TY - JOUR
T1 - Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM)
T2 - Comparison of Various Time Integration Solvers and Implementations
AU - Lale, Erol
AU - Eliáš, Jan
AU - Yu, Ke
AU - Troemner, Matthew
AU - Středulová, Monika
AU - Khoury, Julien
AU - Xue, Tianju
AU - Koutromanos, Ioannis
AU - Fascetti, Alessandro
AU - Ayhan, Bahar
AU - Chen, Baixi
AU - Luzio, Giovanni Di
AU - Lyu, Yuhui
AU - Pathirage, Madura
AU - Pijaudier-Cabot, Gilles
AU - Shen, Lei
AU - Tasora, Alessandro
AU - Yang, Lifu
AU - Zhong, Jiawei
AU - Cusatis, Gianluca
PY - 2026/3/9
Y1 - 2026/3/9
N2 - This article presents a comparison of various implementations of the Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM) for the numerical simulation of concrete and other heterogeneous quasibrittle materials. The comparison involves the use of transient implicit and explicit solvers and steady-state (static) solvers as well as implementations for central processing unit (CPU) and graphics processing unit (GPU). The various implementations are compared on the basis of a set of benchmarks tests describing behaviors of increasing computational complexity. They include elastic vibrations, confined strain-hardening compressive response, tensile fracture, and unconfined strain-softening compressive response. Metrics of interest extracted from the simulations include macroscopic stress versus strain responses, computational times, number of iterations, and energy balance error. Pairwise comparison of final crack patterns is provided through the correlation coefficient and normalized root mean square error of the crack opening vectors. Moreover, for the most numerically challenging case of unconfined compression with sliding boundary conditions, the stability of the strain-softening response is tested by perturbing the solutions as well as changing the convergence criteria and time step size. Attached to this paper is the complete input data of the benchmark tests; this will allow researchers to run the examples and compare them with their own implementations. In addition, most of the reported implementations are publicly available in open source packages. © 2026 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
AB - This article presents a comparison of various implementations of the Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM) for the numerical simulation of concrete and other heterogeneous quasibrittle materials. The comparison involves the use of transient implicit and explicit solvers and steady-state (static) solvers as well as implementations for central processing unit (CPU) and graphics processing unit (GPU). The various implementations are compared on the basis of a set of benchmarks tests describing behaviors of increasing computational complexity. They include elastic vibrations, confined strain-hardening compressive response, tensile fracture, and unconfined strain-softening compressive response. Metrics of interest extracted from the simulations include macroscopic stress versus strain responses, computational times, number of iterations, and energy balance error. Pairwise comparison of final crack patterns is provided through the correlation coefficient and normalized root mean square error of the crack opening vectors. Moreover, for the most numerically challenging case of unconfined compression with sliding boundary conditions, the stability of the strain-softening response is tested by perturbing the solutions as well as changing the convergence criteria and time step size. Attached to this paper is the complete input data of the benchmark tests; this will allow researchers to run the examples and compare them with their own implementations. In addition, most of the reported implementations are publicly available in open source packages. © 2026 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
KW - explicit solver
KW - fracture
KW - heterogeneity
KW - implicit solver
KW - inelasticity
KW - lattice discrete particle model
KW - LDPM
KW - softening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105032163348&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/pubmetrics.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105032163348&origin=recordpage
U2 - 10.1002/nag.70286
DO - 10.1002/nag.70286
M3 - RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal
SN - 0363-9061
JO - International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
JF - International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
ER -