Large deformation modeling in geomechanics

MPM, LBM-DEM and LEM


Krishna Kumar, krishnak@utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin



Hildebrand Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering
23rd September 2019

Scales in modeling soil

CB-Geo Computational Geomechanics

  • Material Point Method
  • Lattice-Boltzmann + Discrete Element Method
  • Finite Element Method - Thermo-Hydro Mechanical Coupling
  • Lattice Element Method
View the CB-Geo website for more information and software tools

Global landslide hazard

Fatalities due to landslides, 2007 - 2013 (Source: Nasa, 2015).

Oso landslide (2014)

8 million cubic meters of glacial deposits and water-filled debris material transported to a distance of 1 km (Haugerud., 2014).

Granular column collapse

Mesh-based vs Mesh-free techniques

Material Point Method

MPM column collapse

Discrete Element Method

  • Particle level interaction based on Newton's equation of motion

  • The contact force is computed as:

  • $F_n=\left\{ \begin{matrix} \text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }{{\delta }_{n}}>0 \\ -{{k}_{n}}{{\delta }_{n}}-{{\gamma }_{n}}\frac{d{{\delta }_{n}}}{dt},\text{ }{{\delta }_{n}}<0 \\ \end{matrix} \right.$

  • The Newton's equation of motion

  • $F_n =m \times a $

Experimental results (Lube et al 2005)

MPM v DEM column collapse

a = 0.4
a = 6

MPM v DEM column collapse

Runout v aspect ratio

DEM column collapse

MPM v DEM column collapse

a = 0.4
a = 6

Collisional dissipation mechanism is missing in the continuum approach.

MPM slope failure

Horizontal velocity (m/s)

MPM v DEM runout slope v collapse

MPM simulation of Oso landslide

Yerro et al., 2017

MPM slope failure: pore pressure changes

Selborne case study of a 9 m high cut-slope slope (Soga et al., 2016)

MPM seepage failure of slopes

Credit: Mario Martinelli, Deltares. 2964 Elements, with 4 solid and 4 fluid MPs / cell

MPM rainfall-induced slope failure

Yerro et al., 2017

Photo-realistic simulations

Prof J Teran, UCLA

Possible boundary conditions of submarine run‐out

  • Presence of ambient water (larger drag force & less gravity).
  • Water entrainment.
  • Pore pressure does not dissipate.

MPM submarine landslide

Depth-averaged Material Point Method (Taka et al., 2012)

Submarine run-out

Credit: Amanda Murphy (2016)

Mechanism of submarine landslides

Modeling Test at 1g Condition

  • Material type influences the mode of the flow.
  • Target: Clay‐rich flow (Less diffusive, Hydroplaning).

Mechanism of submarine runout

LBM - DEM simulation of granular collapse in a fluid




aspect ratio 'a' of 6

Lattice Boltzmann - MRT

Real Fluid vs LBM Idealisation
LBM D2Q9 Model

\[f_{i}(x + dx, t +\Delta t) - f_{i}(x, t) = -S_{\alpha i}( f_{i}(x, t) - f_{i} ^ {eq}(x, t))\]
  • $S_{\alpha i}$ is the collisional matrix.
  • Probability density of finding a particle : $f(x,\varepsilon, t) $, where, x is position, $\varepsilon$ is velocity, and t is time.
Streaming
Collision

LBM-DEM fluid-solid coupling

$$\Delta t_{s}=\frac{\Delta t}{\mathit{n}_{s}} \qquad (\mathit{n}_{s}=[\Delta t/ \Delta t_{D}]+1) $$
  • At every fluid iteration, $\mathit{n}_{s}$ sub-steps of DEM iterations are performed using the time step $\Delta t_{s}$.
  • The hydrodynamic force is unchanged during the sub-cycling.

LBM laminar & turbulent flows

Lattice Boltzmann

CFD
Poiseuille Flow

Smagorinsky model (LES):


Karman Vortex Street

Collapse in a fluid

Collapse in a fluid ('a'=0.8)

Granular collapse in a fluid: Effect of aspect ratio



aspect ratio 'a' of 0.4

aspect ratio 'a' of 4

Runout: dry vs fluid


Dry collapse flowed further than the underwater collapse

Collapse on an inclined plane




aspect ratio 'a' of 6 on a slope of 5*

Collapse of a dense column on an inclined plane

aspect ratio 'a' of 0.8 on a slope of 5* (dense)

Collapse of a dense column on an inclined plane

aspect ratio 'a' of 0.8 on a slope of 5* (dense)

Collapse of a dense column on slopes: runout

aspect ratio 'a' of 0.8 (dense)

Collapse of a loose column on slopes: runout

aspect ratio 'a' of 0.8 (loose)

Loose v dense: Initiation phase

initial runout evolution ('a' of 0.8)

Loose v dense: Initiation phase

Loose
Dense

Pore-pressure distribution along the failure plane during initiation.

Loose v dense: Runout phase

Attack angle ('a' of 0.8) $t = 3 \tau_c $

Loose v dense: Runout phase

Loose
Dense
Water entrainment front (~15d length) at a slope of 5*

Loose v dense: Runout phase

Froude's number - hydroplaning ('a' of 0.8)

Loose v dense: Settlement phase

volume evolution ('a' of 0.8)

Collapse on slopes: loose v dense

runout evolution ('a' of 0.8)

LBM - DEM a = 0.8 & 10,000 particles



  • LBM Nodes = 50 Million : DEM grains = 10000 discs
  • Run-time = 4 hours
  • Speedup = 125x on a Pascal P100

Level-Set DEM

Modeling shapes using Level-Sets

LBM multi-component multi-phase


Lattice Element Method

LEM: Tension test (uniform)

LEM: Tension test (Log-Normal 1.0)

LEM Tension test

LEM Tension test

Uniform
LogNormal 1.0

Lattice Element Method - Fluid coupling

  • First assume injection pressure $P_{in}$ and injection rate $Q_{in}$ at injection point
  • Solve fluid pressure at each fluid node
  • Convert pressure to node force and solve LEM to update fracture aperture
  • Repeat the above process until convergence
$$q = - \frac{h^3}{12\mu}\frac{dp}{dx}$$

LEM fracturing

Wong et al., (2016)


Thank you!



Krishna Kumar

krishnak@utexas.edu