Published 2013 | Version v1
Journal article

A critical comparison of several numerical methods for computing effective properties of highly heterogeneous materials

  • 1. University of Toronto, Galbraith Building, 35 St. George Street, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4, (Canada)
  • 2. CEA, DEN, DPC, SECR, Laboratoire d'Etude du Comportement des Betons et des Argiles, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, (France)
  • 3. EPFL-STI-IMX-LMC, Station 12, CH-1015 Lausanne, (Switzerland)
  • 4. EDF R and D/MFEE Department - 6, quai Watier, BP 49, F-78401 Chatou cedex, (France)
  • 5. EDF R and D/MMC Department - Site des Renardieres, Route de Sens, Ecuelles, F-77250 Moret sur Loing, (France)
  • 6. Universite Paris-Est, Laboratoire Modelisation et Simulation Multi-Echelle - MSME UMR CNRS 8208, 5 boulevard Descartes, F-77454 Marne La Vallee cedex, (France)
  • 7. Ecole des Mines ParisTech/Centre de Morphologie Mathematique 35, rue Saint-Honore, F-77305 Fontainebleau cedex, (France)

Description

Modelling transport and long-term creep in concrete materials is a difficult problem when the complexity of the microstructure is taken into account, because it is hard to predict instantaneous elastic responses. In this work, several numerical methods are compared to assess their properties and suitability to model concrete-like microstructures with large phase properties contrast. The methods are classical finite elements, a novel extended finite element method (l-XFEM), an unconstrained heuristic meshing technique (AMIE), and a locally homogenising preprocessor in combination with various solvers (BENHUR). The benchmark itself consists of a number of simple and complex microstructures, which are tested with a range of phase contrasts designed to cover the needs of creep and transport modelling in concrete. The calculations are performed assuming linear elasticity and thermal conduction. The methods are compared in term of precision, ease of implementation and appropriateness to the problem type. We find that XFEM is the most suitable when the mesh if coarse, and methods based on Cartesian grids are best when a very fine mesh can be used. Finite element methods are good compromises with high flexibility. (authors)

Availability note (English)

Available from doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.12.002

Additional details

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Advances in Engineering Software (1992)
Journal Volume
58
Journal Page Range
p. 1-12
ISSN
0965-9978

Optional Information

Notes
39 refs.