Computational Mechanics manuscript No.
(will be inserted by the editor)
Eulerian SPH formulation for large distortion problems
⋆
Yolanda Vidal1 , Javier Bonet2 , Antonio Huerta1
1
Laboratori de Càlcul Numèric (www-lacan.upc.es), Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada III, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Jordi Girona 1, Barcelona, Spain.
2
Civil and Computational Engineering Center (C2 EC), University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea, U.K.
Received: date / Revised version: date
Abstract The objective of this paper is to present
an Eulerian formulation which is capable to solve prob-
lems with extremely large distortions. Smooth particle
hydrodynamics with a total Lagrangian formulation are
well-suited for solving large distortion problems in solids.
Nevertheless, in problems with severe distortions a La-
grangian formulation will require updates of the refer-
ence configuration. However a standard updated Lagrang-
ian formulation suffers the presence of zero-energy modes
that are more likely to be activated. The classical SPH
formulation defining a fixed support in the laboratory
for each particle, and thus recomputing neighbors at
each time-step (i.e. updated neighbor search) that will
be called here Eulerian formulation, presents tension in-
stability, see for instance [12] and [3]. In this paper a
new Eulerian formulation based in a conservative form of
the continuum equations is proposed. This new approach
precludes the numerical instabilities existent in standard
updated Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations. Some
numerical examples demonstrate the capability of the
proposed formulation to solve fast-transient dynamics
problems with extremely large distortions.
1 Introduction
The impact of a fluid-filled container to a structure at ve-
locities of the order of several hundred meters per second
may result in numerous complex phenomena, such as the
tearing of the container followed by fluid leaking through
the openings. The simulation of such phenomena using
traditional tools such as the finite element method is ex-
tremely difficult: large deformations in the fluid, sloshing
effects in the container, the multiplication of impacts and
the cracking of solids are complex and costly to model
⋆
Partially supported by MCYT, Spain. Grant Contract:
DPI2007-62395
with a method based on a fixed mesh, particularly be-
cause of remeshing problems. The acknowledgement of
this problem triggered the development of what is called
meshless methods.
Among these methods, the smoothed particle hydro-
dynamics (SPH) method was one of the first proposed. It
has a very wide range of applications. For instance, the
Lagrangian SPH code has been applied successfully to
high strain problems [11], the SPH algorithm has been
incorporated into a standard Lagrangian code such as
EPIC [9], and it has also been used for impact prob-
lems [14,10]. The method, however, has the following
two major drawbacks: it can lend itself to numerical in-
stabilities, and its consistency is guaranteed only if the
discretization is formulated very carefully. These ques-
tions are widely discussed in the literature. For example,
consistency problems were gradually resolved thanks to
normalizing methods [8,10] and, more recently, the Cor-
rected Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics method allows to
obtain linear consistency in the interpolation of the func-
tion and in the interpolation of the gradient (see [2]).
Numerous solutions were also proposed to eliminate sta-
bility problems. See [7,15,1] for a detailed study of sta-
bility problems.
The total Lagrangian SPH is much more stable than
the usual updated Lagrangian equation and is also more
efficient. The shape functions are determined on the ini-
tial configuration and calculated once and for all, and
the determination of neighbors, which is a very time-
consuming task, needs to be carried out only during the
first time step. This approach is clearly unsuitable for
the modeling of continua undergoing very large strains
because the environment of a particle can change dras-
tically during the simulation, but it works well for mod-
erate strains. Vidal et al. [16] proposed an intermedi-
ate model that consists in updating nodal positions only
from time to time rather than at every time step. This
last method enables the simulation of large strains while
avoiding tensile instability. However, a stable Eulerian
formulation capable to model extremely large distortion
2 Yolanda Vidal et al.

problems is still missing. This is the purpose of this pa- current positions can be approximated using SPH ap-
per. proximation as,
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.  
X Xb − Xc
Firstly, the total Lagrangian corrected SPH formulation xb = ϕ(X b , t) = Vc Cρ φ xc .
is revised for large strains dynamic problems. In Sect. 3 c
ρ
the problem is reformulated in conservative form. This
will be the key idea of the paper. Sect. 4 studies the The deformation gradient can be evaluated now in a cer-
SPH formulation of the Lax-Wendroff two-step method tain particle b in terms of the current positions just tak-
which is a second-order accurate, explicit, time-stepping ing derivatives as
algorithm. Sect. 5 describes how to introduce a locally X
controlled dissipation in the Lax-Wendroff method. The Fb = ∇0 ϕ = xc GTc (X b ), (1)
proposed modification combines the good resolution of- c
fered by a second-order time scheme and the capabil-
where ∇0 indicates the gradient respect to the initial
ity to damp out the non-physical oscillations. Finally in
configuration, xc is the current position of particle c and
Sect. 6, some numerical tests are shown demonstrating
where the functions G contain the corrected kernel gra-
the performance of the proposed methodology.
dients at the initial configuration, that is,
 
e 0φ Xb − Xc ,
Gc (X b ) = Vc ∇
2 Total lagrangian corrected SPH (CSPH) ρ

This section will not be devoted to develop or discuss where ∇e 0 is a “corrected” gradient to ensure linear com-
Lagrangian corrected SPH formulation in detail. For an pleteness as shown in [2].
excellent reference see [3]. Here some basic notions will In order to find general equations for the internal
be recalled in order to introduce the notation and the forces using a Lagrangian corrected SPH formulation,
approach employed in following sections. consider the equation of the internal virtual work in
We consider the motion of a continuum defined by the reference configuration in terms of the first Piola-
a mapping between a reference volume V and a current Kirchhoff tensor, P,
volume v(t) of the form x = ϕ(X, t). Here, X is the Z X
material coordinate in the reference configuration and x δ ẇint = P : δ ḞdV 0 ≃ Vb0 Pb : δ Ḟb . (2)
denotes the position of particle X at time t. V0 b
The Jacobian of the transformation is the deforma-
tion gradient tensor, F , and is given by The variation of the virtual deformation gradient emerges
from equation (1) as
∂x ∂xi X
F = , or Fij = . δ Ḟb = δv c GT
∂X ∂Xj c (X b ),
c

The determinant of F is denoted by J and relates the

where after substituting into (2) leads to the expression
volume elements in the reference and current configura-
of the internal virtual work
tions. That is, if dV = dX1 dX2 dX3 and dv = dx1 dx2 dx3 ,
X X 
then dv = JdV . Since mass is conserved, the density in δ ẇint ≃ Vb0 Pb : δv c GT
c (X b )
the current configuration ̺, needs to adjust itself to ac- b c
count for volumetric changes. Therefore, dm = ̺dv =
̺0 dV , where ̺0 is the density in the reference configura- X X 
tion, and consequently, the conservation of mass reduces = δv c · Vb0 Pb Gc (X b ) .
c b
to ̺J = ̺0 .
The material velocity, v(X, t), and the linear mo- This expression allows the vector of internal forces cor-
mentum per unit of reference volume, p(X, t), are given responding to a certain particle a to be identified as:
as X
∂x Ta = Vb0 Pb Ga (X b ). (3)
v(X, t) = , p(X, t) = ̺0 v. b
∂t
For reversible problems in elastodynamics, it is sufficient It is important to observe that in (3) the kernel deriva-
to consider p(X, t) and F (X, t) as problem variables for tives, Ga (X b ), are fixed in the reference configuration
which standard conservation laws can be derived as it is and therefore they do not depend on the current posi-
shown in sections 3.1 and 3.2. tions of the particles. This implies that corrections are
Let us consider a discretized body using SPH parti- only calculated at the beginning reducing the computa-
cles. The mapping ϕ between initial (or reference) and tional cost.
Eulerian SPH formulation for large distortion problems 3

3 Conservation equations 3.3 Conservation-Law formulation

3.1 Convservation of linear momentum The conservation laws for linear momentum (4) and de-
formation gradient (5) can be combined into a single
system of first order equations as,
The conservation of linear momentum for an arbitrary
reference volume V is expressed in integral form as (no ∂U ∂F i
body forces): + =0,
∂t ∂Xi
Z Z
d where
p dV = t dA,
dt V ∂V
   
p1 −P1i (F )
 p2   −P2i (F ) 
where t denotes the traction vector in the current con-    
 p3   −P3i (F ) 
figuration associated to an element of area dA in the ref-    
 F11   −δi1 p1 /̺0 
erence configuration. The stress tensor that relates this    
 F12   −δi2 p1 /̺0 
traction vector to the unit normal N in the reference    
 F13   −δi3 p1 /̺0 
configuration is the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor P , U= 
 F21  , Fi =  
 −δi1 p2 /̺0  , for i = 1, 2, 3 .
   
 F22   −δi2 p2 /̺0 
   
t = P N.  F23   −δi3 p2 /̺0 
   
 F31   −δi1 p3 /̺0 
   
Substituting this expression into the momentum conser-  F32   −δi2 p3 /̺0 
vation law and making use of Gauss theorem leads to F33 −δi3 p3 /̺0
local momentum conservation law or equilibrium equa-
tion as, In particular, in a total Lagrangian setting (no body
forces) the conservation-law system reads,
∂p
−∇·P =0 . (4)
∂t ∂̺0 v
− ∇X · P = 0
Here, ∇ denotes the gradient operator in the reference ∂t
space, i.e. ∇ ≡ ∇X . Note the partial time derivative of ∂F
− ∇X v = 0.
p(X, t) in the equation above is taken at constant X ∂t
and hence it denotes a material time derivative.
In an updated Lagrangian setting where the reference
configuration is the position at step k the conservation-
law system then reads,
3.2 Conservation of the deformation gradient
∂(Jc−1 ̺0 v) T
− ∇k · (Jc−1 P F k ) = 0 (6a)
A conservation equation for the deformation gradient, F , ∂t
∂G
can be easily derived by noting that the time derivative − ∇k v = 0 ; F = GF k , (6b)
of F is related to the linear momentum vector, p = ̺0 v, ∂t
by: where ∇k and ∇k · are the gradient and divergence oper-
∂
∂(p/̺0 ) ators at reference k, i.e. ∂x k . It is noteworthy that for
Ḟ = . (5) k = 0 the algorithm is total Lagrangian and for k = n it
∂X
becomes Eulerian which is the most interesting case.
We note that the corresponding integral form, obtained
via the application of the Gauss theorem on the right
hand side term, gives the average rate of change of the 4 SPH formulation of the Lax-Wendroff
deformation gradient in a reference volume in terms of two-step method
the velocity vectors on the surface surrounding this vol-
ume as:
4.1 Scalar conservation equation
Z Z
d 1
F dV = p ⊗ N dA. For sake of simplicity let us present the SPH formulation
dt V ∂V ̺0
of the Lax-Wendroff two-step method by considering the
1D conservative equation
This can be considered as a generalization of the volu-
metric conservation law, or continuity equation, used for ∂U ∂F
fluids. + = 0.
∂t ∂x
4 Yolanda Vidal et al.

In a finite differences approach the Lax-Wendroff two- Fig. 1 Relative phase error in pure convection of the Lax
step method reads CSPH method (left) and the Lax-Wendroff CSPH method
(right).
n n
1 n ∆t (Fa+1 − Fa−1 )
Uan+1/2 = n
(Ua+1 + Ua−1 )− (7a)
2 2 2∆x
(F
n+1/2 n+1/2
− Fa−1 ) STABILITY ANALYSIS (Finite Differences equival
Uan+1 = Uan − ∆t a+1 (7b) a SPH agafant suport de la window function tal que
2∆x
noms tres partcules dintre (la prpia i dues venes)?????
where a represents a node in the finite difference grid. For
finite differences this algorithm is second order accurate
and possesses the so-called unit CFL property (it is con- 4.2 Smoothing function
ditionally stable under the condition CFL≤ 1). Recall
that CFL stands for the initials of Courant, Friedrichs The smoothing function Sa is defined such that Sa (ψ) =
and Lewy authors of the paper [5]. The Lax-Wendroff ψ, when ψ is a lineal function. Let’s start with
two-step method has been also used in finite elements.
In [6] an analysis of the classical time-stepping schemes
X
is presented. It is investigated the stability and accuracy Sa (ψ) = (1 − ε)ψa + ε Vbref ψb Wb (xref
a ),
properties of the Lax-Wendroff two-step method com- b
bined with the Galerkin finite element formulation. It
comes out that when using a diagonal mass matrix the and let’s impose that
discrete equations obtained in 1D on a uniform mesh
of linear elements are identical to those obtained with ∂Sa (ψ)
= 0.
second-order central differences. The scheme is second ∂ψa
order accurate and possesses the so-called unit CFL prop-
erty. It is noteworthy that the Lax-Wendroff two-step That is,
method is equivalent to the Lax-Wendroff one-step meth- (1 − ε) + εVaref Wa (xref
a )= 0
od for the linear convection equation. However, for non-
linear PDEs, systems of PDEs, and two and three di- which leads to,
mensional physical spaces, the Lax-Wendroff two-step
method is much easier to apply than the one-step ver- 1 −Varef Wa (xref
a )
sion. The explicit Lax-Wendroff two-step method can ε= , (1−ε) = ,
1 − Varef Wa (xref
a ) 1 − Varef Wa (xref
a )
be used in a straightforward manner to solve nonlin-
ear PDEs, systems of PDEs, and multidimensional prob- so the smoothing function must be defined as
lems.
From expressions (7a) and (7b) emerges the Lax- P
b Vbref ψb Wb (xref
a ) − Va
ref
ψa Wa (xref
a )
Wendroff method for the CSPH method as Sa (ψ) = .
1 − Varef Wa (xref
a )
∆t ∂F n
Uan+1/2 = Sa (U n ) −  (8a)
2 ∂x a
4.3 Algorithms
∂F n+1/2
Uan+1 = Uan − ∆t  (8b)
∂x a The total Lagrangian Lax-Wendroff algorithm emerges
following equations (8a) and (8b) for the velocity and
where a now represents a particle, the derivatives are
deformation gradient,
approximated using CSPH approximation and the func-
tion Sa is a smoothing function such that Sa (ψ) = ψ 1
n+ 2 ∆t X 0 n
Fa = Sa (F n ) + Vb v b ⊗ ∇0 Wb (x0a )
when ψ is lineal. A detailed description on how to choose 2
b
this smoothing function is given in the next section. The
∆t X 0 0
Lax-Wendroff CSPH method using linear reproducibil- v n+1/2
a
n
= Sa (v ) − Va Vb P (F n 0
b )∇0 Wa (xb )
2ma
ity and a dilation parameter ρ/h ≈ 1 resembles the Lax- b

Wendroff method for linear finite elements with a diag- ∆t X 0 0 n+1/2

v n+1
a = vn
a − Va Vb P (F b )∇0 Wa (x0b )
onal mass matrix. So, in this case, the method is sec- ma
b
ond order accurate and possesses the so-called unit CFL F n+1 = Fn
X 0 n+1/2
⊗ ∇0 Wb (x0a )
a a + ∆t Vb v b
property. b
The accuracy of the numerical schemes can be as- xn+1 = xn + ∆tv n+1/2 .
a a a
sessed by comparing numerical and exact damping and
phase values. The relative phase errors are depicted in Observe that the position of the particles is updated using
Figure 1. the leapfrog method. From the previous equations and from
Eulerian SPH formulation for large distortion problems 5

equations (6a) and (6b) with k = n, it readily comes available where the mass matrices in the previous equation are defined
the Eulerian Lax-Wendroff algorithm, as
C
X L
X
n+ 1 ∆t X n n Mab = mc Na (xc )Nb (xc ) Maa = mc Na (xc ).
Ga 2
=I+ Vb v b ⊗ ∇n Wb (xn
a)
2 b c c

1
n+ 2 1
n+ 2
Fa = Ga Sa (F n ) When da = 0 the second order Lax-Wendroff scheme is used.
When da = 1 a low order scheme is used. The value of da is
n+ 1 ∆t X 0 n −1 nT
va 2
= Sa (v n )− Va Vb Jn,b P (F n n
b )F b ∇n Wa (x b ) chosen as
2ma b ∂2v ˛
˛
da = min (1, X max 2 ˛ )
∆t X 0 n −1 n+ 1 T
∂x b
v n+1
a = vn
a − Va Vb Jn,b P (F b 2 )F n n
b ∇n Wa (x b ) where X is an adjustable parameter. In this way, an effective
ma b
X n n+ 1 sensor is constructed by considering the second derivative of
Gn+1
a = I + ∆t Vb v b 2 ⊗ ∇n Wb (xn a) the velocity.
b When dealing with multidimensional problems the local
F n+1
a = Gn+1
a Fn
a
modulation coefficient is computed and applied in each di-
rection.
n+ 1
xn+1
a = xn
a + ∆tv a
2
.

6 Numerical examples

6.1 Example 1: Propagation of a cosine pro?le

5 Locally controlled dissipation
A simple 1D problem is proposed to illustrate and compare
The method to locally introduce a controlled dissipation uses
the performance of the proposed schemes. The pure convec-
the concepts of flux-corrected transport, see references [4]
tion equation
and [13]. The proposed method combines the good resolution
ut + aux = 0 (11)
offered by a high-order scheme together with the capability to
damp out the non-physical oscillations of a low-order scheme. is solved over the spatial interval ]0, 1[ considering the follow-
For sake of simplicity the 1D case is considered as in section ing initial:
4.1. 1
(1 + cos (π(x − x0 )/σ)) if |x − x0 | ≤ σ,
Recall from (8b) that the second step of the CSPH Lax- u(x, 0) = 2
0 otherwise
Wendroff method reads at a given particle a,
∂F ˛˛n+1/2 and boundary condition: u(0, t) = 0 for t ≥ 0, where x0 = 0.2
Uan+1 = Uan − ∆t , and σ = 0.12.
∂x a
˛
The exact solution of equation 11 with a=1 corresponds
which can be rewritten in a general form as, to the translation to the right of the initial profile at unit
speed. Figure 2 compares the numerical solutions obtained
Un+1 = Un + ∆U, (9) at time t=0.6 using a particle distribution of 50 uniformly
distributed particles and different values of the CFL num-
where ∆U is the increment of the unknowns obtained for the
ber. The problem is solved using the Lax CSPH method and
given scheme at time t = tn . Our aim is to obtain a ∆U of
the Lax-Wendroff CSPH method. Figure 2 shows that Lax-
as high an order as possible without introducing overshoots.
To this end, we rewrite equation (9) as

Un+1 = Un + ∆Ul + (∆Uh − ∆Ul ),
n+1 l h l the exact solution (dotted line) and the Lax and Lax-
U = U + (∆U − ∆U ).
Here ∆Uh and ∆Ul denote the increments obtained by
some high- and low-order shemes, respectively, whereas Ul
is the ripple-free solution at time t = tn+1 of the low-order
scheme. The idea behind FCT is to limit the second term on
the right-hand side of equation (10b). That is, for a given
particle a,
Uan+1 = da Ual + (1 − da )(∆Uah − ∆Ual ),
(10a) Fig. 2 Propagation of a cosine profile: comparison between
(10b)
Wendroff CSPH solutions.
Wendroff scheme exhibits a better phase accuracy than the
Lax scheme. Note that the Lax scheme cannot be operated
with CFL> 1 and that the Lax-Wendroff scheme cannot be
operated with CFL> 2. Moreover, the Lax-Wendroff schemes
shows a phase lead at CFL= 2. These findings are fully con-
sistent with the phase error diagrams in Figure 1.

where da is chosen in each particle in such a way that the

high-order scheme is reduced to low-order near oscillations. 6.2 Example 2: 1D bar test
The second order Lax-Wendroff scheme is used as high-order
scheme. The low-order method is defined as The one dimensional bar test proposed in [7] is reproduced.
! A simple elastic bar (Young’s modulus, E=200e9 Pascals) is
X C n ma fixed at the left end, A, and the right quarter of the bar is
Ual = Uan + Mab Ub − MaaL
Uan L − MC
,
Maa aa given an initial velocity of v0 = 5m/s thus putting the bar
b
6 Yolanda Vidal et al.
Fig. 3 1D bar problem statement.
in tension initially. The density of the bar is ̺=7833 Kg/m3 .
Standard SPH methods cannot solve this problem due to
tension instability that immediately develops.
The problem is solved using a uniform distribution of
particles. As shown in Figure 3 the corrected SPH particle
distribution is very coarse with only 40 uniform particles.
A comparison between the solutions obtained with the total
Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches can be seen in figure 4.
The displacement and velocity history of the end particle, B,
is plotted. Total time computed is 5e − 4s.
−5
x 10 x 10
5
5 sary of J. Comput. Phys.
4
4 5. R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, and H. Lewy. On the partial
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
−1 −1
−2 −2
−3 −3
−4
−5
−4
−5
0 1 2 3 4 0
time
−4
x 10
Fig. 4 Total Lagrangian (left) and updated Lagrangian
(right). Results using 40 particles and an FCT parameter
of 5.5e − 07 (updated method). The black line represents dis-
placement history of the right end (point B) and the blue
line represents its velocity history scaled by a factor of 1e − 5
in order to compare it with the displacement history in the
same graph.
6.3 Example 3: punch test
7 Concluding remarks
This contribution proposes a new Eulerian formulation for
the corrected SPH method. The main idea is based in a
conservative form of the continuum equations. First, a SPH
formulation of the Lax-Wendroff two-step scheme is devel-
oped. Afterwards, a method which introduces a locally con-
trolled dissipation in the Lax-Wendroff method is described.
The proposed modification combines the good resolution of-
fered by a second-order time scheme and the capability to
damp out the non-physical oscillations. This new approach
precludes the numerical instabilities existent in standard up-
dated Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations. The results in
the analyzed examples, both academical and practical, demon-
strate the performance of the proposed approach.
References
1. Ted Belytschko, Yong Guo, Wing Kam Liu, and
Shao Ping Xiao. A unified stability analysis of meshless
particle methods. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg.,
48(9):1359–1400, 2000.
2. Javier Bonet and Sivakumar Kulasegaram. Correc-
tion and stabilization of smooth particle hydrodynamics
methods with applications in metal forming simulations.
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 47(6):1189–1214, 2000.
3. Javier Bonet and Sivakumar Kulasegaram. Remarks on
tension instability of eulerian and lagrangian corrected
smooth particle hydrodynamics (CSPH) methods. Int.
J. Numer. Methods Eng., 52(11):1203–1220, 2001.
4. Jay P. Boris and David L. Book. Flux-corrected trans-
port. I. SHASTA, a fluid transport algorithm that works
[J. Comput. Phys. 11 (1973), no. 1, 38–69]. J. Comput.
Phys., 135(2):170–186, 1997. With an introduction by
−5
Steven T. Zalesak, Commemoration of the 30th anniver-
difference equations of mathematical physics. IBM J.
Res. Develop., 11:215–234, 1967. English translation of
an article originally published in German in Math. Ann.
100 (1928), 32–74.
6. Jean Donea and Antonio Huerta. Finite element methods
for flow problems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2003.
7. C. T. Dyka and R. P. Ingel. An approach for tension
instability in smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH).
1 2 3 4 Comput. Struct., 57(4):573–580, 1995.
time −4
x 10 8. G. R. Johnson and S. R. Beissel. Normalized smoothing
functions for SPH impact computations. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng., 39(16):2725–2741, 1996.
9. Gordon R. Johnson, E. H. Petersen, and Robert A. Stryk.
Incorporation of an SPH option into the EPIC code for
a wide-range of high-velocity impact computations. Int.
J. Impact Eng., 14(1–4):385–394, 1993.
10. Gordon R. Johnson, Robert A. Stryk, and Stephen R.
Beissel. SPH for high velocity impact computations.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 139(1-4):347–373,
1996.
11. L.D. Libersky, A.G. Petscheck, T.C. Carney, J.R. Hipp,
and F.A. Allahdadi. High strain lagrangian hydrody-
namics. J. Comput. Phys., 109(1):67–75, 1993.
12. J. J. Monaghan. Why particle methods work. SIAM J.
Sci. Stat. Comput., 3(4):422–433, 1982.
13. K. Morgan, J. Peraire, and R. Löhner. Adaptive finite
element flux corrected transport techniques for CFD. In
Finite elements (Hampton, VA, 1986), ICASE/NASA
LaRC Ser., pages 165–175. Springer, New York, 1988.
14. R.F. Stellingwerf and C.A. Wingate. Impact modeling
with Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics. Int. J. Impact
Eng., 14(1–4):707–718, 1993.
15. J. W. Swegle, D. L. Hicks, and S. W. Attaway. Smoothed
particle hydrodynamics stability analysis. J. Comput.
Phys., 116(1):123–134, 1995.
16. Y. Vidal, J. Bonet, and A. Huerta. Stabilized updated
Lagrangian corrected SPH for explicit dynamic prob-
lems. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 69(13):2687–
2710, 2007.