The purpose of this research was to investigate the prospect of continuous flow modelling in LS-DYNA using SPH-FEM coupling. The both methods (SPH and FEM) are based on the continuum mechanics, however, SPH implementation uses Lagrangian material framework, while FEM uses an Eulerian formulation for the fluid analysis, and Lagrangian formulation for the solid analysis. The Lagrangian framework of the SPH means that we need to generate particles at one end, and to destroy them on the other, in order to generate a continuous fluid flow. The simplest way to do this is by using activation and deactivation planes, which is a solution implemented in the commercial LS- DYNA solver. Modelling of continuous fluid flow is practical in mechanical (naval) engineering for hydrofoil analysis and in bioengineering for blood vessel simulations. Results show that velocity fields obtained by SPH-FEM coupling are similar to velocity fields obtained by FEM. FEM only solution has a clear advantage in regards to execution time, however, SPH-FEM coupling offers greater insight into fluid structure interaction, that justifies the extra computational cost.
M. D, G. F, C. A, R. C, A. T, O. GF, et al. DualSPHysics: from fluid dynamics to multiphysics problems. *Comp Part Mech*. 2021;
2.
A. G, J M. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. *Mon Notices Royal Astron Soc*. 1977;181:375–89.
3.
P. J, P. J, P. A, I. H, S L. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics modeling of hydraulic jumps. In: *Proc Particle-Based Methods II—Fundamentals and Applications*. 2011.
4.
Hallquist O. *LS-DYNA Theory Manual*. 2006.
5.
D. H, P P. Novel pressure inlet and outlet boundary conditions for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics, applied to real problems in porous media flow. *J Comput Phys*. 2021;429:110029.
6.
M. K, N. F, B. S, N K. *Computer Modeling in Bioengineering: Theoretical Background, Examples and Software*. 2009.
7.
M. L, M. B, N Q. Permeable and non-reflecting boundary conditions in SPH. *Int J Numer Methods Fluids*. 2009;61:709–24.
8.
D. L, G. P, C. C, R. H, A A. High strain Lagrangian hydrodynamics: A three-dimensional SPH code for dynamic material response. *J Comput Phys*. 1993;109:67–75.
9.
G. L, M L. *Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics*. 2003.
10.
Lucy B. A numerical approach to the testing of fusion process. *Astron J*. 1977;88:1013–24.
11.
J. M, H P. Artificial viscosity for particle methods. *Appl Numer Math*. 1985;1:187–94.
12.
E. R, P. Z, M PF. Numerical simulation of cavitation around a two-dimensional hydrofoil using VOF method and LES turbulence model. *Appl Math Model*. 2013;37:6469–88.
13.
R. V, B. R, P. S, P M. SPH modeling of shallow flow with open boundaries for practical flood simulation. *J Hydraul Eng*. 2012;138:530–41.
14.
R. V, J C. Brief review of development of the smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. In: *Proc IConSSM 2011 - The 3rd International Congress of Serbian Society of Mechanics*, Vlasina Lake, Serbia. 2011.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
