TFM DiegoCANALES

Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
Master Thesis
Reduced Order Modeling in

updated-Lagrangian Schemes
Supervisors:
Author:
Prof. Antonio Huerta
Diego Canales
Prof. Francisco Chinesta
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science in Numerical Methods in
Engineering
October 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
Many engineers and scientists are like kids, if we have a bigger hammer we want
to try bigger nails
Adrien Leygue
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
Abstract
Master of Science in Numerical Methods in Engineering
Reduced Order Modeling in updated-Lagrangian Schemes
by Diego Canales
Updated-Lagrangian Methods constitute a very interesting framework to simu-

late important manufacturing processes such as metal conforming of Friction Stir
Welding. More specifically, tracking material particles and free surfaces make them
very appealing for these applications. Unfortunately, in 3D problems, they require
complex and costly remeshing techniques with unaffordable computational times
for industrial day-to-day use.
In this thesis a new updated-Lagrangian method is proposed. The essential and

pivotal tool for this contribution is the use of a model order reduction technique
(i.e. the Proper Generalized Decomposition) that enables 3D approximations with
a 2D computational complexity.
Some of this work was previously published in the following paper:
Canales, D., Cueto, E., Feulvarch, E., & Chinesta, F. (2014, July). First Steps towards
Parametric Modeling of FSW Processes by Using Advanced Separated Representations:
Numerical Techniques. In Key Engineering Materials (Vol. 611, pp. 513-520).
Acknowledgements
This work would never have been carried out if Paco Chinesta had not said what
is started must be ended one year ago. For this, for his ideas and for giving me
the opportunity to work in his wonderful team, I would like to express my deepest
and sincere gratitude.
Thanks to the people from Zaragoza, Elas Cueto, Icar Alfaro and David Gonzalez
for their help with the Natural Element Method and their warm welcome in their
research group for a very profitable scientific stay.
I would also like to thank to Antonio Huerta, for accepting the direction of this
project and for writing the book from which I have learned the most in the last
two years: Finite Element Methods for Flow Problems.
Thanks to Adrien Leygue and Felipe Bordeu, my everyday teachers. Their tools,
ideas and advice are the most fundamental part of my daily progress.
Thanks to Elisa, the woman of my life and the mother of my children, for her
support. And for allowing me to work on weekends and holidays. . .
v
Contents
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
Contents vi
1 Model Order Reduction and new approaches to numerical simu-

lations 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Model Order Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 New approaches to MOR and simulation of processes . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Structure of the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 The Proper Generalized Decomposition 11

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 PGD at a glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 PGD and SVD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.2 Last developments and PGD applications . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3 In-plane-out-of-plane PGD based decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.1 Some in-plane-out-of-plane decomposition examples . . . . . 26
2.3.1.1 3D heat equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.1.2 Stokes flow with a rotating obstacle . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Robust Interpolants 31
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 Introduction to the Natural Element Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.1 Interpolation of Natural Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.1.1 NEM: an academic example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Stabilized Conforming Nodal Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4 An efficient updated-Lagrangian technique for material forming

processes 43
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
vii
Contents viii
4.2 Proposed strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.2.1 Viscous flow model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.2 Power-law fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3 Validation of the strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.1 Reconstructing information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.2 Resolution of a PDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3.3 Unsteady convection-diffusion equation . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3.4 A simple model of co-extrusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.4 A new way of imposing essential boundary conditions in PGD . . . 58
4.5 FSW kinematic like example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5 Conclusions and Perspectives 65

5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2 Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A Matlab Codes 67
A.1 PGD code for compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A.2 Analytical solution of the co-extrusion problem . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Bibliography 73
For Elisa, Luca . . . and Paula
ix
Chapter 1
Model Order Reduction and new

approaches to numerical
simulations
1.1 Introduction
Six initiatives have been financed by the European Research Council based on their
potential for scientific breakthroughs with high social and industrial impact [1].
All of them are related with the field of information and communication technology
(ICT). These are:
Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life project. This project aims to develop
tiny devices which act as personal assistants, delivering features that go
beyond human capabilities in complex situations.
The Human Brain Project. Its goal is to understand how the human brain
works.
IT Future of Medicine, which studies the possibility of individualized and

tailored medical treatments based on the biological data from each individual
patient.
Robot Companions for Citizens, project devoted to develop soft-skinned and

intelligent robots with highly developed perceptive, cognitive and emotional
skills.
1
Chapter 1. MOR and new approaches to numerical simulations 2
FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator and Crisis-Relief System. This project

studies how to analyze vast amounts of data and complex situations so as
to better predict natural disasters, or manage and respond to man-made
disasters.
Graphene Science and technology for ICT and beyond.
Despite being different, there is a common ingredient to all of them: the emphasis
on the necessity to use advanced simulation-driven sciences and engineering. These
projects share some key aspects related to efficient computational sciences and all
of them face important limitations of todays computer capabilities and, notably,
simulation techniques.
Up to now, the solution of complex models, preferably fast and accurate, is ad-
dressed by using high performance computing (HPC) and hyper powerful com-
puting platforms. But, at the same time, there is a need for a new generation of
simulation techniques beyond HPC, because today many problems in science and
engineering remain intractable. To illustrate this issue, lets consider the following
challenging scenarios:
Models that are defined in high dimensional spaces, usually encountered

in quantum chemistry describing the structure and mechanics of materials
[2]. These models suffer the so-called curse of dimensionality, that is, when
a standard mesh-based method is used with M nodes by each of the D
dimensions, the number of degrees of freedoms is M D . This number can
be easily higher than the presumed number of elementary particles in the
universe.
Online control. The establishment of goal-oriented transfer function in com-

plex systems is beyond the nowadays capacities. Real-time simulations are
simply impossible when the actual physical models of interesting problems
are considered.
Problems in parametric modeling, inverse identification and process or shape

optimization. The parametric space is usually so big that gaining an overall
perspective of the solution space is not possible with traditional approach.
Dynamic Data-Driven Application Systems (DDDAS). These simulations are

based on measures obtained in real-time, and in reverse, the ability of an
application to dynamically steer the measurement process.
Light computing platforms. For certain important application such as aug-

mented reality, light computing platforms and deployed devices are an ap-
pealing alternative to HPC.
Thus, it is clear that fast computations are needed in science and engineering. How-
ever, this necessity is not new, from the Mesopotamian abaci to the nomograms
of the S.XIX, the human being throughout history developed several facilities for
giving fast responses to a variety of questions.
A nomogram is the graphical representation of mathematical relationships or laws

(figure 1.1). It is an area of practical and theoretical mathematics invented in
1880 by Philbert Maurice dOcagne and used extensively for many years to provide
engineers with fast graphical calculations of complicated formulas to a practical
precision. Thus, a nomogram can be considered as a graphical calculating device.
There are thousands of examples of the use of nomograms in all the fields of
sciences and engineering.
Figure 1.1: Nomogram
These objects can be constructed from purely algebraic mathematical relation-

ships, eventually non-linear. The calculation of the nomogram is an off-line process
and later is used on-line to give faster responses in many branches of engineer-
ing sciences for design and optimization. However, this process becomes almost
impossible when addressing more complex mathematical objects such as partial
differential equations (PDEs) which are the mathematical base of a plethora of

engineering models of interest.
Recently, Model Order Reduction (MOR) techniques opened the door to this pos-
sibility. The first developments were based on the Proper Orthogonal Decomposi-
tion (POD) [3]. The POD allows extracting the most significant characteristic of
the solution to construct a reduce approximation base, that can be then applied
for solving models slightly different to the ones that served to defined the base.
There is an extensive literature about this topic; the interested reader can refer
to [4] and the numerous references therein.
The calculation of the reduced basis is not unique. There are many alternatives
such as the Goal Oriented Model Constrained Optimization approach [5] or the
Modal Identification Method [6]. Another family of model reduction techniques
lies in the use of reduced basis constructed by combining a greedy algorithm and
a priori error indicator [7].
1.2 Model Order Reduction
An interesting way to understand the basis of the MOR techniques is introducing

the POD, because most of them relies on it. The basic ingredient of POD is the
need to complete some full-order problems in order to extract from them relevant
information to be used in similar problems. We have seen before that the number
of degrees of freedoms grows exponentially in a mesh-based approach. Then, the
question is: Is it possible to determine that the solution lives in a space of much
lower dimensions than that spanned by the finite element mesh? In principle, the
answer is yes and POD provides an efficient mean to do it.
Let us consider a time-dependent problem in which the solution field u(x, t)

is known, for the already computed full-order solutions, at the nodes xi of a
spatial mesh for discrete time instants tm = m t, with i [1, , M ] and
m [0, , P ]. We employ the notation u(xi , tm ) um
i and define u
m
as the
vector of nodal values um
i at time tm . POD provides an efficient mean to obtain
the most typical or characteristic structure (x) among these um (x), m. To this
end, we maximize the functional
PP hP i2
M m
m=1 i=1 (xi )u (xi )
= PM , (1.1)
i=1 ((xi ))
which can be shown equivalent to solve the following eigenvalue problem:
c = . (1.2)
Here, the vector has the i-th component (xi ), and c is known as the two-point
correlation matrix
P
X P
X
m m
cij = u (xi )u (xj ) = um (um )T , (1.3)
m=1 m=1
which is symmetric and positive definite. With the matrix Q defined as

u11 u21 uP1

u1 u22 uP2
2
Q= . , (1.4)

.. .. ... ..
. .

u1M u2M uMP
we have
c = Q QT . (1.5)
The aim is to obtain a reduced-order model, thus we solve equation 1.2 and keep
the N most important eigenvectors i , that is, those associated with the domi-
nating eigenvalues (the larger ones). The reduced model is created if N is found
to be much lower than M . This is very often the case in practice but not always.
These N eigenfunctions i are then used as basis functions to approximate the

sought function um (x), m. Let us define the matrix B = [1 N ],

1 (x1 ) 2 (x1 ) N (x1 )

1 (x2 ) 2 (x2 ) N (x2 )
B= . . (1.6)

.. .. .. ..
. . .

1 (xM ) 2 (xM ) N (xM )
If, for instance, an explicit time-stepping scheme is used to compute the discrete
solution um+1 at time tm+1 a linear algebraic system like
Gm um+1 = H m (1.7)
must be solved at each timestep.
A reduced-order model is then obtained by projecting um+1 onto the subspace

defined by the N most important eigenvectors i ,
N
X
u m+1
i im+1 = B m+1 . (1.8)
i=1
Equation 1.7 then writes

Gm B m+1 = H m (1.9)
or
B T Gm B m+1 = B T H m (1.10)
Coefficients m+1 defininig the solution of the reduced-order model are thus ob-
tained by solving an algebraic system of size N instead of M . When N << M , as
it is the case in numerous applications, the solution of 1.10 is thus very convenient
because of its reduced size. This POD-based approaches works well if the searched
solution is not far from those used for constructing the reduced base. Another
drawback is the need to solve several times the full problem. Those difficulties are
responsible for the birth of a new generation of techniques such as Reduced Basis
or Proper Generalized Decomposition. The last one will be described in detail in
the next chapter, being a fundamental tool in this work.
1.3 New approaches to MOR and simulation of

processes
In this section we show, through some examples, that the challenge scenarios
previously mentioned are very often present in the simulation of material forming
and processes. In all of these cases, the traditional simulation approaches fail (even
classic MOR techniques), and some other strategies should be followed. Here the
PGD has proved to be a very promising technique in order to provide fast and
efficient solutions in these situations.
The PGD is covered in detail in chapter two but we advance here its key features
in order to understand how this technique has open a new insight in the simulation
of material forming and processes.
The PGD is an a priori model order reduction technique. This means that
previously information about the solution of the full-problem is not needed
anymore.
The PGD complexity scales linearly with the discretization of the dimen-
sions. Thus, the curse of dimensionality does not occur.
By construction, the PGD solution allows us to solve problems with a com-

putational cost of an order of magnitude lower than the original problem.
The PGD allows to introduce any parameter of the problem as extra coor-
dinate. Thus, the solution depends explicitly on these new parameters and
it becomes a metasolution or computational vademecum [8].
It is well known that the finer description of matter (ranging from quantum
chemistry to statistical mechanics descriptions) leads to models defined in high-
dimensional space. For example, in the field of composite manufacturing, fine
rheological descriptions are needed to study some advanced manufacturing pro-
cesses such as the Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM). Here a very viscous fluid, the
resin, with embedded fibers flows into a mould. The velocity and pressure of the
complex fluid, and the distribution and orientation of the fibers play an important
role in the final result and the cost of the process. Unfortunately, the necessary
fine physical descriptions (kinetic theory models) cannot be solved with traditional
methods, because the number of dimensions of the problem (typically one coor-
dinate by particle) is prohibitive. The PGD emerges as an efficient alternative
thanks to its robustness against the curse of dimensionality [9].
A second challenging example is the optimization of processes. It is easy to see

that, in a welding process for example, the fields of interest (temperature field,
residual stresses, deformations. . . ) will be depend on many parameters, such as
thickness of the plates, material properties, power applied among others. Finding
the specific set of parametric values to optimize certain function of interest, i.e.,
welding time, could be almost impossible with traditional approaches. When the
space of parameters is huge and the computational cost associated to one test is
important, the trial-and-error approach is just unaffordable. The PGD has made a
major contribution to this field, creating the concept of computational vademecum:
a meta-solution in which the parameters of the processes appear explicitly. Then,
it is possible to derivate, in an explicit way, the solution with respect to the
parameters of the process and thus, not only the optimization but the analysis
of the sensibility of the problem with respect to any parameter of interest are
obtained in a direct and simple way. Moreover, these computational vademecums,
because they are computed off-line, can be introduced in deployed devices, open
the field of DDDAS and online control in real-time with light computing platform.
This idea has been used in active-control of tool paths in machining processes [10].
Finally, some of the models in material forming are defined in degenerated do-
mains like plate-type geometries. For instance, in automated tape placement
(ATP) manufacturing process of composites, the physics through the thickness
of the layers (the degenerated dimension) is very rich. A deep understanding of
this physics is fundamental in order to design and optimize this process. Tradi-
tional mesh-based methods need very fine discretizations leading to a very high
computational cost. The PGD allows computing the 3D solution of this problem
with the computational cost of a 2D problem [11].
1.4 Structure of the work
This introduction has provided an updated view of the new challenges in numerical
simulation in science and engineering. It has been seen as the current simulation
techniques may be insufficient to meet them in full. The MOR techniques are an
appealing alternative, therefore it has been illustrated through the classic POD. We
have proved, with some examples, that the simulation of manufacturing processes
and material forming processes leads to many of the challenges mentioned above.
This partially motivated the emergence of a new generation of ROM methods such
as PGD. After this introductory chapter, this document is organized as follows.
In chapter two the PGD is discussed in detail focusing on the application of

most interest to this work: the in-plane-out-of-plane-PGD-based decomposition.
Three examples were expressly made for this work and their results are presented.
Through them, a deeper comprehension of the method and its implementation was
gained.
Chapter three contains a brief study of a method based on an unconventional

interpolant, useful for material forming processes, the Natural Elements Method
(NEM). In addition, a robust integration strategy called Stabilized Conformal
Nodal Integratin (SCNI) is described in here. As part of this work, an educational
Matlab NEM code was developed. The contents of this chapter were carried out
in collaboration with Elas Cueto, Icar Alfaro and David Gonzalez, from the
University of Zaragoza.
In chapter four the major contributions of this work appear. A new efficient
updated-Lagrangian general strategy with possible application to the simulation of
material forming processes is proposed. In this technique, most of the ingredients
presented in the previous chapters (PGD and SCNI) are incorporated. A second
original contribution consists in the development and validation of a new form of
imposition of Dirichlet boundary conditions on a PGD framework. Very suitable
when the proposed spatial decomposition is used.
In the last chapter the conclusions of this work and the main scientific and engi-
neering perspectives are collected.
Chapter 2
The Proper Generalized

Decomposition
2.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, a general idea about ROM techniques and their impor-
tance for fast computation in engineering has been presented. We have illustrated,
using classic POD, how these techniques are able to extract the relevant informa-
tion from a set of particular solutions (from experiences or simulations) and to
construct an approximate solution involving much less information. In this way,
the reduced solution is constructed a posteriori through a set of solutions of the
complete problem.
However, one wonders if there is the possibility to construct these reduced ap-
proximations a priori, that is, without having to solve the full problem on several
occasions or disposing of previous experimental data. This desire becomes neces-
sary when faced with very complex problems, or when the number of technological
and material parameters makes it unfeasible to generate a set of particular solu-
tions representative of the complete solution space (see the interesting and didactic
TED talk [12] for more details). Very often, this is the case when material form-
ing processes are simulated to optimize them: the process is too complex and the
number of combinations of the parameters to be tested simply explodes.
11
Chapter 2. Proper Generalized Decomposition 12
The Proper Generalized Decomposition (PGD) [13], which is presented in this

chapter, is one of the methods that can be used to circumvent these issues, con-
stituting a particularly efficient a priori ROM technique.
Lets consider a problem (typically model led using PDE) defined in a D-dimensional
space with dimensions (x1 , ..., xD ). These dimensions are not only spatial but in-
clude material parameters, boundary conditions or even the time variable, as will
be explained in detail later. The PGD yields an approximate solution uN in the
separated form
N
X
uN (x1 , ..., xD ) = Fi1 (xi ) FiD (xD ), (2.1)
i=1
where the involved functions Fij (xj ) and the number of terms of the sum are
unknowns a priori. Henceforward, to alleviate the notation, uN will be denoted
just u.
It is important to stress that this idea is not new, the well-known method of sepa-
ration of variables is present in any introductory course of PDEs. The difference
is that, in PGD, not only the weights of the function of the base are unknown;
but the functional base itself is unknown a priori. It is the reason why the PGD
reduced base is able, in general, to capture the physics of the problem better than
other ROM techniques, especially when the available initial information is not
complete enough. The price to pay is the non-linearity of the formulation, but
fortunately PGD is in practice equipped with simple and robust algorithms to
deal with this issue.
The PGD approximation consists then in a sum of N functional products involving

each a number D of functions Fij (xj ) that are unknown a priori. The solution is
constructed by successive enrichments, th at is, the functional products (or PGD
modes) are computed in sequentially. Assume we are in a generic n + 1 enrichment
step, every Fij (xj ) function with i n is known from previous steps and one must
j
compute the new product involving the D unknown functions Fn+1 (xj ),
n
X
un+1 (x1 , ..., xD ) = Fi1 (x1 ) FiD (xD ) + Fn+1
1 D
(x1 ) Fn+1 (xD ). (2.2)
i=1
This computation is carried out using the weak form of the PDE, and the expres-
sion 2.2 constitutes the trial function. The test function is constructed using the
variations of the enrichment mode,

u = Fn+1
1 2
(x1 ) Fn+1 D
(x2 ) Fn+1 (xD ) =
1 2 D
Fn+1 (x1 ) Fn+1 (x2 ) Fn+1 (xD )+
1 2 D
Fn+1 (x1 ) Fn+1 (x2 ) Fn+1 (xD )+
1 2 D
Fn+1 (x1 ) Fn+1 (x2 ) Fn+1 (xD ). (2.3)
After introducing the test and trial functions, the problem to solve becomes non-
linear regardless of the fact that it was linear before. This means that an iterative
solver is needed at each enrichment step. The alternated directions fixed-point
algorithm is one of these solvers that have proved to be simple and robust for
many of the practical applications. We will present it later in this chapter.
It is fundamental to reflect about the implications of the use of PGD in the com-
plexity of the problem. If M nodes are used to discretize each coordinate space j ,
the total number of PGD unknowns is N M D. With standard mesh-based
discretization methods, the number of degrees of freedom is M D . That means
that the complexity of PGD scales linearly with the dimensions of the problem
instead of exponentially as in traditional methods. The exponential increase of
degrees of freedom in a problem constitutes the so called curse of dimensional-
ity in the literature. PGD provides an elegant solution to circumvent this curse,
which partially explains its popularity lately. Moreover, it has been observed that
the number of terms necessary to obtain an approximate solution with a certain
grade of accuracy does not depend on the number of dimensions of the problem,
but it rather depends on the separable character of the exact solution.
In many of the applications referred to in the literature and in the present work,
the number of terms of the PGD approximation is of the order of magnitude of
ten. A good indicator of the separability of the PGD solution is the separability,
when it is available, of a particular solution of the problem. The concept of good
separability of the solution, from an engineering point of view, is the possibility
to find a good approximation with a reasonable number of terms.
Once the general idea of the PGD has been presented, it is very convenient to
remark the main differences with the POD-based ROM methods, introduced in
the first chapter.
In one hand, the standard POD method is an a posteriori approach to model

reduction. It is mandatory to compute, at least once, the approximate solution
of the complete problem. Then, using this set of particular solutions the reduced
base is constructed. It is easy to understand that this base is not able to repro-
duce with physical details any other solution different from those that have been
used to construct the base. Of course, this approximation could be very accurate
but in any case it will depend on the quality of the initial data. Moreover, the
construction of a priori error estimators is not trivial.
On the other hand, the PGD does not rely on the availability of a prior solution of
the problem. The reduced approximation basis functions are unknown a priori and
it is constructed sequentially, based on the variational formulation of the problem.
The PGD can also be seen as an efficient solver, even in certain applications, such
as those included in this document, this feature constitutes the main reason for
using the PGD.
Finally, it should be noted that the PGD is not linked to any particular discretiza-
tion method. Obviously, its implementation with FEM is the most popular one
(because FEM is widely used) but it can be implemented using Finite Differences,
Meshless methods or any other.
2.2 PGD at a glance
Let us consider the following parametric heat transfer equation:
u
k u = f (2.4)
t
with homogeneous initial and boundary conditions. In this example we will also
explain one of the most important features of the PGD: the possibility of intro-
ducing general parameters of the problem as extra coordinates. It means that, for
example, the material properties or the applied forces are no longer parameters
but coordinates of the problem. Thus, the solution can be particularized later
for any particular value of each parameter (coordinate) inside their domains of
definition. One solves a more complex problem off-line that is evaluated online
(with negligible cost) for any particular case.
The price to pay is an increase of the problem dimensionality and the resulting
nonlinear formulation. The first drawback is overcome by the fact that the PGD
formulation scales linearly with the dimensions so it is not a major issue. The
second one is circumvented using an appropriate iterative solver, in practice, the
alternate directions fixed-point algorithm.
The weighted residual form of the problem reads:

Z
u
u ( k u f )dx dt dk = 0 (2.5)
It Ik t
for every test function u in its appropriate functional space.
In this example we introduce the time and the conductivity of the material as
extra coordinates. This implies that the desired solution will have the next form:
N
X
u(x, t, k) Xi (x) Ti (t) Ki (k). (2.6)
i=1
Assuming that we are in the enrichment step n, the following approximation is

already known,
n1
X
n1
u (x, t, k) Xi (x) Ti (t) Ki (k). (2.7)
i=1
and one desires to compute a new functional product Xn (x) Tn (t) Kn (k), which
we write as Rn (x) Sn (t) Wn (k) for notational simplicity. Thus, the solution in
this step n reads:
un = un1 + Rn (x) Sn (t) Wn (k). (2.8)
In order to compute the new enrichment functional we consider the next test
function:
u = Rn (x) Sn (t) Wn (k) + Rn (x) Sn (t) Wn (k) + Rn (x) Sn (t) Wn (k). (2.9)
Hence, the trial and test functions are given by the equations 2.8 and 2.9 respec-
tively. Introducing them in the variational form, the next nonlinear problem is
obtained:
Z
dS
u RW k S W R dx dt dk =
It Ik dt
Z n1 Z

X
dTi
u f u Xi K i k Ki Ti Xi dx dt dk
It Ik i=1 I t I k
dt
(2.10)
where the coordinate dependencies have been removed to alleviate the notation.
Additionally, we will consider that the source function can be expressed in a sep-
arated form: m
X
f fjx (x) fjt (t) fjk (k), (2.11)
j=1
which can be obtained using a HOSVD or applying a PGD approximation, as we

will study in the first example of this chapter.
As we have indicate before, this problem is solved with the alternated direction
fixed-point algorithm which works as follows:
I Assuming S(t) and W (k) known, R(x) is computed:
Z Z m
X Z

x x
R Rdx x x
R Rdx = xj jx R fjx dx
j=1
n1
X Z Z

ix ix R Xi dx ix ix R Xi dx , (2.12)
i=1
where the the integrals have been split and the next scalar values are known
at this point:
Z Z
x 2
= W dk ix = kW Ki dk
Ik Ik
Z Z
x dS dTi
= S dt ix = S dt
dt dt
ZIt ZIt
x = kW 2 dk ix = kW Ki dk
ZIk ZIk
x
= S 2 dt ix = STi dt
ZIt ZIt
xj = W fjk dk jx = Sfjt dt.

Ik It
II With the assumed W (k) and the previously computed R(x), S(t) is obtained
solving:
Z Z m Z
dS
X
t t
S dt t t
S Sdt = tj jt S ftj dt
It dt It j=1 It
n1 Z Z
dTi
X
t t t t
i i S dt i i S Ti dt , (2.13)
i=1 It
dt It
where the scalar values reads:

Z Z
t 2
= R dx it = RXi dx
Z Z
t = W 2 dk it = W Ki dk
Ik Ik
Z Z
t
= RRdx it = RXi dx
Z Z
t = kW 2 dk it = kW Ki dk
Ik Ik
Z Z
tj = Rfjx dx jt = W fjk dk.
Ik
III Finally, using R(x) and S(t) from previous steps W (k) is computed:
Z Z m
X Z
k
k
W W dk k k
kW W dk = kj jk W fkj dk
Ik Ik j=1 Ik
n1
X Z Z

ik ik W Kdk ik ik kW Ki dk , (2.14)
i=1 Ik Ik
where
Z Z
k 2
= R dx ik = RXi dx

Z Z
k dS dTi
= S dt ik = S dt
dt dt
ZIt ZIt
k = RRdx ik = RXi dx
Z Z
k = S 2 dk ik = STi dt
ZIt Z It
kj = Rfjx dx jk = Sfjt dt.

It
This tree steps are repeated in a loop until the convergence of the new functional
product is achieve. It is important to remark that the equation 2.12 is a regular
PDE of second order which can be solved for any method. In practice, the integra-
tion by parts is applied and then linear interpolations can be used. The equation
2.13 is an ODE of first order if the strong form is recovered and can be solved with
any temporal integrator. The equation 2.14 does not involve any derivatives, it is
a linear system of equations.
Before finishing this section, we will give a brief explanation about the imposi-
tion of non-homogeneous boundary conditions. The Neumann boundary condi-
tion emerges explicitly in the variational formulation as a new integral operator
of a known field. The challenge is to express this field as a functional product of
functions of the different coordinates of the problem. In practice, this is carried
out using the Singlar Value Decomposition (SVD), the High Order SVD or with a
PGD approximation (equivalent to SVD in two-dimensional problems). An exam-
ple of this PGD approximation is shown in the section 2.2.1. On the other hand,
to impose non-homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, the easiest way is to
construct artificially D initial PGD modes that satisfy the boundary conditions,
D
X N
X
u(x, t, k) Xi (x) Ti (t) Ki (k) + Xi (x) Ti (t) Ki (k), (2.15)
i=1 i=D+1
and solving the associated homogeneous problem to compute the rest of the modes.
Another method, developed during this work, to impose essential boundary con-
ditions will be presented in chapter four.
2.2.1 PGD and SVD
The impotance of the concept of separability of a field has been previously noted.
An approximate PGD solution will contain few terms if it is strongly separable or
a great number of them if it is not. The SVD and HOSVD provide a good test to
check this feature of the solution. Moreover, in the weak PGD formulation all the
involved fields should be expressed in a separated form, otherwise the complete
separation of the integral operation could not be performed. For these reasons the
SVD plays a very important role in the practical implementation of PGD.
The SVD, or its multi-dimensional counterpart the HOSVD, can be seen as a

method for compressing information. Let us consider M a I J matrix of rank
r and entries M ij = f (xj , yi ). We can apply the SVD to factorize M in the form
M = U V T. (2.16)
Here, U is a I I real unitary matrix. The columns of U are the eigenvectors

of M M T , also known as the left-singular eigenvectors of M . V is a J J
real unitary matrix, and its columns are the eigenvectors of M T M , or the
right-singular eigenvectors of M . The matrix is an I J rectangular diagonal
matrix, with r positive real entries i on the diagonal and zeros elsewhere. The
are orderd such that 1 is the largest one.
This SVD decomposition can be expressed as

r
X
M= i U i V Ti , (2.17)
i=1
where U i and V i denote the columns of the matrices U and V . We say that
the matrix M is separable if it is possible to find a number of terms r such that
r << N having a good approximation of M . If it is the case, the amount of
information diminishes significantly.
For its importance in this work, the PGD constructor is presented briefly in the
next lines. Additionally, we will show an interesting result: SVD and PGD are
equivalent in two-dimensional cases. It can be also proved that the decomposition
is optimal in that case [14].
We wish to compute an approximation of u(x, y) such that
u(x, y) = f (x, y), (x, y) = x y . (2.18)
The weighted residual form reads

Z
U (u(x, y) f (x, y))dx dy = 0, u . (2.19)
x y
In order to emphasize the connexion between PGD and SVD we look for a the
one-term PGD approximation
u1 (x, y) = X(x) Y (y). (2.20)
The fixed point algorithm, as explained before, consists in solving iteratively the
next two equations,
Z
X Y (XY f (x, y))dxdy = 0 (2.21)
x y
Z
XY (XY f (x, y))dxdy = 0. (2.22)
x y
The strong forms of 2.21 and 2.22 yield

R

Y f dy
X= R y , (2.23)
y
Y 2 dy
and R
Xf dx
Y = Rx . (2.24)
x
X 2 dx
After discretization,
MT Y
X= , (2.25)
YT Y
and
M X
Y = , (2.26)
XT X
where is easy to see that X and Y are eigenvectors of M T M and M M T
respectively. These coincide with the left-and right-singular vectors in the SVD
decomposition of M .
To learn how to implement this PGD application, we have performed a compression

of a family picture. In the figure 2.1 the original and the reduced pictures using
different numbers of PGD modes are presented. It can be observed how the PGD
captures the relevant information sequentially when new terms are incorporated.
The complete Matlab code of this example is included in the A.
Figure 2.1: A family picture treated with PGD
2.2.2 Last developments and PGD applications
It is not the purpose of this work to carry out a deeply and complete PGD review
from its creation. The necessary references are included when necessary for a better
understanding of the different concepts. Moreover, the PGD is an almost mature
techniques and very interesting reviews have been published in the last years such
as [13] or [8]. Furthermore some interesting books about PGD can be found. For
a comprehensive introduction and description of PGD, the interested reader can
consult [15]. To get a perspective on some of its practical applications, [16] is a
good reference. Finally, in the recent book [4], a deeper presentation of the PGD
in the context of Reduced Basis Methods can be found.
Thus, we present here some of the new tendencies of PGD and the last develop-
ments that appear during the elaboration of this master thesis.
The creation of computational vademecums is an important field of appli-

cation, especially for manufacturing processes. The inclusion of non-linear
parameters is one of the recent works.
Optimization of global structures based in PGD solutions of local elements.

Bifurcation problems in mechanics such as buckling.
The use of the PGD as a real-time temporal integrator of dynamic equations

[17]. In this way complex non-linear models such as biological tissues can be
simulated at real time. An interesting possibility in, for example, the field
of surgical simulators.
2.3 In-plane-out-of-plane PGD based decompo-

sition
One of the most prolific PGD applications, because of the quality of the results and
its diverse applicability, is the so-called in-plane-out-of-plane decomposition. The
first applications in linear elasticity were published by Brice et al. in [11]. More
recently it has been used in no-Newtonian squeeze flows with porous media [18].
Nowadays it is been used also to study the nucleation and propagation of defects
in composite materials [19].
Many of the models of material forming and composites manufacturing processes

are defined in degenerated three-dimensional domains. It is called degenerated
domain such domain in which one of the dimensions is much smaller than the
others, as in plate-type geometries. Mesh based solution of models defined in such
domains is a challenging issue because they involve meshes with too many degrees
of freedom. Often, the physics of the problem is very rich in the direction of the
degenerated coordinate (typically the thickness) and a very fine mesh is required.
This could lead to an unfordable computational cost.
Traditionally, in engineering, this problem has been solved using simplified models
defined in domains with less dimensions. This is the case of the classical theories
of strength of materials, where three-dimensional solids are approximated by 1D
or 2D models (beams, plates and shells) [20]. These approximations involve some
kinematical and mechanical hypotheses on the evolution of the solution through
the degenerated dimension. Then, the solution is only valid in those points which
satisfies the Saint-Venant principle.
The PGD has the advantage of the separation of the variables to decrease the
dimensionality of the operators to compute. As we have seen previously, it is
possible to find the solution in the form
N
X
u(x) Xi (x) Yi (y) Zi (z), (2.27)
i=1
but also using a plate-type decomposition,
N
X
u(x) Xi (x, y) Zi (z). (2.28)
i=1
In the first case, a complete separation is carried out. This means that we also
need a fully-separated geometry, which is complicated to find in practice. However,
the plate-type decomposition or the in-plane-out-of-plane decomposition is much
more versatile: many interesting geometries can be generated using the extrusion
of a generic 2D section. This technique is used throughout this work and it will
be explained in detail.
It has to be remarked that the in-plane-out-of-plane PGD solution is not a sim-

plified mode such as the beams or plates theories. It is a fully 3D solution which
is able to represent the 3D effects that the simplified theories cannot do. Thus,
comparisons should be made with real 3D FEM models. This fact does not mean
that no relationships could be established between the PGD separated solution
and some simplified models. The first PGD modes usually capture the solution of
the simplified models, enriching the solution with the following modes. The anal-
ogy between the first PGD modes and the plate models of Kirchhoff and Mindlin
is stated in [11].
Lets illustrate the technique with a simple problem, a linear elastic problem in
a plate-shape domain = I. Assuming the next separated form of the
displacements field

u(x, y, z) ui (x, y) uiz (z)
XN
xy
v i (x, y) vzi (z)

u(x, y, z) = v(x, y, z) . (2.29)

xy
i=1 i
w(x, y, z) wxy (x, y) wzi (z)
where uxy (x, y), vxy (x, y) and wxy (x, y) are function of the in-plane coordinates
whereas uz (z), vzi (z) and wz (z) are functions involving the thickness coordinate.
The weak formulation of this problem reads:

Z Z Z

(u ) K (u)d = u f d d + u F d d, (2.30)
N
where K is the Hooke tensor, f d represents the body forces, F d the forces applied
on the boundary N . The strains have the next separated expression:

uixy,x uiz

i i

v xy,y v z

N i i

X wxy wz,z
(u(x, y, z)) ui ui + v i v i .
(2.31)
i=1 xy,y z xy,x z

i i
u u + w i i
xy z,z xy,x wz
i i i
vxy vz,z + wxy,y wzi
Assuming that the first n modes have been computed, we want enrich the solution
adding another functional product:

Ru (x, y) Su (z)

un+1 (x, y, z) = un (x, y, z) +
Rv (x, y) Sv (z) .
(2.32)
Rw (x, y) Sw (z)
The last expression conforms the trial function. As we have seen in the previous
section, the test function has the next form:

Ru (x, y) Su (z) + Ru (x, y) Su (z)
u (x, y, z) =

. (2.33)
R
v (x, y) Sv (z) + Rv (x, y) Sv (z)

Rw (x, y) Sw (z) + Rw (x, y) Sw (z)
The weak form, after introducing the trial and test function, reads:
Z Z
(u (x, y, z)) K (un+1 (x, y, z)) dx dy dz =
xy z
Z Z Z

u (x, y, z) f d dx dy dz + u (x, y, z) F d d. (2.34)
xy z N
It is easy to check that, due to the product of unknown functions, the problem
has become nonlinear. To solve it, the alternated directions fixed-point algorithm
previously described.
Given an initial value S (0) (z) of S(z) arbitrarily chosen, all z dependent functions
are known. The equation 2.34 therefore reduces to a 2D problem where the three
components of R(x, y) are the unknown fields. Its solution yields R(1) (x, y), a
first approximation of R(x, y). Then using the just computed R(1) (x, y) in 2.34,
we similarly obtain a 1D problem which allows computing the three components
of S (1) (z) that constitutes the next approximation of S(z). This fixed point loop
keeps running until reaching convergence, i.e:
i=3
Z X 2
R(j) (x, y) S (j) (z) R(j1) (x, y) S (j1) (z) dx dy dz , (2.35)
i=1
where is a small enough parameter.
One continues adding new PGD modes until certain approximation grade is reached.
In general this is achieved imposing a minimum bound to the residual of the PDE
after the new mode is added. In practice the residual is not computed after each
new incorporation because it is computational expensive. Depending on the ap-
plication, the residual is computed after 5, 10 or more PGD modes.
According to the presented algorithm, the implementation of the PGD consists in

two nested loops:
The exterior loop, or the enrichment loop, which adds new PGD modes until
the residual of the PDE is small enough.
The interior loop, in which for computing the corresponding mode the non-
linear problem is solved iteratively. The nonlinear solver is the fixed-point
already presented and it stops when the new mode has converged.
Of course there are some sophisticated variations such as the residual minimization
for nonsymmetrical problems. This is beyond the scope of this work, the interested
reader can consult [15] for more details.
2.3.1 Some in-plane-out-of-plane decomposition examples
2.3.1.1 3D heat equation
In this first example, the next 3D heat problem was solved:
u = 2(1y 4 )(1z 6 )(1x2 )12y 2 (1z 6 )(1x2 )(1y 4 )30z 4 in = [1, 1]3
(2.36)
with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.
The source term was artificially constructed in order to compare the results with
the analytical solution,
u = (1 x2 )(1 y 4 )(1 z 6 ) (2.37)
and for having in a plate-type separated form the source term:
3
X
f= fixy fiz , (2.38)
i=1
where
f1xy = 2(1 y 4 ) f1z = 1 z 6 (2.39)

f2xy = (1 x2 )12y 2 f2z = 1 z 6 (2.40)
f3xy = (1 x2 )(1 y 4 ) f3z = 30z 4 (2.41)
The operators of the weak form, once the trial and test functions are introduced
in the variational formulation, are obtained after separating the integral domains.
These operators can be assembled and integrated as in any FEM solver.
In the figure 2.2, a section of the PGD solution is shown. In the figure 2.3 the
distribution of the relative error is presented. With only two PGD modes the
maximum relative error is of the order of 5%.
2.3.1.2 Stokes flow with a rotating obstacle
The second example consists in a Stokes flow of a Newtonian fluid through a

rectangular channel. Sticking condition is applied to the lateral and bottom walls.
Figure 2.2: PGD solution with two modes
Figure 2.3: Relative error of the PGD solution

Slip condition in the top wall. In the cylindrical obstacle a tangencial velocity is
imposed, which magnitude varies linearly from the top wall to the bottom. The
fluid enters into the channel with a constant unidirectional velocity profile.
Additionally, body forces are neglected and penalization technique is applied in

the incompressibility condition to avoid a mixed formulation.
Because of their importance in the present work, the Stokes equations and the
penalized formulation are presented starting from the Navier-Stokes equations.
More details can be found in [21].
The time-dependent flow of a viscous incompressible fluid is governed by the fol-

lowing form of the momentum equation and the mass-conservation equation (icom-
pressibility condition), called the Navier-Stokes equations:
(v t + (v )v) = + b in (0, T ), (2.42)

v =0 in (0, T ), (2.43)
where b are the volumetric forces. In the case of highly viscous flow, the convective
terms in the Navier-Stokes equation can be neglected. If we assume an stationary
process we obtain:
=b in (2.44)
v =0 in (2.45)
v = vD on D (2.46)
n =t on N (2.47)
A constitutive equation is needed to close the problem, = (p, v), for instance
the linear Stokes law:
= pI + 2S v. (2.48)
This is a vectorial problem, where the primary variable (the unknown) is the
velocity field. For a Newtonian fluid this is completely analogous to a linear
elastic problem where the unknown is the displacements field. The abstract form
of the variational problem reads:
a(w, v) + b(w, p) + b(v, q) = (w, b) + (w, t)N , (2.49)

where w and q are the test functions corresponding to velocity and pressure re-
spectively, which are defined in their appropiate functional spaces. The operators
of the abstract form 2.49 have the following definitions:
Z
a(w, v) = w(i,j) Cijkl v(k,l) d (2.50)
Z
b(v, q) = q v d, (2.51)

where Cijkl = (ik jl + il jk ). The equivalence to the elastic problem can be

found in [22].
In this application, to avoid a mixed formulation (which complicates the PGD

implementation), the penalty method was used. It consists in replacing the in-
compressibility constraint v = 0 by
v () = p() /, (2.52)
where is a mesh-size- and problem-independent parameter taken of the order of

107 108 in practice. However in PGD applications our experience says that this
value should be around 105 . Using this penalization, the weak form reads
a(w, v) + (w, p) + b(v, q) = (w, b) + (w, t)N , (2.53)
and, after the discretization of the operators, the problem to solve is:
(K + K )u() = f (2.54)
In order to apply the in-plane-out-of-plane PGD-based decomposition, the solution

is searched in the form:

u(x, y, z) ui (x, y) uiz (z)
XN
xy
v i (x, y) vzi (z)

v(x, y, z) = v(x, y, z) ,

xy
i=1 i
w(x, y, z) wxy (x, y) wzi (z)
and the trial and test functions are constructed as explained before.
In the figure 2.4 a picture of the solution is shown.

Figure 2.4: In-plane-out-of-plane PGD-based solution

Chapter 3
Robust Interpolants
3.1 Introduction
The classic Finite Elements methods have been widely used in industry and re-
search from their first developments in the 1960s and 1970s. One of their general
features is that they rely on the use of polynomial interpolants on compact sup-
ports. These interpolants are diverse, having different orders of consistency and
properties. In the last decades, a plethora of modified FE-based methods have
appeared, introducing certain modifications of these interpolants (or shape func-
tions), such as the interesting X-FEM method introduced by Belytschko et al in
1999 [23].
In general, in FEM, the interpolant functions are only different to zero in a small
region around the discretization node (compact support). This region is deter-
mined by the connectivity established between the nodes, which is the result of
the mesh used in the discretization and it is called element. It is well known that
the geometrical aspects of the elements have a huge influence in the accuracy of
the method [24].
Thus, to achieve an accurate integration of the discrete operators, the problem of

an eventual distorted mesh must be taken into account. Generally speaking, the
different families of proposed solutions found in the literature are:
Remeshing strategies. If eventually the mesh is not good enough the old
mesh is substitute by a new one. This can be seen as a force brute method,
31
Chapter 3. Robust Interpolants 32
but in fact it is an interesting research field because there are very elegant
and sophisticate techniques to remesh in a smart way such as the adap-
tive remeshing [25]. Classical updated-Lagrangian approaches often use this
technique.
Moving meshes strategies. These strategies try to avoid the use of very
distorted mesh (or diminish the remeshing frequency) establishing a dis-
cretization which evolves in a convenient way. The formulation of the prob-
lem changes due to the inclusion of convective terms which depends on the
movement of the mesh. In general, this technique is called Arbitrarian-
Lagrangrian-Eulerian (ALE) approach.
Methods not based on the connectivity. In these methods, the support of

the interpolant functions is not based on the connectivity but on the concept
of vicinity or field of influence. These methods are also called meshless
methods. In this work we will study one of them, the Natural Element
Method (NEM).
Numerical methods equipped with robust integrators, such as the Stabilized

Conformal Nodal Integration (SCNI). This strategy provides a certain ro-
bustness to the FE-method when a distorted mesh is present. In this work we
have include this technique and it will be explained in detail in this chapter.
We have not included in this classification the family of fixed-mesh methods, be-
cause, by construction, they are not going to face any mesh issue. However, in
general, these methods have other drawbacks which make them not very suit-
able for certain applications, such as the simulation of material forming process.
Among them it can be highlighted:
The history of the material particles should be reconstructed after the simu-
lation. This process can be expensive from the computational point of view.
Especially, this is an issue when the physics of the problem depends on the
history of the material points, such as in FSW.
It is difficult to follow free surfaces, a very important aspect in forming

processes such as extrusion.
It is difficult to deal with time-dependent boundary conditions. This is the

case of complex tool geometries in machining processes or FSW.
Thereby, in the present work this last family of methods is not examined.
According to the above categories, we call robust interpolant those interpolant

methods that are not based on any remeshing technique to circumvent the issue
of the distorted mesh. Thus, we are interested here in meshless methods and FE
methods equipped with SCNI.
It should be noted that the use of a certain general framework (Eulerian, La-
grangian, ALE) does not implies the use of a specific interpolant method. How-
ever, in general, meshless and robust methods are preferred when large distortions
occur, typically in Lagrangian methods. Even when they can also be used in an
Eulerian framework, probably the extra cost that implies to compute the inter-
polant functions does not compensate the effort.
Among the different meshless methods, NEM has been proved to be very suitable
for material forming processes [26]. Additionally, the robustness of FE-SCNI,
together with its simple implementation, makes it a very appealing method and
for this reason it will also be covered in this chapter.
3.2 Introduction to the Natural Element Method
Meshless methods are alternative techniques to the finite element method in solv-
ing partial differential equations. While the finite element method derives an
approximation based on the elements, using the connectivity, the meshless meth-
ods allow us to derive an approximation at any point thanks to the information
provided by the surrounding nodes. In these approaches the concept of element is
thus not used any more. Connectivity between the nodes is not defined any more
by the mesh but only by the concept of field of influence.
These methods were developed with the aim of avoiding the numerical problems
involved in mesh construction and its degradation. This is the case of manufactur-
ing processes such as extrusion, injection, or FSW. These methods also facilitate
the refining of the solution in certain areas of the domain, simply by adding new
nodes without the geometrical constraints known within the framework of finite
elements and the problems related to precise projection of the fields between the
original and the refined mesh.
Although structures with a geometrical character are necessary, these do not in-
terfere, in general, with the quality of the solution and thus can be built indepen-
dently. The term grid instead of mesh to refer to the cloud of nodes is preferred
by many authors to emphasize this feature. Among the many meshless methods
available nowadays, the Natural Element Method possesses some noteworthy ad-
vantages over other meshless methods. The NEM proposes an interpolation based
on the concepts of the Voronoi diagram and its natural neighbors.
The choice of support of shape functions is automatic and optimal in the sense that
node vicinity is taken into account as much as possible to define the interpolation.
With regard to the imposition of boundary conditions, for convex domains, it
is direct and proceeds as the finite elements: the influence of internal nodes on
a given domain is cancelled on the edges of the latter. In non-convex domain,
different techniques can be used such as alpha shapes [27] or constrained Voronoy
diagrams [28].
It follows that NEM combines the advantages of meshless methods and finite
element approaches. Moreover, these methods seem promising for complex simu-
lations because the evolution of internal variables can be calculated on the nodal
trajectories without requiring fields projections.
3.2.1 Interpolation of Natural Neighbors
The Voronoi diagram was originally introduced by Descartes in 1644 and studied
and extended by the mathematicians Dirichlet and Voronoi in 1850 and 1907
respectively. It has been applied in many scientific disciplines.
Given a set of nodes in Rn , the Voronoi diagram is a partition of the space into
regions TI each of which is associated with a node, such that in any point inside
one of these area s is neared to the node defining the cell than any other node.
Formally is given by
TI = {x Rn : d(x, xI ) < d(x, xJ ) J 6= I} , (3.1)
where TI is the so-called Voronoi cell associated with a node nI , x is a generic

node and d(, ) is the distance function in the usual topology.
By connecting the nodes sharing a common side of the Voronoi cell, we obtain the
Delaunay triangulation, figure 3.1, the dual of the Voronoi diagram. The vertices
of the Voronoi cells are the orthocenters of the Delaunay triangles and the centers
of the circumscribed circles with these triangles.
The natural neighbors of a node are the nodes whose Voronoi cell shares an edge
with the one of the considered nodes or which are connected to the node by an
edge of the Delaunay triangle. In 2D this triangulation maximizes the minimum
interior angle of the triangles.
Figure 3.1: Delaunay triangulations
The most popular type of natural neighbor interpolant is accredited to Sibson.

Before proceeding to its description, we will introduce the second-order Voronoi
cell, containing the points with the first closest node as the nI , and the second
nearest nodes as the nJ :
TIJ = {x Rn : d(x, xI ) < d(x, xJ ) < d(x, xK ) K 6= J; J 6= I} . (3.2)
Consider a cloud of nodes and the associated Voronoi diagram, we will say that
a node i is a neighbor of another node j if their Voronoi cells have a common
side. Consider now the introduction of the point x (see figure 3.2). Due to its
inclusion, the Voronoi diagram will be altered, affecting the Voronoi cells of the
natural neighbours of x. The value of Sibson interpolant in a point x is defined as
the ratio of the cell TI that is transferred to Tx when adding x to the initial cloud
of points to the total cell volume. To illustrate this, according with the figure 3.2,
the value of natural neighbor interpolant in x associated to node 1 is the following
ratio of areas:
Aabf e
1 (x) = . (3.3)
Aabcd
Figure 3.2: Constructing the Sibsonian interpolant
Formally, the former expression is generalized to n dimensions,
I (x)
1 (x) = , (3.4)
(x)
which express the ratio between the Lebesgue measurements of the second-order
Voronoi cell and the fist-order Voronoi cell at the point x. In other words, is the
value of the Sibsons interpolant in the point x associated to node 1. In general,
the point x will be a point of integration.
The resulting shape function, figure 3.3, has some interesting properties:
Are C 1 functions almost everywhere, except at the nodes where they are C 0 .
The resulting approximation has a linear consistency.
The partition of unity, which makes it possible to enrich the approximation

to increase the order of the consistency.
The Sibsonian interpolant can be used, as in traditional FEM, to approximate any

escalar, vectorial o tensorial field u(x) in the form:
N
X
h
uu = i ui (3.5)
i=1
where uI is the vector of the nodal variables and n is the number of natural
neighbors of point x. Contrary to what happens in classical FEM when , where
the number of nodes determine the number n in the former expression and it is a
Figure 3.3: Sibsonian interpolant
feature of the element, in NEM this could change in each integration point. Then,
it can be seen how this interpolant has a more natural behavior when faced with
a distorted mesh. In the figure 3.4 we illustrate this idea.
Figure 3.4: NEM a natural interpolation
For a given point x with a mesh-based method, the connectivity could lead to
a situation in which the more distant nodes have more influence than the closer
ones. With the natural interpolant this problem is always avoided.
One of the drawbacks of any meshless method is the imposition of Dirichlet bound-
ary conditions. The problem comes from the impossibility of making, on any type
of boundary, the shape function associated with the interior nodes vanish. In
NEM, this problem is associated with not-convex boundaries because what the
method sees, in its basic implementation, is the convex hull domain of the given
set points. That means that, for example in figure 3.5 the node c can have in-
fluence on the node e, which is an undesirable situation. This problem does not
happen in the nodes of convex boundaries, where the Dirichlet boundary condition
can be imposed as usual.
Figure 3.5: Visibility in NEM
Two different strategies can be found in the literature to circumvent this problem:
The introduction of the so-called -shapes, which is associated with the level
of detail with which we desire to represent the domain described by the point
cloud. The mathematical formalism of this technique can be found in [REF],
but the main idea is simple. For a given point on the boundary, the area
where their neighbors are searched is restricted to a Rn -ball with radius
centered in the point. Thus, the influence of undesirable nodes is avoided
when a convenient value is selected. The proper selection of this value
depends on the application and it could be quite difficult in complex geome-
tries. In figure 3.6 we present a clarifying example of a set of nodes (extracted
from a human jaw bone tomography), treated with different values. In the
lower limit, near zero, we see the set of points with no connections (in-
fluence) between them. In the upper limit, tending to infinite, we obtain
the convex hull domain associated to the nodal set. An intermediate situa-
tion should be found in order to have the appropriate influence between the
nodes, allowing to impose the essential boundary conditions properly.
The second strategy is the Constrained NEM (CNEM). Here, a constrained

Voronoi diagram is constructed based on the criterion of visibility. Thus,
in figure 3.5, the nodes b, c and d are not visible by a and reciprocally. In
practice ones need to add to expression 3.1 a logical condition:
TI = {x Rn : d(x, xI ) < d(x, xJ ) J 6= I x xI visible, x xJ visible} .

(3.6)
Figure 3.6: Influence of -shapes in the description of a domain
3.2.1.1 NEM: an academic example
In this section an academic example developed from scratch in the framework

of this work will be presented. An important reference to understand how to
implement NEM is [29].
The example consists on an elastic block with a uniform top load and the vertical
displacements restricted on the bottom line.
In the figure 3.7 the resulting displacements are shown, which are in accordance
with the expected results.
It is important to remark that this is a very simple linear elastic example with
the purpose of learning how to implement this method. However, NEM is very
convenient for nonlinear solid problems with large displacements and large strains
because not remeshing is necessary during the iterative application of the load.
Figure 3.7: Simple example with the NEM educational code
3.3 Stabilized Conforming Nodal Integration
Meshless methods have another drawback not mentioned before: domain integra-
tion using Gauss quadrature introduces significant numerical errors due to the
following:
The integration cells do not match shape function supports.
The non-polynomial character of the meshless shape functions.
On the other hand, direct nodal integration, using the nodes as integration points,
leads to numerical instabilities.
Chen et al. [30] suggested the SCNI method to solve this issue, which was applied
to the NEM by Gonzalez et al. [31]. Moreover, it is very interesting that SCNI can
be incorporated into traditional FEM to produce a very robust method to deal
with distorted mesh.
In this work this FE-SCNI method has been used in the 3D examples of chapter
four, and for that reason the technique is explained in detail.
The SCNI is based on the assumed strain method, in which a modified gradient is
introduced at the integration point (node):
Z
1
u(x i) = u(x) d, (3.7)
Ai i
where xi are the coordinates of node ni . The cell i is one element of any partition
of the domain. Typically a Voronoi tessellation is used. We illustrate the technique
with an elastic problem.
The modified strain vector is given by

u1 (x)
Z Z x1
1 1 u2 (x)

(xi ) = (x)d =
x
d. (3.8)
Ai i Ai i u (x) 2 u (x)

1 2
x2
+ x 1
Applying the divergence theorem, it results:

Z Z u1 (x)n1
1 1
(xi ) = (x)d = u2 (x)n2 d. (3.9)
Ai i Ai i

u1 (x)n2 + u2 (x)n1
After the discretization, the modified strain vector reads
(xi ) = B i d, (3.10)
where d is the vector of nodal displacements and the components of B i are defined
by:
j (xi )
Z
1
= j (x)n1 (x)d
x1 Ai i
j (xi )
Z
1
= j (x)n2 (x)d, (3.11)
x2 Ai i
and the global stiffness matrix is obtained by assembling the contribution of each
node ni :
X T
K= Ai B i D B i . (3.12)
i
It is interesting to note that, in FE-SCNI, the derivates of the shape functions

are computed through the value of the shape functions itself in certain integra-
tion points when the equations 3.11 are numerically computed. These integration
points are distributed along the boundaries of the elements of the partition.
Chapter 4
An efficient updated-Lagrangian
technique for material forming
processes
4.1 Introduction
In the first chapter we have seen that the material forming simulation is a very
challenging task, even for the high performance computation available nowadays.
In one hand, processes such as co-extrusion, friction stir welding (FSW) or resin
transfer moulding involve some inherent difficulties:
They are multiphysics problems. This leads to strongly coupled thermome-

chanical simulations with non-trivial boundary conditions.
Presence of large deformations and, therefore, very distorted meshes.
The simulation of voids and flaws is crucial but it is very complex.
Presence of evolving free surfaces.
Need of knowledge of the thermomechanical path of the material particles.
On the other hand, the actual industry demands a new paradigm in numerical
simulation in order to improve its competitiveness. This new paradigm leads to:
43
Chapter 4. An efficient up-Lagrangian technique for material forming 44
Creates virtual test platforms [32] able to reduce the design cycle of products
and processes. These platforms should provide the user with rapid responses
to complex coupled problems.
The online control of processes in real-time and DDDAS.
Introducing the augmented reality in the factories with an extensive use of

light computing platforms able to provide relevant information just in time.
To circumvent the first group of problems, those intrinsic to this kind of numerical
simulations, different solutions can be found in the literature. All of them can
be categorized using the following general classification of simulation frameworks.
This classification can be applied to any numerical method, but it has an espe-
cial relevance in the simulation of material forming processes. In general, three
frameworks can be established:
Eulerian. The discretization nodes are fixed to the space. That means
that the mesh does not evolve in time. In practice, with this approach, no
distortion problems occur. It is present in any commercial code available
and it is, in principle, the easiest approach to any computational simulation.
Unfortunately, the material derivative with a fixed reference (also called total
derivative) will contain a convective term. This convective term, when dom-
inates the problem, leads to numerical instabilities and the problem should
be stabilized (not trivial in 3D problems). Additionally, the path and ther-
momechanical history of the material particles should be reconstructed a
posteriori which involves numerical diffusion. Moreover, this reconstruction
should be frequent since the physics of the problem depends on the material
distribution. If this is not enough, the treatment of free surfaces and evolv-
ing boundary conditions is very complicated and maybe inaccurate in an
Eulerian framework. Thus, it is clear that the use of an Eulerian approach
is quite limited for the metal forming simulations.
Lagrangian. The discretization nodes are fixed to the material particles. The
mesh evolves in time following the material, thus, their thermomechanical
history is obtained directly. Free surfaces are easily tracked and boundary
conditions imposed in a simple way.
However, this approach leads to distorted meshes when large deformations
occur, and therefore, a frequent remeshing is needed. Remeshing is very
expensive in practice, being in some applicatons the bottle neck of the simu-
lation. In addition, reiterative projections of the fields between the old and
new meshes are required, introducing numerical diffusion.
Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE). This framework was developed in or-

der to avoid the main issues of the former approaches while preserving their
main advantages. The discretization nodes are fixed neither to the space
nor to the material points. The mesh moves in an smart way to avoid an
excessive distortion diminishing or avoiding the necessity of remeshing. This
also facilitates imposing boundary conditions and following free surfaces.
Evidently, convective terms associated with the relative velocity between the
mesh and the material will appear in the formulation, which implies numeri-
cal difficulties. ALE-based methods are also very expensive in computational
terms and the fields projection between meshes is not completely avoided.
Moreover, they require certain know-how: the mesh velocity depends on
the specific application and its determination is not a trivial task. In any
case, computational codes based on ALE approaches are the state-of-the-art
numerical simulation of material forming processes [33, 34].
In the figure 4.1, the pros and cons of these different frameworks are summarized.
It is important to note that in the previous classification we have equated the mesh
and the nodal discretization. This is not true in a strictly sense, since any meshless
method can be applied using the different frameworks presented. However, it is
difficult to find in practice an application where the use of meshless method in an
Eulerian or even in ALE frameworks could be justified over a traditional FEM.
Figure 4.1: Pros and cons of the different approaches

It is still an open question how to satisfy the second group of requirements, those
demanded by the most advanced industries such as the aeronautical and the au-
tomotive ones. The common denominator of all of them is the necessity of fast
computing. Therefore, MOR methods are an appealing alternative as we have seen
in the introductory chapter. Among these methods, in this work, the application
of the in-plane-out-of-plane PGD-based decomposition is explored as an efficient
technique to solve problems in updated-Lagrangian frameworks. Thus, PGD in
this particular application should be seen more as an efficient solver than as a
MOR method.
4.2 Proposed strategy
In the section 2.3 we have seen that the in-plane-out-of-plane PGD-based de-
composition can solve 3D problems through a succession of 2D problems. The
provided examples were solved in an Eulerian framework, and in fact this is the
only approach that can be found in the PGD literature.
However, in this chapter, we have concluded that an Eulerian mesh is not the
best option to simulate material forming processes. Therefore, the question is
obvious: Could be the in-plane-out-of-plane PGD-based decomposition extended
to updated-Lagrangian frameworks?
Proving that the answer to the former question is affirmative is the main purpose
of this work and of this chapter in particular. The key idea is quite simple: Using
the orthogonal projections of the 3D nodes in a plane and in an axis to construct
the discrete functional spaces for the PGD modes. In that way, the values of any
unknown field will be obtained directly in the nodes and no information is trans-
ferred between different meshes. The tracking of the particles, quite important in
material forming simulations, is inherent to the Lagrangian nature of the method.
It is easy to understand that the nodal projections in the plane could lead to a very
distorted 2D mesh, even when the optimal triangulation (Delaunay triangulation)
is used. To circumvent this issue, the strategy introduces another key ingredient:
the SCNI, presented in the chapter two, which provides robustness to the numerical
integration of the 2D operators.
Let us describe this updated-Lagrangian strategy through a generic model of a

material forming process which involves a material flow, such as co-extrusion or
FSW.
In first approximation, we neglect the elastic behavior assuming a purely viscoplas-

tic constitutive equation. This assumption is known as the flow formulation in
the forming processes community.
The constitutive equation writes:
= 2d pI (4.1)
where p = tr()/3 and the viscosityq can be written as = y /3d. The

equivalent strain rate is defined as d = 23 d : d
The balance of momentum and mass equations without inertia and the assumed
incompressibility of the flow read:
= 0, v = 0 (4.2)
To study the evolution and distribution of temperatures, the rigid-plastic material

equations are coupled with the following heat transfer equation:
(kT ) + r (cp T ) = 0 (4.3)
The rate of heat generation due to plastic deformation is calculated as
r = : d (4.4)
where , the fraction of mechanical energy transformed to heat. Together with

these equations, appropriate boundary conditions should be considered.
The mechanical and thermal problem will be solved iteratively.
As we studied in chapter two, the 3D integral formulation of the problem can

be expressed as separated products of integral operators in the 1D and the 2D
domains using the PGD. The position of the nodes in the 3D space is projected in
the plane xy and in the z axis. The problems defined in the plane and thickness
domains are solved separately by using the 2D FE-SCNI technique able to account
for large mesh distortions, i.e., it allows considering the projected nodes without
the necessity of repositioning them.
Because of the one-dimensional character of the problems defined in the thickness,

we can use extremely fine descriptions along the thickness direction without a
significant impact on the computational efficiency.
The separated representation writes:

u(x, y, z) N uixy (x, y) uiz (z)
X
v(x, y, z) = v(x, y, z)
v i (x, y) v i (z) . (4.5)
xy z
i=1 i i
w(x, y, z) wxy (x, y) wz (z)
Once the three-dimensional velocity is obtained, the position of the nodes is up-
dated according to:
xi+1 = xi + t vi (4.6)
to solve again the thermal problem and restart the solution loop.
The question of how to project three-dimensional intensive variables, such as vis-

cosity, in this formulation is not obvious. In this work we assume that the viscosity
can be approximated, as we presented in section 2.2.1, in a separated form:
M
X
(x, y, z) = xy z
k (x, y)k (z) (4.7)
k=1
from the viscosity computed at the nodal positions in the 3D domain.
The whole strategy is summarized in the figure 4.2. In what follows we are con-
sidering in more detail the flow model.
4.2.1 Viscous flow model
The Stokes model is defined in = I and reads for an incompressible fluid:
(
p = ( v)
(4.8)
v =0
where is the fluid viscosity.
Figure 4.2: General scheme of the proposed strategy
To circumvent the issue related to stable mixed formulations (LBB conditions)

within the separated representation used in what follows, we consider a penalty
formulation that modifies the mass balance by introducing a penalty coefficient
small enough
v+p=0 (4.9)
or more explicitly

1 u v w v
p= + + = (4.10)
x y z
By replacing it into the momentum balance (first equation in (4.8)) we obtain
( v) + v = 0 (4.11)
with = . By developing it results

2u 2u 2u
x x2
+ y 2
+ z 2

u v w
2v 2v 2v

y
+ + + x2
+ y 2
+ z 2
=0 (4.12)
x y z
2w 2w 2w
z x2
+ y 2
+ z 2
or
2u v w 2u 2u 2u
x2
+ x y
+ x z x2
+ y 2
+ z 2
2v 2v 2v 2v

u w + =0 (4.13)

y x
+ y2 + y z x2
+ y 2
+ z 2
u v 2 2w 2w 2w
z x
+ z y
+ zw2 x2
+ y 2
+ z 2
4.2.2 Power-law fluid
The Stokes model extended to power-law fluids reads:
(
p = T
(4.14)
v =0
where the extra-stress tensor for power-law fluids writes:
n1
T = 2K Deq D (4.15)
with K and n two rheological parameters and D the strain rate tensor:

u 1 u v 1 u w
x 2 y
+ x 2 z
+ x

1 u v v 1 v w
D= + + y (4.16)

2 y x y 2 z

1 u w 1 v w w

2 z
+ x 2 z
+ y z
and the equivalent strain rate Deq given by:

p
Deq = 2(D : D) (4.17)
where : denotes the tensor product twice contracted.
4.3 Validation of the strategy
4.3.1 Reconstructing information
To validate the proposed strategy, the first question that arises is how an SVD
decomposition can reconstruct a field, knowing its values in certain particles and
using the idea of the nodal projections.
To that purpose we considered the next two-dimensional function:
f (x, y) = 20 exp (x 1)2 /0.1 exp (y 0.5)2 /0.1 ,

(4.18)
which in certain random nodes {x1 , x2 , ..., xr } takes the values {f1 , f2 , ..., fr }.
These values are the only available information to construct a separated approxi-
mation
N
X
f (x, y) Fi (x)Gi (y) (4.19)
i=1
Pr Pr
where Fi (x) = j=1 r (x)Fi (xj ) and Gi (y) = j=1 r (y)Gi (yj ).
In the former interpolations, xj and yj are the orthogonal projections of the particle
xj in the Cartesian axes (its coordinates); r and {Fi , Gi } are, respectively, the
shape functions and the nodal values (unknowns).
We have seen in section 2.2.1, that in an SVD decomposition, a good criterion

to choose the number of terms N in 4.19, is to compare the relative importance
of the eigenvalues, ordered by magnitude, with the larger one. In the figure 4.3
this ratio is shown for a different number of modes. It can be seen that, when the
number of particles increases, more number terms are necessary for a given bound
of the eigenvalues ratio. The absolute error in norm L2 between the reconstructed
values and the exact ones is shown in figure 4.4. According to the plots, 50 SVD
modes are enough to expect a reasonable accuracy for most of the applications.
However, this number will depend on the particular function.
4.3.2 Resolution of a PDE
The next step is to study how to solve a 2D PDE with the source term only known
in certain nodal positions and using the separation of variables proposed by the
PGD. Again, the 1D-PGD modes will be constructed with the projections of the
particles in the axes. In practice, as we have seen in chapter two, this reduces
dramatically the complexity of the problem.
Eigenvalues decayment
50 Particles
102 300 Particles
3000 Particles
105
/ 1
108
1011
1014 0
10 101 102 103 104
Number of SVD terms
Figure 4.3: Eigenvalues decayment
error2 in material points

101
50 Particles
300 Particles
3000 Particles
Absolute error
102
103
104
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of SVD modes
Figure 4.4: Absolute error in the material particles
Let us assume the next Poissons equation

u = f in = [0, 2] [0, 1] (4.20a)

u=0 on x = 0 (4.20b)

u=0 on y = 0 (4.20c)
u = y(y 1)

on x = 2 (4.20d)

u

= g(x) on y = 2 (4.20e)
y

PDE Absolute Error

0
10
Abs. Error 101
102
103 1
10 102 103 104
Number of Particles
Figure 4.5: PDE absolute error
where
0, if x 0.5
g(x) =
1, if x > 0.5.
The solution is searched in the form:

N
X
u(x, y) = Fi (x)Gi (y). (4.21)
i=1
The criterion to stop the enrichment process was to set 104 as tolerance for the
residual. This leads to between 30 to 50 PGD modes, depending on the number
of the particles introduced. When more particles are introduced, the solution is
richer and more modes are necessary to capture the higher frequencies.
In the figure 4.5 the absolute error (in infinity norm) of the PGD solution is
presented. A FEM solution in a fine mesh was taken as exact solution. Logically,
the more particles are introduced in the domain, the more information we get and
less error is obtained. This method is approximately of order one.
The exact solution and the reconstructed PGD solution in the particles are
presented in the figure 4.6. A qualitative idea of the distribution of the error is
shown in the figure 4.7. In this figure, the exact solution is plotted in the plane.
Figure 4.6: Exact solution and PGD solution in the particles
Figure 4.7: Distribution of the error in the PGD solution
4.3.3 Unsteady convection-diffusion equation
At this point we have seen how the PGD can solve PDEs in separate coordinates
with only the source known in certain points (particles). However, our proposed
strategy is an updated-Lagrangian technique, so it is in problems which evolve
with times where it has sense.
For that purpose, we are going to solve the transient rotating pulse example from
the book [21] in this section. The problem reads:

u + a u (u) = s in = [0, 1] [0, 1] (4.22a)
t

u=0 on (4.22b)

u=0 at t = 0 (4.22c)
with a small diffusion = 105 and

p p
cos(/2) x2 + y 2 , if x2c + yc2 1
c c
a = ((y 0.5), (x 0.5)) s= ,
0, otherwise
(4.23)
with (xc , yc ) = ((x 0.2), (y 0.2)).
The FEM solution requires stabilization regardless of the time integration scheme
selected. Here we have used, as a reference solution, a SUPG discretization in
space and a R2,2 time scheme. The details of this formulation can be found in [21].
It is important to note that, even with SUPG, the solution suffers oscillations
near the borders. In an updated-Lagrangian approach, the convective term does
not appear, stabilization is not necessary and this problem does not occur. In an
updated-Lagrangian approach, the problem reads
ut 2 u = s. (4.24)
If an implicit temporal scheme is used, and the increment of u, u = un+1 un ,

is selected as primary variable, the equation to solve in each time step, reads:
u
(2 )u = sn+1 + 2 un . (4.25)
t
To solve this problem using the PGD separation of variables, the test and trial
functions are constructed as explained in chapter 2. Moreover, in the time step
n + 1 two known fields should be expressed in separated form, un and sn+1 . The
separation of these spaces were carried out using a SVD .
In the figure 4.8, the FEM solution represented with a surface and the PGD
solution at t = in the particles is shown. It is important to note that, with the
updated-Lagrangian PGD strategy, no stabilization is needed. Moreover, thanks
to the separation of variables the problem is solved at the same cost than a few
1D problems.
Figure 4.8: FEM and PGD solutions for a transient problem
4.3.4 A simple model of co-extrusion
In this section we start the 3D tests of the proposed strategy. Let assume a
simple model of co-extrusion, two immiscible fluids, with very different viscosities,
entering in a squared pipe. The interface between the fluids is, at the enter, in the
middle of the section as it is shown in the figure 4.9. But this is not an equilibrium
situation, the less viscous fluid advances faster and, due the conservation of mass,
the interface moves to diminish the effective flow section.
Figure 4.9: Scheme of the co-extrusion

0.5
Interface position in equilibrium

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
106 105 104 103 102 101 100
Viscosity ratio 1 /2
Figure 4.10: Analytical solution of the position of the interface
In the figure 4.10, the equilibrium position of the interface for two fluids with a
given viscosity ratio is presented. This plot has been obtained solving the an-
alytical solution of two Stokes flow between two parallel plates. On the upper
and bottom plates the sticking condition was imposed and in the interface the
velocities and tangential forces were equaled.
This is not exactly our 3D problem, but we can expect, qualitatively, a similar
behavior in the symmetry plane. In the plot it can be seen that, for a viscosity
ratio of 0.01 the interface position diminishes around a 25% of the total high of
the section. The Matlab code to solve the former problem can be found in the A.
In the numerical simulation we solve the Stokes flows using the in-plane-out-of-
plane PGD-based decomposition in an updated-Lagrangian approach. At each
time step, the material nodes are moved with the computed velocity and, in the
new particles configuration, the problem is solved again until an equilibrium situ-
ation is reached. The viscosity field was separated using an SVD.
The results, even when only a few nodes were used (around 800), are in very good
agreement with the qualitative expected behavior. In the figure 4.11, it can be
seen that the flow section of the blue fluid has diminished in approximately the
predicted quantity.
Figure 4.11: PGD solution at the equilibrium
4.4 A new way of imposing essential boundary

conditions in PGD
One of the issues of the separation of variables in PGD is the imposition of es-
sential boundary conditions. Usually, in PGD, some first modes are artificially
constructed to satisfy only the Dirichlet conditions and the rest of the modes are
computing solving the associated homogeneous problem (the associated degrees
of freedom from the system are removed). But, with an in-plane-out-of-plane de-
composition, this technique is not possible if the geometry of the boundary is not
a complete extrusion of a 2D shape along the z axis.
This problem has been solved before adding penalization terms in the weak form.
In this work, a new strategy with no penalty terms is presented.
The idea is to search the solution in the next form:

N
X
u(x, y) = U0 + Fi (x)Gi (y)(x, y), (4.26)
i=1
where U0 and can be expressed in separated way, for instance using an SVD.
The function U0 satisfies the essential boundary conditions and is a characteristic
function which is null in the essential boundaries.
Thus, the PGD solution is sequentially constructed respecting always the imposed
values in these points where the characteristic function is zero but enriching the
U0 function in the rest.
Let us illustrate the technique with a 2D Laplace equation in an square domain

with a squared hole:
u = 0, in (4.27)
u = 0, on 1 (4.28)
u = 2, on 2 (4.29)
where 1 is the external border and 2 is the internal one. In this case, the
PGD decomposition is an axis-axis separation. In the figure 4.12 a reference
solution with FEM and the PGD solution are shown. In the PGD solution, the
hole is filled, because we do not create any hole explicitly, but in the domain of
interest the solution is the expected one. Again, this 2D problem is solved with
the computational cost associated to solve some 1D problems.
In the figure 4.13 the maximum relative error of the PGD solution as a function
of the number of terms computed is presented. In this case, with 40 modes,
an error inferior to 1% is obtained. The error, as it can be observed in figure
4.14, is concentrated in the internal corners, where the characteristic function has
singularities.
Figure 4.12: FEM and PGD solutions for a Laplace equation

100
Relative Error
101
102
103 0
10 101 102
Number of PGD modes
Figure 4.13: Error as a function
Figure 4.14: Relative error of the PGD solution
The same idea has been successfully tested in a 3D problems. In the figure 4.15
we solve the next 3D Laplace equation,
u = 0, in (4.30)
u = 1, on x = 1 (4.31)
u = 2, on int (4.32)
where int is the surface of an internal cylinder which does not reach the bottom
plane.
Finally, we used the technique in a vectorial problem, a steady Stokes flow. In

this case, a uniform velocity profile enters into the cube through one of its sides
and in the cylinder a tangential velocity is imposed. In the figure 4.16 and 4.17
some streamlines are shown.
Figure 4.15: PGD solution of the 3D Laplace problem
Figure 4.16: Some streamlines of the PGD solution in an 3D Stokes flow
4.5 FSW kinematic like example
The last example of this works tries to incorporate all the numerical ingredients
presented. We will solve a 3D problem using the updated-Lagrangian PGD-based
technique and imposing Dirichlet conditions as we have seen in the previous sec-
tion. To achieve this, we have made a simulation inspired by the FSW process
(figure 4.18).
Figure 4.17: Streamlines of the PGD solution in an 3D Stokes flow
FSW is a solid state welding technique which since its invention in 1991 is of great
interest to the industry [35].The FSW welding process is conceptually simple. A
non-consumable rotating tool with a specially designed pin and shoulder is inserted
into the abutting edges of sheets or plates to be joined and traversed along the line
of joint. The tool heats the workpiece ant its stir movement produces the joint.
The obtained results proved that the technique is feasible: with a reasonable
number of nodes the global behavior of the fluid is captured with real 3D effects.
However, these results are not representative of the physics of the FSW process
because the non-Newtonian behavior of the fluids has not been incorporated in
the model. When Newtonian fluid are used, all the domain is perturbed by the
rotation of the cylinder while with the correct behavior law, i.e. a Power Law, the
rotational motion will be confined to the zone around the pin.
In figures 4.19 and 4.20 the initial position and the position of the particles after
the 20 timesteps are shown.
Figure 4.18: Solution after 50 timesteps
Figure 4.19: Initial configuration
Figure 4.20: Solution after 20 timesteps

Chapter 5
Conclusions and Perspectives
5.1 Conclusions
The work presented here could be understood in two very different -but at the same
time complementary- ways. On the one hand, it is the closure of the Master of
Science in Numerical Methods in Engineering, and therefore it aims to apply many
of the concepts studied and many of the skills developed during these two years.
It is clear that, without the previous work done during the Masters program, we
could not have had reached to the knowledge necessary to the implementation of
the PGD, to the Natural Elements or to understand the variational principles in
fluids in about one year. Moreover, the topics of this work enrich the contents
of the master itself since these methods are not part of the curriculum but they
complement it.
On the other hand, this work represents the starting of a research career, the
beginning of a doctoral thesis and thus it has helped to create and develop many
of the skills needed to achieve it: managing scientific literature, a critical thinking
approach to the scientific work and the pleasure for the rigorous study of state-of-
the-art topics among others competences.
The main conclusions extracted from this Master Thesis are:
Numerical simulation in Engineering faces some challenging scenarios that

cannot be circumventing using only the High Performance Computing ap-
proach. MOR methods emerge as an appealing alternative.
65
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Perspectives 66
The simulation of material forming processes is one of these scenarios where

the traditional simulations have many difficulties. This issues are not only
numerical but also determined by the requirements of the most advanced
industries.
Recently, the PGD has benn demonstrated as a very efficient MOR method
and a particularly efficient solver for the simulation of material forming pro-
cesses.
The using of robust interpolants is very convenient for the simulation of ma-
terial forming processes. However, in 3D problems, they are computationally
expensive.
It is possible to combine the PGD with robust interpolants to create an

efficient updated-Lagrangian technique suitable for these simulations.
5.2 Perspectives
Nowadays, we are focusing on achieving the following goals:
Performing a quantitative comparative study of the computational cost of

the proposed strategy with respect to the traditional methods. The tools
developed in this work are not optimized for this purpose.
Including in the proposed strategy non-Newtonian behavior laws able to

reproduce the physics of processes such as FSW.
Exploring the possibility of including this and other MOR strategies in com-
mercial codes for advanced simulations.
Appendix A
Matlab Codes
A.1 PGD code for compression
1 %% PGD Code for compressing an image

2
3 clear all, close all

4
5 %% Input data (read image)

6 im =imread('fotofamilia.jpg');
7 im=im (:,:,1); % Converting into grayscale image
8 im=im2double(im); % Converting into double precission
9 imshow(im)
10 title('original picture')
11 [im ny,im nx]=size(im);
12
13 %%
14 max pgd=100;
15 max fp iter=30;
16
17 %%
18 F=zeros(im nx,max pgd);
19 G=zeros(im ny,max pgd);
20
21 for i=2:max pgd

22
23 S=rand(im ny,1);
24 for fp=1:max fp iter
67
Appendix Matlab Codes 68
25
26 % Calculo de R, S supuesto
27
28 ax=S.*S; % Integrando de alphax

29 alpha x=int trapecios(ax);
30 bx=zeros(im nx,1); % Preallocating beta
31
32 for kx=1:im nx % Calculo de betax para cada x k

33 bx=S.*im(:,kx); % Integrando de betax
34 beta x(kx)=int trapecios(bx); % Valor de betax en kx
35 end
36
37 suma x=zeros(im nx,1);

38 for j=1:i1
39
40 gx=S.*G(:,j);
41 gamma x(j)=int trapecios(gx);
42 suma x=suma x + gamma x(j)*F(:,j);
43
44 end
45
46 R=(alpha x*eye(im nx,im nx))\(beta x'suma x);

47
48 % Calculo de S, R anterior
49
50 ay=R.*R; % Integrando de alphax

51 alpha y=int trapecios(ay);
52
53 by=zeros(im ny,1); % Preallocating beta

54
55 for ky=1:im ny % Calculo de betax para cada x k

56 by=R.*im(ky,:)'; % Integrando de betax
57 beta y(ky)=int trapecios(by); % Valor de betax en kx
58 end
59
60 suma y=zeros(im ny,1);

61 for j=1:i1
62
63 gy=R.*F(:,j);
64 gamma y(j)=int trapecios(gy);
65 suma y=suma y + gamma y(j)*G(:,j);
66
67 end
68
69 S=(alpha y *eye(im ny,im ny))\(beta y'suma y);

70
71 end
72
73 F(:,i)=R;
74 G(:,i)=S;
75 end
76
77 U=G(:,1)*F(:,1)';
78 for i=2:max pgd % Constructing the solution
79 U=U+G(:,i)*F(:,i)';
80 end
81 figure
82 imshow(U)
83 title('PGD picture')
84 shg
A.2 Analytical solution of the co-extrusion prob-

lem
1 close all
2 clear all
3 clc
4
5 syms A2 H h Q2 A1 Q1 y dp mu1 mu2

6
7 A1 = dp/(2*mu1);
8 A2 = dp/(2*mu2);
9
10 M = sym(zeros(3,3));
11
12 M(1,1) = 1;
13 M(2,1) = 0;
14 M(2,2) = 0;
15 M(2,3) = 1;
16 M(3,1) = (h.3)/3;
17 M(3,2) = (h.2)/2;
18 M(3,3) = h;
19
20 rhs = sym(zeros(3,1));
21 rhs(1) = A1;
22 rhs(3) = Q1;
23
24 x = simple(inv(M)*rhs);
25
26 a1 = x(1);
27 b1 = x(2);
28 c1 = x(3);
29
30 M = sym(zeros(3,3));
31
32 M(1,1) = 1;
33 M(2,1) = H.2;
34 M(2,2) = H;
35 M(2,3) = 1;
36 M(3,1) = (H.3h.3)/3;
37 M(3,2) = (H.2h.2)/2;
38 M(3,3) = (Hh);
39
40 rhs = sym(zeros(3,1));
41 rhs(1) = A2;
42 rhs(3) = Q2;
43
44 x = simple(inv(M)*rhs);
45
46 a2 = x(1);
47 b2 = x(2);
48 c2 = x(3);
49
50 a1 = A1;
51
52 % equating the velocities at the interfaces

53 e1 = simple(a2*h.2+b2*h+c2a1*h.2b1*hc1);
54
55 % stress
56 tau1 = simple(mu1*subs(diff(a1*y2+b1*y+c1,y),y,h));
57 tau2 = simple(mu2*subs(diff(a2*y2+b2*y+c2,y),y,h));
58
59 e2 = simple(tau1tau2);
60
61 E = simple(subs(e1,dp,solve(e2,dp)));
62
63 MU2 = logspace(6,0,50);
64 for i = 1:numel(MU2)
65 HH = solve(subs(E,[H,mu1,mu2,Q1,Q2],[1,MU2(i),1,0.5,0.5]));
66 h(i)=HH(HH<1 & HH >0);
67 end
68
69 semilogx(MU2,h,'o')
Bibliography
[1] http://www.epractice.eu/en/news/5304734.
[2] Chinesta, F., Chinesta, F., and Ammar, A., 2008. On the Frontier of the
Simulable World : When Models Involve Excessive Degrees of Freedom.
European Journal of Computational Mechanics, 17(5 6 7), pp. 583595.
[3] Narasimha, R., 2011. Kosambi and proper orthogonal decomposition. Res-
onance, 16(6), pp. 574581.
[4] Chinesta, F., 2014. Separated Representations and PGD-Based Model Reduc-
tion, Vol. 554 of CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences. Springer
Vienna, Vienna.
[5] Bui-Thanh, T., Willcox, K., Ghattas, O., and van Bloemen Waanders, B.,
2007. Goal-oriented, model-constrained optimization for reduction of large-
scale systems. Journal of Computational Physics, 224(2), pp. 880896.
[6] Girault, M., Videcoq, E., and Petit, D., 2010. Estimation of time-varying
heat sources through inversion of a low order model built with the modal
identification method from in-situ temperature measurements. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53(13), pp. 206 219.
[7] Buffa, A., Maday, Y., Patera, A. T., Prudhomme, C., and Turinici, G., 2012.
A priori convergence of the greedy algorithm for the parametrized reduced
basis method. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis,
46(03), pp. 595603.
[8] Chinesta, F., Leygue, A., Bordeu, F., Aguado, J. V., Cueto, E., Gonzalez, D.,
Alfaro, I., Ammar, A., and Huerta, A., 2013. PGD-Based Computational
Vademecum for Efficient Design, Optimization and Control. Archives of
Computational Methods in Engineering, 20(1), Jan., pp. 3159.
73
Bibliography 74
[9] Ammar, a., Mokdad, B., Chinesta, F., and Keunings, R., 2006. A new family
of solvers for some classes of multidimensional partial differential equations
encountered in kinetic theory modelling of complex fluids. Journal of Non-
Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 139(3), Dec., pp. 153176.
[10] Gonzalez, D., Masson, F., Poulhaon, F., Leygue, A., Cueto, E., and Chinesta,
F., 2012. Proper Generalized Decomposition based dynamic data driven
inverse identification. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 82(9),
May, pp. 16771695.
[11] Bognet, B., Bordeu, F., Chinesta, F., Leygue, A., and Poitou, A., 2012. Ad-
vanced simulation of models defined in plate geometries: 3D solutions with
2D computational complexity. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 201-204, Jan., pp. 112.
[12] Leygue, A. Who needs a supercomputer... when one has a drawing..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RVSPfL7EDo.
[13] Chinesta, F., Ladeveze, P., and Cueto, E., 2011. A Short Review on Model
Order Reduction Based on Proper Generalized Decomposition. Archives of
Computational Methods in Engineering, 18(4), Oct., pp. 395404.
[14] Kolda, T. G., and Bader, B. W., 2009. Tensor decompositions and applica-
tions. SIAM review, 51(3), pp. 455500.
[15] Chinesta, F., Nantes, E. C. D., Keunings, R., and Leygue, A., 2013. The
Proper Generalized Decomposition for Advanced Numerical Simulations : A
Primer.
[16] Chinesta, F., and Cueto, E., 2014. PGD-based modeling of materials, struc-
tures and processes. ESAFORM Bookseries on Material Forming. Springer,
Cham.
[17] Chinesta, F., Gonzalez, D., and Cueto, E., 2014. Real-time direct integration
of reduced solid dynamics equations. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering.
[18] Ghnatios, C., Chinesta, F., and Binetruy, C., 2013. 3D Modeling of Squeeze
Flows Occurring in Composite Laminates. pp. 127.
Bibliography 75
[19] Giner, E., Bognet, B., Rodenas, J. J., Leygue, A., Fuenmayor, F. J., and
Chinesta, F., 2013. The Proper Generalized Decomposition (PGD) as a nu-
merical procedure to solve 3D cracked plates in linear elastic fracture mechan-
ics. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 50(10), May, pp. 1710
1720.
[20] Timoshenko, S., 1930. Strength of materials. New York.
[21] Donea, J., and Huerta, A., 2003. Finite element methods for flow problems.
John Wiley & Sons.
[22] Belytschko, T., Liu, W. K., Moran, B., and Elkhodary, K., 2013. Nonlinear
finite elements for continua and structures. John Wiley & Sons.
[23] Dolbow, J., and Belytschko, T., 1999. A finite element method for crack
growth without remeshing. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng, 46(1), pp. 131
150.
[24] Logan, D., 2011. A first course in the finite element method. Cengage Learn-
ing.
[25] Boussetta, R., Coupez, T., and Fourment, L., 2006. Adaptive remeshing
based on a posteriori error estimation for forging simulation. Computer
methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 195(48), pp. 66266645.
[26] Chinesta, F., Cescotto, S., Cueto, E., and Lorong, P., 2013. Natural Element
Method for the Simulation of Structures and Processes. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, Feb.
[27] Cueto, E., Doblare, M., and Gracia, L., 2000. Imposing essential boundary
conditions in the natural element method by means of density-scaled -shapes.
[28] Cueto, E., and Chinesta, F., 2013. Meshless methods for the simulation of
material forming. International Journal of Material Forming, Aug.
[29] Alfaro, I., Yvonnet, J., Chinesta, F., and Cueto, E., 2007. A study on the
performance of natural neighbour-based Galerkin methods. pp. 14361465.
[30] Chen, J.-S., Wu, C.-T., Yoon, S., and You, Y., 2001. A stabilized conforming
nodal integration for galerkin mesh-free methods. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50(2), pp. 435466.
Bibliography 76
[31] Gonzalez, D., Cueto, E., Martinez, M., and Doblare, M., 2004. Numerical
integration in natural neighbour galerkin methods. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 60(12), pp. 20772104.
[32] Schmitz, G. J., and Prahl, U., 2009. Toward a virtual platform for materials
processing. JOM, 61(5), pp. 1923.
[33] Feulvarch, E., Roux, J.-C., and Bergheau, J.-M., 2013. A simple and ro-
bust moving mesh technique for the finite element simulation of Friction Stir
Welding. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 246(2013),
July, pp. 269277.
[34] Guerdoux, S., and Fourment, L., 2009. A 3D numerical simulation of dif-
ferent phases of friction stir welding. Modelling and Simulation in Materials
Science and Engineering, 17(7), Oct., p. 075001.
[35] Mishra, R., and Ma, Z., 2005. Friction stir welding and processing. Mate-
rials Science and Engineering: R: Reports, 50(1-2), Aug., pp. 178.

TFM DiegoCANALES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TFM DiegoCANALES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya

Reduced Order Modeling in

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements

Reduced Order Modeling in updated-Lagrangian Schemes

Updated-Lagrangian Methods constitute a very interesting framework to simu-

In this thesis a new updated-Lagrangian method is proposed. The essential and

Some of this work was previously published in the following paper:

1 Model Order Reduction and new approaches to numerical simu-

2 The Proper Generalized Decomposition 11

4 An efficient updated-Lagrangian technique for material forming

4.2 Proposed strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5 Conclusions and Perspectives 65

Model Order Reduction and new

IT Future of Medicine, which studies the possibility of individualized and

Robot Companions for Citizens, project devoted to develop soft-skinned and

FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator and Crisis-Relief System. This project

Graphene Science and technology for ICT and beyond.

Models that are defined in high dimensional spaces, usually encountered

Online control. The establishment of goal-oriented transfer function in com-

Problems in parametric modeling, inverse identification and process or shape

Dynamic Data-Driven Application Systems (DDDAS). These simulations are

Light computing platforms. For certain important application such as aug-

A nomogram is the graphical representation of mathematical relationships or laws

Figure 1.1: Nomogram

These objects can be constructed from purely algebraic mathematical relation-

differential equations (PDEs) which are the mathematical base of a plethora of

1.2 Model Order Reduction

An interesting way to understand the basis of the MOR techniques is introducing

Let us consider a time-dependent problem in which the solution field u(x, t)

end, we maximize the functional

which can be shown equivalent to solve the following eigenvalue problem:

which is symmetric and positive definite. With the matrix Q defined as

These N eigenfunctions i are then used as basis functions to approximate the

must be solved at each timestep.

A reduced-order model is then obtained by projecting um+1 onto the subspace

Equation 1.7 then writes

1.3 New approaches to MOR and simulation of

By construction, the PGD solution allows us to solve problems with a com-

A second challenging example is the optimization of processes. It is easy to see

1.4 Structure of the work

In chapter two the PGD is discussed in detail focusing on the application of

Chapter three contains a brief study of a method based on an unconventional

The Proper Generalized

The Proper Generalized Decomposition (PGD) [13], which is presented in this

The PGD approximation consists then in a sum of N functional products involving

In one hand, the standard POD method is an a posteriori approach to model

2.2 PGD at a glance

Let us consider the following parametric heat transfer equation:

The weighted residual form of the problem reads:

for every test function u in its appropriate functional space.

Assuming that we are in the enrichment step n, the following approximation is

which can be obtained using a HOSVD or applying a PGD approximation, as we

I Assuming S(t) and W (k) known, R(x) is computed:

xj = W fjk dk jx = Sfjt dt.

where the scalar values reads:

kj = Rfjx dx jk = Sfjt dt.

2.2.1 PGD and SVD

The SVD, or its multi-dimensional counterpart the HOSVD, can be seen as a

Here, U is a I I real unitary matrix. The columns of U are the eigenvectors

This SVD decomposition can be expressed as

We wish to compute an approximation of u(x, y) such that

u(x, y) = f (x, y), (x, y) = x y . (2.18)

The weighted residual form reads

where is a small enough parameter.