Condensation

Condensation methods can be used to reduce the number of degress of freedom (dof). The condensated dofs should not be updated and therefore no fracture or non-linear behavior should exist in this region. In theory it is possible, but it leads to continuous update of this region and is inefficient.

Guyan Condensation

The system is partitioned into slave $s$ and master $m$ dof [13]:

\[\begin{equation}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{K}_{mm} & \mathbf{K}_{ms} \\ \mathbf{K}_{sm} & \mathbf{K}_{ss} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{u}_m \\ \mathbf{u}_s \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{F}_m \\ \mathbf{0} \end{bmatrix} \end{equation}\]

Since $\mathbf{F}_s = \mathbf{0}$, the second block row gives:

\[\begin{equation} \mathbf{K}_{sm}\mathbf{u}_m + \mathbf{K}_{ss}\mathbf{u}_s = \mathbf{0} \quad\Rightarrow\quad \mathbf{u}_s = \mathbf{T}\,\mathbf{u}_m, \qquad \mathbf{T} = -\mathbf{K}_{ss}^{-1}\mathbf{K}_{sm} \end{equation}\]

Substituting into the first block row yields:

\[\begin{equation} \mathbf{K}_{mm}\mathbf{u}_m + \mathbf{K}_{ms}\mathbf{T}\mathbf{u}_m = \mathbf{F}_m \end{equation}\]

which defines the condensed system $\hat{\mathbf{K}}_{mm}\,\mathbf{u}_m = \mathbf{F}_m$ with the condensed stiffness matrix:

\[\begin{equation} \hat{\mathbf{K}}_{mm} = \mathbf{K}_{mm} - \mathbf{K}_{ms}\mathbf{K}_{ss}^{-1}\mathbf{K}_{sm} = \mathbf{K}_{mm} - \mathbf{K}_{ms}\mathbf{T} \end{equation}\]

Following Guyan [13] for dynamic problems, the mass matrix $\mathbf{M}$, which is diagonal in the PD discretization, is condensed analogously using the same transformation $\mathbf{T}$:

\[\begin{equation} \hat{\mathbf{M}}_{mm} = \mathbf{M}_{mm} + \mathbf{T}^T\mathbf{M}_{ss}\mathbf{T} \end{equation}\]

where $\mathbf{M}_{mm}$ and $\mathbf{M}_{ss}$ are the diagonal mass submatrices of the master and slave partitions, respectively. The product $\mathbf{T}^T\mathbf{M}_{ss}\mathbf{T}$ introduces off-diagonal coupling, so $\hat{\mathbf{M}}_{mm}$ is generally full. The condensed dynamic system is:

\[\begin{equation} \hat{\mathbf{M}}_{mm}\ddot{\mathbf{u}}_m + \hat{\mathbf{K}}_{mm}\,\mathbf{u}_m = \mathbf{F}_m \end{equation}\]

Several limitations apply. The factorization of $\mathbf{K}_{ss}$ is a one-time preprocessing cost, amortized over all load steps but potentially significant for very large $\Omega_s$. More importantly, $\mathbf{T}$ is computed once from the initial stiffness, so $\Omega_s$ must remain linear elastic and undamaged throughout the simulation. Finally, inertial effects in $\Omega_s$ are neglected; high-frequency waves impinging on the $\Omega_s$/$\Omega_m$ interface are partially reflected rather than correctly transmitted, restricting the approach to quasi-static or low-frequency dynamic fracture problems.

PD–Matrix Coupling within $\Omega_m$

No PD bond may reach into $\Omega_s$, which is enforced by requiring $\Omega_c$ to be at least one horizon $\delta$ wide around $\Omega_p$:

\[\mathcal{H}_i \subseteq \Omega_m = \Omega_c \cup \Omega_p \quad \forall\, i \in \Omega_p\]

If you use model reduction the active part is the point wise method [11]. Fracture can easily be implemented. The equation shows how it works. You have regions $cc$ which includes all matrix parts. In the case of reduced models the active and condensed nodes (.)^c. This region couples in the material point region $pc$ and $cp$. If you want to ''cut'' parts of the matrix you have to delete the $pc$ and $cp$ parts of the material point method $(.)^p$.

\[\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{f}_c \\ \mathbf{f}_p \end{bmatrix} = \underbrace{ \begin{bmatrix} \hat{\mathbf{K}}_{cc} & \hat{\mathbf{K}}^{c}_{cp}+\hat{\mathbf{K}}^{p}_{cp} \\ \hat{\mathbf{K}}^{c}_{pc}+\hat{\mathbf{K}}^{p}_{pc} & \hat{\mathbf{K}}_{pp} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{u}_c \\ \mathbf{u}_p \end{bmatrix} }_{\text{Matrix part}} + \underbrace{ \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{f}_c^{\mathrm{pd}} \\ \mathbf{f}_p^{\mathrm{pd}} \end{bmatrix} }_{\text{Material point part}}\]

where $\hat{\mathbf{K}}^{p}_{cp}=\hat{\mathbf{K}}^{p}_{pc}=\hat{\mathbf{K}}_{pp}=\mathbf{0}$ by construction. The distance to the reduced nodes is large enough. The figure shows that $2\delta$ should be at least the distance from the fracture.

• Slave nodes (red, $\Omega_s$): Far-field region, condensed out. Must remain linear elastic, undamaged, and carry no external loads.
• Matrix nodes (light blue, $\Omega_c \subset \Omega_m$): Solved via the stiffness matrix. Captures load introduction, boundary conditions, and correct stiffness distributions. Must remain undamaged.
• PD nodes (blue, $\Omega_p \subset \Omega_m$): Damage region. Bond forces are evaluated via the material point formulation at each time step.