Wang, “B-Mesh: A Modeling
System for Base Meshes of 3D Articulated Shapes,”
Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 2169–
2177, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8659.2010.01805.x.
[7.] S. Ji, X. Chen, and L. Liu, “Coupled DEM-SPH
Method for Interaction between Dilated Polyhedral
Particles and Fluid,” Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2019, pp. 1–11, Aug. 2019, doi:
10.1155/2019/4987801.
[8.] G. R. Liu and M. B. Liu, Smoothed particle
hydrodynamics: a meshfree particle method. New
Jersey: World Scientific, 2003.
[9.] S. Capasso et al., “A Numerical Validation of 3D
Experimental Dam-Break Wave Interaction with a
Sharp Obstacle Using DualSPHysics,” Water, vol.
13, no. 15, p. 2133, Aug. 2021, doi:
10.3390/w13152133.
[10.] F. R. Saucedo-Zendejo, “A meshfree formulation for
CFD and linear elasticity problems,” IOP Conf. Ser.:

IJISRT23MAY1897 www.ijisrt.com 2512