Errata for two verification publications


This posting provides errata for an analytical solution that appeared in the following two publications:

Brannon, R. M. and S. Leelavanichkul (2010) A multi-stage return algorithm for solving the classical damage component of constitutive models for rocks, ceramics, and other rock-like media. Int. J. Fracture v. 163(1), pp. 133-149.

K.C. Kamojjala, R. Brannon, A. Sadeghirad, and J. Guilkey (2013) Verification tests in solid mechanics, Engineering with Computers, 1-21.

As pointed out by Dr. Andy Tonge, they both contain a the same transcription error that was not in the original unpublished working document where the details of the solution are archived.  The following excerpt from the original unpublished working document contains correct formulas:  PlasticityVerification2excerpt.   See the red comment boxes in this file for details.

Streamlines, Streaklines, Pathlines, and Gridlines


The above animation aims to be a slight improvement over one on Wikipedia, which (incidentally) does not correctly describe the velocity field that it is depicting. The Wikipedia image doesn’t show a checkerboard of moving material, nor does it have a nice depiction of streamlines.

Before describing this animation, it might be helpful to look at a simpler motion (a rolling body) in order to review the difference between streamlines, streaklines, and pathlines. Consider a simple rigid body consisting of a disk of small radius (shown in gray below) along which it rolls along a tabletop, along with a larger-radius extension of the body (shown in color below) which can dip down below the table surface (as if there is a slot cut into the table so that part of the body rolls under it).

STREAMLINES: These are tangent to the instantaneous velocity field.  For a rolling rigid body, the motion is always circular about the instantaneous center of rotation at the bottom of the wheel. Accordingly, this image shows the streamlines at various points in time as the disk rolls along:


This image of streamlines is drawn not just on the body itself but also on its “virtual extension” in order to emphasize that (for rigid rolling) the instantaneous velocity is circular around the instantaneous center of rotation (bottom of the wheel). A particular set of streamlines is drawn in red. These are the ones that pass through a set of points that are evenly distributed on a spoke of the wheel (shown in black).

STREAKLINES: These are the lines you would see if a magic gremlin were to sit at a given location in space and “spraypaint” the material as it passes by.  Suppose that an assembly line of gremlins (located where you see the dots in the first image) are pointing their spray paint cans at the body while it rolls past. Then they would form the black streaklines shown here at various times:


Important: The streaklines are made by gremlins who are sitting still and spraying material as it passes by.

PATHLINES: Are made by gremlins who “ride” with the material, spraying a record of where they have been (as if we were watching the rolling body from behind a window, and those whacky gremlins would spray paint onto the window as they pass by). Accordingly, here are the pathlines for group of gremlins who were initially coincident with the gremlins in the above streakline plot:


GRIDLINES are any set of lines that are painted on the body like tattoos. Such lines move with the body (like a tattoo).


Continue reading

Publication: Verification tests in solid mechanics

ABSTRACT: Code verification against analytical solutions is a prerequisite to code validation against experimental data. Though solid-mechanics codes have established basic verification standards such as patch tests and convergence tests, few (if any) similar standards exist for testing solid-mechanics constitutive models under nontrivial massive deformations. Increasingly complicated verification tests for solid mechanics are presented, starting with simple patch tests of frame-indifference and traction boundary conditions under affine deformations, followed by two large-deformation problems that might serve as standardized verification tests suitable to quantify accuracy, robustness, and convergence of momentum solvers used in solid-mechanics codes. These problems use an accepted standard of verification testing, the method of manufactured solutions (MMS), which is rarely applied in solid mechanics. Body forces inducing a specified deformation are found analytically by treating the constitutive model abstractly, with a specific model introduced only at the last step in examples. One nonaffine MMS problem subjects the momentum solver and constitutive model to large shears comparable to those in penetration, while ensuring natural boundary conditions to accommodate codes lacking support for applied tractions. Two additional MMS problems, one affine and one nonaffine, include nontrivial traction boundary conditions.

Some eye-catching graphics (see the paper itself for details):

2013verificationPic1 Continue reading

Holey Particle Basis functions for 2D CPDI


An older post ( showed particle basis functions in 1D, demonstrating that they retain overlapping support with neighboring particles when using CPDI even when the particles are stretched to be large multiples of the grid cell length. In the 1D context of those examples, “holes” in CPDI basis functions are impossible.

This post shows an extreme 2D example (suggested by John Nairn, Jim Guilkey, and Michael Homel*) that can deleteriously lose overlapping support of particle shape functions, which can then allow non-physical material interpenetration.

Continue reading