Considering computational speed vs. accuracy: Choosing appropriate mesoscale RVE boundary conditions

Abstract

Modeling a material’s microstructure using continuum theories allows for inspection of the relationship between coarse scale and fine scale behaviors. Computational limits generally require selection of a sub-volume from a bulk sample in order to directly model the microstructure. Boundary conditions are applied to the sub-volume to mimic the excluded bulk material. Appropriate selection of boundary conditions helps effectively determine the appropriate spatial scale required of the sub-volume. Applicable boundary conditions include direct displacement, periodic, and uniform traction. While direct displacement and periodic boundary conditions are commonly used, uniform traction boundary conditions have seen limited use due to rigid body stability issues in simulations of compression or shear deformation. A new application of uniform traction boundary conditions was developed through linear constraint equations, similar to approaches employed by direct displacement and periodic boundary conditions, to quench rigid body motions with minimal interference of the relative deformation of the model. These boundary conditions were tested by compressing several synthetically generated periodic microstructures using the finite element method. Evaluating the effective stiffness along the compression axis, the direct displacement boundary condition produced the stiffest response, whereas the uniform traction boundary condition produced the most compliant. Periodic boundary conditions produced the same response for all volumes analyzed and both the direct displacement and uniform traction boundary conditions trended toward the periodic response as the domain volume increased. Computational performance was also evaluated for each boundary condition using implicit and explicit solvers. Direct displacement boundary conditions presented the lowest computational cost of all of the boundary conditions followed by periodic then uniform traction. The computational expense of periodic and uniform traction boundary conditions limited the viable spatial scale and mesh resolutions able to be simulated. Selection of appropriate boundary conditions for specific uses need to be a balance between allowable computational expense and accuracy of the method. Techniques for evaluating which boundary conditions to use are discussed.