Stable axisymmetric SPH formulation with no axis singularity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The axisymmetric formulation of the governing equations for geomechanics in the framework of smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) is presented in this study. Two forms of SPH discretization for the motion equations, which are labeled as form I and form II, are proposed, and the methods to compute the hoop stress and strain terms including hoop strain rate and the acceleration introduced by the hoop stress are compared. To avoid possible singularity problem near the axis of symmetry, a perfectly smooth contact along with ghost particles are applied to prevent the real particles from overly approaching the axis of symmetry to remove this potential singularity. In addition, the Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model is implemented into the SPH formulation in describing soil behavior. Four numerical tests are carried out to validate and compare the accuracy and stability of the proposed algorithms, and their results are compared with analytical solutions and results from FEM analysis. The performance in these comparisons suggests that SPH II with hoop terms computed through direct hoop method is more stable than the others, and the adoption of contact for the symmetric axis is efficient in eliminating the singularity problem. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".