water

Article
Updated Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for
Simulating Bending and Compression Failure
Progress of Ice
Ningbo Zhang 1 ID
, Xing Zheng 1, * and Qingwei Ma 1,2 ID

1 College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China;

zhangningbo@hrbeu.edu.cn (N.Z.); q.ma@city.ac.uk (Q.M)
2 School of Mathematics, Computer Science & Engineering, University of London, London EC1V 0HB, UK
* Correspondence: zhengxing@hrbeu.edu.cn

Received: 8 September 2017; Accepted: 7 November 2017; Published: 12 November 2017

Abstract: In this paper, an updated Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method based on the
Simplified Finite Difference Interpolation scheme (SPH_SFDI) is presented to simulate the failure
process of ice. The Drucker–Prager model is embedded into the SPH code to simulate the four point
bending and uniaxial compression failure of ice. The cohesion softening elastic–plastic model is
also used in the SPH_SFDI framework. To validate the proposed modeling approach, the numerical
results of SPH_SFDI are compared with the standard SPH and the experimental data. The good
agreement demonstrated that the proposed SPH_SFDI method including the elastic–plastic cohesion
softening Drucker–Prager failure model can provide a useful numerical tool for simulating failure
progress of the ice in practical field. It is also shown that the SPH_SFDI can significantly improve the
capability and accuracy for simulating ice bending and compression failures as compared with the
original SPH scheme.

Keywords: ice failure; SPH_SFDI; Drucker–Prager model; bending; uniaxial compression; cohesion
softening elastic–plastic model

1. Introduction
With the increasing activities in Arctic regions, the method for the accurate calculation of the
corresponding ice loads on structures are crucial to the design of marine structures operating in ice [1].
To simulate ice–water or ice–ship interactions effectively, it is necessary to have a reasonable study and
understanding of the ice failure progress. The bending failure is the common failure behavior of the
ice and is important for ships in ice–ship interactions because of the inclined contact interfaces with
the ice [2,3]. In addition, under the compression of a ship or structure, compressive failure (crushing)
is also easy to occur during the failure process of the ice. Thus, it is of high importance to study the
bending and compression failure progress of the ice.
In the past few years, many full-scale tests and model tests of the ice failure have been
investigated [4–8]. However, the experimental data are highly dispersed because of different
experimental equipment, different test methods, and different measurements of the ice specimens.
In addition, some simplified empirical models are also used to study the ice failure and the interaction
of ice and structure [9–11]. However, these simplified empirical models only focus on some main
aspects of ice failure and are lack of the study of dynamics and some changing details during the ice
failure progress. Thus, it is very important to develop a reliable numerical ice model to simulate the
sea ice failure in the bending and compression process, especially the current studies on the behavior
of sea ice failure are not adequate; although some obtained numerical approaches were proposed to

Water 2017, 9, 882; doi:10.3390/w9110882 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2017, 9, 882 2 of 24

simulate sea ice failure, these studies mainly focus on the ice–structure interaction rather than on the
failure properties of sea ice itself.
The existing numerical methods for simulating ice destruction mainly include the finite element
method (FEM) [12], the discrete element method (DEM) [13] or their coupled forms [14,15]. To some
extent, these methods can achieve good simulation results for ice failure. However, due to the different
discretization schemes of FEM and DEM, the numerical continuity is not easily guaranteed on the solid
boundary in coupling method of FEM and DEM. For FEM, it has some common drawbacks relevant
to simulating ice failure, which are mesh tangling, and using erosion to predict failure patterns [16].
Deb and Pramanik [17] pointed out that DEM needs to make extensive calibration work to identify the
parameters for both deformability and strength.
In recent years, SPH method is emerging as a potential tool for simulating the large deformation
and failure behavior of solids. Because of its Lagrangian behaviors, cracks may initiate and propagate
immediately and naturally after the yielding of SPH particles. Therefore, SPH can simulate the large
deformations, failure behaviors effectively and accurately. Thus, it can be easily used to solve solid
failure problems, including the fracture, crushing and fragmentation with the application of solid state
constitutive relation.
SPH was originally introduced by Lucy [18] and Gingold and Monaghan [19] to solve
astrophysical problems. In recent years, SPH method has been successfully applied to a wide range
of problems, which include fluid flows [20], geophysical flows [21], water wave dynamics [22–24]
and wave–structure interaction problems [25,26]. Currently, there are two different approaches in
the SPH formulation: the “weakly compressible” (WCSPH) [20,21] and the “truly incompressible”
(ISPH) [27–29], the first of which is employed in this paper. Libersky and Petschek [30] applied
SPH to solid mechanics firstly. Benz and Asphaug [31] extended their work to simulation of the
fracture process in brittle solids. Then Randles and Libersky [32] used SPH successfully to study
dynamic response of solid material with large deformations. Bui et al. [33] applied SPH to model large
deformation or post-failure of soil. Deb and Pramanik [17] and Douillet-Grellier et al. [34] simulated
the brittle fracturing process of rock by SPH, respectively. Zhang et al. [35] tried to use the SPH method
based on the failure model [17] to study the fracture of ice. This paper draws on the elastic–perfectly
plastic constitutive equation in Bui et al. [33] and combines the cohesion softening law in Whyatt and
Board [36] and Drucker–Prager yield criterion to reflect the plasticity and brittleness of ice during the
failure progress. Recently, Das [16] used SPH mode in LS-DYNA to simulate ice beam in four-point
bending. In his study, the Von Mises yield criterion is embedded into the SPH to identify the failure
of ice. Besides, in his approach once failure is reached, the deviatoric stress components are scaled
directly to zero without the cohesion softening and stress correction used in this paper.
The main contribution of the paper lies in the following two aspects. On the one hand, the cohesion
softening elasto-plastic constitutive model integrated with the Drucker–Prager yield criterion with
plastic flow rules has been prospectively implemented to simulate the plastic failure of ice in the
SPH framework. As far as we know, similar failure investigations have been widely used in soil and
rock mechanics but almost not known in the ice field. The validation of numerical results shows that
this approach can accurately simulate the failure behavior of ice in the practical field. On the other
hand, the standard SPH algorithms lack some kinds of high accuracy due to the formulation of its
first-order derivative. To improve this situation the Simplified Finite Difference Interpolation (SFDI)
method proposed by Ma [37] is used to improve the shear stress and strain rate formulations thus
more reasonable failure path and pattern during the ice failure process can be achieved. The enhanced
performance of SPH_SFDI method (compared with the standard SPH method) in predicting a more
precise force and stress of ice field is also demonstrated by the robust comparisons between the
numerical results and experimental data. It needs to be pointed out that the SPH_SFDI method is
applied only to 2D test cases in this paper.
Water 2017, 9, 882 3 of 24

2. Governing Equations
The governing equations in the SPH method include the mass conservation equation and
momentum conservation equation, which written in the Lagrangian form, are given as:

Dρ 1 ∂vα
=− (1)
Dt ρ ∂x α

Dvα 1 ∂σαβ
= + gα (2)
Dt ρ ∂x β
where α and β are the Cartesian components in x, y and z directions; v is the particle velocity; ρ is
the ice density; σαβ is the tress tensor of ice particles; g is the gravitational acceleration; and D/Dt
is the particle derivative following motion. The ice constitutive relation need to be applied into the
system to solve the governing equations (Equations (1) and (2)). In this paper, the stress tensor can be
divided into two parts, which is same with [32] and includes the hydrostatic pressure and deviatoric
shear stress:

1 γγ αβ
σαβ = σ δ + sαβ (3)
3
in which δαβ = Kronecker delta and satisfies the following conditions: δαβ = 1 if α = β or δαβ = 0 when
α 6= β.

2.1. Ice Elasto-Plastic Constitutive Model

To simulate the ice failure process, an elasto-plastic constitutive model [33] is applied into SPH in
. αβ
this paper. The components of the strain rate ε are given by:
 
. αβ 1 ∂vα ∂v β
ε = + (4)
2 ∂x β ∂x α
. αβ
For an elasto-plastic material, the strain rate ε can be divided into the elastic strain rate tensor
. αβ . αβ . αβ
εe and the plastic strain rate tensor ε p . The elastic strain rate tensor εe follows the generalized
Hooke’s law:
. αβ
. αβ s 1 − 2υ . γγ αβ
εe = + σ δ (5)
2G 3E
. αβ
which s = the deviatoric shear stress rate tensor; G and E are the shear modulus and Young’s
. αβ
modulus, respectively; and υ is Poisson’s ratio. The plastic strain rate tensor ε p is obtained according
to the flow rule:

. αβ . ∂Q
εp = λ (6)
∂σαβ
.
where λ is the plastic multiplier rate, and Q is the plastic potential function which determines the
.
development direction of plastic strain. The plastic multiplier λ is computed through the consistency
condition, which is given by:

∂F
dF = dσαβ = 0 (7)
∂σαβ
According to Equations (5) and (6), the total strain rate tensor can be expressed as:
. αβ
. αβ s 1 − 2υ . γγ αβ . ∂Q
ε = + σ δ + λ αβ (8)
2G 3E ∂σ
Water 2017, 9, 882 4 of 24

According to Equations (3) and (8), the general stress–strain equation of the elastic–plastic ice
material can be given by:
Water 2017, 9, 882 .
   4 of 24
. αβ . αβ . γγ αβ 2G ∂Q mn αβ ∂Q
σ = 2G e + K ε δ − λ K − δ δ + 2G (9)
3 ∂σmn ∂σαβ
 2G  ∂Q ∂Q 
in which α and β σare α β free G e α β + Kmεand
= 2indexes, γγ α β
δ n are − λdummy
  K − indexes

αβ
δ m n δdenote
+ 2G
σ α β 
which the Cartesian (9)
components
 3  ∂ σ m n
. αβ . αβ ∂
1 . γγ αβ
x , y with the Einstein convention applied to repeated indices; e = ε − 3 ε δ is the deviatoric
shear
in α rate
strain
which β areKfree
andtensor; = E/ (3(1 − 2υ
indexes, m)) and
is thenelastic bulk modulus;
are dummy indexesand whichG= E/(2(the
denote 1 +Cartesian
υ)) is the
shear modulus. 1
components x multiplier
The plastic , y with rate
.
theλ Einstein convention
of an elasto-plastic applied
material cantobe
repeated
calculatedindices; eαβ = εαβEquation
by substituting − εγγ δ αβ
(9)
3
into Equation (7) as follows:
is the deviatoric shear strain rate tensor; K = E ( 3 (1 − 2 υ ) ) is the elastic bulk modulus; and
G = E ( 2 (1 + υ ) ) is the shear modulus. . αβ
 .
γγ ∂F αβ
. 2G ε ∂σ∂Fαβ + K − 2G 3 ε δ
The plastic multiplier rate λ = λ of an elasto-plastic

2G material
 ∂σαβ
∂F mn ∂Q can mnbe calculated by substituting (10)
2G ∂σ∂Fmn ∂σ∂Qmn + K − 3 ∂σ mn δ ∂σ mn δ
Equation (9) into Equation (7) as follows:

αβ ∂ F
3. Failure Model in the SPH Framework  2G  γγ ∂F αβ
2Gε
+K − αβ ε δ
 ∂σ  3  ∂σ αβ
λ
3.1. Drucker–Prager Model = (10)
∂F ∂ Q  2G  ∂F mn ∂Q mn
2G + K −
 1) has been
 widely δ δ
∂σ mn ∂σ(Figure
The Drucker–Prager yield criterion mn
 3  ∂σ mn
∂σ mn
used in soil and rock mechanics but
is almost unknown in the ice field. In this paper, the Drucker–Prager yield criterion with flow rules has
been prospectively used to determine the plastic regime of the ice. The validation of numerical results
3. Failure Model in the SPH Framework
in Section 5 shows that the Drucker–Prager yield criterion can be used to identify the occurrence of the
plastic deformation of ice particles in SPH.
3.1. Drucker–Prager Model

Figure
Figure1.1.The
Theyield surfaceπ
yieldsurface -planesection
π-plane sectionofofDrucker–Prager.
Drucker–Prager.

The Drucker–Prager yield criterion (Figure 1) has been widely used in soil and rock mechanics
In this study, the Drucker–Prager yield criterion can be expressed as following:
but is almost unknown in the ice field. In this paper, the Drucker–Prager yield criterion with flow
rules has been prospectively used to determine
q the plastic regime of the ice. The validation of
F (σαβ , c) = J2 (sαβ ) + αφ I1 (σαβ ) − ξc = 0 (11)
numerical results in Section 5 shows that the Drucker–Prager yield criterion can be used to identify
the occurrence of the plastic deformation of ice particles in SPH.
in which c is the ice cohesion, J2 (sαβ ) is the second invariant of the stress tensor, and I1 (σαβ ) is one
In this study, the Drucker–Prager yield criterion can be expressed as following:
third of the first invariant of the stress tensor. The parameters αφ and ξ are defined as:
F ( σ α β , c ) = J 2 ( s α β ) + α φ I 1 (σ α β ) − ξ c = 0 (11)
6 sin φ 6 cos φ
αφ = √ , ξ= √ (12)
in which c is the ice cohesion, J 2 ( sαβ 3()3 −
is sin )
the φsecond 3(3 − sin
invariant of φ ) stress tensor, and I1 (σ αβ ) is
the
one third of the first invariant of the stress tensor. The parameters αφ and ξ are defined as:

6sin φ 6 cos φ
αφ = , ξ= (12)
3(3 − sin φ ) 3(3 − sin φ )
where φ is the friction angle. In addition, the plastic potential function is also used to completely
Water 2017, 9, 882 5 of 24

where φ is the friction angle. In addition, the plastic potential function is also used to completely define
the relationship between the stress and strain. The flow rules are usually applied into SPH to simulate
solid fracture, including the associated flow rule and non-associated flow rule. In the associated flow
rules, the plastic potential function has the same form with the yield criterion, namely as:
q
Q(σαβ , c) = J2 (sαβ ) + αφ I1 (σαβ ) − ξc (13)

The non-associated plastic potential function is taken to be:

q
Q(σαβ , c) = J2 (sαβ ) + η I1 (σαβ ) (14)

where parameter η is related to dilatancy angle ϕ, which can be expressed as:

6 sin ϕ
η= √ (15)
3(3 − sin ϕ)

Substituting Equation (13) into Equations (9) and (10), the stress–strain relationship with the
associated plastic flow rule is given by:

.
 
. αβ . αβ . γγ G
σ = 2G e + K ε δαβ − λ ηKδαβ + √ sαβ (16)
J2

When F (σαβ , c) < 0, it is in pure elasticity condition:

( . αβ . γγ
. αβ 2G e + K ε δαβ i f F (σαβ , c) < 0
σ = . αβ . γγ .  (17)
2G e + K ε δαβ − λ ηKδαβ + √G sαβ else
J2

.
where the plastic multiplier rate λ is calculated for the ice model by:
. γγ . αβ
. ηK ε + √G sαβ ε
J2
λ= (18)
η2 K + G

The stress–strain equation of the ice model with the non-associated flow rule is obtained by taking
Equation (14) into Equations (9) and (10) as follows:
( . αβ . γγ
. αβ 2G e + K ε δαβ i f F (σαβ , c) < 0
σ = . αβ . γγ .  (19)
2G e + K ε δαβ − λ ηKδαβ + √G sαβ else
J2

.
where the plastic multiplier rate λ can be written as:
. γγ . αβ
. ηK ε + √G sαβ ε
J2
λ= (20)
ηηK + G

It can be seen from the above description that the main difference between the associative and
non-associative models is reflected in the dilatancy angle. In the associated flow rule ice model,
the Dilatancy angle is always equal to the friction angle, whereas dilatancy angle is optional in the
non-associated flow rule. It should be noted that according to the comparative analysis in the following
Section 5, non-associative flow rule yield more stable and precise numerical results than associative
flow rule in this paper.
Water 2017, 9, 882 6 of 24

3.2. Numerical Errors in Computational Plasticity

In computation for plastic deformation of elastic–plastic material using the Drucker–Prager yield
criterion, the numerical errors are easy to occur, which corresponds to the following condition:
q
− αφ I1n + k c < J2n (21)

In this study, a stress-rescaling procedure based on Bui et al. [33] is adopted to modify the stress.
The stress components are modified according to the following relation:

1
σαβ = r n sαβ + I (σαβ )δαβ (22)
3 1
e

This scaling factor r n at the time step n is defined by:

−αφ I1n + ξc
rn = p n (23)
J2

In addition, if the condition −αφ I1n + ζc < 0 is satisfied at the time step n, the normal stress
components need to be adjusted to the new correct values eσαβ :
 
1 n αβ ξc αβ
σαβ = σαβ +
e I1 (σ ) − δ (24)
3 αφ

When −αφ I1n + kc < J2n is satisfied, the stress tensor needs to take the plastic correction, which can
p

be expressed as:
  
 σαβ + 13 I1 (σαβ ) − ξc
αφ δ
αβ i f (−αφ I1 + ζc) < 0
σαβ = −αφ I1n +ξc αβ (25)
√n s + 13 I1
e
 (σαβ )δαβ else
J2

3.3. Cohesion Softening

In this paper, the cohesion softening law [36] needs to be used in the Drucker–Prager model to
simulate the reduction of the ice strength under external loading numerically. In addition, the cohesion
softening model can imply the time dependency of ice failure, which is validated in Section 5.2.
The model of cohesion softening is realized by making cohesion c a purely linear function of the
accumulated plastic strain (Figure 2), which is similar to:

c = c ( ε p ) = c0 + k ( ε p ) (26)

The specific cohesion softening law in this paper is shown as:

(
c0 − kε p i f c > cR
c= (27)
cR else

k is the specific softening coefficient and c R is the minimum cohesion. The accumulated plastic
strain ε p can be obtained by the associative softening law as:

. . ∂F .
ε p = −λ = λξ (28)
∂c
Water 2017,
Water 2017, 9,
9, 882
882 77 of
of 24
24
Water 2017, 9, 882 7 of 24

c
c00

Cohesion
Cohesion ( c()c )

c
cRR

Accumulated plastic strain (⎯ε )

Accumulated plastic strain (⎯εPP )

Figure 2. The softening relationship between the cohesion and the accumulated plastic strain.
Figure 2.
Figure The softening
2. The softening relationship
relationship between
between the
the cohesion
cohesion and
and the
the accumulated
accumulated plastic
plastic strain.
strain.
Because the relationship between cohesion and accumulated plastic strain is a purely
Because
mathematicalthe
Because the relationship
relationship
construct, between
it between tocohesion
cohesion
is difficult andexact
accumulated
and accumulated
obtain an plastic
plastic strain
characterization strain
is aof
purely is a purely
this mathematical
relationship.
mathematical
construct,
Accordingitto construct,
is Figure
difficult it is difficult
3,todifferent
obtain exact to
ancohesion obtain anlaws
characterization
softening exact
ofcan characterization
this relationship.
get of this
According
different results relationship.
of theto cohesion
Figure 3,
According
different to Figure
cohesion 3,
softeningdifferent
laws cohesion
can get softening
different laws
results of can
the get
cohesiondifferent results
softening
softening and the stress–strain relationships, which can make the simulation of widespread material and of
thethe cohesion
stress–strain
softening and the
relationships,
failure behaviorswhichstress–strain
can make
possible, relationships,
and the includewhich
cansimulation can makeand
of widespread
both brittle thematerial
simulation
ductile of widespread
failure
failure. behaviors
The higher material
possible,
order
failure
and canbehaviors
include
mathematical bothpossible,
equation brittle andductile
and
for cohesion cansoftening
include both
failure. law brittle
The may
higher and
order
need ductile failure.
mathematical
to simulate The higher
moreequation
complex for
and order
cohesion
precise
mathematical
softening
material failure equation
law may need for
behaviors. cohesion
to simulate
More softening
more
details complex
about lawand
the may need
precise
cohesion to simulate
material
softening more
failure
law becomplex
canbehaviors. and precise
seen inMore
Whyattdetails
and
material
about thefailure
Board [36].cohesionbehaviors.
softeningMore
law details
can be about
seen the
in cohesion
Whyatt and softening
Board law
[36]. can be seen in Whyatt and
Board [36].
0.6 2.0
0.6 k=0.1GPa 2.0 k=0.1GPa
k=0.1GPa
k=0.03GPa k=0.1GPa
k=0.03GPa
Cohesion(MPa)

k=0.03GPa
k=0.01GPa 1.5 k=0.03GPa
k=0.01GPa
Stress(MPa)
Cohesion(MPa)

k=0.01GPa 1.5 k=0.01GPa

Stress(MPa)

0.3 1.0
0.3 1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0 0.0
0.00.0 0.4 0.8 0.000
0.0 0.005 0.010
0.0 Accumulated plastic
0.4 strain (⎯ε ) 0.8 0.000 Strain
0.005 0.010
Accumulated plastic strain (⎯εPP ) Strain
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. The cohesion softening results by the different softening coefficient k in the uniaxial
Figure
Figure 3. The cohesion
3. The cohesion softening
softening results
results by
by the
the different
different softening coefficient kk in
softening coefficient in the
the uniaxial
uniaxial
compression
compression test
test in
in section
section 5.2:
5.2: (a)
(a) the
the relationship
relationship between
between the cohesion and accumulated plastic
compression
strain; and test
(b) thein section 5.2: (a)
corresponding the relationship
stress–strain between the cohesion and accumulated plastic
curves.
the cohesion and accumulated plastic
strain;
strain; and
and (b)
(b) the
the corresponding
corresponding stress–strain
stress–strain curves.
curves.
4. SPH Formulations and Corrective SPH Method
4. SPH Formulations
4. SPH Formulations and
and Corrective
Corrective SPH
SPH Method
Method
4.1. The
4.1. The Particle
Particle Approximation
Approximation and
and Spatial Derivatives
Derivatives of SPH
SPH
4.1. The Particle Approximation and Spatial
Spatial Derivatives of
of SPH
In SPH
In SPH method,
method, the
the computational
computational domain
domain isis discretized
discretized into
into aa set
set of
of particles
particles which
which carry
carry some
some
In SPH
variablessuch method,
suchas as the computational
pressure, stress, domain
velocity, is discretized
density, etc. into a set of
The smoothing particles which
kernels carry some
are used to
variables
variables such pressure,
as stress,
pressure, velocity,
stress, density,
velocity, etc. Theetc.
density, smoothing kernels arekernels
Theexpression
smoothing used to are
approximate
used to
approximate
aapproximate a
continuous aflowcontinuous flow
field. The field.
basic The basic
principle principle
of SPH of SPH
expression isexpression
that, for anyis that, for
quantity any quantity
of particle i,
continuous flow field. The basic principle of SPH is that, for
of particle i , whether a scalar or a vector, it can be approximated by the direct summation of the any quantity
of particle i , whether a scalar or a vector, it can be approximated by the direct summation of the
relevant quantities of its neighbor particles j , which is shown as:
relevant quantities of its neighbor particles j , which is shown as:
Water 2017, 9, 882 8 of 24

whether a scalar or a vector, it can be approximated by the direct summation of the relevant quantities
of its neighbor particles j, which is shown as:

Nmj
∑



f ( ri ) = f r j W rij (29)
ρ
j =1 j

and its gradient can be shown as:

Nmj
∑



∇ f ( ri ) = f r j ∇i W rij (30)
ρ
j =1 j

where i and j are the referred particle and its neighbor, respectively, and W rij is a kernel function and
has different forms. In this paper, the cubic B-spline kernel proposed by Monaghan and Lattanzio [38]
was used:

2 2 1 3
 3 − q +
2 q 0 ≤ q < 1

1 3


W rij , h = αd 6 2−q 1≤q<2 (31)
q≥2

 0

where q = r/h, αd = 15/ 7πh2 for 2D cases, and h is equal to 1.2–1.4dx (dx is the initial particle spacing).

In SPH, the mass conservation Equation (1) can be approximated as follows:

N
Dρi   ∂W
ij
Dt
= ∑ mj viα − vαj
∂xiα
(32)
j =1

where ρi is the density of particle i with velocity component vi ; and m j is the mass of particle j which
has velocity component v j . The most widely used SPH approximation of the momentum equation
(Equation (2)) is:
 
αβ αβ
dviα N σi σj ∂Wij
= ∑ m j  2 + 2 − Πij · δαβ  β + gα (33)
dt j =1 ρ i ρ j ∂x i

where Πij is the artificial viscosity, which was proposed by Monaghan [39].
Finally, the position of particle i in SPH is calculated based on the following equation:

Dxiα
= viα (34)
Dt
In addition, the XSPH method [39] is used to solve problems involving the tension. In this method,
particle i is defined based on an average velocity, which is shown as:

Dxiα N m  
j
= viα + ε ∑ vαj − viα Wij , ε ∈ [0, 1] (35)
Dt ρ
j =1 j

4.2. Artificial Stress Method

An artificial stress method presented by Monaghan [40] and Gray et al. [41] was used in many
papers to remove numerical instability [42] caused by the clumping of SPH particles when SPH is
Water 2017, 9, 882 9 of 24

applied to solid mechanics. This method adopts an artificial repulsive force. The artificial repulsive
force proposed in Gray et al. [41] is used in this paper and takes the form:
 
αβ αβ
dviα N σi σj   ∂Wij
∑ mj  − Πij · δαβ + f ijn Ri + R j
αβ αβ
= +  + gα (36)
dt j =1 ρ2i ρ2j β
∂xi

where n is the variable exponent based on the smoothing kernel. f ij is defined as

Wij
f ij = (37)
W (∆d, h)

where ∆d is the initial distance between neighbor particles. h is set to be 1.2∆d for the cubic B-spline
kernel in this paper.
αβ αβ
The Ri and R j in Equation (36) is the artificial stress tensor of particles i and j, respectively,
with the correction parameter ε (Gray et al. [41]) :

αβ αα ββ
Ri = sc( Ri + Ri ) (38)

αα ββ
Riαα = c2 Ri + s2 Ri (39)
αα ββ
= s2 R i + c2 R i
ββ
Ri (40)
σiαα
(
αα −ε ρ2
i f σiαα > 0
Ri = (41)
0 else
ββ
The same rule applies for Ri with αα replaced by ββ.
ββ
Where σiαα and σi are the new components of the stress tensor in the rotated frame:

σiαα = c2 σiαα + 2scσi + s2 σi

αβ ββ
(42)

= s2 σiαα + 2scσi + c2 σi
ββ αβ ββ
σi (43)

where c = cos θi and s = sin θi . θi is the angle of roiration for particle i, which statisfies

αβ
2σi
tan 2θi = ββ
(44)
σiαα − σi

More details about the artificial stress can be found in Gray et al. [41]. For the tests discussed in
this study, the parameter ε and n are equal to 0.3 and 4, respectively, to solve the tensile instability
problems in SPH.

4.3. Boundary Conditions

In this paper, we deal with boundary conditions by two types of particles: solid boundary particles
and mirror particles.
The solid boundary is fixed by the particles, which may prevent the real ice particles from
penetrating the solid wall (Figure 4). The boundary particles contribute to the velocity and stress
gradients for the real ice particles near the boundary. These boundary particles have the same velocity
 
The same rule applies for R iβ β with α α replaced by ββ .
where σ iαα and σ iββ are the new components of the stress tensor in the rotated frame:

Water 2017, 9, 882

σ iαα = c 2σ iαα + 2 scσ iαβ + s 2σ iββ 10 of 24
(42)

σ iββ =iss 2set

density as the solid wall and their density σ iααequal
+ 2 sc αβ
i + c 2σ iββ
toσreference (43)
density. The stresses of the boundary
particles on the solid boundary are calculated by using:
where c = cos θ i and s = sin θ i . θ i is the angle of roiration for particle i ,which statisfies
N αβ αβ
σi2σW
tanαβ2θ i =i∑1 αα
i wi
(44)
σw = =σ − σ iββ (45)
Ni
∑ Wwi
More details about the artificial stress can be ifound
=1 in Gray et al. [41]. For the tests discussed in
this study, the parameter ε and n are equal to 0.3 and 4, respectively, to solve the tensile instability
αβ
where
problems the stress of the particle w on a boundary solid boundary; i is its neighboring particle
is SPH.
σw in
and i can only be the real ice particle; and N is the number of particles in the support domain of wall
4.3. Boundary
boundary Conditions
particle w.

boundary.
Figure 4. The treatment of the solid boundary.

In addition,
In this paper, thewe deal particle
mirror with boundary
(Figure 4)conditions by two types
method following of particles:
Libersky and Petschek solid[43]
boundary
is also
particles and mirror particles.
used to simulate the solid boundary with the free-slip condition. For each real particle i that is close to
The asolid boundary
particle iis fixed by the particles, which may prevent the real ice particles from
the wall, mirror mir is set by a direct reflection of particle i across the boundary. The mirror
particle imir has the same tangential4).
penetrating the solid wall (Figure The boundary
velocity particles
(vimir ,t ) with that ofcontribute to the
real particle: vimir ,tvelocity
= vi,t toand stress
simulate
gradients for the real ice particles near the boundary. These boundary particles have
the free-slip boundary condition. The normal velocity (vimir ,n ) of imir is set opposite to that of real the same velocity
density vas the=solid
particle vi,n towall and the
prevent their
realdensity is from
particles set equal to reference
penetrating density.asThe
the boundary stresses
shown of the
in Figure 4.
imir ,n
boundary particles on the solid boundary are calculated by using:
The density and stress tensors of mirror particles are set to be equal to those of real ice particles.

4.4. Corrective SPH Method

The strain rate of the tensor Equation (4) needs to be converted into the discrete form to get the
stress rate based on the generalized Hooke’s law. In standard SPH, the strain rate is obtained by:
" #
N N
. αβ 1   ∂W
ij
  ∂W
ij
∑ +∑
β β
ε = m j vαj − viα mj vj − vi (46)
2 j =1
β
∂xi j =1
∂xiα

The standard SPH algorithm is lack of high accuracy due to kernel approximation of its first-order
derivative, such as Equation (46). To overcome the shortcomings in first order derivative accuracy of
the original SPH, this paper adopts the Simplified Finite Difference Interpolation (SPH_SFDI) method
to calculate the strain rate of the ice particles, more details about SFDI method can be found in Ma [37].
According to the results in Zheng et al. [44], SFDI can be a very good option as a high order accuracy.
For the purpose of the completion of theory, the formulas of strain rate of the tensor in 2D case can be
shown as:
!
N ni,α Bij,β − ni,β Bij,α  α N ni,β Bij,α − ni,α Bij,β  β
. αβ 1  
2 j=∑
v j − vi + ∑
β
ε = α
v j − vi (47)
1,j6=i
ni,x ni,y − ni,αβ 2 j=1,j6=i
ni,x ni,y − ni,αβ 2

N (r m m 2 N (r m m k k (r m m
j −ri ) j −ri )(r j −ri ) j −ri )
∑ ∑




where ni,m = 2 W rij , ni,mk = 2 W rij , Bij,m = 2 W rij ,
j=1,j6=i |r j −ri | j=1,j6=i | r j − ri | | r j − ri |
in which α = x, y, β = x, y and m = x, k = y or m = y, k = x, and N is the neighbor particle number
Water 2017, 9, 882 11 of 24

of particle i, r m j is the component of the position vector in x or y direction. Similarly, the derivative of
other variables can also be calculated by this corrective method.
To justify that the SFDI method is more effective than the standard SPH method for the strain
rate calculation. Figure 5 shows the comparison of the bending stress in the middle of the ice beam for
four-point bending of the ice beam which will be discussed in Section 5.2. In Figure 5, the standard
formula
Water 2017,is9,referred
882 to Equation (46) and the SFDI is referred to Equation (47). 11 of 24

0.5
Theoretical value
Standard formula
SFDI
Stress (MPa)

0.0

-0.5
0.0 0.5 1.0
t(s)
Figure 5.5. The
Figure The stress
stress comparison
comparison of
of theoretical
theoretical value
value and
andnumerical
numerical results:
results: the
the traditional
traditional formula
formula
(Equation (46)) and the SFDI scheme (Equation
(Equation (46)) and the SFDI scheme (Equation (47)). (47)).

According to the comparison of Figure 5, the results from SFDI scheme can get better agreement
According to the comparison of Figure 5, the results from SFDI scheme can get better agreement
with the theoretical value than the ones of traditional equation. Especially when the fracture failure
with the theoretical value than the ones of traditional equation. Especially when the fracture failure
start to occur in the ice beam at about t = 0.45 s, the stress values by standard formula deviates from
start to occur in the ice beam at about t = 0.45 s, the stress values by standard formula deviates from
theoretical results obviously. The source of discrepancy is expected to be that the accuracy of strain
theoretical results obviously. The source of discrepancy is expected to be that the accuracy of strain
rate in the standard formula is less than the ones in the SFDI scheme.
rate in the standard formula is less than the ones in the SFDI scheme.
In SPH_SFDI, the main procedures of numerical implementation of failure model of ice are
In SPH_SFDI, the main procedures of numerical implementation of failure model of ice are shown
shown as follows:
as follows: αβ
(1) Calculate the values of ε and σ αβ from Equations (47), (17) or (19).
. αβ . αβ
(1) Calculatethe
(2) Calculate thestress
values of ε and σσ αβfrom
components Equations
based (47), (17)stress
on the obtained rate σ .
or (19). αβ

(3) Check the the

stress state and judgeσαβ whether thethecorresponding . αβ
(2) Calculate stress components based on obtained stressstress
rate σneed. to be corrected: if
−α φ ICheck
(3)
n
1 + kc <
n
the Jstress
2
, thestate
stressand
need to be whether
judge modifiedthe
by Equation (25). stress need to be corrected:
corresponding
n
p n
if −αφ I1 +Cohesion
(4) Implement k c < Jsoftening
2 , the stress needbased
model to be on
modified by (27).
Equation Equation (25).
(4) Implement Cohesion softening model based on Equation (27).
5. Numerical Simulations
5. Numerical Simulations
In this section, we firstly use the elastic vibration of a cantilever beam to verify the feasibility of
In
SPH_SFDI this method
section, in
wesolid
firstly use the elastic
mechanics. To testvibration of a cantilever
the effectiveness of the beam to verify
SPH_SFDI the feasibility
for simulating the
of SPH_SFDI
failure method
progress of ice,intwo
solid mechanics.
typical To included:
tests are test the effectiveness of the SPH_SFDI
the ice four-point bending andfor uniaxial
simulatingice
the failure progress
compressive of ice,
test. The two typical
enhanced tests are of
performance included: the ice four-point
the SPH_SFDI algorithm bending and uniaxial
will be demonstrated
ice compressive
through test. Thecomparisons
the quantitative enhanced performance of the SPH_SFDI
with the standard algorithm will
SPH and experimental be demonstrated
data.
through the quantitative comparisons with the standard SPH and experimental data.
5.1. Elastic Vibration of a Cantilever Beam
5.1. Elastic Vibration of a Cantilever Beam
The elastic vibration of a cantilever beam is used as a benchmark test to verify the reliability of
The elastic vibration of a cantilever beam is used as a benchmark test to verify the reliability of
the SPH_SFDI model for the calculation of solid mechanics. The cantilever beam is shown in Figure
the SPH_SFDI model for the calculation of solid mechanics. The cantilever beam is shown in Figure 6,
6, the dynamic load P is acting at the free end of the cantilever beam. The length L = 48 m, the height
the dynamic load P is acting at the free end of the cantilever beam. The length L = 48 m, the height
is D = 12 m, the elastic modulus is E = 3.0 × 1077 N/m22, the Poisson’s ratio is υ = 0.3 , and the mass
is D = 12 m, the elastic modulus is E = 3.0 × 10 N/m , the Poisson’s ratio is υ = 0.3, and the mass
density is P = 1 kg/m3. External excitation force P = 1000 g (t ) and g (t ) is a function related to time.
density is P = 1 kg/m3 . External excitation force P = 1000g(t) and g(t) is a function related to time.
5.1. Elastic Vibration of a Cantilever Beam
The elastic vibration of a cantilever beam is used as a benchmark test to verify the reliability of
the SPH_SFDI model for the calculation of solid mechanics. The cantilever beam is shown in Figure
6, the dynamic load P is acting at the free end of the cantilever beam. The length L = 48 m, the height
Water 882the elastic modulus is E = 3.0 × 107 N/m2, the Poisson’s ratio is υ = 0.3 , and the12mass
= 12 9,m,
is D 2017, of 24
density is P = 1 kg/m3. External excitation force P = 1000 g (t ) and g (t ) is a function related to time.

Water 2017, 9, 882 12 of 24

Figure 6. The cantilever beam and the dynamic loads.

Figure 6. The cantilever beam and the dynamic loads.
A simple harmonic load g (t ) = sin ω t is considered. ω is the frequency of harmonic load
and in simple
A this case ω−=1 27 sload
harmonic g(t) =7 sin
−1. Figure ωt isthe
shows considered.
comparisonω is
ofthe
thefrequency of harmonic
displacement load and
in y direction in
of the
this
free case
end of = 27
ω the s . Figure
cantilever y ) between
beam7 (shows the comparison of the
the SPH and displacement
SPH_SFDI results in y direction
with of the free
10,000 particles and
end of the cantilever beam (y) between the SPH and SPH_SFDI results with 10,000 particles and the
the finite element method (FEM) solution from Long [45]. This shows that the displacement time
finite element method (FEM) solution from Long [45]. This shows that the displacement time histories
histories computed by the SPH_SFDI method shares a better agreement with the FEM data than the
computed by the SPH_SFDI method shares a better agreement with the FEM data than the SPH result.
SPH result.

0.30
FEM
SPH
0.15 SPH_SFDI
y(m)

0.00

-0.15

-0.30
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
t(s)

Figure
Figure 7. Comparisonof
7. Comparison ofSPH
SPHresults
results with
with experimental
experimental data: displacement yyversus
data: displacement versustime
timeplot.
plot.

To evaluate
To evaluate the
the enhanced
enhanced performance
performance of SPH_SFDI method further,further, the convergence properties
of the
of theSPHSPHandandSPH_SFDI
SPH_SFDI models
models areare
nownow examined
examined in terms
in terms of theof the displacement
displacement y . purpose,
y. For this For this
the time histories
purpose, the time of displacement
histories computed
of displacement by SPH and
computed SPH_SFDI
by SPH are presented
and SPH_SFDI in Figure
are presented in 8Figure
with
the different
8 with particleparticle
the different numbers. FigureFigure
numbers. 9 gives9 the convergence
gives tests on
the convergence displacement,
tests in which
on displacement, N is
in which
N total
the is theparticle number
total particle and different
number valuesvalues
and different using using
1600, 3600,
1600, 6400
3600, and
640010,000 are analyzed
and 10,000 here.
are analyzed
here. The relative error Err is defined as the errors between FEM result and SPH, SPH_SFDI results,
The relative error Err is defined as the errors between FEM result and SPH, SPH_SFDI results, which
are
whichcalculated by Err =
are calculated 0 −=
by|yErr y|/y
y00− y y0 y, where
, where is the computed
y is the displacement by SPH andbySPH_SFDI
computed displacement SPH and
from t = 0.0 s to t = 2.0 s, y0 is the displacement of FEM from t = 0.0 s to t = 2.0 s. It is shown in Figure 8
SPH_SFDI
that from
the error t = 0.0
of force s to t =as2.0
decreases y0 is the
thes,particle displacement
number FEM from t for
increasesofunanimously = 0.0 t SPH
s tothe
both = 2.0and
s. It
SPH_ SFDI
is shown inapproaches.
Figure 8 thatThis
the indicates the convergence
error of force decreases asof allparticle
the numerical models.
number However,
increases the error
unanimously
magnitude
for both theof SPH_SFDI
SPH and SPH_isSFDI
muchapproaches.
smaller than
Thisthat of SPH.the
indicates Besides, we could
convergence of allalso conclude
numerical from
models.
Figure
However,9 that
thethe convergence
error magnitudeof ofSPH_ SFDI is
SPH_SFDI method is muchthan
much smaller better
thatthan that of
of SPH. the SPH,
Besides, we in thatalso
could the
errors of the
conclude former
from reduce
Figure more
9 that rapidly following
the convergence the refinement
of SPH_ SFDI method of spatial
is much resolutions.
better than that of the
SPH, in that the errors of the former reduce more rapidly following the refinement of spatial
resolutions.
Water 2017, 9, 882 13 of 24
Water 2017,
Water 2017, 9,
9, 882
882 13 of
13 of 24
24

0.30 FEM
FEM
SPH N=1600
SPH N=1600
SPH N=3600
SPH N=3600
0.15 SPH N=6400
SPH N=6400
SPH N=10,000
SPH N=10,000
y(m)
y(m)
0.00

-0.15

-0.30
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
t(s)
(a) SPH
FEM
FEM
0.30
SPH_SFDI N=1600
SPH_SFDI N=1600
SPH_SFDI N=3600
SPH_SFDI N=3600
0.15 SPH_SFDI N=6400
SPH_SFDI N=6400
SPH_SFDI N=10,000
SPH_SFDI N=10,000
y(m)
y(m)

0.00

-0.15

-0.30
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
t(s)
(b) SPH_SFDI

Figure 8.8. The

Figure Thetime
timehistories
histories
of of displacement
displacement
y obtained
y obtained by: (a)by:
SPH(a) SPH
and (b) and (b) SPH_SFDI
SPH_SFDI with
with different
differentnumbers.
particle particle numbers.

SPH
0.0 SPH_SFDI
Log(Erpp))
Log(Er

-0.5

-1.0

3.2 3.6 4.0

Log(M )

of displacement
9. Convergence tests of
Figure 9. displacement by
by different
different SPH
SPH methods.
methods.

5.2. Four-Point Pending of Ice Beam

The ice four-point bending experiment was conducted by Kujala et al. [4]. In their work, a
loading rig was used to bend the ice beam upward during the experiments. In addition, they used a
hydraulic cylinder to push two moving supports to produce a force, which were located 1 m apart in
 Water 2017, 9, 882 14 of 24

5.2. Four-Point Pending of Ice Beam

The ice four-point bending experiment was conducted by Kujala et al. [4]. In their work, a loading
rig was used to bend the ice beam upward during the experiments. In addition, they used a hydraulic
Water 2017, 9, 882 14 of 24
cylinder to push two moving supports to produce a force, which were located 1 m apart in the middle
of the
the beam,
middle of so
theitbeam,
can bendso itthecanice
bendbeamtheupward.
ice beamAtupward.
the sameAttime, two fixed
the same time,supports,
two fixedwhich were
supports,
4 m apart, were placed at both ends of the beam to against the ice
which were 4 m apart, were placed at both ends of the beam to against the ice beam. The detailed beam. The detailed resulting
measurements
resulting can be found
measurements can be infound
Ehlersin and Kujala
Ehlers and[46].
Kujala [46].
In this section, the ice beam, the upper and
In this section, the ice beam, the upper and lower supports
Water 2017 , 9 , 882 lower supports areare modeled
modeledwith withthetheparticles,
14 of 24which
particles, whichis
shown in Figure 10. In total, 2768 particles are used for generating the
is shown in Figure 10. In total, 2768 particles are used for generating the ice beam. The length and the ice beam. The length and
the middle of the beam, so it can bend the ice beam upward. At the same time, two fixed supports,
the height theof the beamL are L = 4.325and m and Hm,= respectively.
0.4 m, respectively. The ofvelocity of twoupwardmoving
height ofwhich beam
were are = 4.325
4 m apart, were m placed atHboth
= 0.4
ends The velocity
of the beam to against twoThe
the ice beam. moving
detailed
upward supports
supportsresulting
is 0.00275 is 0.00275 m/s.
m/s. The elastic
measurements
The
can be modulus
elastic modulus
of the
found in Ehlers
of
iceKujala
and
the
beam[46]. is E =
is E = 4.5 GPa, the cohesion is c = 0.58is
ice beam 4.5 GPa, the cohesion
c = 0.58 Mpa, this andsection,
the friction angle ◦
is 36 . The
Mpa, and theInfriction the is
ice 36 ° the
beam, . Theupper anddilatancy
lower angle ϕmodeled
supports in the non-associative plastic rule is
angle dilatancy angle ϕ in are with the particles,
the non-associative plasticwhich
rule is one-
one-third of theinfriction
is shown angle
Figure 10. (ϕ =
In total, 2768 particles are used for generating the ice beam. The length and the
φ/3).
third of the friction angle ( ϕ L= φ 3 ).
height of the beam are = 4.325 m and H = 0.4 m, respectively. The velocity of two moving upward
supports is 0.00275 m/s. The elastic modulus of the ice beam is E = 4.5 GPa, the cohesion is c = 0.58
Mpa, and the friction angle is 36 ° . The dilatancy angle ϕ in the non-associative plastic rule is one-
third of the friction angle ( ϕ = φ 3 ).

Figure
Figure10.
10.Computational
Computationalmodel
modelofofthe
theice
icebeam.
beam.

To show the fracture patterns clearly,

Figure Figure 11model
10. Computational gives of the results
the ice beam. obtained by SPH_SFDI using
To show the fracture patterns clearly, Figure 11 gives the results obtained by SPH_SFDI using
the non-associative flow rule at different time. As shown in Figure 11a, two fracture cracks obviously
the non-associative flow rule at different time. As shown intheFigure
results11a, two fracture cracks obviously
occur at the To showarea
upper the fracture
by twopatterns
moving clearly, Figure
supports and11 gives
the ice beam obtained
breaks by SPH_SFDI
into using
three sections. Then
occur atthe
the upper area by
non-associative two
flow rulemoving supports
at different time. Asand theinice
shown beam
Figure breaks
11a, into three
two fracture crackssections.
obviouslyThen the
the cracks in the ice beam widen and two sections of ice beams on either side of the two bottom
occur
cracks in the aticethebeam
upperwiden
area byand
twotwomoving supports
sections andbeams
of ice the iceon beam breaks
either side into
of three sections.
the two bottomThensupports
supportsthe
sink downward
cracks in the iceas shown
beam widen in and
Figure
two12b. As the
sections two
of ice supports
beams on eithermovesideupof slowly, the cracks in
the two bottom
sink downward as shown in Figure 12b. As the two supports move up slowly, the cracks in the ice
the ice beam
supportswidensink and the iceasbeam
downward showneventually
in Figure 12b. breaks
As theinto three sections
two supports move up asslowly,
showntheincracks
Figure
in 12c. It
beam widen and the ice beam eventually breaks into three sections as shown in Figure 12c. It need to
need to the
highlight
ice beamthe widen point thaticeinbeam
and the oureventually
numerical results,
breaks duesections
into three to theascomplete symmetry
shown in Figure 12c. It of the
highlight
needthetopoint that the
in our numericalin ourresults, dueresults,
to the duecomplete symmetry of the characteristics
characteristics ofhighlight
ice beam point
and thethat
external numerical
loading and supporting to thecondition,
complete symmetry
the fractureof the
location
of ice beam and the external
characteristics of ice beamloading
and theand supporting
external condition,
loading and supporting thecondition,
fracture location of location
the fracture the ice beam is
of the ice beam is almost completely symmetric, which is not completely consistent with that in the
of the ice beam
almost completely is almost completely
symmetric, which is not symmetric, whichconsistent
completely is not completely
with thatconsistent
in thewith that in the results.
experimental
experimental results.results.
experimental
In addition, there are slight crushing failures at the place contacted with the
In addition, there are slightIncrushing
addition, failures
there areat slight crushing
the place failures at
contacted the place
with contacted
the upper twowithfixedthe
supports,
upper twoupperfixed
twosupports, as the
fixed supports, twotwo
as the upper
upper supports
supports are fixedand
are fixed and thethe
ice ice
beambeam
has ahas a tendency
tendency to to
as the two upper supports are fixed and the ice beam has a tendency to move upward.
move upward.
move upward.

ε p :εp:

(a) t =2.75 s

(a) t =2.75 s

(b) t =4.5 s

Figure 11. Cont.

(b) t =4.5 s
 Water 2017, 9, 882 15 of 24

Water 2017, 9, 882 15 of 24

Water 2017, 9, 882 15 of 24

(c) t =6.05 s
Figure 11. Predicted fracture patterns of accumulated plastic strain by SPH_SFDI at different time.

The snapshots of the failure path predicted by SPH and SPH_SFDI using non-associative flow
rule at t = 2.75 s are shown in Figure 7. According to the results of Figure 7, the ice beam breaks into
three segments which can be obtained both by the standard SPH and SPH_SFDI. The fracture points
of the horizontal coordinate on lower two (c) moving
t =6.05supports
s by standard SPH show the apparent
inward deviation compared with the ones of SPH_SFDI. Furthermore, it can be easily observed that
Figure 11.
the particle Predicted fracture
distributions patterns
forpatterns
the of accumulated
results of standardplastic
SPHstrain
are by chaotic,
in SPH_SFDIwhereas
at different time.
Figure 11. Predicted fracture of accumulated plastic strain by SPH_SFDI atthe resultstime.
different of
SPH_SFDI are more stable and reliable.
The snapshots of the failure path predicted by SPH and SPH_SFDI using non-associative flow
rule at t = 2.75 s are shown in Figure 7. According to the results of Figure 7, the ice beam breaks into
εp:
three segments which can be obtained both by the standard SPH and SPH_SFDI. The fracture points
of the horizontal coordinate on lower two moving supports by standard SPH show the apparent
inward deviation compared with the ones of SPH_SFDI. Furthermore, it can be easily observed that
the particle distributions for the results of standard SPH are in chaotic, whereas the results of
SPH_SFDI are more stable and reliable.

εp:

(a) Standard SPH

(a) Standard SPH

(b) SPH_SFDI
Figure 12. Enlarged partial views of accumulated plastic strain of the failure path in the ice beam: (a)
Figure 12. Enlarged
standard partial
SPH; and views of accumulated plastic strain of the failure path in the ice beam:
(b) SPH_SFDI.
(a) standard SPH; and (b) SPH_SFDI.
To show the accuracy of numerical solutions of standard SPH and SPH_SFDI, Figure 13 gives
the comparison of the force time histories among stand SPH, SPH_SFDI and the experimental data
The snapshots of the failure path predicted by SPH and SPH_SFDI using non-associative flow
[46]. The relationship between external force and flexural stress according to ITTC [47] is defined as:
rule at t = 2.75 s are shown in Figure 7. According(b) SPH_SFDIto the results of Figure 7, the ice beam breaks
into three segments whichpartial
Figure 12. Enlarged can be obtained
views bothplastic
of accumulated by the standard
strain SPH
of the failure and
path SPH_SFDI.
in the ice beam: (a) The fracture
standard SPH; and (b) SPH_SFDI.
points of the horizontal coordinate on lower two moving supports by standard SPH show the apparent
inward deviation compared with the ones of SPH_SFDI. Furthermore, it can be easily observed that the
To show the accuracy of numerical solutions of standard SPH and SPH_SFDI, Figure 13 gives
particlethe
distributions
comparison offor thethe results
force of standard
time histories amongSPH are
stand in chaotic,
SPH, SPH_SFDI whereas
and the the results ofdata
experimental SPH_SFDI
are more[46].stable and reliable.
The relationship between external force and flexural stress according to ITTC [47] is defined as:
To show the accuracy of numerical solutions of standard SPH and SPH_SFDI, Figure 13 gives the
comparison of the force time histories among stand SPH, SPH_SFDI and the experimental data [46].
The relationship between external force and flexural stress according to ITTC [47] is defined as:

σBH 2
F= (48)
6L0
 σ BH 2
F= (48)
6 L0
Water 2017, 9, 882 16 of 24
where
Water B is
2017, the
9, 882 width of 3D ice beam. We use the same value of B as that in the experiment of Kujala
16 of 24
et al. [4]. L0 is the distance between the fixed support
σ BH 2and the bottom moving support on the same
F=
side. σB isis the
where flexural
width stress
of 3Dgenerated
ice beam.by bending
We use of the6ice0
beam.
Lsame
(48)
value of B as that in the experiment of
According to the results in Figure 13, the numerical results of SPH_SFDImoving have obviouslyon better
Kujala etwhere B isL0the
al. [4]. is width
the distance
of 3D icebetween
beam. We the
use fixed
the same support
value ofand
B asthe
thatbottom
in the experiment support
of Kujala the
agreement
same side. with the
is flexural experimental
stress data
generated than the ones of standard SPH results. With the accuracy
σ [4].
et al. L0 is the distance between by
the bending of ice
fixed support andbeam.
the bottom moving support on the same
improvement
According oftothethe gradient
results approximation,
in Figure 13, the the force time
numerical histories
results and fractured
of SPH_SFDI crack of the
have obviously ice
better
side. σ is flexural stress generated by bending of ice beam.
beam bending
agreement with can get more
the experimental accurate and reliable results than the ones of standard SPH.
According to the results indata
Figurethan thenumerical
13, the ones ofresults
standard SPH results.
of SPH_SFDI With the
have obviously accuracy
better
improvement
agreementof the withgradient approximation,
8the experimental data than the
the force
ones oftime histories
standard SPH and fractured
results. With thecrack of the ice
accuracy
improvement
beam bending can get of more
the gradient EXP
approximation,
accurate and reliable theresults
force time
thanhistories
the onesandoffractured
standard crack
SPH.of the ice
beam bending can get more accurate SPH and reliable results than the ones of standard SPH.
6 8 SPH_SFDI
EXP
SPH
F(kN)

6 SPH_SFDI
4
F(kN)

4
2
2

0
0.00 0 0.25 0.50
0.00 t(s)
0.25 0.50
t(s)
Figure 13. Comparisons of external force among experimental data and different SPH results.
Figure 13. Comparisons of external force among experimental data and different SPH results.
Figure 13. Comparisons of external force among experimental data and different SPH results.
To validate that the
To validate thatnumerical model
the numerical modelcan cansimulate thefailure
simulate the failureof of
ice ice
beambeam at different
at different times times
effectively, the failure
To validate that
effectively, of ice
the
the failure ofbeam
numerical with
ice beam thethe
model
with same
can material
samesimulate parameters
the failure
material parameters above
of ice
above under
beam
under two
at
two extra extra moving
different
moving times
velocities of upward
velocities of supports,
upward such
supports, V
such V= 0.001842
= 0.001842 m/s
m/s and
and
effectively, the failure of ice beam with 1the1 same material parameters VV2 2
= = 0.003225
0.003225 m/s m/s
are are
also also considered.
considered.
above under two extra moving
velocities
Figure 14Figure
of
gives 14the
upward gives the comparison
supports,
comparison such ofVthe
of the =force
1force
versusm/s
0.001842
versus time and
time curve
curveVunder different
= 0.003225
2 under moving
m/s
different arevelocities
moving of
alsovelocities
considered. of
Figure two upward
14 gives supports
the comparison among SPH_SFDI
of the forceand and
versus the experimental data [46]. In addition, in Table 1, the
two upward supports among SPH_SFDI the time curve under
experimental datadifferent
[46]. In moving
addition, velocities
in Tableof1,two the
results from SPH_SFDI has been compared with experiment tests in terms of the failure force F ′ ,
upward supports
results from amonghas
SPH_SFDI SPH_SFDI and the experimental
been compared with experiment data tests
[46]. In
in addition,
terms of thein Table
failure1, the F
results
force ′,
failure time t ′ and the corresponding deflection δ . The good agreement between the numerical
from resultst ′and
SPH_SFDI
failure time has
and been
thethe compared
corresponding
experiment with experiment
data can bedeflection δ . The
obtained clearlytests in terms
good
in Figure of the
14 agreement failure force
between
and Table 1, although F 0 , failure time
theexists
there numerical
0 and the corresponding deflection δ. The good agreement between the numerical results and the
tresults and
some the experiment
little data can
difference. Thus, be obtained
the presented clearlymodel
SPH_SFDI in Figure 14 and
including Table 1, softening
the cohesion althoughmodel there exists
experiment
some little data can
candifference.
imply be
the time obtained
Thus,dependent clearly
of ice in
the presented Figure
failure
SPH_SFDIand 14
getand
goodTable
model 1, although
simulated
including results there
for
the cohesion exists
ice failure
softeningsomemodel
with little
different
difference. Thus, loading
the rates.
presented SPH_SFDI model including the cohesion
can imply the time dependent of ice failure and get good simulated results for ice failure with softening model can imply the
8 8
time dependent
different loadingofrates.
ice
EXPfailure and get good simulated results forEXP ice failure with different loading rates.
SPH_SFDI SPH_SFDI
6 6
8 8
EXP
F(kN)

EXP
F(kN)

4 SPH_SFDI 4 SPH_SFDI
6 6
2 2
F(kN)

F(kN)

4 4
0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
t(s) t(s)
2 2
(a) (b)

0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
t(s) t(s)
(a) (b)

Figure 14. Comparison of force versus time plot of the ice beams by numerical results and
experimental data with different velocities of two moving upward supports: (a) V1 = 0.001842 m/s;
and (b) V2 = 0.003225 m/s.
 Water 2017, 9, 882 17 of 24

Figure 14. Comparison of force versus time plot of the ice beams by numerical results and
experimental data with different velocities of two moving upward supports: (a) V1 = 0.001842 m/s;
Water 2017, 9, 882 17 of 24
and (b) V2 = 0.003225 m/s.

Water
Table 1., 9Comparison
2017 , 882 of SPH_SFDI
Table 1. Comparison andand
of SPH_SFDI experiment data
experiment with
data different
with loading
different
17 of 24
velocities.
loading velocities.
Figure 14. Comparison of force 0 versus time plot of the ice beams by0 numerical results and
Approach F0 (V
Approach F 1′ )( V1 ) tvelocities
experimental data with different
t ′ (1V
(V ) 1 ) δffi(V
of two moving
FF0′(V
( V11) upward ) ) tt′ (V
( V2supports:
2 δffi(V
V22))V = 0.001842
( (a) V
( 22) )m/s;
1

and EXP EXP

(b) V2
6.87
= 0.003225 kNkN 0.40
6.87
m/s. s
0.40 s 1.29
1.29mm
mm 6.87 kN
6.87 kN 0.57 ss
0.57 1.05 mm
1.05 mm
SPH_SFDI
SPH_SFDI 6.95 kNkN 0.39
6.95 s s
0.39 1.24 mm
1.24 mm 6.98 kN
6.98 kN 0.59 ss
0.59 1.15
1.15mm
mm
Note: V1 = 0.001842
and m/s; V2 = 0.003225 m/s.
Table 1. Comparison
Note: V = 0.001842
of SPH_SFDI
1
experiment
m/s; Vdata with different
= 0.003225
2
m/s loading velocities.
Approach F ′ ( V1 ) t ′ ( V1 ) δ ( V1 ) F ′ ( V2 ) t ′ ( V2 ) δ ( V2 )
ToToshowshowthetheeffects
effectsof different
of different plastic
plasticflowflowrules, Figure
rules, Figure 15 15
gives
givesthethecomparisons
comparisons of of
thethe
force
force
EXP 6.87 kN 0.40 s 1.29 mm 6.87 kN 0.57 s 1.05 mm
time
timehistories byby
histories SPH_SFDI
SPH_SFDI with
withassociative
associative plastic
plastic flow
flow(Equation
(Equation (17)) and
(17)) andnon-associative
non-associative plastic
plastic
SPH_SFDI 6.95 kN 0.39 s 1.24 mm 6.98 kN 0.59 s 1.15 mm
flow
flow(Equation
(Equation (19)). ToTo
(19)). show
show thethe
difference
difference between
between associative
associative and andnon-associative
non-associative plastic flow
plastic flow
Note: V1 = 0.001842 m/s; V2 = 0.003225 m/s
clearly, Figure
clearly, Figure16 16
gives thethe
gives snapshots
snapshots of the cracks
of the cracks in inthethe
brittle
brittle failure
failureprocess
process obtained
obtained byby SPH_SFDI
SPH_SFDI
with
with To show
associative
associative andandthe effects of different
non-associative
non-associative flow plastic
flowrule flow
rule at at =t 2.75
trules, =Figure
s. The
2.75 15 The
s. gives
force theobtained
force comparisons
obtained of
by by the
the force
associative
the associative
rule time
is basicallyhistories by
consistent SPH_SFDI
with with
thethe associative
experimental plastic
data flow
and (Equation
thethe (17))
failure and
paths non-associative
areare
also plastic
consistent with
rule is basically consistent with experimental data and failure paths also consistent with
flow (Equation (19)). To show the difference between associative and non-associative plastic flow
thethe
non-associative
non-associative flow
flow rule.
rule.According
Accordingtotothe theresults
resultsofofFigureFigure16,16,thethe particles
particles onon thethe
cracks,
cracks,
clearly, Figure 16 gives the snapshots of the cracks in the brittle failure process obtained by SPH_SFDI
especially
especiallynearnear
with the left
thebottom
associative support,
left non-associative
and bottom areflow
support,slightly
areat
rule disordered
slightly s.by associative
t = 2.75 disordered
The by flow
force obtained byrule.
associative In comparison,
flow rule. In
the associative
comparison,
these particles thesethe
rule isnear
basicallyparticles near
same domain
consistent withthe aresame
the moredomain
regular
experimental are
dataand more
and reliableregular
the failure andare
bypaths reliable
non-associative byflow
non-associative
also consistent rule.
with
flow rule.
the non-associative flow rule. According to the results of Figure 16, the particles on the cracks,
especially near8 the left bottom support, are slightly disordered by associative flow rule. In
EXP
comparison, these particles near the same domain are more regular and reliable by non-associative
flow rule. SPH_SFDI Associative
8 SPH_SFDI Non-associative
6 EXP
SPH_SFDI Associative
6 SPH_SFDI Non-associative
F(kN)

4
F(kN)

2
2

0
0.000 0.25 0.50
0.00 0.25 0.50
t(s)
t(s)
Figure
Figure 15. Comparisons
15.Figure 15. Comparisons
Comparisons of the
of the of force
the
force time
force
time timehistories
histories
histories among
among
among experimental
experimental
experimental data
datadata
and and SPH_SFDI
SPH_SFDI
and results
SPH_SFDI results
results
with different
with flow
different rules.
flow
with different flow rules. rules.

εp:
εp:

(a)

Figure 16. Cont.

(a)
Water 2017, 9, 882 18 of 24
Water 2017, 9, 882 18 of 24

Water 2017, 9, 882 18 of 24

(b)
Figure 16. Snapshot of the failure paths of accumulated plastic strain in SPH_SFDI results with
Figure 16. Snapshot of the failure paths of accumulated plastic strain in SPH_SFDI results with different
different flow rules: (a) associative flow rule; and (b) non-associative flow rule.
flow rules: (a) associative flow rule; and (b) non-associative flow rule.
(b)
5.3. Uniaxial Compressive Test of Ice Specimen
5.3. UniaxialFigure 16. Snapshot
Compressive Test
In this section,
ofofthe
it will Ice failure paths of accumulated plastic strain in SPH_SFDI results with
Specimen
justify the efficiency of SPH_SFDI scheme for the ice compressed behavior
different flow rules: (a) associative flow rule; and (b) non-associative flow rule.
simulation. Uniaxial compression of ice specimen is one of the most introduced benchmarks in this
In this section, it will justify the efficiency of SPH_SFDI scheme for the ice compressed behavior
field. A two-dimensional rectangle ice specimen will be considered. The width ( D ) and height ( H )
5.3. Uniaxial
simulation. Uniaxial Compressive Test of Ice
compression of Specimen
ice
of the ice specimen are 7 cm and 17.5specimen is oneThe
cm, respectively. of the most geometry
schematic introduced benchmarks
of this model can bein this
field. A two-dimensional
In this
shown insection,
Figure 17. rectangle
it will
An justify ice specimen
the efficiency
axial velocity will
of SPH_SFDI
with vertical be considered.
downwardscheme The
for the on
is loaded width
ice the
compressed(D) and which
height (H)
behavior
upper platen,
simulation.
of the ice specimen
is Uniaxial
of the value compression
are0.0034675
7 cm and m/s.17.5
Theofcm,
ice respectively.
specimen
experiment of is
theone of the
The
same most
schematic
scale modelintroduced
geometry
was benchmarks
conducted of this in
et this
by Limodelal. [7]can be
shown in field.
and AZhang
Figure two-dimensional
17.[48].
An Two rectangle
axialrigid icethe
plates with
velocity on specimen
top andwill
vertical bottombe considered.
downward deal with The boundary,
solid
is loaded width
on the ( D upper
)which
and height
can ( H which
)
support
platen, is
of the
the cuboid.
ice specimen
The are
top 7 cm
plate and
could 17.5
be cm,
moved respectively.
freely in theThe schematic
vertical directiongeometry
with a of this
certain model can
velocity, be
which
of the value 0.0034675 m/s. The experiment of the same scale model was conducted by Li et al. [7] and
shown
focusesin Figure
on the17. An axial velocity
compressed with vertical
ice behavior. The ice downward
specimenishas loaded on the upper
the cohesion c =platen, whichthe
0.45 Mpa,
Zhang [48]. Two rigid plates° m/s.
on the top and bottom deal with solid boundary, which can support the
friction angle is 22.5 . The dilatancy angle ϕ in the non-associative plastic rule is set to al.
is of the value 0.0034675 The experiment of the same scale model was conducted by Li et be [7]
one-
cuboid.andTheZhangtop plate
[48]. could
Two rigid be moved freely in the vertical direction with a certain velocity, which
third of the friction angleplates
( ϕ = on
φ 3the ). top and bottom deal with solid boundary, which can support
focuses the
on cuboid.
the compressed
The top plate icecould
behavior.
be moved The ice specimen
freely in the verticalhas the cohesion
direction c = 0.45
with a certain Mpa,
velocity, the friction
which
22.5◦ . on
angle isfocuses The thedilatancy
compressed angleice behavior.
ϕ in the The ice specimen has
non-associative the cohesion
plastic rule is set c =to0.45 Mpa, the of the
be one-third
friction friction
angle (ϕ angle is 22.5° . The dilatancy angle ϕ in the non-associative plastic rule is set to be one-
= φ/3).
third of the friction angle ( ϕ = φ 3 ).

Figure 17. The sketch of the ice specimen of uniaxial compression.

Figure 18a illustrates the comparisons of the axial stress–strain curves among the experimental
data [7], standard SPH and SPH_SFDI with non-associative flow rule. According to the results of
Figure 18a, the stress–strain
Figure Figure
17. The relation
17. The
sketch ofobtained
sketch ofthe
theice by the SPH_SFDI
ice specimen
specimen ofof
uniaxialmethod is in more agreement with
compression.
uniaxial compression.
experimental data than the ones of standard SPH, despite some unavoidable discrepancies due to the
Figure 18a of
complication illustrates the comparisons
the physical problem. Figure of the axial
18b stress–strain
gives curves of
the comparisons among the experimental
the stress–strain curve in
Figurethe18a
data [7], illustrates
standard
experimental SPHthe
dataand comparisons
with SPH_SFDI
the resultswith of the axial stress–strain
non-associative
obtained by SPH_SFDI flowwith curves among
rule.associative
According the
to the
and experimental
results of
non-associative
data [7],Figure 18a,
standard
plastic flowthe
SPHstress–strain
rules. and
According relation
SPH_SFDI to theobtained ofby the SPH_SFDI
with non-associative
results Figure method
18, there flow
exists is inAccording
rule.
a certain more agreement
difference to with
the
between results
the of
experimental
Figure 18a,numerical data than
results
the stress–strain andthe
the ones of standard
experimental
relation obtained SPH,
results despite
byfor
thereal some
sea
SPH_SFDIice.unavoidable
Themethod discrepancies
elastic–plastic
is in model
more of due to paper
this the with
agreement
complication
can get of the physical problem.
a reasonable with Figure 18b gives the comparisons of the stress–strain
nonlinearcurve in
experimental data than the agreement
ones of standard the ones
SPH,ofdespite
experimental
somedata. However,
unavoidable the
discrepancies behavior
due to the
the experimental data with the results obtained by SPH_SFDI with associative and non-associative
complication of the
plastic flow physical
rules. Accordingproblem. Figureof18b
to the results gives
Figure the comparisons
18, there exists a certainof the stress–strain
difference between thecurve in
the experimental data and
numerical results withthethe results obtained
experimental results for byreal
SPH_SFDI
sea ice. Thewith associative
elastic–plastic modeland non-associative
of this paper
plastic flow rules.
can get According
a reasonable to thewith
agreement results
the onesof Figure 18, there
of experimental exists
data. a certain
However, difference
the nonlinear between the
behavior
numerical results and the experimental results for real sea ice. The elastic–plastic model of this paper
can get a reasonable agreement with the ones of experimental data. However, the nonlinear behavior
Water 2017, 9, 882 19 of 24

Water 2017, 9, 882 19 of 24

of stress–strain time histories cannot be captured exactly; there exists many different factors, such the
ice viscosity, the anisotropy
of stress–strain and the
time histories temperature,
cannot be capturedwhich should
exactly; be further
there exists investigated
many different factors,to make
such the it more
reliable ice
forviscosity,
the numerical simulation
the anisotropy of real
and the sea ice. which should be further investigated to make it
temperature,
more reliable for the numerical simulation of real sea ice.
2.0 2.0
EXP EXP
SPH SPH_SFDI Associative
1.5 SPH_SFDI 1.5 SPH_SFDI Non-associative
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
1.0 1.0
Water 2017, 9, 882 19 of 24

0.5 0.5
of stress–strain time histories cannot be captured exactly; there exists many different factors, such the
ice viscosity, the anisotropy and the temperature, which should be further investigated to make it
0.0
more reliable for the numerical simulation of real sea ice.
0.0
0.0002.0 0.004 0.008 2.00.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
EXP Strain EXP Strain
SPH SPH_SFDI Associative
1.5
(a)
SPH_SFDI 1.5 (b)
SPH_SFDI Non-associative
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
Figure 18. Comparisons of the stress–strain curve between experimental data and numerical results:
Figure 18. Comparisons
1.0 of the stress–strain curve between
1.0 experimental data and numerical results:
(a) standard SPH and SPH_SFDI with non-associative flow rule; and (b) only SPH_SFDI with different
(a) standard SPH
flow rules. and SPH_SFDI with non-associative flow rule; and (b) only SPH_SFDI with different
0.5 0.5
flow rules.
Figure 0.0
19 shows the comparisons of the typical fracture 0.0 pattern among experimental results of
0.000
Zhang [48] 0.000(Figure 19a), theStrain 0.004
standard SPH and 0.008SPH_SFDI with0.002 0.004
non-associative
Strain
0.006
flow rule. 0.008
According
Figure 19 shows the comparisons
to the results of Figure 19, the
of the typical fracture pattern among experimental results of
(a) shear failures in the ice sample are predicted (b) by the standard SPH and
SPH_SFDI at t = 0.69 s and t = 1.38 s. The ice specimen exists the brittle failure and there is a main
Zhang [48] (Figure 19a), the standard SPH and SPH_SFDI with non-associative flow rule. According
Figure 18. Comparisons of the stress–strain curve between experimental data and numerical results:
to the results
crack in ofthe
Figure
fracture 19,pattern.
the shear The failures
upper part inofthetheicebodysample
has theare trendpredicted
of sliding by
(a) standard SPH and SPH_SFDI with non-associative flow rule; and (b) only SPH_SFDI with different
alongthethestandard
main crack SPH and
and falling
SPH_SFDI at t =flow out
0.69 of the specimen. Although the standard SPH method can
s and t = 1.38 s. The ice specimen exists the brittle failure and there is a main
rules. predict the shear failure, the
crack inposition of fracture
the fracture crack The
pattern. differs greatly
upper from
part ofthe
theexperimental
body has the result. The results
trend of sliding of thealong
SPH_SFDI are crack
the main
Figure 19 shows
in better agreement with the
thecomparisons
experimental of the
testtypical
than thefracture
onespattern
of the among
standard experimental results of some
SPH. In addition,
and falling out Zhang of[48]
the(Figure
specimen.
19a), the Although
standard the
and standard SPH method can predict the shear failure,
irrational damage occurred where the SPH
particle SPH_SFDI
distribution with isnon-associative
obviously ill flow rule. According
conditioned in the SPH
the position
result,ofwhich
fracture
to the
can crack
results of
be seendiffers greatly
Figure 19, the shear
in Figure from
failures
19b1,c1.
in thetheiceexperimental
By comparison,
sample are predicted result.
the results The
by the results
standard
of SPH_SFDI
SPHofand
are more the SPH_SFDI
stable
SPH_SFDI at t = 0.69 s and t = 1.38 s. The ice specimen exists the brittle failure and there is a main
are in better agreement with the experimental test than the ones
and more regular. In summary, the present simulations also provide a strong indication that the of the standard SPH. In addition,
crack in the fracture pattern. The upper part of the body has the trend of sliding along the main crack
some irrational
results of damage
SPH_SFDI
and falling out ofoccurred
method
the specimen. where
could be thethe
superior
Although particle
standarddistribution
to the SPH method canis
standard SPH inobviously
the shearill
predicting
predict the conditioned
compressive
failure, the in the
failure
SPH result, process
which
position can
of accurately.
be seen
fracture crackItinshould
Figure
differs be19b1,c1.
greatly noted
from the that Bywith the development
comparison,
experimental result. Thethe of of
shear
results
results offailure,
SPH_SFDI
the SPH_SFDI the
are lower
are more
part of the ice
in better specimen
agreement tilts under thetest downward sliding extrusion of Inthe uppersome part and
stable and more regular. Inwith the experimental
summary, the present than the ones
simulations of the standard SPH.
also provide addition,
a strong indication that
irrationaloccurs
deformation damage at occurred
the lower where the particle
left corner, distribution
as shown is obviously
in Figure 19c. ill conditioned in the SPH
the results ofresult,
SPH_SFDI
which canmethod could
be seen in Figurebe superior
19b1,c1. to the standard
By comparison, SPH
the results of in predicting
SPH_SFDI the compressive
are more stable
failure processandaccurately.
more regular. InIt should
summary,be thenoted
present that with the
simulations development
also provide of shearthat
a strong indication failure,
the the lower
part of the iceresults of SPH_SFDI method could be superior to the standard SPH in predicting the compressive
specimen tilts under the downward sliding extrusion of the upper part and deformation
failure process accurately. It should be noted that with the development of shear failure, the lower
occurs at thepart
lower leftice
of the corner,
specimenas shown in the
tilts under Figure 19c. sliding extrusion of the upper part and
downward
deformation occurs at the lower left corner, as shown in Figure 19c.

(a)

(a)

Figure 19. Cont.

Water 2017, 9, 882 20 of 24
Water 2017, 9, 882 20 of 24

εp:

(b1) SPH (b2) SPH_SFDI

(c1) SPH (c2) SPH_SFDI

Figure 19. Comparisons of (a) the typical fracture pattern among experimental results of Zhang [48]
Figure 19. Comparisons of (a)crack:
(experimental fracture the red
typical fracture
lines); and pattern
the standard SPH among experimental
and SPH_SFDI results
results at different time:of Zhang [48]
(b) t = 0.69 s; and (c) t = 1.38 s (contours of accumulated plastic strain).
(experimental fracture crack: red lines); and the standard SPH and SPH_SFDI results at different time:
(b) t = 0.69 s; and (c) t = 1.38 s (contours of accumulated plastic strain).

Water 2017, 9, 882 21 of 24

εp:

(a) associative flow rule (b) non-associative flow rule

Figure 20. Comparison of the SPH_SFDI results with different flow rules (contours of accumulated
Figure 20. Comparison
plastic strain).of the SPH_SFDI results with different flow rules (contours of accumulated
plastic strain).
Figure 20 shows a direct comparison for the brittle shear failure simulation by SPH_SFDI with
the associative flow rule and non-associative flow rule respectively. Although the stress–strain curve
obtained by the associative rule is basically consistent with the experimental data (seen in Figure 18b)
and the failure patterns predicted by the associative rule are also consistent with that of the non-
associative flow rule, it can be seen in Figure 20a that there is a slight particle strip distribution in the
SPH_SFDI results with associative flow rule. In contrast, the distribution of particles for the
SPH_SFDI result using non-associative flow rule is more stable and reliable, more details can be
found in Figure 20b. Therefore, with the combination of a comparative analysis of the different flow
Water 2017, 9, 882 21 of 24

Figure 20 shows a direct comparison for the brittle shear failure simulation by SPH_SFDI with
the associative flow rule and non-associative flow rule respectively. Although the stress–strain
curve obtained by the associative rule is basically consistent with the experimental data (seen in
Figure 18b) and the failure patterns predicted by the associative rule are also consistent with that of
the non-associative flow rule, it can be seen in Figure 20a that there is a slight particle strip distribution
in the SPH_SFDI results with associative flow rule. In contrast, the distribution of particles for the
SPH_SFDI result using non-associative flow rule is more stable and reliable, more details can be found
in Figure 20b. Therefore, with the combination of a comparative analysis of the different flow laws in
the four points bending, it can be found that the non-associative flow rule can yield the better results
for simulating the fractures.
In addition, Figure 21 shows the comparison of the bulge fracture patterns among the experiment
results by Zhang [48], the standard SPH and SPH_SFDI. According to the results of Figure 21b, the ice
sample exhibits the ductile failure feature and the bulge failure occurs in the bottom part of the ice
sample. During the compression process, the failure progress of the ice sample is slow and there is no
obvious main crack at the stage of the specimen failure. The bottom part of the ice sample distends
to the two outer sides and eventually fractures. It is also shown in Figure 21b that the predicted
cracks by SPH_SFDI can make a better agreement with the experimental test than the ones of the
standard SPH. Although the standard SPH method can predict the bulge failure, the position of bulge
fracture differs greatly from the experimental results. In addition, the particles below the damage
position are obviously disordered in the results of standard SPH, which can be shown in Figure 21b1.
By comparison, the results of SPH_SFDI are more reliable and the particle distributions of SPH_SFDI
are more regular.
Water 2017, 9, 882 22 of 24

εp:

(a)

(b1) SPH (b2) SPH_SFDI

Figure 21. Comparisons of the bulge fracture pattern among (a) the bulge fracture patterns among the
Figure 21. Comparisons of the
experiment results bulge[48],
by Zhang fracture
(b) the pattern among
standard SPH (a) the bulge
and SPH_SFDI resultsfracture
(The colorpatterns
legend is among the
the accumulated plastic strain).
experiment results by Zhang [48], (b) the standard SPH and SPH_SFDI results (The color legend is the
accumulated plastic strain).
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the SPH_SFDI model including the elastic–plastic cohesion softening Drucker–
Prager failure model is proposed to simulate the bending and compression failure processes of ice.
The predicted force in a four-point bending and the axial stress of a uniaxial compressive test are in
a good agreement with the experimental data. The simulated fracture patterns are also reasonably
close to the reality. The conducted studies disclosed that the elasto-plastic cohesion softening
Drucker–Prager failure model, which originated from the soil and rock mechanics, can also be
Water 2017, 9, 882 22 of 24

6. Conclusions
In this paper, the SPH_SFDI model including the elastic–plastic cohesion softening
Drucker–Prager failure model is proposed to simulate the bending and compression failure processes
of ice. The predicted force in a four-point bending and the axial stress of a uniaxial compressive
test are in a good agreement with the experimental data. The simulated fracture patterns are also
reasonably close to the reality. The conducted studies disclosed that the elasto-plastic cohesion
softening Drucker–Prager failure model, which originated from the soil and rock mechanics, can also
be effectively used to simulate the physical destruction phenomena during the failure process of the
ice. According to the comparisons between the numerical results conducted by the standard SPH and
improved SPH_SFDI, the performance of the latter is found to be much better in view of the numerical
accuracy and stability in the study of the bending and compression failure processes of ice.

Acknowledgments: This research work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Nos. 51739001, 51279041, 51379051 and 51639004), Foundational Research Funds for the Central Universities
(Nos. HEUCF170104 and HEUCDZ1202) and Defense Pre Research Funds Program (No. 9140A14020712CB01158),
to which the authors are most grateful. Author Q. Ma also thanks the Chang Jiang Visiting Chair Professorship
Scheme of the Chinese Ministry of Education, hosted by HEU.
Author Contributions: N. Zhang made the computations and data analysis; X. Zheng guided the engineering
project and provided the data; and Q. Ma made the proof reading and editing. All authors contributed to the work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhou, L.; Riska, K.; Moan, T.; Su, B. Numerical modeling of ice loads on an icebreaking tanker: Comparing
simulations with models tests. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2013, 87, 33–46. [CrossRef]
2. Lindqvist, G. A straightforward method for calculation of ice resistance of ships. In Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, Luleaa, Sweden,
12–16 June 1989.
3. Valanto, P. The resistance of ships in level ice. Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng. 2001, 119, 53–83.
4. Kujala, P.; Riska, K.; Varsta, P. Results from in situ four point bending tests with Baltic Sea Ice. In Proceedings
of the IAHR Symposium on Ice Problems, Helsinki, Finland, 19–23 August 1990; pp. 261–278.
5. Schulson, E.M. Compressive shear faults within arctic sea ice: Fracture on scales large and small. J. Geophys.
Res. Oceans 2004, 109, 101–111. [CrossRef]
6. Schulson, E.M.; Fortt, A.L.; Iliescu, D.; Renshaw, C.E. Failure envelope of first-year arctic sea ice: The role of
friction in compressive fracture. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 2006, 111, 2209–2223. [CrossRef]
7. Li, Z.J.; Zhang, L.M.; Lu, P.; Leppäranta, M. Experimental study on the effect of porosity on the uniaxial
compressive strength of sea ice in bohai sea. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2011, 54, 2429–2436. [CrossRef]
8. Polach, R.V.B.U.; Ehlers, S.; Kujala, P. model-scale ice—Part A: Experiments. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2013, 94,
74–81. [CrossRef]
9. Corasdale, K. Platform shape and ice interaction: A review. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference
on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, Montreal, QC, Canada, 10–14 July 2011.
10. Lu, W.; Lubbad, R.; Hoyland, K.; Loset, S. Physical model and theoretical model study of level ice and wide
sloping structure interactions. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2014, 101, 40–72. [CrossRef]
11. Zhou, L.; Su, B.; Riska, K.; Moan, T. Numerical simulation of moored structure station keeping in level ice.
Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2012, 71, 54–66. [CrossRef]
12. Kolari, K.; Kuutti, J.; Kurkela, J. FE-simulation of continuous ice failure based on model update technique.
In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions,
Luleå, Sweden, 9–12 June 2009.
13. Hopkins, M.A. On the mesoscale interaction of lead ice and floes. J. Geophys. Res. 1996, 101, 18315–18326.
[CrossRef]
14. Paavilainen, J.; Tuhkuri, J. Parameter effects on simulated ice rubbling forces on a wide sloping structure.
Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2012, 81, 1–10. [CrossRef]
Water 2017, 9, 882 23 of 24

15. Paavilainen, J.; Tuhkuri, J.; Polojarvi, A. 2D numerical simulation of ice rubble formation process against an
inclined structure. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2011, 68, 20–34. [CrossRef]
16. Das, J. Modeling and validation of simulation results of an ice beam in four-point bending using smoothed
particle hydrodynamics. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 2017, 27, 82–89. [CrossRef]
17. Deb, D.; Pramanik, R. Failure process of brittle rock using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. J. Eng. Mech.
2013, 139, 1551–1565. [CrossRef]
18. Lucy, L.B. A numerical approach to the testing of fusion process. Astron. J. 1977, 88, 1013–1024. [CrossRef]
19. Gingold, R.A.; Monaghan, J.J. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics—Theory and application to non-spherical
stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 1977, 181, 375–389. [CrossRef]
20. Morris, J.; Fox, P.; Zhu, Y. Modeling low Reynolds number incompressible flows using SPH. J. Comput. Phys.
1997, 136, 214–226. [CrossRef]
21. Cleary, P.; Prakash, M. Discrete-element modelling and smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Potential in the
environmental sciences. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 2004, 362, 2003–2030.
22. Khayyer, A.; Gotoh, H.; Shao, S.D. Corrected incompressible SPH method for accurate water surface tracking
in breaking waves. Coast. Eng. 2008, 55, 236–250. [CrossRef]
23. Khayyer, A.; Gotoh, H.; Shao, S.D. Enhanced predictions of wave impact pressure by improved
incompressible SPH methods. Appl. Ocean Res. 2009, 31, 111–131. [CrossRef]
24. Zheng, X.; Ma, Q.W.; Duan, W.Y. Incompressible SPH method based on Rankine source solution for violent
water wave simulation. J. Comput. Phys. 2014, 276, 291–314. [CrossRef]
25. Shao, S.D. Incompressible SPH flow model for wave interactions with porous media. Coast. Eng. 2010, 57,
304–316. [CrossRef]
26. Liu, X.; Xu, H.; Shao, S.; Lin, P. An improved incompressible SPH model for simulation of wave–structure
interaction. Comput. Fluids 2013, 71, 113–123. [CrossRef]
27. Shao, S.D.; Lo, E.Y.M. Incompressible SPH method for simulating newtonian and non-newtonian flows with
a free surface. Adv. Water Resour. 2003, 26, 787–800. [CrossRef]
28. Xu, R.; Stansby, P.; Laurence, D.; Xu, R.; Stansby, P.; Laurence, D. Accuracy and stability in incompressible
SPH (ISPH) based on the projection method and a new approach. J. Comput. Phys. 2009, 228, 6703–6725.
[CrossRef]
29. Napoli, E.; Marchis, M.D.; Gianguzzi, C.; Milici, B.; Monteleone, A. A coupled finite volume–smoothed
particle hydrodynamics method for incompressible flows. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2016, 310,
674–693. [CrossRef]
30. Libersky, L.D.; Petschek, A.G. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics with strength of materials. In Proceedings
of the Next Free Lagrange Conference, Moran, WY, USA, 3–7 June 1990; Trease, H., Friits, J., Crowley, W., Eds.;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 395, pp. 248–257.
31. Benz, W.; Asphaug, E. Simulations of brittle solids using smooth particle hydrodynamics. Comput. Phys. Commun.
1995, 87, 253–265. [CrossRef]
32. Randles, P.; Libersky, L. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Some recent improvements and applications.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 1996, 139, 375–408. [CrossRef]
33. Bui, H.; Fukagawa, R.; Sako, K.; Ohno, S. Lagrangian meshfree particles method (SPH) for large
deformation and failure flows of geomaterial using elastic–plastic soil constitutive model. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 2008, 32, 1537–1570. [CrossRef]
34. Douillet-Grellier, T.; Jones, B.D.; Pramanik, R.; Pan, K.; Albaiz, A.; Williams, J.R. Mixed-mode fracture
modeling with smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Comput. Geotech. 2016, 79, 73–85. [CrossRef]
35. Zhang, N.B.; Zheng, X.; Ma, Q.W.; Hao, H.B. Numerical simulation of failure progress of ice using smoothed
particle hydrodynamics. In Proceedings of the SOPE 2017, International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 25–30 June 2017.
36. Whyatt, J.K.; Board, M.P. Numerical Exploration of Shear-Fracture-Related Rock Bursts Using a Strain-Softening
Constitutive Law; US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Washington, DC, USA, 1991.
37. Ma, Q.W. A new meshless interpolation scheme for MLPG_R method. CMES Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. 2008,
23, 75–89.
38. Monaghan, J.J.; Lattanzio, J.C. A refined particle method for astrophysical problems. Astron. Astrophys. 1985,
149, 135–143.
Water 2017, 9, 882 24 of 24

39. Monaghan, J.J. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1992, 30, 543–574.
[CrossRef]
40. Monaghan, J.J. SPH without a tensile instability. J. Comput. Phys. 2000, 159, 290–311. [CrossRef]
41. Gray, J.; Monaghan, J.; Swift, R. SPH elastic dynamics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2001, 190,
6641–6662. [CrossRef]
42. Swegle, J.; Hicks, D.; Attaway, S. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics stability analysis. J. Comput. Phys. 1995,
116, 123–134. [CrossRef]
43. Libersky, L.D.; Petschek, A.G.; Carney, T.C.; Hipp, J.R.; Allahdadi, F.A. High strain Lagrangian
hydrodynamics: A three-dimensional SPH code for dynamic material response. J. Comput. Phys. 1993, 109,
67–75. [CrossRef]
44. Zheng, X.; Shao, S.D.; Khayyer, A.; Duan, W.Y.; Ma, Q.W.; Liao, K.P. Corrected first-order derivative ISPH in
water wave simulations. Coast. Eng. J. 2017, 59, 1750010. [CrossRef]
45. Long, S.Y. Meshless Methods and Their Applications in Solid Mechanics; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2014;
pp. 235–238.
46. Ehlers, S.; Kujala, P. Optimization-based material parameter identification for the numerical simulation
of sea ice in four-point bending. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2013, 228, 70–80.
[CrossRef]
47. ITTC. Ice Property Measurements, 7.5-02-04-02. Available online: http://ittc.sname.org (accessed on
19 June 2017).
48. Zhang, L.M. Experimental Study on Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Influencing Factors of Ice.
Ph.D. Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 2012.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).