Philipp Hahn

Acknowledgements
Prof. Dan Negrut Prof. Darryl Thelen Prof. Michael Zinn SBEL Colleagues: Hammad Mazar, Toby Heyn, Manoj Kumar

Outline
Motivation Lumped Mass Model
Model properties Simulation results

Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)

SPH formulation for compressible fluids Serial and parallel Implementation Numerical Experiments

Conclusion
3

Technical Background and Advantages of Meshless Methods

Technical Background
Current simulation tools: (BEM, FDTD, FEM, ) The majority solves the linear wave equation Most methods are mesh-based Mostly Eulerian methods Disadvantages: Limited to small amplitudes & low frequencies No incontinuities as given in shock waves No aero-acoustical effects Moving boundaries are hard to model
5

Advantages of Meshless Methods

Investigated methods: Based on conservation laws & constitutive relations No linearizations Lagrangian particle methods Advantages for: High amplitudes & frequencies possible Incontinuities (shock waves) Aero-acoustic effects Moving boundaries
6

An Intermediate Step to Meshless Acoustics

Model Properties
One-dimensional model consists of N masses which are connected via nonlinear springs Masses represent the inertia of certain gas volume Spring forces replace pressure forces
Equation of motion for each mass:

Model Parameters

Spring response from adiabatic process equation:

Mass from discretization:

mean pressure

spring elongation

cross section

mean density

Properties & Implementation

In the continuum limit, linearization leads to the following differential equation:

The model does not draw on any linearization Second order accuracy Implementation & visualization in Matlab
Example with 9 Masses and Sinusoidal Excitation

10

Simulation results
Pressure can be calculated from spring forces at each point Example with 300 mass points and sinusoidal excitation: Nonlinear Springs Linear Springs

11

Simulation results
Soliton Waves

Stable soliton waves can be modeled Propagation speed of soliton waves depends on their amplitude
12

Conclusion/Limitations
Pro: Speed of sound is modeled accurately Known nonlinear effects can be reproduced Implementation is straightforward because of the simple model Contra: Stability of soliton waves depends on discretization Due to the fixed connectivity, it is not a real meshless method The transfer in two or three dimensional implementation is challenging
Move to a more promising method, called Smoothed particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)

13

For Acoustic Simulations

14

SPH - The Basic Idea

Mainly used in hydrodynamics and astronomy Lagrangian particle method Each particle carries field variables (density, internal energy, velocity,) A kernel-function approach defines the influence area of each particle

Field variables and their derivatives can be approximated with the following integrations:

15

SPH - The Basic Idea

With the product rule of differentiation and the divergence theorem, field function derivatives can also be expressed by:

The surface integral is zero if the kernel doesnt intersect domain boundaries The Integration can be approximated by a summation

16

SPH - Fluid Dynamics & Acoustics

Conservation laws are evaluated for every particle at each time step: Mass: Momentum: Energy:

The right hand side is replaced by SPH approximations for field function derivatives The equation of state closes the formulation, relating pressure to density and internal energy
Ideal Gas: Water:

Time evolution of the system trough time integration of conservation laws

17

Boundary Formulations
The Achilles heel of SPH (due to the kernel approximation)

Requirements on boundary formulations in acoustics: No boundary penetration Accurate sound wave reflection Accurate sound excitation (moving boundaries) No disturbances
18

Dynamic Boundary Particles

Pro: Easy to implement Contra: Moving boundaries cause disturbances Boundary penetration is possible

19

Mirror Particles
Pro: Theoretical exact boundary treatment due to symmetry Less disturbances Contra: Boundary penetration is possible:

20

Repulsive Forces
Pro: No boundary penetration Easy to implement Contra: Large disturbances

21

Newly developed Boundary Treatment

Recall Standard SPH neglects the surface integral in the formulation for field function derivatives

This is the root of boundary problems

The surface integral can be used efficiently if two assumptions are made: The field function is constant on the boundary The field function value is equal to or slightly higher than the particle field function value (self interaction)

22

Newly developed Boundary Treatment

If boundaries are smooth, a generic solution of the surface integral can be used in simulations

Pro: No boundary penetration Computationally efficient Contra: disturbances

23

SPH - Implementation
Structure and functionality of a basic SPH implementations:

Leap frog integration 24

2D Implementation in Matlab

25

2D Hydrodynamic Tests
Water flow into a basin
SPH liquid particles are poured with a constant initial velocity Boundary treatment through the new developed method

26

2D Hydrodynamic Tests
The classic SPH test simulation: Dam break experiment
A square of water is discretized by 7,225 SPH particles Boundary treatment through dynamic boundary particles

27

3D Implementation on the GPU

Implementation in Matlab is only reasonable for one and twodimensional problems 10,000 particles (One time step 30s) Solution: Leveraging the multiprocessor architecture of GPUs The SPH algorithm is highly parallelizable
Nearest neighbor search in parallel (radixsort algorithm) Derivatives (interaction parallel) Integration (particle parallel)

Three dimensional Implementation using C++ and CUDA CUDA API (programming tools for NVIDIA GPUs) Simulations with up to 3.5 million particles are currently possible Speed up of about 4,000 compared to Matlab
28

3D Hydrodynamic Tests
Droplet simulation
Parameters
Number of particles: 250,000 Fluid properties: Water Boundary formulation: Surface integrals Time stepping: t=5.0e-5s Length: T=1.0s Computation time: 2 hours

29

3D Hydrodynamic Tests
Different Viscosities
Parameters
Number of particles: 82,000 Fluid properties: Water/Jelly Boundary formulation: Surface integrals Time stepping: t=1.0e-5s Length: T=1.5s Computation time: 4 hours

30

Fluid-Structure Interaction
Boundary formulations typically require the following information: Boundary position Surface normal Can be describe analytically for simple shapes Using spherical decomposition, arbitrary shaped boundaries can be discretized by boundary particles.
position

CAD geometry

Surface normal

Rigid body motion can be determined using fluid-structure forces

31

Fluid-Structure Interaction
Water flow on a trough
Parameters
Number of particles: 250,000 Fluid properties: Water Boundary formulation: Surface integrals Time stepping: t=0.5e-5s Length: T=4.5s Computation time: 10 hours

32

SPH in Acoustic Simulations

Recall the advantages of SPH: Whole flow process is solved; (speed of sound automatically adapts to changing fluid properties) Complex boundaries are possible; (spherical decomposition) No linearizations ; (based on conservation laws) Large deformations are unproblematic; (meshless Lagrangian method) Highly parallelizable What needs to be analyzed: Sound propagation Sound excitation and reflection Scaling and accuracy
33

2D Sound propagation
FDTD SPH

SPH models sound propagation accurately Speed of sound differs slightly

34

Effects of the Smoothing Length

1D Parameter study with different smoothing lengths Velocity excitation from the left Analytic solution is a traveling step function Level of the step can be related to the speed of sound

35

3D Sound Excitation/Reflection
3D sound excitation in a tube

Pressure wave excitation through the moving piston Analytic solution is a traveling step function Modeled with 270,000 SPH particles Boundaries are first modeled with dynamic boundary particles and then with a combination of mirror and dynamic boundary particles
36

3D Sound Excitation/Reflection
Boundaries:
Pressure loss at the edges:

37

3D Sound Excitation/Reflection
Dynamic Boundar y Particles

Mirror & Dynamic Boundar y Particles

38

Computational Efficiency
3D experiment with concentric sound propagation six different resolutions are analyzed The pressure at 1,000 positions after a certain simulation time is compared with results from FDTD

39

Contributions, Limitations, Future Work

40

Summary of contributions
Analysis of meshless Lagrangian methods with focus on applicability in acoustical engineering Lumped mass model of one-dimensional nonlinear sound propagation Implementation of SPH on the CPU using Matlab and on the GPU using CUDA Method to model fluid structure interaction through spherical decomposition Analysis of the impact of smoothing length on wave speed Analysis of sound excitation due to moving boundaries New, surface integral based, boundary formulation Work-precision diagram for an acoustic SPH simulation

41

Limitations / Future Work

Limitations Deficient boundary formulations corrupt simulation results Particle placement is critical and results are sensitive on particle disorder Parameters have to be chosen correctly (experience is necessary) Future Work Improve boundary problematic (CSPH) Nonlinear effects need to be analyzed Fluid-structure interaction for shock waves Hydrodynamic simulations with fluid-structure interaction

42

Conclusion
It is generally possible to use SPH in acoustic simulations The scaling of the GPU implementation is good Boundary formulations need to be improved Simulating acoustic problems is not straightforward in SPH Exact and noise free boundary enforcement Particle placement Right choice of parameters Potential applications of SPH in Acoustics: aero-acoustic problems complex and changing domain topologies domains with multiple propagation media domains with high temperature or density gradients nonlinear acoustics and shock waves with fluid-structure interaction

43

44