Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nonlinear Analysis
Nonlinear Analysis
CHAPTER 12
Important issues regarding nonlinear analysis of structures are described.Three types
of nonlinearities are introduced with an emphasis on geometrical and material
nonlinearities. Nonlinear formulations for one dimensional bars and beams are
described, as well as generalization to multi-dimensional problems. The most recent
solution techniques are presented. Applications are placed on beams, frames, plates
and shells.
Nonlinear analysis
12.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................
12.1.1
General........................................................................................................................................................
12.1.2
A nonlinear geometrical problem...............................................................................................................
12.1.3
Nonlinear material behaviour.....................................................................................................................
12.2
Stiffness relationship for beam with axial force...................................................................................................
12.2.1
General........................................................................................................................................................
12.2.2
Comparison of alternative stiffness matrices for lateral deformations of a bem with axial force..............
12.3
Formulations for nonlinear geometrical behaviour of bars and beams with axial and lateral deformation
12.3.1
General........................................................................................................................................................
12.3.2
Methods with updated coordinates.............................................................................................................
12.3.3
Total Lagrangian formulation for a beam with axial and lateral deformation............................................
12.3.4
Generalization.............................................................................................................................................
12.4
Nonlinear material behaviour................................................................................................................................
12.4.1
One dimensional case.................................................................................................................................
12.4.2
Generalization.............................................................................................................................................
12.4.3
Cyclic plasticity, shakedown and ratchetting...............................................................................................
12.5
Solution techniques..................................................................................................................................................
12.5.1
General........................................................................................................................................................
12.5.2
Load increnmental methods........................................................................................................................
12.5.3
Iterative methods........................................................................................................................................
12.5.4
Combined methods.....................................................................................................................................
12.5.5
Advanced solution procedures...................................................................................................................
12.5.6
Direct integration methods.........................................................................................................................
12.6
Applications.............................................................................................................................................................
12.6.1
General........................................................................................................................................................
12.6.2
Beams and frames.......................................................................................................................................
12.6.3
Plane stress, plates and shells.....................................................................................................................
12.7
Analysis of accidental load effects......................................................................................................................
12.6.1
General........................................................................................................................................................
12.6.2
Fires and explosions...................................................................................................................................
12.6.3
Ship impacts................................................................................................................................................
Appendix A
Solution of the differential equation of a beam with axial load...........................................................
Appendix B
General formulation for geometrically nonlinear behaviour..............................................................
Appendix C
Plasticity theory.......................................................................................................................................
Reffrences
...................................................................................................................................................................
page
12.2
12.2
12.5
12.14
12.17
12.17
12.18
12.20
12.20
12.23
12.28
12.35
12.36
12.36
12.42
12.43
12.45
12.45
12.48
12.57
12.56
12.58
12.63
12.67
12.67
12.67
12.74
12.84
12.84
12.86
12.88
12.94
12.99
12.106
12.116
12.1
12 Nonlinear Analysis
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 General
Linear versus nonlinear analysis
Structural analysis including the finite element method is based on the following
principles:
Equilibrium(expressed by stresses)
Kinematic compatibility (expressed by strains)
Stress-strain relationship
So far, the analysis has been based on the assumptions that
Displacements are small
The material is linear and elastic
When the displacements are small, the equilibrium equations can be established with
reference to the initial configuration. Moreover, this implies that the strains are linear
functions of displacement gradients (derivatives).
The linear elastic stress-strain relationship corresponds to Hookes law.
The relationship between load and displacement for structures with nonlinear
behaviour may be as shown in Fig. 12.1.
When the ultimate strength of structures that buckle and collapse is to be calculated,
the assumptions about small displacements and linear material need to be modified. If
the change of geometry is accounted for, when establishing the equilibrium equations
and calculating the strains from displacements, a geometrical nonlinear behaviour is
accounted for. Various examples are given in Fig. 12.1. In section 12.1.2, a
quantitative example is completely washed out.
Analogously, material nonlinear behaviour is associated with nonlinear stress-strain
relationship. An example is given in Section 12.1.3.
Finally, nonlinearity may be associated with the boundary condition, i.e. when a large
displacement leads to contact. Boundary non-linearity occurs in most contact
problems, in which two surfaces come into or out of contact. The displacements and
stresses of the contacting bodies are usually not linearly dependent on the applied
loads. This type of non-linearity may occur even if the material behavior is assumed
linear and the displacement are infinitesimal, due to the fact that that the size of the
contact area is usually not linearly dependent on the applied loads, i.e. doubling the
applied loads does not necessarily produce double the displacement. If the effect of
friction is included in the analysis, then slick-slip behaviour may occur in the contact
area which adds a further non-linear complexity that is normally dependent on the
loading history.
12.2
Fig. 12.1c shows a typical contact problem of a cylindrical roller on a flat plane.
Initially the contact is at a single point, and then spreads as the load is increased. The
increase in the contact area and the change in the contact pressure are not linearly
proportional to the applied load. Another example is shown in Fig. 12.1c where the tip
of the cantilever comes into contact with a rigid surface.
c) Representation of contact
Figure 12.1 Typical nonlinear geometrically behaviour.
12.3
12.4
12.5
a) Geometry
S = EA =
EA
sin o cos o r
A
R = 2 S sin o =
or
2 EA
sin 2 o cos o r
A
(12.1)
R = Kr
where
K=
2 EA 2
sin o cos o
A
sino o, coso 1
R=
2 EA o2
r
A
(12.2)
A
A
cos o cos
and the strain is (positive in compression)
=
cos o
=1
cos
A / cos o
cos
By introducing
sin =
hr
A 2 + (h r ) 2
, cos =
A 2 + (h r ) 2
, cos o =
(12.3)
A
A2 + h2
or
2 EA h
A
A
1
2
A r A 2 + (h r ) 2
A + h2
(12.4)
R = K (r ) r
The stiffness now depends upon the displacement r and the force-displacement
relationship (12.4) is nonlinear.
For small angles and o:
hr
sin tg =
A
1
1hr
cos 1 2 1
2
2 A
1
1h
cos 0 1 02 1
2
2A
12.7
h r h 1 r
2 EA A A A 2 A
2 EA h r h 1 r
r
R=
r
2
A A A A 2 A
A
1h
1
2A
2
h
when assuming that << 1.
A
By introducing
R=
or
h
o , the following equation results:
A
2 EA 2 r
r
o 1 1 r
A
h 2h
(12.5)
R = K (r )r
(12.6)
where
K (r ) =
2 EA 2 r
r
o 1 1
A
h 2h
(12.7)
2 EA 2 EA 2 r
r
=
o +
o 3 = K o + K g
A
A
h
h
The first term of Eq. (12.7) is the linear stiffness term; see Eq. (12.2), while the second
term is a correction due to nonlinear geometrical effects. The stiffness relationship is
a third degree polynomial, plotted in Fig. 12.3a.
Eq. (12.7) does not always give unique solutions for a given load. Fig. 12.3b shows
that three equilibrium points (A, B, C) may correspond to a given load level.
This also means that it would not be possible to follow the load-displacement curve by
increasing the load. Actually when the point D is reached, the solution will jump to E,
which is a stable equilibrium condition. This phenomenon is called snap-through.
a) Load-deflection
dR =
d
( K (r )r )dr = K I dr
dr
(12.8)
where
d
( K (r )r )
dr
is denoted the tangent stiffness or incremental stiffness. The formulation (12.8) allows
a solution by initial value problem or incremental methods. Such a method may be
combined with or replaced by iterative methods. This topic is discussed in Section
12.5.
K I (r ) =
The incremental stiffness KI( r) for the problem defined by Eqs (12.6 12.7) is
K I (r ) =
2 EA
d r
r
o 1 1 r
A
dr h 2h
2
2 EA 2
r 3 r
o 1 3 +
=
h 2 h
A
(12.9)
2 EA 2 6 EA 2 r r
o +
o 1 = K o + K G
A
A
h 2h
Here, Ko is the linear (initial) stiffness, while KG represents the change in incremental
stiffness due to change of geometry by deformation. It is sometimes called geometric
stiffness.
Stiffness concepts
The different stiffness concepts (Ko, KG, KI, K) are shown in Fig. 12.4.
a) At a stable point
b) At an unstable point
Figure 12.4 Stiffness definitions.
12.9
( K P K ) r = 0
as addresses in Chapter 2.9.4.
This means that buckling occurs when the load factor P is large enough that PKG
equals the elastic stiffness, K.
Further comments about the two-bar problem
Assume that the bars initially have an axial force, S0 (positive in compression). When
an external load, R is applied, the total axial force in each bar is denoted by S. The
axial force imposed due to the load, R is then S S0, and the following equation
applies
S S0 = EA = A
(12.10)
R = 2 S sin =
2 EA 2
sin 0 cos 0 r + 2 S0 sin
A
(12.11)
sin
hr
A
and
K (r ) = K 0 + K g + K s
(12.12)
K s = 2S0
hr
r
= 2S0 0 (1 )
A
h
(10.12a)
(12.13)
where
12.10
K =
2S0
A
(12.13a)
KG = (
S
3EA
r ), K = 2 0
3
A
A
R(N)
R, r
800
S0 (Tension)
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
S0 = 104
600
a = 2l
Increasing linearity
400
S0 = 102
200
a = 5000 mm
E = 200106 N/mm 2
A = 0.25 mm 2
h = 0 mm
10
20
30
40
50
r,mm
S0 = 102 or 104 N
dR
for the total problem. Based
dr
R = 2S
hr
A
and,
h 1 r
S S0 = EA EA
r
A 2 A
dS
the drivative becomes :
dr
dS
h r
= EA
dr
A A
Then, the tangent stiffness is
dR d h r
=
2S
dr dr
A
dS h r
d hr
)
=2
+ 2S (
dr A
dr A
KI =
2 EA h r h r
1
2 S0
A A A A
A
2
2
S0
2 EA h 2 EA hr r
=
2 + 2
+
A A
A A A
A
= K 0 + K G + K
(12.14)
2EA
A
(12.15a)
K0 =
KG =
2 EA h
A A
K = 2
S0
A
r 2
r
2
h
h
(12.15b)
(12.15c)
Another problem is concerned with a cable with a pretension force N0 and its own
weight and an initial geometry defined by w0.
12.12
N0
N
N0
w0 (Initial geometry)
G =
1 A 2 A 20 1 A A 0 A + A 0 1
1
=
= ( + 1 + 1) = + 2
2
A0
2 A0
2 A0
2
2
for structural materials where typically 0.003. Also, with small strains the length
of the stress is the same, i.e.
A
A
=
cos 0 cos
Moreover, the cross-sector area remains the same.
Also the engineering stress can be assumed to the same as the continued mechanics
stress. Cauchy stress and 2nd Piola- Kirchoff stresses in local coordinates .
Generalization
The stiffness expressions (12.16, 12.18) can be generalized to systems with many
degrees of freedom
K (r )r=R
implying
K I (r)dr
(12.16a)
= ( K o + K G (r) ) dr = dR
(12.16b)
where R and r are load and displacement vectors, respectively. Also, the various
stiffness concepts indicated in Fig. 12.4, can also be generalized.
12.13
Eq. (12.16a) expresses equilibrium between external loads, R and internal (reaction)
forces, Kr. The formulation (12.16a) with secant stiffness, however, is not very
practical. The differential formulation (12.16b) may be written on a finite incremental
form
K I r = R
implying
(12.17a)
r = K 1 R
(12.17b)
a) Mild steel
Unloading from a stress condition above P takes place along a straight line parallel
with the initial linear stress-strain relationship, as shown by the dashed line in Fig.
12.7. When the stress is zero, a residual plastic strain, P remains (see Fig. 12.7a).
The nominal or engineering strain is defined as the ratio of the change of length over a
given gange length to the original length, l0 as follows
e =
l l0 l
= 1
l0
l0
( 12.18)
12.14
true =
F
A
(12.19)
The true strain (also called natural or logarithmic strain), true, is defined as follows:
true =
l0
dl
l
(12.20)
A=
A0l0
A
= 0
l
1+ 0
(12.21)
Substituting this value of A in equation in equation (12.19), the true stress can be
expressed as follows:
true =
F (1 + 0 )
A0
= (1 + 0 )
(12.22)
Integrating the expression for the true strain in equation in equation (12.20) gives:
l
l0
true = ln = ln(1 + 0 )
(12.23)
which is the total (logarithmic) strain between the original and current limits of length.
Therefore, the true plastic strain component can be obtained by subtracting the elastic
strain from the total strain, as follows:
(12.24)
(1 + 0 )
E
If the unaxial stress-strain curve in Fig. 12.7, which is derived from the load-extension
readings from a uniaxial tension test, is re-plotted with true-stress vs. true strain, as
12.15
shown in Fig. 12.8, it can be seen that the curve continues rising beyond the point
where necking appears. The curve clearly indicates a strain hardening effect, i.e. the
material becomes harder as the strain is increased. It shouldbe noted that the true
stress-strain curve is strictly only valid up to the onset of necking, since the formation
of neck gives rise to a complex state of stress which is no longer uniaxial, i.e. the
stress is not simply the force divided by the cross-sectional area.
= ES
(12.25)
where ES is the secant modulus, which depends upon the stress (strain) level.
When loading is introduced at A, the change of stress, can be obtained from
= ET
(12.26)
12.16
= E (unloading)
(12.27)
Cr =
2 ET
, =A / I / A
2
(12.28)
ET depends upon the stress = Cr (see Fig. 12.7). Eq. (12.28), therefore, could be
solved by iteration by first assuming Cr, calculating ET corresponding to = Cr,
calculating a new Cr by Eq. (12.28); use new Cr to calculate ET etc. This example is
to illustrate that nonlinear material behaviour (plasticity) affects the behaviour. A
more refined approach is needed to calculate the ultimate strength accurately.
Moreover, the effect of initial imperfections and residual stresses need to be accounted
for.
Other non-linear material problems
Material non-linearities are classified into three categories:
S i = k i v i R = Kr
Only elasto-plastic behaviour will be pursued herein.
In Section 2.9.3 the stiffness matrices for trusses and beams with axial forces have
been derived based on assumed polynominal shape functions and the principle of
vertical work. The result was written as
S = (k 0 + k ) v
(12.29)
P
PA 2
= 2
PE EI
A P
=
=
P
2 EI 2
(12.30)
in Fig. 12.10 . Note that PE (Euler load) does not depend on the boundary condition of
the beam.
12.18
k ' NL (1.1) =
12 EI
12 EI
12 EI 12 P
5 3 [1 ]= 3 2
3
A
A
A
A
(12.31a)
(by visual consideration of the diagram in Fig. 12.10. A formal linearization may be
made by considering analytical expressions for the i-functions.)
k 'L (1.1) =
12 EI
6P
3
A
5A
(12.31b)
which shows that a linearization of kNL(1.1) with respect to yields a result very close
to k L' (1.1) . The same applies to the other terms.
12.19
These problems are associated with small or large rotations. Problems in which small
rotations occur include shallow struts, shells and arches deflected by a transverse load,
clamped circular plates under transverse point loads and shallow spherical caps.
Examples of large rotation problems include a fishing rod bent under the weight of a
heavy fish, buckling of an imperfect Euler strut, and a deep arch.
(b)
These are the most complex of all GNL problems and are usually associated with
metal forming and manufacturing processes, such as deep drawing of drink cans,
forging, extrusion and rolling. With large strains, it is also important to model material
non-linearity such as plasticity. An exception is rubber which can undergo very large
strains, of the order of unity, but remains elastic. This type of behaviour is called
hyperelastic or non-linear elastic behaviour. The constitutive equations for rubber
can be derived from the expressions for the potential energy density.
Definitions of stresses and strains in GNL problems
The conventional definition of engineering strain may not be adequate when dealing
with GNL problems because it measures the change in length over the original
(undeformed) length. A more suitable definition is one which takes into account the
new length, such as the so-called logarithmic strain. Two strain definitions which
12.20
have been widely used in GNL problems are called the Green strain and Almansi
strain. These strains are based on the square of the length, and have been shown to
be very effective in dealing with a wide range of GNL problems, including large strain
problems
As in the strain measures, the engineering or nominal stress, defined as the force
divided by the original undeformed area, may be inappropriate for use in GNL
problems in which the cross-sectional area may exhibit large changes. Instead, as in
material non-linearity, a truestress (also called Cauchy stress) can be defined as the
force divided by the current cross-section area, rather than the original area.
Another feature of GNL problems is that the relationships between stresses and strains
have to be carefully defined. In conventional elasticity equations, stresses are linked to
strains through the constitutive law, i.e. Hookes law. In GNL problems, in addition to
the constitutive equations, stresses are usually associated with the corresponding
strains using the virtual work theorem or total potential energy theorem. This is
important in large strain problems, where such stresses are called work-conjugates to
the corresponding strains.
Conservative and non-conservative (follower) loads
A conservative load is that which always applies in a fixed direction regardless of the
deformation of the body. A typical example is a gravitational load, which aways
applies vertically. A non-conservative (follower) load is one which changes its
direction during the deformation, i.e. it follows the deformation of the body, e.g. an
internal pressure in a vessel changes its position and direction as the vessel deforms, in
order to remain perpendicular to the surface. Figure 12.11 shows a schematic
representation of conservative and non-conservative loads.
12.21
Formulations
Formulation of geometrical non-linear problems requires choice of reference systems
for describing the structures geometry and deformations.
The most common modes of describing the deformations of solids and fluids are the
Eulerian and the Lagrangian approaches:
Eulerian description of motion is also denoted spatial description, because it
refers to what happens at a certain place in space. In the description the current
coordinates x1, x2, x3 and time t are the independent variables. This description
is especially suited for hydrodynamics.
R = K I r
can be established for various types of structures. However, since the assemble of the
global stiffness is straightforwardwhen the element relationship S = kv is known, the
focus will be on the element relationship.
It is interesting to note that the total Lagrange formulation for the two-bar problem
corresponds to Eq. 12.13.
K TL
I = K 0 + K G + K
(12.31c)
K UL
I = K 0 + K
(12.31d)
S1 6 EI
S A 2
2 4 EI
S
S= 3 = A
S 4 0
S 5
6 EI
S 6 2
A
2 EI
a) Nodal forces
0
6 EI
A2
2 EI
A
0
6 EI
A2
4 EI
A
EA
A
0
EA
A
0
a
~~
= k
v
b
u
(12.32)
b) Deformations
The vector ~
v describes the deformations relative to the local coordinate system xy. In
addition the element will be subject to rigid body motions (translation and rotation)
that correspond to the location of the local xy-system relative to the global x y -system,
and are defined by the global coordinates of nodes a and b. Rigid body motions do not
imply internal forces in the element. Hence, the relationship (12.32) does not depend
on rigid body motions and is valid for any position of the local system. The reason
~
why k has dimensions 6 by 3 is that the three components of the rigid body motion is
removed from Eq. (12.32).
The assumptions of small displacements implies that u, a and b are small.
The next step is to express the global nodal forces, S when the global displacement v
are known. S and v are defined in Fig. 12.13a and b.
a) Nodal forces
b) Displacements
Figure 12.13 Global nodal forces and displacements. All angles in for figure are
positive.
The relationship between the nodal forces defined in the global and local coordinate
system is given by
S = TT S
(12.33)
where
cos
sin
0
T=
sin
cos
0
0
0
cos
sin
sin
0
cos
0
0
0
and is the angle between the x - and x-axes (Fig. 12.12). By combining Eqs (12.32,
12.33) gives
~
S = T T S = T T k~
v =k * ~
v
(12.34)
12.24
~
k* = T T k can be expressed explicitly by carrying out the matrix multiplication by
hand.
If the local deformations ~v are expressed by the global displacements v Eq. (12.34)
can be transformed into a relationship between S and v . This can be achieved as
follows.
The coordinates of nodal points a and b in deformed condition, are:
xa =
ya =
x a 0 + v1
y a0 + v2
xb =
yb =
xb 0 + v 4
y b 0 + v5
(12.35)
where x a 0 etc. are the coordinates of the initial condition. The chord length ab in
deformed condition is obtained as
A=
( x b x a )2 + ( y b y a )2
(12.36)
Relative to the initial condition the rotation of the chord axis ab (Fig. 10.15) is
= 0
yb0 y a 0
A0
0 = arcsin
(12.37)
yb y a
= arcsin
(12.38)
Eqs (12.34, 12.38) make it possible to find the element forces S for any known
displacements, v . This relation for an individual element can then be used to express
the relationship for the structural systems in the following manner.
Structural system relationships
The relationship between the displacement vector for element No. i and the global
displacement vector r is expressed by the kinematic relation:
12.25
vi = air
(12.39)
~
(v )
i T
Si =~
rTR
~i
v = ai ~
r
which yields
~
rT
(a )
i T
Si =~
rTR
(a )
i T
Si =R
(12.40)
The left-hand side of Eq. (12.40) is a function of the displacement vector, through Eqs
(12.34, 12.38, 12.39). Eq. (12.40) is a non-linear equilibrium equation. The left-hand
side expresses the sum of internal forces from each element in the structure.
To find the displacements r that fulfill Eq. (12.40) requires iteration. If r is a
displacement vector that does not fulfill Eq. (12.40), the corresponding element forces
S i do not satisfy this equation. Hence, this displacement condition implies a set of
unbalanced forces or residual forces, given by:
( )
R r = ai
S i R
(12.41)
Rr represents the additional forces required to fulfill the global equilibrium in this case
(with r).
R + R r = (a i ) T S i
(12.42)
(12.45)
where
k I = TT k I T
S and v are defined in Fig. 12.12 and T in Eq. (12.33). Kinematic relationship and
static equilibrium for a system of elements can be expressed as:
( )
dv i = a i dr, dR = a i d S i
i
( )
dR = a i
( )
dS i = a i
k iI a i dr
or
dR = K I dr
where
(12.46)
( )
K I = ai
k iI a i
Eqs (12.40, 12.46) form the basis for obtaining solutions of the geometrically nonlinear problem, by the methods described later in Section 12.4.
The method described in this section is relatively simple in use since most of the
matrices are well known from linear analysis.
12.27
Two practical issues should be noted when implementing this method in a computer
program. The stiffness matrices k0 and k could be calculated based on initial element
length A 0 , rather than the updated length, A , without loss of accuracy. In this way the
element stiffness matrices can be calculated once and stored and retrieved when
needed. However, the axial force, P in k need to be updated. The second issue is that
the coordinate updating, Eq. (12.35), element length, Eq. (12.36) and rotations, Eq.
(12.36) need to be done accurately to avoid that round off errors reduce/destroy the
accuracy and cause convergence problems in the iterative solution.
This formulation presented in this section is often called Updated Langrange
formulation. However, this is not quite true, since corotated coordinate system in
general will be a curvilinear one at not a cartesian one as in this formulation. The
formulation is, therefore, an approximately updated Lagrangian formulation.
Alternatively it may be called a method based on corotated coordinates or corotating
coordinates.
12.3.3
x ( x, z ) = u, x z w, xx ( x)
(12.47)
If the displacements and rotations are large (but the strains are small), the strain due to
displacement in the x-direction remains unchanged. However, the large deflection,
w(x) causes an additional axial strain. This effect can be estimated as follows:
Let a small lateral displacement w = w(x) take place. Thus each differential length dx
is changed to a new length, ds, where ds > dx because the distance between supports is
not allowed to change. From Fig. 12.14b.
ds = 1 + w, 2x
1/ 2
w, 2
dx 1 + x dx
2
(12.48)
where the latter approximation comes from the first two terms of the binomial
expansion. The approximation is valid is w, 2x << 1 , which restricts this development to
small rotations. Axial membrane strain, m in the bar due the large deflection, w is
therefore
m =
ds dx w, 2x
2
dx
(12.49)
In the linear theory of elasticity we ignore terms of order w, 2x . But here we seek the
consequences of retaining the more important of the higher-order terms that linear
theory neglects. We are taking a physical approach to formulating these terms. They
may also be obtained by a systematic procedure of linearization, as will be touched
upon in Appendix C.
This means that a beam with axial displacement of the neutral axis u = u(x) and lateral
displacement w = w(x) has a strain of
1
2
x = u, x + w, 2x z w, xx
(12.50)
It is noted that if the axial strains are not small, an additional terms needs to be
included in Eq. (12.50). The strain then becomes
1
1
E xx = u, x z w, xx + u, 2x + w, 2x
2
2
(12.51)
This is the so-called Greens strains as presented in Appendix B. For metal structures,
however, the additional term 12 u , 2x is negligible.
Another issue is the effect of an initial lateral deflection, w (x) of the beam. A beam
with initial lateral deflection may also be considered a shallow arch. In this case the
length of an arch with a projected length along the x-axis equal to dx would be
ds = 1 + 12 w , 2x dx , according to Eq. (12.40). When an additional lateral deformation,
w(x) occurs, the resulting arch length becomes
ds* = 1 + (w , x + w, x )
2 1/ 2
1
2
dx 1 + (w , x + w, x ) dx
2
(12.52)
m =
ds * ds
1
= w , x w, x + w, 2x
ds
2
(12.53)
For metal beams with initial lateral deflection, w (x) the Green strain becomes
1
E xx = u , x z w, xx + w , x w, x + w, 2x
2
(12.54)
E xx = u, x zw, xx + (w, x + w, x ) 2 w, 2x
Stresses
Stresses may be defined with reference to the deformed structure or its initial
configuration. True stresses referred to the deformed configuration are denoted ij
(Eulerian or Cauchy stresses). Stresses referred to the initial configuration are denoted
Sij (2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stresses). The latter stress is consistent with the Greens strain
that also refers to the initial configuration. If the Greens strain is applied the stresses
should therefore be Piola-Kirchoff stresses.
For the one-dimensional case the Piola-Kirchoff stress is related to the Eulerian stress
(defined in the deformed configuration) as:
S xx =
X
u
xx = 1 xx
x
x
where X and x are coordinates of the initial and deformed configuration, respectively.
In metal structures the strains are, but the rotation may be large and nonlinear
geometric effects. In such cases Sxx and xx are for all practical purposes, considered
to be equal.
Virtual work (Principle of virtual displacements)
Assume that a beam structure in an equilibrium position is given a virtual axial and
lateral displacement, u and w, which are kinematically consistent with the boundary
conditions. By neglecting volume forces the equation of virtual work may according
to Appendix B.2 the equation be expressed a
xx
E xx = qu u ( x)dx + q w w( x ) dx
A
(12.55)
It is noted that Exx and Sxx are expressed by the displacements u and w according to
Eq. (12.54) and Hookes law for an elastic beam.
By applying the approach in Appendix B the incremental form of the virtual work can
be written as
12.30
xx
E xx dV + S xx E xx dV + S xx E xx dV
V
= q u u dx + q w w dx S xx E xx dV q u u dx q w w dx
V
(12.56)
If the configuration Cn is in equilibrium the parenthesis on the right hand side of Eq.
(12.56) will vanish according to Eq. (12.55). However, due to approximations in the
solution procedure equilibrium will not be generally satisfied. Hence, the terms in the
parenthesis on the right hand side will serve as equilibrium correction terms.
Finite element model
The incremental stiffness relation for an element can then be established based on Eq.
(12.56) and choice of interpolation functions for the displacements u =[u, w]T. This
implies choice of nodes and degrees of freedom in each node. One option is shown in
Fig. 12.16, based on:
- quadratic polynomial for u, with the parameter vu = (u1, u2, u3)T
- cubic polynomial for w, with the parameters vw = (w1, 1, w2, 2)T
The initial lateral deflection, w may be described by the same type of polynomial as
w.
In matrix notation the displacement may be written as
u ( x) = N u v u
w( x) = B w v w
w ( x) = N w v w
(12.57a-c)
E xx = N u , x v u z N w , xx v w + v Tw N Tw , x N w , x v w
+
or
1 T T
vw Nw,x Nw,x vw
2
(12.58a)
12.31
E xx = Bv + v Tw N Tw , x N w , x v w +
1 T T
vw Nw ,x Nw,x vw
2
(12.58b)
where
B = [N u , x , N w , xx ]
v
v= u
v w
(12.58c)
1
2
E xx = B v + v Tw N Tw' x N w , x v w + v Tw N Tw , x N w , x v w
(12.59)
E xx = v Tw N Tw , x N w , x v w
(12.60)
S xx = DE xx
(12.61)
xx
E xx dV = E xxT D E xx dV
(12.62)
When introducing the strain expression (12.58 b-c) into Eq. (12.62), the expression is
simplified if the following notation is introduced:
v wt = v w + v w
(12.63)
12.32
xx
E xx dV = v T (B T D B dV )v
V
+ v
(B
D v Twt N Tw , x N w , x dV v w
+ v Tw N Tw , x N w , x v wt D B dV v
V
(12.64)
+ v Tw N Tw , x N w , x v wt D v Twt N Tw , x N w , x dV v w
= v T k 00 v + v T k 0 L v w
+ v Tw k T0 L v + v w k LL v w
By introducing
v u
v w = [0 I ] = Hv
v w
(12.65)
xx
E xx dV = v T (k 00 + k 0 L H + H T k T0 L + H T k LL H )v
(12.66)
= v T k 1 v
The second term on the left hand side of Eq. (12.56) becomes
xx
S xx dV = v Tw N Tw , x N w , x S xx dV v w
V
= v Tw k L v w = v T H T k L Hv
(12.67)
= v k 2 v
T
The third term on the left-hand side of Eq. (12.56) is neglected as a higher order term.
The load term of Eq. (12.56) may be formulated in matrix notation in a similar manner
as for linear analysis. The resulting virtual work during an increment may be written
as
u dx + q w w dx = v S
(12.68)
When neglecting the third term on the left hand side and the parenthesis on the right
hand side, Eq. (12.56) hence becomes
v T [(k 1 + k 2 ) v S ]= 0
(12.69)
Before completing the derivation the nodal set of parameters, v may be rearranged
from
v = [u1 , u 2 , u 3 , w1 , 1 , w2 , 2 ]
(12.70a)
12.33
to
v ' = [(u , w, )1 ; (u , w, )2 ; u 3 ]
(12.70b)
(12.71)
(12.72)
S = G S
T
(12.73)
Since the virtual displacement v is arbitrary, the principle of virtual work gives
(12.74)
This is the stiffness relation on incremental form for the beam element. The (9x9)
symmetric matrix is k 'I is called incremental element stiffness matrix. k '1 is denoted
initial displacement matrix (which includes the linear small displacement stiffness
matrix) or large displacement matrix and the other contribution k ' 2 is known as initial
stress matrix or geometric matrix.
In a similar manner the incremental stiffness relation for a beam element based on the
updated Lagrangian formulation can be obtained. In this case the resulting
incremental element stiffness matrix may be written as:
k ' = k '0 + k '
(12.75)
where the stiffness matrix k '0 is that due to small deflection theory, namely the first
term on the left hand side in Eq. (12.75), and k ' is the (linearized) geometric stiffness
matrix, resulting from second integral on the left hand side.
In linear analysis of plane structures the behaviour in plane (axial) behaviour and out
of plane or lateral (beam bending) is uncoupled. In geometrically nonlinear behaviour,
axial and lateral behaviour is coupled. This can be seen for a Total Lagrangian
Formulation from the fact that mean strain depends upon u,x as well as 0.5 w, 2x .
12.34
Comments
Various finite element models may be established based on the choice of interpolation
polynomials for u and w. Since the axial strain would vary significantly over the
element undergoing large deflections, the displacement u should be approximated by a
quadratic or higher degree polynomial, while w would be interpolated by a cubic
polynomial.
Moreover, this choice of displacements reduces the effect of
selfstraining, a phenomenon resembling shear looking for membrane elements.
When the interpolation polynomials are given, the stiffness matrix is calculated by
means of the expressions (12.73, 12.72, 12.67, 12.64-12.66).
Internal degrees of freedom, e.g. associated with one of the d.o.f. associated with the
displacement u are normally eliminated by static condensation, see Chapter 9.
Finally, the global incremental stiffness relation is obtained by the direct stiffness
method.
12.3.4 Generalization
N xy w, x
dA
N y w, y
(12.76)
12.35
w, x N, x
w, = N, v = B v
y y
(12.77)
(12.78)
Nx
G=
N xy
(12.78a)
where
N xy
N y
By equating internal and external work it is found that the element stiffness matrix
k = k '0 + k '
(12.79)
where
d = Ed e = E d d p ; d = Et d ; and d = H ' d p
(12.80)
H '=
1
Et
1
E
or Et = E 1
E + H'
(12.81)
where Et is the tangent modulus. When written in this form, the expression for Et is
similar to a more general expression used for multiaxial states of stress. If E is finite
and Et = 0, then H = 0, and the material is called elastic-perfectly plastic.
a)
AE ep 1 1
1 1
L
(12.82)
where Eep = E if the yield criterion is not exceeded or if unloading is taking place, and
Eep = Et if plastic flow is involved.
In numerical solutions, material may take the transition from elastic to plastic within
an iterative cycle of the solution process. For example, imagine that d spans D to A
in Fig. 12.17a. The problem of rounding the corner can be addressed by combining
E and Et according to the fraction m of the total step d that is elastic. Thus let
E ep = mE + (1 m) E t where m =
Y D
A D
(12.83)
b) Load-displacement incrementation
12.38
Alternatively, by substituting stresses for strains and using the fictitious stress *
=EA, we can write m in terms of stresses, as m = (Y - D)/(* - D). Refinements of
this scheme are possible.
As another simple elasto-plastic problem consider the single degree of freedom
elastoplastic problem shown in Figure 12.19 . Each bar is constructed of an identical
material which has bilinear elastic perfectly plastic behavior. Fig. 12.17a with Et = 0.
Each bar is of cross-sectional area A and elastic modulus E. The yield stress values for
the material in the bars are Y(1) , Y(2) and Y(3) where Y(1) < Y(2) < Y(3) . When the force
f is applied all behaviour is initially elastic. As the load is increased the stress in
element 1, reaches the yield and can carry no further increase of stress. Hence, the
internal resisting force emanating from element 1 from this stage onward is
p (1) = Y(1) A
(12.84)
(12.85)
Thus, the source of nonlinearity in the elastoplastic problem occurs in the evaluation
of the stress in the elements and hence in the internal resisting force. The stress is
effectively a nonlinear function of the displacements.
The load-displacement curve for this problem is shown in Figure 12.19 and consists of
a piecewise linear curve with the end of each segment signaling the onset of yield of a
new element until failure of the whole structure.
The slope of the load-displacement curve at any stage og the analysis is called the
tangential stiffness KT. When elastic
KT = 3EA / A
(12.86)
(12.87)
(12.88)
12.39
a) Three-bar
b) Equilibrium
c)Load-displacement curve
Beam structures
The deformation of a beam subjected to axial force and bending is described by
assuming that plane sections remain plane. This implies that the strain is given by Eq.
(12.54). The corresponding stresses need to be calculated in each layer (co-ordinate z
referred to the centroid (neutral axis)) at a longitudinal location, x, by using the
incremental expression: d = E t d . In Section 12.4.2 a more accurate expression for
beams with thin-walled cross-sections will be given for the incremental stress-strain
relationship.
Even fo Elasto-plastic material behaviour plane section remain plane. Hence the strain
generally can be written as
= m z
(12.89)
where m and is the membrane strain and curvature, respectively. In Section 12.4.2
m and have been described by their interpolation functions in terms of the coordinate x. The volume integrals that express the stiffness matrices, Eqs. (12.64,
12.67), can be carried out as follows
~
~
~
Ddv = [ m z ) D( m z ) dA]dx
v
(12.90)
xA
For an elastic beam with D=E and z is defined with reference to the centroid the
integral (12.90) may be written as
2~
~
~
DdV = EA m m dx + ( Ez dA) dx
v
x A
= EA~m dx + EI~dx
x
(12.91 )
12.40
For a beam with Elasto-plastic material behaviour the bending stress depends upon the
strain e.g. as indicated in Fig. 12.20. Eq. (12.90) then needs to be integrated
numerically and would include coupling terms of for instance the form:
~
zD ( z ) mdV
v
N.A.
H
a) stress-strain curve
dA = 0
zdA = M
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: English (U.S.)
12.4.2 Generalization
12.41
An initial yield condition, i.e. the state of stress for which plastic deformation
first occurs.
A hardening rule which describes the modification of the yield condition due
to strain hardening during plastic flow.
A flow rule which allows the determination of plastic strain increments at each
point in the load history.
It is assumed that the material is isotropic, which implied that the stiffness properties
are independent of orientation at a point.
A review of elasto-plastic theory for multi-dimensional stress states based on isotropic
hardening is given in Appendix C. It is shown that the relationship between stress and
strain increments may be written as follows
ep
d ij = Dijkl
d kl
(12.92a)
ep
Dijkl
= E ijkl sij s kl
(12.92b)
where
Eijkl = 2G ije +
=
=
2G
ij kke
1 2
(12.92c)
9G 2
( H '+3G )
(12.92d)
3
2
sij sij =
3
2
ij ij 12 ( kk ) 2
(12.92e)
ep
ep
Dijkl
d kl = Dijkl
d kl ; sij sij = sij2 ;
k =1 l =1
i =1 j =1
kk
k =1
kk
; m = 13 kk . (12.92f)
sij = ij 13 ij
kk
(12.92g)
12.42
E(1 )
9G 2
d xx =
d xx
(H '+ 3G)
(1 + )(1 2)
1.33E 2
1.33
d xx
H '+ 1.16E
(12.93)
It is seen that Eq. (12.93) resembles the second of the expressions (12.81).
In dealing with thin-walled metal structures, a plane stress condition is more relevant.
The incremental stress-strain relationships for one- and two-dimensional conditions
can be obtained from Eq. (12.92a-d). The resulting expressions are shown in
Appendix C.
12.43
y(t)
y(c)
(c)
(d)
Elastic Shakedown
(i)
Elastic Shakedown
This occurs when the plastic strain in the cycle is relatively small, i.e. the total
strain is less than twice the yield strain (the strain when the stress reaches the
yield stress). Referring to Figure 12.21(c), yield first occurs at point A and
strain hardening causes the stress to rise to point B. When unloading occurs,
the behaviour is linear elastic from B to C, with no further yielding.
Therefore, in subsequent cycles, provided the applied load does not go below
point C, the material behaves elastically, i.e. it moves up and down the line
BC with no further development of plastic strains. Thus the material has
shaken down to a stabilizing condition, i.e. the structure is assumed to have
settled down to an elastic state.
12.44
(ii)
Ratchetting
Depending on the load level, in some loading situations where a constant
amplitude of stress is imposed on the material a stable hysteresis loop may
not be reached. Instead, plastic strains keep on accumulating incrementally
with each cycle, leading to eventual failure. This mechanism is called
ratchetting, also known as cyclic creep, and can occur due to a cyclic
thermal loading under a constant mechanical load. This occurs due to a cyclic
thermal loading under a constant mechanical load. This phenomenon is often
observed in materials which exhibit a difference in the yield stress between
load cycles of tension and compression, such as cast iron and most
composites.
(iii)
Alternating plasticity
This phenomenon occurs in some cyclic load situation, where the behaviour
can settle down to a state where the plastic strains in ech cycle are equal and
opposite, and there is a progressive increase in total strain. It should be noted
that in real-life applications, alternating plasticity is of practical concern since
a limited amount of incremental material damage occurs in each cycle of
reversed plasticity. Such damage can be correlated to the equivalent plastic
strain.
12.5
Solution techniques
12.5.1
General
12.46
(a)
(b)
(c)
Example problem
N
ks
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
12.47
Non-linear equations
The resultant of internal forces can be expressed as
R int = (a i ) T S
Hence, the equations that need to be solved are formulated in terms of a total and an
incremental equation of equilibrium
(a )
Si = R
(12.94a)
K I (r ) dr = dR
(12.94b)
i T
R m +1 = R m +1 R m
rm +1 = K I (rm )1 R m +1
(12.95)
rm +1 = rm + rm +1
with the initial condition r0 = 0.
In this way the load may be incremented up to the desired level.
The method is illustrated for a single degree of freedom in Fig. 12.23.
In Section 12.1.2 the exact solution to a two-bar problem (for small h/A ratio) was
presented. Also, the incremental stiffness, KI was given by explicit formula Eq.
(12.9). In practice, analytical solutions can rarely be provided. Rather, numerical
solutions need to be used.
12.49
EA 2
P 2
s
c ) r2
A/c
A/c
3 5
6 120
2 4
cos = 1 +
2 24
3 25
tg = + +
+
3 15
sin =
sin = , cos = 1,
tg =
However, when differences between trigonometric functions are calculated, two terms
in the expansions need to be retained. In the following, this will only apply to the
expression for cos .
For the system in Fig. 12.2 the angle = is small and the incremental stiffness
relationship may be written as:
R = 2(
EA 2 P
) r
A
A
Displacement: r j 1 = ri
Geometry: j 1
h r j 1
h
j 1
Pj1
EA 2
]rj = K I rj
j1
A
A
Displacement increment
R j = 2[
rj = rj-1 + r j
Updated geometry
j =
Pj =
h rj
h
R j1 + R j
2 j
3
EA 03 j
8
12.51
(12.96)
The unbalanced forces may be accounted for by adding them to the next load
increment, when rm+1 is to be calculated. This means that the external loads are
reduced so that global equilibrium is restored. This principle of equilibrium correction
is illustrated in Fig. 12.25 for a single d.o.f. system.
Formally the method may be expressed as follows
R m+1 = R m+1 - R m
R eq = R m - R int (rm )
rm+1 = K I (rm )-1 R m+1 - K I (rm )-1 (R int (rm ) - R m ) = K I (rm )-1 R m+1 + R eq
rm+1 = rm + rm+1
(12.97)
R j = R j
i =1
when the displacement rj and axial force, Pj in each bar is calculated as follows:
j
rj = ri A( 0 j )
i
Pj = EA
EA
A
(A / cos 0 A / cos j )
=
A / cos j A / cos j
rj rj
EA 2
EA
( 0 2j ) =
(2 0 ( ) 2 )
2
2
A
A
Hence
R int (rj ) = EA(2 0
rj
rj
rj
( ) 2 )( 0 )
A
A
A
rj = ri =
R i
K I (ri 1 )
where
rj
r j
rj
Rr =EA 2 0
( ) 2 0 R j
A
A
A
r j = ri
i =1
R j = Ri
i =1
12.53
The geometry and axial force, and hence, the incremental stiffness to be used to
calculate the next displacement increment, is the same as described in Example 1 in
Section 12.5.2.
Example 2 Incremental solution of elasto-plastic bar problem (after Cook et al., 1988)
The purpose is to calculate the load-displacement relationship for the bar in Fig.
12.18a, by using an incremental approach with small but not infinitesimal strains, so
that d becomes . A numerical representation of the stress-strain relation must be
stored, so that , E and Et can be obtained for any . The algorithm outlined below
requires that we also store, and update after each computational cycle, the nodal
displacements, r element strains , and element stresses . With two-d.o.f. bar
elements, and are constant over each element length L.
1. For the first computational cycle (j = 1), assume Eep = E for all elements. Apply
the first load increment, R 1 .
2. Using the current strains, determine the current Eep in each element. Use Eq.
(12.82) to obtain kI for each element i.
Obtain
the
tangent
stiffness
matrix,
K I ( j 1) = (a i ) T k it ( j 1) .
Solve
element (i).
3. Optional. If any elements make the elastic-to-plastic transition, use Eq. (12.83) to
revise Eep for each such element, and go back to step 2. Without changing the
applied load R j repeat steps 2 and 3 until convergence, which may be defined as
being less than a prescribed fraction of the accumulated total in every
element. These operations represent secant-stiffness iterations within one of the
load steps of the tangent-stiffness procedure.
4. Update: r j = r j 1 + r j
and for each element, ij = ij 1 + ij
and ij = ij + ij where j = ( E ep ) j j .
For the first cycle (j=1), initial values (subscript j 1) of displacement, strain, and
stress are typically all zero if one starts from the unloaded configuration, but are
nonzero if one starts from a state in which plastic action impends.
5. Apply the next load increment and return to step 2.
6. Stop when R j reaches the total applied load.
Three cycles of the foregoing algorithm are depicted in Fig. 12.18b. Each cycle
produces a line segment whose slope corresponds to the current stiffness. Drift from
the exact path can be reduced by using smaller load increments, by exercising step 3
previously discussed, and by using corrective loads, which are discussed below.
12.54
Step 3 can be avoided by using load increments R j that bring a single element to the
verge of yielding as each load increment is added. This is easily accomplished by
scaling the incremental tangent-stiffness solutions.
12.5.3 Iterative methods
The most frequently used iterative method for solving non-linear structural problems
is the Newton-Raphson method.
The Newton-Raphson algorithm to solve x for the problem: f(x) = 0 is
x n +1 = x n
f (x n )
f '(x n )
f(x)
f(xn)
xn
f ( xn )
f ( xn )
=
tg
f '( xn )
Fig. 12.26 Newton-Raphson algorithm
rn +1 rn = rn +1 = K I1 (rn ) (R R int )
(12.98)
or
rn +1 = rn K I1 (rn ) (R int R)
The basic principle for this iteration is illustrated in Fig. 12.27
system.
This method requires that KI is established and that rn+1 is solved from
12.55
R R int = K I(n) rn +1
(12.98a)
a) No updating of KI
|| rn +1 rn || <
(12.99)
12.56
|| r ||=
1
N
(r
N
k =1
/ rref
(12.100 )
where N is the number of components in the vector r and rref is a reference size, e.g.
max(ri )
.
N
12.57
The solution procedure described so far are a combination of incremental load coupled
with full or modified Newton-Raphson iterations. Because the plastic flow rules are
incremental in nature elasto-plastic problems should strictly be solved using small
incremental steps. For, no matter how accurately flow rules and keeping on the yield
surface may be satisfied within an increment, the solution is only in equilibrium at the
end of each increment after equilibrium iterations. However, often acceptable
solutions can be obtained with large steps.
Although incremental-iterative techniques provide the basis for most nonlinear finite
element computer programs, additional sophistications are required to produce
effective, robust solution algorithms. An extensive of more refined methods are
discussed e.g. in Chapter 9 of Crisfield (1991). In this section a brief review of such
methods is given.
For instance, severe difficulties are encountered when load incrementation methods
are used to pass a limit point, L (Fig. 12.22c),i.e. when the target stiffness becomes
zero. Using incrementation in displacement instead of load can solve this problem.
This approach will be effective for problems characterised by Fig. 12.22(c-d) for
which the load is uniquely determined by the displacement. However, displacement
incrementation will fail at turning points (T) (snap-back point) e.g. in Fig. 12.22e).
In the present section emphasis will be placed on arc-length techniques for solving
these problems. Prior to their introduction, analysts either used artificial springs,
switched from load to displacement control or abandoning equilibrium iteration in the
close vicinity of the limit point. In relation to structural analysis, the arc-length
method was originally introduced by Riks [1972] and Wempner [1971] with later
modifications being made by a number of authors.
Before describing such methods, one may ask why we need to pursue the response
beyond a limit point (L) in Fig. 12.22c). After all, the limit point represents the
ultimate strength. There are several reasons:
i)
In many cases it may be important to know not just the collapse load, but
whether or not this collapse is of a ductile or brittlenature.
ii)
The structure with the characteristic displayed in Fig. 12.22 may represent a
component in structure. The ultimate behaviour of a redundant structure
consisting of such components, would depend upon the post-ultimate beyond
limit point, L) behaviour of the component.
Method
(12.101 )
where Rref is a fixed external load vector and the scalar is a load level parameter.
Equation (12.101) defines a state of proportional loading in which the loading
pattern is kept fixed. Non-proportional loading will be briefly mentioned later in this
section.
The essence of the arc-length method is that the solution is viewed as the discovery of
a single equilibrium path in a space defined by the nodal variables, r and the loading
parameter, . Development of the solution requires a combined
incremental (also called predictor)
iterative (also called corrector)
approach.
Many of the materials (and possibly loadings) of interest will have path-dependent
response. For these reasons, it is essential to limit the increment size. The increment
size is limited by moving a given distance along the tangent line to the current solution
point and then searching for equilibrium in the plane that passes through the point thus
obtained and that is orthogonal to the same tangent line (Fig. 12.30c).
In Fig. 12.30c the arc-length control strategies in the solution of nonlinear equations
are illustrated and compared with load and displacement control. For instance if load
incrementation is applied, the iterations are carried out to correct the displacements.
When the arc-length method is applied the itereations are carried out with respect to
both the load and displavements.
extra equation is that the solution matrix never becomes singular even at the limit
points. Therefore, the solution matrix is re-assembled with N+1 variables, where N is
the total number of the variables (degrees of freedom) of the system. However, the
disadvantage is that, in some FE formulations, the solution matrix becomes
unsymmetric, which may incur an increase in computing time and/or computer
storage, particularly for very large problems. First the increment (predictor) from the
First point is made along the tangent. Then, this solution is corrected iteratively to
reach the Second point and so on.
Several methods exist to obtain the arc length, for example by making the iteration
path follow a plane perpendicular to the tangent of the load-displacement curve, as
shown in Figure 12.31. Alternatively, instead of a normal plane, more sophisticated
paths such as spherical or cylindrical planes can be followed, and the solution matrix
can be manipulated to become symmetric (see, for example, Crisfield [1991]).
Load factor
iteration
increment
a) Riks-Wempners method
b) Ramms method
r1T R 1 i2
12 riT R i
(12.102)
The initial value of S ip ( S 1p ) is 1.0. For stiffening system it will increase. For softening
system it will decrease. If S ip changes sign the sign of the increment should be
changed.
Numerical experiments show that nearly the same number of iterations were requested
to restore equilibrium when the increments were chosen according to the approach of
Bergan et al.( 1978).
12.61
Ramm (1981) proposed another approach for estimating the necessary increment
(load incrementation) or (for arc-length method). The new arc-length, A n is
obtained by
1/ 2
I
(12.103)
A n = A 0 d
I0
where A 0 is the old arc-length, and Id and I0 are the desired number of iterations
(given as input) and the number of iterations when the old arc-length was used. This
approach requires a suitable estimate of the initial arc-length.
An alternative tactic is to apply load incrementation for early increments and switch to
arc-length control once a limit point is approached.
The current stiffness parameter can be used to decide the switch from load
incrementation (or displacement control) to the arc-length method. An alternative
indicator of when the limit point is approached is the check of negative values on the
diagonal of the incremental stiffness matrix, i.e. negative pivot elements in the
solution algorithm.
In particular the current stiffness parameter may be used to control the solution
strategy at limit points or bifurcation points. Alternative changes may be made when
the current stiffness is below a limit value, namely
- the sign of the incrementation is changed
- iteration may be suppressed and a simple incrementation may be used. Iterations
are then resumed when S ip increases beyond a specific limit (see Fig. 12.34).
Fig. 12.34 Possible choice of solution algorithm for a problem with limit point
Non-proportional loading
The solution procedures in this chapter have been based on the equilibrium
relationship of (12.101) which implies a single loading (or displacing) vector, Rref, is
proportionally scaled via . For many practical structural problems, this loading
12.62
regime is too restrictive. For example, we often wish to apply the dead load or
self-weight and then monotonically increase the environmental load. Even more
general load conditions may be required. Fortunately, many such loading regimes can
be applied by means of a series of loading sequences involving two loading vectors,
one that will be scaled (the previous Rref) and one that will be fixed ( ( R ref ) . The
external loading can then be represented by
R = R ref + R ref
(12.104)
(12.105)
Up to now the methods for directly solving the statistic nonlinear equation have been
based on incrementation of loads or displacements. Possibly combined with iterative
methods. These are often considered standard methods for solving nonlinear problems
(e.g. in ABAQUS).
An alternative approach is to use so-called finite difference methods for direct
integration of the dynamic equation of motion :
(12.106)
(12.107)
or
ri +1 = f {ri , ri ,
ri , ri 1 , ri 1 ,
ri 1 ,...}
12.63
(12.108)
Many of the implicit methods are unconditionally stable and the restrictions on the
time step size are only due to requirements of accuracy. Explicit methods, on the other
hand, are only stable for very short time steps.
Central difference method
To illustrate this approach, one of the explicit solution methods, the central difference
method is described in the following. The central difference method is based on the
assumption that the displacements at the new time step, t + t , and the previous time
step, t t ,can be found by Taylor series expansion.
ri +1 = r0 (t ) + t ri +
ri 1 = ri t ri +
t 2
t 3
ri +
ri + ...
2
6
t 2
t 3
ri
ri + ...
2
6
(with r0 (t ) = ri )
(12.109)
(12.110)
The terms with time steps to the power of three and higher are neglected. Subtracting
Eq. (12.110) for Eq. (12.109) yields :
ri +1 ri 1 = 2t ri
(12.111)
ri +1 + ri 1 = 2r + t 2ri
(12.112)
Rearranging Eq. (12.111-112), the velocities and accelerations at the current time step
can be expressed as:
ri =
1
{ri +1 ri 1}
2t
(12.113)
ri =
1
{ri +1 2ri (t ) + ri 1}
t 2
(12.114)
Finally inserting Eqs. (12.113-114) into the dynamic equation of motion Eq. (12.106)
gives:
12.64
1
1
1
1
C ri +1 = R i (t ) K ri (t ) + 2 M {2ri ri 1} +
C ri 1
2 M+
2 t
2 t
t
t
(12.115)
If the mass matrix, M, and the damping matrix, C, are diagonal, the equations will be
uncoupled, and the displacements at the next time step, t + t , can be optained
without solving simultaneous equations.
The characteristic features of Eq. (12.115) are best illustrated by an example. Let us
consider a system with three global directions of freedom. The mass matrix, M and
damping matrix Care assumed to be diagonal.
Eq. (12.115) may then be written as:
1
2
t
0
M 11 0
C11 0 0 r1(i +1) R1(i ) K11 K12 K13 r1( i )
1
0 M
0 +
0 C22 0 r2(i +1) = R2( i ) K 21 K 22 K 32 r2( i )
22
2t
0
0 0 C33 r3( i +1) R3(i ) K 31 K 32 K 33 r3(i )
0 M 33
0 r1( i ) r1(i 1)
M 11 0
C11 0 0 r1(i 1)
1
1
+ 2 0 M 22 0 2 r2( i ) r2( i 1) +
0 C22 0 r2( i 1)
t
2t
0
0 0 C33 r3(i 1)
0 M 33 r3(i ) r3(i 1)
(12.116)
The first equation in Eq. (12.121) is explicitty written as :
1
1
2
t
t
1
1
+ 2 M 11 {2r1(i ) r1(i 1) } +
C11r1(i 1)
t
2 t
(12.117)
This shows that ri ( i +1) can be directly, explicity determined by the response at time t.
There is no coupling between displacements, rj (i +1) at the time t + t .
Because the expressions for the displacements are explicitly given, there is no need to
invert the tangent stiffness matrix at every time step. The explicit method also has the
advantage of drastically reducing the need for computer memory capacity. The
stiffness forces, or internal force vector, can be found by summation of element
contributions. The global stiffness vector, K, need not to be stored in the computers
core memory.
As already mentioned, Eq. (12.115) is conditionally stable and requires that
t <
max
(12.118)
12.65
(12.119)
t <
e
c
(12.120)
Higher order elements yield higher maximum frequencies and should be avoided when
doing explicit integration. Many alternative methods exist. See. e.g.
Solution of static problems
The explicitmethod is very well suited to treat dynamic problems. As indicated above
the method can also be used to solve static problems.
It is obvious that the periode of the loading, or the amount of time for the loading to
reach its maximum value, must be much larger than the largest eigenperiod to avoid
dynamic effects as determined from the lowest eigenfrequency found for Eq. (12.119).
The response of the structure is also dependent on the magnitude of the loading, not
only on the period, and this complicates the picture. In addition, failures due to
collapse or cracking of parts of the structure will cause vibrations. These events will
not be captured by a traditional static analysis.
All effects taken into account; if the time of the loading to reach its maximum level is
conservatively chosen to be 30 times the longest eigenperiod of the system, the
dynamic effects have shown to be negligible.
Another problem with explicit analyses is that post-collapse behaviour cannot be
traced if the loading is given as applied forces. In many cases this can be avoided by
switching to displacement control. If displacement control is not possible or desirable,
implicit solution procedures using arc length solution methods can be used.
An advantage with the explicit solution procedure is that it is very easy to use. The
user of an explicit finite element program is left with the difficulty of applying loads
sufficiently slowly to avoid dynamic phenomena and sufficiently fast to avoid too
large computional efforts times.
In static analyses, and even in dynamic analyses, the computational time van be
considerably reduced by changing mass densities in elements. The time step will be
governed by the smallest element in the model. Artificially increasing the mass of
small elements will reduce the acoustic wave speed and hence allow longer time steps.
Similarly very large elements can be given mass reduction and hence be less affected
by inertia forces. Systematic increase and reduction of element masses can be
12.66
performed to improve computational efficiency, but the details in these methods will
not be elaborated on.
12.6
Applications
12.6.1 General
General purpose finite element programs for nonlinear analysis, such as ABAQUS,
LSDYNA etc. contain several options for beam models.
Special purpose programs
The program system USFOS was initially developed at NTNU/SINTEF to deal with
nonlinear analysis of frames and trussworks. Later it has been extended also to cover
plates and shells. The basic for USFOS is summarized in this section. More details
may e.g. be found in Skallerud and Amdahl (2002).
USFOS may be used to assess the ultimate global capacity of space frame structures
and to document the residual strength of such structures. The formulation of beam
models allows the use of very coarse finite element modelling of the structure, but still
obtain results good accuracy. Local flexibility of tubular joint is included through a
simplified, but very efficient formulation. The formulation gives very good results
compared with shell analysis of the joint, but requires no special modelling of the joint
12.67
geometry. The flexibility characteristics are calculated form the information already
present in the design model of the structure.
The program is based on an updated Lagrange (incremental-iterative) procedure. It
uses a (nonlinear) Green strain formulation (Section 12.3.3) . Thus, the USFOS beam
element is valid for large displacements, but restricted to moderate strains. The
influence of axial force on the bending stiffness of the element is introduced by the
nonlinear terms in the Green strain formulation. The tangent and secant stiffness
matrices are then obtain by introducing interpolation functions for the element
displacements. The shape functions in USFOS are taken as the exact solution of the
4th order differential equation for a beam column, i.e. the stability or Livesly functions
(Section 12.2 and Appendix A). With these shape functions all integration in the
element stiffness expressions is carried out analytically, giving closed form solutions
for the nonlinear elastic stiffness matrix.
In addition to accounting for the coupling between axial displacements and lateral
rotations on the element level, large displacement effects are also taken into account
by updating the local reference co-ordinate system at each step.
Material nonlinearities are modelled by plastic hinges at element ends or at element
midspan. The control of element plastification is a control of stress resultants (forces
and moments) against the total plastic capacity of the cross section, instead of local
stresses. Possible unloading of plastic hinges into the elastic range is checked at each
load step. Elasto-plastic element properties are established based on the flow theory.
The plasticity formulation is based on interaction formulae for plastic capacity of
stress resultants.
Fig. 12.35 USFOS formulation: One finite element per structural element.
12.68
Hinges may occur at beam-ends and at midspan. In the latter case the original element
is subdivided into two sub elements. The extra nodal point is introduced automatically
and eliminated by static condensation before adding into the global stiffness matrix.
The difference between yield hinge formulations have been investigated (Hellan et al.
(1994 -1995), and show significant differences. Elastic-perfectly plastic models overpredict the column buckling capacity of ideally straight tubulars. For yield-hinge
models incorporating first fiber yield, gradual plastification and strain hardening, the
buckling capacity depends on the plasticity parameters given to model the transition
from elastic to plastic behaviour. In general, these formulations may be slightly
conservative for stocky columns, and slightly un-conservative for slender columns.
For both these formulations, geometrical imperfections and residual stresses for a
member can be accounted for by introducing equivalent initial imperfections in the
element formulation to ensure exact fit to any given column curve, e.g. Eurocode 3,
which is based on extensive test results. However, particular assessment of the
imperfection mode for systems analysis is required. By comparing various
imperfection patterns, it was found that imperfection in the direction of the global load
yields the lowest capacity. This is discussed in more detail in Hellan et al. (1994).
Joints can in principle be modeled by shell elements. Systematic FE studies of linearly
elastic joints have resulted in parametric formula for the joint flexibility (Ultiguide,
1999).
Under extreme loads, the nonlinear deformations of the joint and failure characteristics
can influence the disposition of forces and the overall structural response. Failure of
tubular joints generally involves some combination of the following local and global
modes :
Local plastic deformation (yield) of the chord around the brace intersection
Cracking in the chord at the weld toe (and propagation to severance)
Local buckling in compression areas of the chord
Ovalisation of the chord cross-section
Beam shear failure across a gap K joint chord
Beam bending of the chord especially for T/Y action
The specific response depends upon the type of joint (T/Y, X, K; simple, stiffened,
grouted; etc), the loading (Axial tension/compression; bending in-plane
bending/out-of-plane bending, etc) and the joint geometry parameters ( , , etc ).
Fig.12.36b illustrates typical load-deformation responses for axially loaded joints as
seen in isolated component tests performed with idealized boundary conditions.
12.69
a) member behaviour
b) Joint behaviour
c) Joint model
a) Equivalent stress-strain
(261)
(363)
(463)
(455)
(456)
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 12.38: Global ultimate behaviour of a North Sea jacket
The effects of global seabed scour and local scour in granular soils, and the partial loss
of soil-pile contact in cohesive soils should be accounted for. When modeling the
individual piles in a pile group, nonlinear soil P-y and T-z curves have to be adjusted
to account for pile group effects.
Cyclic loads cause deterioration of the lateral bearing capacity as indicated in Fig.
12.38. The soil capacity and the nonlinear P- characteristics given in most codes
represent the fully degraded properties of the soil, based on the cyclic (hysteretic)
behaviour. The capacity under monotonic, static loading can be significantly higher, as
shown in Fig. 12.38. High loading rates (compared to laboratory test loading) can also
contribute to increase the capacity up to 40% for lateral loading and 50% for axial
loading for wave loading. It is noted that this strength increase only applies to the
dynamic (variable) part of the soil reaction.
As demonstrated e.g. by Moan, Azadi and Hellan (1997) the choice of pile-soil model
can affect the load distribution in the structures and, hence, the failure mode and
corresponding ultimate strength. The most important issue is, of course, that a pure
linear pile-soil model would not represent a possible soil failure and, hence
overestimate the system strength if the pile-soil is the critical part of the system. For
the jacket in Fig. 12.37a with plugged piles the pile-foundation is not critical. Yet the
difference in jacket failure mode when using a linear instead of a nonlinear model,
results in an ultimate load which is about 15% smaller for the former case.
Determination of the global ultimate capacity by monotonically increasing wave
loading (pushover analysis) has become a well-established approach.
As mentioned above, systems analysis is particularly of interest to demonstrate
robustness in connection with structures that are damaged due to accidental loads of
fatigue fracture. It is found that the nonlinear approach especially yields more realistic
predictions of the ultimate strength of a damaged system than a conventional approach
based on a linear global analysis and an ultimate strength assessment of the structural
component.
To illustrate the effect of damage the jacket in Fig. 12.38 is considered. The ultimate
capacity is normalized with respect to F100. For this case a linear spring model is
applied for the pile-soil. Damage in terms of removal of individual braces is
considered as indicated in Fig. 12.38b. Table 12.2 shows that failure of the braces 261
and 463 for broad side loading does not reduce the ultimate strength, and, most
importantly, for all cases with a single brace failure the reserve capacity is at least
12.73
0.7 x 2.73 = 2.08 times the 100 year characteristic load, while the normal total safety
factor for design checks of components of offshore structures is about 1.5.
Table 12.2: Residual strength of damaged North Sea jacket. Linear pile-soil
behaviour. Wave height incremenation
Loading and damage condition
For a realistic evaluation of the structural safety of offshore structures with complex
three-dimensional and stochastic sea loads and complex structural geometries, the
global ultimate strength needs to be calculated, yet, considering relevant local failure
modes of members and joints. The platforms have to be analyzed in intact and damage
condition. The efficiency of the calculation methods is then detrimental, especially in a
design context, when repeated analyses are required. Members are modeled as beam
elements and joints by spring elements. It is shown how local failure modes, especially
local buckling of members and joints, are accommodated by a phenomenological
approach.
The sensitivity of the global ultimate strength to damage of individual members is
examined.
12.6.3 Plane stress and bending of plates and shells
Formulations
The von Mises yield criterion is well known. The generalization of isotropic hardening
rule is relatively straight-forward (see Appendix C), other hardening rules are more
complex and are not described in the Appendix C.
The generalization of the flow rule is the most important issue in the generalization.
The main starting point is Eq. (C.15) which follows from Druckers postulate. Eqs.
(C.19) shows that the plastic strain increment is proportional to the equivalent stress
increment, d and the deviatoric stress, sij. Eq. (C.30) expresses the stress increment
as a function of total strain increment. It is this relationship that is used in multidimensional elasto-plastic finite element formulations.
The purpose of this example is to study the behaviour of a corner in a large frame (Fig.
12.38a). The analysis has to relevance to serviceability and ultimate limit state
dimensioning criteria.
The structure analyzed is a plane idealization of the structure shown in Fig. 12.39c.
Both an unstiffed configuration (No. I) and a stiffened one (No. II) are considered. In
configuration No. II only the effective part of traversal panels and flanges of the actual
panel are included, see Figs. 12.39c-d. Buckling stiffeners are smeared and contribute
to the effective plate thickness. The plate material is assumed to be ideally elastoplastic with yield stress Y = 360N/mm 2 . The loads are introduced according to
simple beam theory on the boundary AA, see Fig. 12.39d. The level of the load is
expressed by the nominal stress level according to beam theory in section BB. The
external moment and shear forces at AA are such that the maximum equivalent stress
in the outer fiber in BB is Y . The average shear stress in BB is 0.18 Y and the
average normal stress in CC 0.58 Y . is a usage factor. Two load conditions are
considered, namely = 0.63 (Condition A) and = 0.84 (Condition B). These usage
factors correspond to typical values allowed for the operational and extreme load
condition for marine steel structures.
12.75
a) Gravity platform
e) Mesh of constant strain elements and (possible) bar elements, and uniaxial model of
material.
Fig. 12.39. Idealization of a corner in a large frame composed of box members.
12.76
The finite element solution is obtained with an idealization of the panel based on 288
constant strain plane stress elements. Out-of-plane displacements are not considered.
Stiffeners are represented by bar elements, totaling 77. The resulting mesh is shown in
Fig. 12.39e. Because the nonlinear behaviour is very local in the present case, it is
computationally advantageous to use the so-called substructure approach. The two
substructures used, denoted by No.1 and 2, are shown in Fig. 12.39e.
A selection of the results obtained in this study is displayed in Fig. 12.40 and Table
12.3.
Fig. 12.40 shows how the yield zone develops in the two configurations. It is observed
that the initial extent of the yield zone for Configuration I can be estimated fairly well
by using the yield condition in conjunction with stresses calculated according to the
elasticity theory. However, the gradual local softening of the structure due to
plastification influences the further development of the yield zone.
12.77
Table 12.3: Characteristic stress and strain responses in corner of a large frame.
Elastic analysis
Elastic stress
Configuration concentration
factor:
max / ref
I
II
1.91
1.78
max
ref = Y
Elasto-plastic analysis
referring to max. loading ( = 0.84 )
Max. equivalent Max. residual equivalent stress
after unloading :
plastic strain:
p
max
max
p
max
/ Y
max
/Y
1.6
2.1
0.62
0.52
Y
Y
yield stress
max
p
max
The above case study may serve as a basis for a discussion of the adequacy of linear
elastic stress analysis and possible other, improved methods of analysis to represent
actual limit states for a steel structure.
The traditional way of assessing the strength of a structure is by ensuring that the
stresses obtained in a linear elastic analysis are less than the yield stress. Commonly
the analysis is performed by means of a beam or a frame model, which represents the
gross stress variation. If the stress analysis is based on a finite element method, the
very local stresses can be calculated. Therefore, due to the high elastic stress
concentration present in most steel structures, the stresses obtained in a linear elastic
analysis may exceed the yield level even or operational loads. In the above case study
the maximum equivalent stress for Configuration I and II at Load Level A ( = 0.63 )
is, respectively, 1.12 Y and 1.20 Y . This fact does not necessary imply an inadequate
design. This is because ductile collapse strength depends on the average stress over a
region and not the point wise maximum value given that sufficient ductility allows a
redistribution of stresses to comply with the stress distribution1 at ultimate collapse.
However, fracture strength under single overload or repeated large loads (low cycle
fatigue) depends on the local response. Even in that case the stresses obtained in a
linear analysis may not be particularly relevant as a measure of strength. A better
measure of strength is the maximum plastic strain, as calculated in a elasto-plastic
analysis.
Nor does a linear elastic stress analysis reflect the fact that the local yielding caused
during overloads influences the subsequent growth of a crack under relatively small
amplitude (high cycle fatigue conditions). The possible local yielding may blunt the
1
A ductile collapse of structures with in-plane compressive or shear stresses are associated with loss of
stiffness due to out-of-plane displacements, and an accurate representation may require incorporation of
plasticity as well as large deflection effects.
12.78
crack tips and/or change the residual stress pattern. Regarding the possible change of a
residual stress field, it should be noted that current (high cycle) fatigue design rules
have calibrated the strength data according to the assumption that there will be a
tensile yield zone adjacent to the weld, see e.g. Gurney and Maddox (1972).
The purpose of the present example is to investigate the structural behaviour of a plate
subjected to local lateral load such as a wheel load on a helideck, or on the deck of a
ro-ro carrier etc. The actual design criterion may be stated in terms of an ultimate or
serviceability limit state condition.
A typical stiffened panel is shown in Fig. 12.41. If an ultimate strength criterion is
used for the stiffeners and girders the corresponding strength can be relatively
accurately estimated by a consideration of plastic-hinge theory. If the design criterion
is formulated in terms of a serviceability requirement allowing no yielding; the
structural analysis may be properly accomplished according to linear elastic beam
theory. Therefore, the attention here is focused on the load-carrying behaviour of the
plating. A plate-strip of unit width with material and geometric properties as shown in
Fig. 12.42 is considered. The material is assumed to be mild steel with no strain
hardening. The geometries correspond to slenderness ratios, b / t of 40 and 60.
12.80
stiffness, k:
40
40
40
40
40
E/40
40
E/40
60
60
1)
The numerical solution
case
wmax / t
240
1.2
240
2.0
320
1.2
320
2.0
320
1.2
320
2.0
240
1.2
240
2.0
procedure is not able
wp / t
to a lateral
Maximum
strain,
max
max / Y
0.95
0.64
5.7
1.36
1.14
15.6
0.81
0.35
3.1
1.14
0.76
5.5
1.10
0.41
3.8
1.49
0.79
6.1
1.48
0.90
6.6
17.5
2.20
-1)
to follow the unloading path for this
It is generally expected that the plate-strip analysis yields conservative results. The
inherent conservativism should be explored by a proper two-dimensional analysis
before it is applied in design.
The above study has the following design implications. If sufficient membrane
restraints can be mobilized by the surrounding structure, the ultimate ductile strength
of a laterally loaded plate can be very high. Therefore, the total or permanent
deflections may be governing in the dimensioning. A reasonable serviceability
requirement on maximum allowable permanent deflection could be of the same order
12.81
The stiffened panel is a fundamental structural component in ship hulls. Due to the
simplicity in fabrication and excellent strength to weight ratio, it is also widely used in
civil engineering, bridge, aerospace, offshore and other engineering fields design of
ship structures. Fig. 12.44 shows a typical stiffened plate structure.
b
tp
Y
E
.
Effective
stress distribution
b
be
mean
12.83
As mentioned above, the ALS check is a survival check of the structural system which
is damaged due to accidental actions or abnormal strength. Accidental actions are
caused by human errors or technical faults, and include fires and explosions, ship
impacts, dropped objects, unintended distribution of variable deck loads and ballast,
change of intended pressure difference. Most notable in this connection is of course
accidental loads such as ship impacts, fires and explosions which should not occur, but
do so because of operational errors and omissions.
The accidental actions and abnormal conditions of structural strength are supposed to
be determined by risk analysis, see e.g.Vinnem (1999), by accounting for relevant
factors that affect the accidental loads. In particular, risk reduction can be achieved by
reducing the probability of initiating event; leakage and ignition (that can cause fire or
explosion), ship impact, etc. or by reducing the consequences of hazards. Passive or
active measures can be used to control the magnitude of the accidental event and,
thereby, its consequences. For instance, the fire action is limited by sprinkler/inert gas
system or by fire walls. Fenders can be used to reduce the damage due to collisions.
ALS checks apply to all relevant failure modes as indicated in Table 12.5. Account of
accidental loads in conjunction with the design of the structure, equipment as well as
safety systems is a crucial safety measure, to prevent accidents to escalate. Typical
situations where direct design may affect the layout and scantlings are indicted in
Table 12.6.
Table 12.5 Safety criteria
Limit states
Ultimate (ULS)
Fatigue (FLS)
Remarks
Different for bottom
supported, buoyant, ---.
Component design check
Component design check
depending on residual system
strength after fatigue failure
System design check
Accidental
collapse (ALS)
1)
Description
- Overall rigid body stability
- Ultimate strength of structure,
mooring or possible foundation
- Failure of joint
12.84
Table 12.6 Examples on accidental actions for relevant failure modes of platforms
Structural concept
Fixed platform
Floating
platform
Tension leg
platform
Failure mode
Structural failure
Structural failure
Instability
Direct design of
- structure (to avoid progressive structural failure or flooding)
- equipment & protective barrier (to avoid damage and escalation of
accident)
Load
Fire
Explosion
Ship impact
Dropped object
Structure
Columns /deck
(if not protected)
Topside
(if not protected)
Waterline structure
(. subdivision)
(if not protected)
Deck
Buoyancy elements
Equipment
Exposed equip.
(if not protected)
Exposed equip.
(if not protected)
Possibly exposed
risers,
(if not protected)
Equipment on deck,
risers and subsea
(if not protected)
The dominant fire and explosion events are associated with hydrocarbon leakage from
flanges, valves, equipment seals, nozzles etc. Commonly the effect of 40 - 60
scenarios need to be analyzed. This means that location and magnitude e.g. of relevant
hydrocarbon leaks, likelihood of ignition, as well as combustion and temperature
development(in a fire) and pressure-time development (for an explosion) needs to be
estimated, followed by a structural assessment of the potential damage.
The fire thermal flux may be calculated on the basis of the type of hydrocarbons,
release rate, combustion, time and location of ignition, ventilation and structural
geometry,
using
simplified
conservative
semi-empirical
formulae
or
analytical/numerical models of the combustion process. The heat flux may be
determined
by
empirical,
phenomenological
or
numerical
method
(SCI,1993;BEFETS,1998). Typical thermal loading in hydrocarbon fire scenarios may
be 200- 300 kW/m2 for a 15 min 2 hours period. The structural effect is primarily
due to the reduced strength with increasing temperature.
In case of explosion scenarios the analysis of leaks is followed by a gas dispersion and
possible formation of gas clouds, ignition, combustion and development of
overpressure. Tools such as FLACS, PROEXP, or AutoReGas are available for this
effort. Typical overpressures for topsides of North Sea platforms is 0.2-0.6 barg, with
a duration of 0.1-0.5 s.
The damage due to explosion should be determined with due account of the nonlinear
and dynamic character of the action effects. Simple, conservative single degree of
12.86
freedom models may be applied. In particular cases where simplified methods have
not been calibrated, nonlinear time domain analyses based on numerical methods like
the finite element method should be applied. A recent overview of such methods may
be found in Czujko (2001). For instance the behaviour of the topside structure of the
6-legged North Sea jacket shown in Fig. 12.46 under blast loading, has been studied.
Fig. 12.47 shows the failure mode of the stiffened lower deck. The analysis was
carried out by LS-DYNA using strain-based rupture criteria (Czujko, 2001). As
indicated in this figure the final failure is a rupture.
Fire and explosion events that result from the same scenario of released combustibles
and ignition should be assumed to occur at the same time, i.e. to be fully dependent.
The fire and blast analyses should be performed by taking into account the effects of
one on the other. The damage done to the fire protection by an explosion preceding the
fire, should be considered.
Fig. 12.47 Failure mode of lower deck in topside structure in Fig. 12.46.
12.87
Ship impacts on fixed platforms could cuase reduction of structural strength and
possible progressive structural failure. For buoyant structures the impact damage can
lead to flooding and, hence, loss of buoyancy. The measure of damage in this
connection is the maximum indentation implying loss of watertightness. However, in
case of large damage, reduction of structural strength is also of concern for floating
structures.
Ship collision loads are characterised by a kinetic energy, described by the mass of the
ship, including hydrodynamic added mass and the speed of the ship at the instant of
impact. If the collision is non-central, i.e. the contact force does not go through the
centre of gravity of the platform (installation) and the ship, a part of the kinetic energy
may remain as kinetic energy after the impact. The remainder of the kinetic energy has
to be dissipated as strain energy in the installation and, possibly, in the vessel.
Generally this involves large plastic strains and significant structural damage to either
the installation or the ship or both.
The most probable impact locations and impact geometry should be established based
on the dimensions and geometry of the offshore structure and vessel, and should
account for tidal changes, operational sea-state and motions of the vessel and structure
which has free modes of behaviour. Impact scenarios should be established
representing bow, stern and side impacts on the structure as appropriate
The collision problem comprises both internal mechanics related large, inelastic
deformations at the point of contact as well as global hull bending of struck vessel and
interaction with the surrounding fluid (added mass, viscous forces etc.). A fully
integrated analysis is fairly demanding. It is, therefore, often found convenient to split
the problem into two uncoupled analyses, namely, the external collision mechanics
dealing with global inertia forces and hydrodynamic effects, and internal mechanics
dealing with the energy dissipation and distribution of damage in the two structures.
Only the latter issue is pursued herein. This involves estimating how the energy is
shared among the installation and the ship. The structural response of the ramming
ship and installation can formally be represented as load-deformation relation ships as
illustrated in Fig. 12.48. The strain energy dissipated by the ship and installation
equals the total area under the load-deformation curves. The total energy dissipation
may be expressed by:
E s = E s,s + E s,i =
w s, max
0
R s dw s +
w i, max
0
R i dw i
where Ri and Rs are the resistance of installation and ship, respectively; and dwi and
dws are the deformation of installation and ship. As the load level is not known a
priori an incremental procedure is generally needed. It is customary to establish the
load-deformation relationships for the ship and the installation independently of each
other assuming the other object infinitely rigid. Fig. 12.48b shows approximate
resistance-indentation for ships. This approach may imply severe limitations, because
both structures will inevitably dissipate some energy regardless of their relative
strength. Care should therefore be exercised that the load-deformation curves
calculated are representative for the true, interactive nature of the contact between the
two structures.
12.88
Ri
40
Impact force (MN)
Rs
Broad side
D = 10 m
= 1.5 m
30
Es,i
Es,s
20
Stern corner
10
dws
Ship
FPSO
dwi
Stern end
D = 10 m
= 1.5 m
D
Bow
0
0
2
Indentation (m)
a) Impact force-intendation
E n ergy d issipation
Based on the relative energy absorption capabilities of the installation and ship, the
design of the installation different design principles may be distinguished; namely:
strength design; ductility design , or shared-energy design. As indicated in Fig.12.49
the distribution depends upon the relative strength of the two structures. Strength
design implies that the installation is strong enough to resist the collision force with
minor deformation, so that the ship is forced to deform and dissipate the major part of
the energy. Ductility design implies that the installation undergoes large, plastic
deformations and dissipates the major part of the collision energy. Shared energy
design implies that both the installation and ship contribute significantly to the energy
dissipation.
Ductile
design
Shared-energy
design
Strength
design
ship
installation
Fig 12.49 Ship impact design principle based on relative energy sharing between ship
and installation
From the calculation point of view strength design or ductility design is favourable. In
this case the response of the soft structure can be calculated on the basis of simple
considerations of the geometry of the rigid structure. For instance Fig. 12.48b can
be used when the ship is soft while the platform is rigid to carry out a strength design
of the platform in the case of supply vessel impact. In shared energy design both the
magnitude and distribution of the collision force depends upon the deformation of both
structures. The analysis has to be carried out incrementally on the basis of the current
deformation field, contact area and force distribution over the contact area. It is the
current weaker structure that is forced to deform most, whereas the damage of the
12.89
other may remain virtually unchanged during an incremental step. The relative
strength of the two structures may vary both over the contact area as well as over time.
Recent advances in computers and algorithms have made nonlinear finite element
analysis (NLFEM) a viable tool for assessing collisions. There are generally two
methodologies available: implicit analysis and explicit analysis. Implicit
methodologies require solution of equation systems. This places demands on the
equation solver and the computer capacity especially in terms of memory resources.
Explicit systems do not require equation solving. Equilibrium is solved at element
level. However, to maintain stability, very small time steps are needed. . Explicit
methodologies based computer codes include ABAQUS/Explicit, DYTRAN, LSDYNA, PAM-CRASH and RADIOSS, and implicit methodologies based codes
include ABAQUS/Standard, ANSYS, MARC and NASTRAN.
The internal accident mechanics involve yielding, crushing, tearing or fracture. Any
non-linear FEM mesh for simulating the internal accident mechanics needs to be fine
enough so as to capture such highly non-linear characteristics. It is found that a
particularly fine mesh is required in order to obtain accurate results for components
deforming by axial crushing. Higher order elements generally provides better accuracy
and allow a less finer mesh, but they require more computational effort. The
importance of mesh fineness or element types has been studied by many investigators
(e.g. Amdal & Kavlie 1992, ). It is observed that a very large number of elements is
required in order to obtain accurate results for components deformed by axial crushing
forces. Accounting for realistic size and boundary conditions of FE models is also
crucial. Analytical formulae derived for evaluating structural damage characteristics
(e.g., failure patterns) may be used to determine relevant mesh size. For instance, it is
recommended that more than eight (rectangular plate-shell type) finite elements are
necessary to capture the structural crushing pattern within a half length of one
structural fold, see Figure 12.50. Available analytical formulations for predicting the
length of structural fold are suggested e.g. by Amdahl & Kavlie (1992). It is cautioned,
however, that these formulae were derived for different crushing patterns to different
structural geometries.
H
H
H
The critical strain for fracture depends heavily on the stress-strain measure as well as
the mesh size. Various options exist for the stress-strain relationship. Most often
engineering stress-strain relationship or true stress-strain relationship is used. The true
stress-strain relationship can model the physical process more accurately than the
engineering stress-strain relationship, but it is more complex as the change of the
element volume needs to be involved. Experience obtained thus far indicates that the
difference between these two approaches can be neglected up to ultimate stress as long
as the loaddisplacement relation and the associated energy dissipation are concerned.
The dependency of fracture strain on element size has been studied e.g. by Simonsen
& Lauridsen (2000). By comparing tensile tests with numerical simulations they
concluded that a fairly small element mesh is required to capture the features of the
tensile test. An empirical relationship between fracture strain and element size has
been derived by Lehmann et al (2001), based on thickness measurements of structural
elements from actual collisions.
A major challenge in NLFEM analysis is prediction of ductile crack initiation and
propagation. This problem is not yet solved. Crack initiation and propagation should
be based on fracture mechanics analysis, using the J-integral or Crack Tip Opening
Displacement method rather than simple strain considerations. A difficulty in this
connection is that the strain depends upon the element mesh. The simplest approach
to the problem is to remove elements once the critical strain is attained. This is fairly
easily done in an explicit code because there is no need to assemble and invert the
effective system stiffness matrix. However, deleting elements disregards the fact the
large stresses can be maintained parallel to the cracks. An improved modelling is to
introduce a double set of nodes such that the elements are allowed to separate once the
critical stress is attained. A drawback with a double set of nodes is that the potential
location of cracks needs to be defined prior to analysis.
Paik et al.(2003) compared FE analyses with test results obtained by The Association
of Structural Improvement of Shipbuilding Industry of Japan (ASIS 1993). One of the
collision test models is a double side structure model made of mild steel. It was
impacted from outer side shell by a 82.32 kN weight (striking bow) freely fallen from
a height of 4.8m. The weight struck the double hull model at a speed of 9.7 m/s.
In FE modelling, the element size should be fine enough so that deformation patterns
be properly captured in the analysis. It is desirable that the shape of the element is
rectangle and the aspect ratio of an element is near 1.0. While the deformation patterns
of steel plates under axial compression at the ultimate limit state have a sinusoidal
shape, ship collisions and grounding cause more complex deformation patterns
involving folding and tearing as well as localized yielding. To investigate the effect of
mesh fineness, two meshes are considered: one is a coarse mesh usually applied for an
ultimate strength analysis and the other is a fine mesh more suitable for a collision
analysis.
For an ultimate strength analysis, five elements between a stiffener spacing may be
enough to capture the collapse pattern of the plating between stiffeners, i.e., with one
element size of 80mm for the collision test model considered. However, for a collision
analysis involving structural folding, a finer mesh is required. As previously noted in
Section 3.5.2, at least eight elements are needed within a half length of one structural
fold, see Figure 11. In the present benchmark study, the fold length was estimated by
12.91
H = 0.983b 2 / 3 t 1 / 3
where b = width of plating between stringers, t = plate thickness, H = a half fold
length. With b=2000mm and t=7mm for the test model, a half length of one fold is
H = 298.5 mm. Therefore, it is recommended that one element size must be smaller
than 298.5/8=37.3 mm so that at least 11 elements are necessary between a stiffener
spacing (i.e., 400mm). In the present benchmark study, 13 elements were used for
modelling of plating between stiffeners, which corresponds to the element size of
400/13=30.77mm.
Fracture strain as obtained by the tensile coupon test was used for both types of
element sizes which are relatively large. The strain rate sensitivity effect on the
material yield stress of mild steel was accounted for using the Cowper-Symonds
formula (with C = 40.4 and q = 5 ) , while the effect of strain rate on fracture strain
was not considered (since LS-DYNA does not deal with it).
Two types of material models are considered: model I for accounting for the strainhardening effect but neglecting the neck effect and model II accounting for both
strain-hardening and necking effects.
Figure 12.51 shows the two types of finite element modelling for the collision test
model, namely a coarse mesh for the ultimate strength analysis and a fine mesh for the
collision analysis. Figure 12.52 shows the deformation patterns obtained from the two
types of finite element sizes.
Figure 12.51: Two types of finite element models with meshes: coarse mesh for the
ultimate strength analysis (upper) and fine mesh for the collision analysis (lower)
12.92
Experiment
Coarse mesh with Material model
Coarse mesh with Material model
Fine mesh with Material model
Fine mesh with Material model
Force (MN)
Experiment
Coarse mesh with Material model
Coarse mesh with Material model
Fine mesh with Material model
Fine mesh with Material model
1.2
Energy (MJ)
0.8
0.4
0
0
200
400
Penetration (mm)
600
200
400
Penetration (mm)
600
Figure 1253: Collision force versus penetration (left) and absorbed energy versus
penetration (right)
12.93
Appendix A
Solution of the differential equation of a beam with a axial load
A.1. Differential equation
The differential equation for a beam with axial force is (Eq. 2.105)
2
x 2
2w
2w
EI 2 + P 2 = q ( x)
x
x
(A.1)
(A.2)
wh ( x) = C1 sin 2
x
x
+ C 2 cos 2 + C 3 x + C 4
A
A
(A.4)
where
A
2
P
EI
(A.5)
w p ( x) =
1 1
1
2
3
1 x + 2 x + Ax + B
P2
6
(A.6)
The constants A and B can be chosen arbitrarily, but will be influenced by the choice
of C3 and C4 in the homogenous solution, since the boundary conditions should be
satisfied by the total solution:
w( x) = wh ( x) + w p ( x)
(A.7)
12.94
Sofar, the exact solution for a problem with distributed load, q(x) has been established.
Now the solution for a beam with end moments and shear forces will be established,
see Fig. A.1. This case will serve as basis for obtaining the stiffness relationship for a
beam with axial force
(A.8)
M = EI
2w
x 2
(A.9)
2w
= M A + P ( w w A ) + Qx
x 2
(A.10)
1
2w P
+
w=
( Pw A + M A Qx)
2
EI
EI
x
(A.11)
EI
or
Eq. (A.11) is a 2nd order differential equation as opposed to the 4th order one in Eq.
(A.2). The homogeneous solution of Eq. (A.7) for a positive P is:
wh = C1 sin kx + C 2 cos kx ; k 2 =
P
EI
(A.12)
w( x) = C1 sin kx + C 2 cos kx +
A.2
1
( Pw A + M A Qx)
P
(A.13)
The exact solution for a beam with an axial force (and no lateral load) is
x
x 1
2
2
x
x Q
cos 2 C 2
sin 2 +
w , ( x) = C1
A
A
A
A P
where =
A
2
(A.14)
P
EI
This solution applies for an arbitrary beam as shown in Fig. A.2, with transverse
displacement and rotations of the ends (wA, A) and (wB, B), end moments MA, MB
while the shear force is constant and equal to Q (due to no lateral load, q(x)).
Based on the solution (A.14), kinematic boundary conditions and equilibrium
equations, a relationship between forces MA, MB and Q and displacements wA, A, wB
and B can be established as shown in as follows.
MA
= wA
P
2 Q
= A
A P
MA Q
A = wB
P
P
2
2
Q
w '(A) = C1 cos 2 C 2
sin 2 = B
A
A
P
M
Q
A
; C2 = A
C1 = A
P
P
2
The last two equations then become:
MA
QA
s
s
1
+ w A w B A A
(1 c)
=0
2
P
P 2
MA
Q
2 s (1 c) A c + A = 0
PA
P
where
s = sin 2 , c = cos 2
Solving these equations with respect to MA and Q yields:
MA =
Q=
1
PA
2
(1 c) ( wB w A ) + ( s 2 c) A + (2 s ) B
4 1 c s A
P
2 s
(w B w A ) + (A + B )(1 c)
2(1 c s) A
(A.15a)
(A.15b)
which yields
M B = M A + P(w B w A ) + QA
=
PA
1
2
(A.15c)
1 = cot g
2 =
A P
2 EI
1 2
3 1 1
1
3
1 + 2
4
4
1
3
4 = 1 + 2
2
2
5 = 12
3 =
(A.16)
6EI
4EI
2EI
2 (w B w A ) +
3 A +
4 B
A2
A
A
6EI
4EI
4EI
M B = 2 2 (w B w A ) +
4 A +
3B
A
A
A
12EI
6EI
6EI
Q = 3 5 (w B w A ) + 2 2 A 2 2 B
A
A
A
MA =
(A.17)
By means of Eq. (A.17) the stiffness matrix for an element with 4 d.o.f. can be
established.
The relations (A.17) may then be used to establish the stiffness relationship S = kv,
with Si and vi defined as shown in Fig. A.3b, by observing that:
S 2 = Q, S 3 = M A , S 5 = Q, S 6 = M B
(A.18)
v 2 = w A , v3 = A , v 5 = wB , v 6 = B
By combining these relations with Eq. (A.18) the resulting equations are written on
matrix form as:
S 2
S
3 = 2 EI
S 5 A 3
S 6
6 5
3A
2
6 5
3A 2
3A 2
6 5
2A 3
3A 2
A 2 4
3A 2
6 5
3A 2
3A 2
A 2 4
3A 2
2A 2 3
v 2
v
3
v5
v 6
(A.19)
or
S , = k ,NL v ,
a) 6 d.o.f. model
b) 4 d.o.f. model
12.98
Appendix B
General formulations for geometrically nonlinear behaviour
B.1 Continuum mechanics
General
The purpose of the present appendix is to briefly define some fundamental concepts of
the mechanics of continua, restricted to three-dimensional Euclidean spaces.
Coordinates are means of identifying or labeling material particles. The simultaneous
position of the set of particles comprising the body is called the configuration of the
body. The motion of the body is a continuous sequence of configurations in space and
time.
or
the same rectangular Cartesian coordinates are used to describe both the
original reference and deformed configurations (e.g. xi in Fig. B.1).
the frame of reference is distorted in such a way that the coordinates of Xi of a
particle have the same numerical values xi as the reference configurations.
Such coordinates that follow deformations become survilinear (called
convective coordinates).
For the present purpose the first choice is most appropriate and is hence, used.
If the reference configuration within this choice is the actual initial configuration at t0
= 0, and the independent variables are the coordinates xi and time t, then the
description of motion is called material description or Lagrangian description. The
alternative is spatial description whose independent variables are the present position
xi occupied by the particle at time t and the present time t. The spatial description,
12.99
also called the Eulerian description focuses attention on fixed points of space instead
of on a given points in the body. The description is most used in fluid mechanics. We
shall limit ourselves here to material or Lagrange description.
However, it is necessary to relate the coordinates xi of the initial configuration with the
coordinates Xi of the displaced body. The relation between the two coordinates is
given by the displacement as illustrated in Fig. B.2. In component form the relation is:
X i = xi + u i
(B.1)
where ui = ui(xi, t)
Alternative expressions for strain and stress appropriate for large deformation
problems are envisaged (e.g. Crisfield, 1991). They include the Almansi and Green
strains. The Green (-Lagranage) strain is commonly applied. It is defined by the
equations
u j u k u k
1 u
+
Eij = i +
2 x j xi
xi x j
1
= (u i ' j + u j 'i + u k 'i u k ' j )
2
(B.2)
12.100
1 2
u , x + v, 2x + w, 2x
2
1 2
E yy = v, y + u , y + v, 2y + w, 2y
2
1
E zz = w, z + u , 2z + v, 2z + w, 2z
2
E xy = u , y + v, x + (u , x u , y + v, x + v, y + w, x w, y )
E xx = u , x +
(B.3)
E yz = v, z + w, y + (u , y u , z + v, y + v, z + w, y w, z )
E zx = w, x + u , z + (u , z u , x + v, z + v, x + w, z w, x )
The initial terms in Eqs (B.2) are the customary engineering definitions of normal and
shear strain (x = u,x, etc.). The added terms, in parentheses, become significant if
displacement gradients are not small. Green-Lagrange strains are zero for a rigid-body
rotation of any magnitude. In Eqs (B.2), all displacement derivatives are computed in
the original coordinate system, regardless of how large a rigid-body rotation may be
supposed on the deformations. This is the total Lagrangian approach, in which all
displacements are measured in a reference frame that is stationary rather than attached
to the deforming structure. The stationary coordinates may also be called material
coordinates and may be denoted in some papers by uppercase labels X, Y and Z (or
xi).
Green normal strains correspond to defining the strain of a line segment by the
equation
2
1 ds *
E =
1
2 ds
(B.4)
where ds and ds* are respectively the initial and final lengths of the line segment. If
ds ds*, Eq. (B.3) reduces to the usual small-strain approximation, E = E (ds*-ds)/ds.
Stress
Consider the body in deformed state. In Fig. B.3 f is the force acting on the surface
element a and n is the unit normal vector at a with outwards direction.
12.101
Assume that the ration f/a tends to a definite limit at a tends to zero. The force t
per unit area acting on the surface in the limit condition is denoted traction
f df
=
a 0 a
da
t = lim
(B.5)
The equilibrium equation at the surface of the body gives the definition of the Eulerian
(Cauchy) stress tensor, ij
ij ni = t j
(B.6)
In Eq. (B.6) tj and ni are, respectively, components of t and n. ij refers to the current
configuration which is a natural physical concept. However, stresses must be related
to strains. In the Lagrangian description of motion the strains Eij are referred to the
original position of the particles. Therefore, it is convenient to define stresses to the
initial area. The stress tensor should be energy conjugate with the strains Eij. Since Eij
is symmetric, the stress tensor should also be symmetric. These stresses, Sij are
denoted Piola-Kirchhoff stresses, and can be expressed by the Cauchy stress, lk as
follows
S ji =
x j
x i
Xk XA
Ak / det | x i / X j |
(B.7)
where det | xi/Xj | is the determinant of the deformation matrix {xi/Xj}. For
normal strains this determinant is equal to unity.
Equilibrium equations
It can be shown (e.g. Crisfield, 1991) that equilibrium equations for a body with
volume forces can be formulated with reference to the initial geometry as
x j
u i
S jk ik +
x k
+ 0 F0i = 0
(B.8)
Virtual work
Eq. (B.8) expresses the equilibrium of a body in the direction i. The body is acted
upon by surface tractions and body forces. The surface of the body under
consideration may be thought of as consisting of two areas. On area S1 the surface
tractions are specified, while the displacements are specified on the area S2. By giving
the body from its equilibrium position a virtual displacement ui, which is
kinematically consistent with the boundary conditions, the following equation may be
derived:
12.102
u i
1
S
ij
2 V x j
u
+ j
x
u u k
dV
+ k
x x
i
j
(B.9)
Ti u i dS Fi u i dV = 0
S1
The index zero has been omitted here as everything is referred to the original
configuration. Ti denotes the prescribed surface tractions. By introducing the Greens
strain tensor of Eq. (B.2) in Eq. (B.9) the virtual work equation may be written as
ij
Eij dV Ti u i dS Fi u i dV = 0
S1
(B.10)
In this section an incremental form of the virtual work equation will be shown.
Fig. B.4 shows the spatial coordinate system xi and the body in three different
configurations. C0 is the initial configuration. Cn is some deformed configuration and
Cn+1 is a configuration close to Cn.
S
v
A*
ij
Eij* dV = Ti * u i* dA + Fi * u i* dV
S
(B.11)
(B.12a-e)
Ti * = Ti + Ti
Fi * = Fi + Fi
12.103
The denotes increment when moving from Cn to Cn+1. The virtual displacment fields
for configurations Cn and Cn+1 are assumed to be identical so that u i* = u i . The
virtual work principle for configuration Cn is expressed as in Eq. (B.10). Introducing
Eqs (B.12) into Eq. (B.11) yields an incremental form of the virtual work principle as
A
ij
= Ti u i dS + Fi u i dV S ijA Eij dV Ti u i dS Fi u i dV
S
V
S
V
V
(B.13)
If the body in configuration Cn is in equilibrium, the parenthesis on the right hand side
of Eq. (B.13) will vanish according to Eq. (B.10). However, due to approximations in
the solution procedure, configuration Cn will generally not be in equilibrium before
onset of further loading. The terms in the parenthesis will then act as an equilibrium
correcting term. The variation of Greens strain terror, Eq. (B.4), is
Eij = 12 ( u i , j + u j ,i + u k ,i u k , j + u k ,i u k , j )
(B.14)
Eij =
1
2
( u
i,j
+ u j,i + uk ,i uk ,j + uk ,i uk ,j + uk ,i u k ,j )
(B.15)
Eij = 12 ( u k , j u k ,i + u k ,i u k , j )
(B.16)
(B.17)
where C ijkA is the material tensor. The material modeling will be discussed in Section
10.4.
Eq. (B.17) may also be written as a vector-matrix relation if the components
S Aij ( Ekl ) are collected in vectors, and Cijkl in a matrix.
Updated Lagrangian formulation
In the updated Lagrangian description the displacement increments are referred to the
preceding configuration Cn. The large displacements and rotations are taken into
account by updating the geometry. Hence, the nonlinear terms may be neglected in
Eqs (B.14 B.15). They are, however, the only terms contributing to the variation of
the strain increment, see Eq. (B.17).
12.104
The discussion has revealed that the equations resulting from the virtual work
principle on incremental form as expressed in Eq. (B.13) are nonlinear in ui.
Linearization is obtained by neglecting second order terms. This is done by omitting
the third integral on the left hand side of Eq. (B.13) as well as by using the linearized
strains
Eij = 12 ( u i , j + u j ,i )
(B.18a-b)
Eij = 12 ( u i , j + u j ,i )
Finally, the linearized form of the virtual work principle in incremental form can be
written as
ijkA
EkA EijdV +
T u dS
i
S E dV
ij
ij
F u dV
i
S ijEijdV Ti u i dS
S
V
F u dV
i
(B.19)
where Sij are the total stresses within the structure.
12.105
An initial yield condition, i.e. the state of stress for which plastic deformation
first occurs.
A hardening rule which describes the modification of the yield condition due
to strain hardening during plastic flow.
A flow rule which allows the determination of plastic strain increments at each
point in the load history.
It is assumed that the material is isotropic, which implies that the stiffness properties
are independent of orientation at a point.
In this section a brief review of the plasticity theory will be given. More details may
be found in textbooks like Crisfield(1991), Chapter 6.
C.1 The von Mises initial yield condition
The yield condition of a material defines the limit of purely elastic behaviour under
any combination of stresses. Many initial yield conditions have been proposed.
Experiments indicate that the von Mises yield condition best represents material
behaviour of most metals. Another advantage of the von Mises criterion is its simple
continuous function of stress components which makes it especially attractive to
numerical analysis.
The mathematical expression for the von Mises initial yield surface reads
f = Y = 0
(C.1)
where f is the loading function and Y is the initial uniaxial yield stress of the material.
The equivalent stress is given by
3
2
sij sij =
3
2
ij ij 12 ( kk ) 2
(C.2)
kk =
k =1
kk
; m = 13 kk .
sij = ij 13 ij
kk
(C.3)
where
1 for i = j
ij =
0 for i j
12.106
By using the von Mises yield criterion, the yield criterion in connection with
hardening may be written as:
Y = H (
(C.4)
= d
p
(C.5)
p
ij
(C.6)
p
ij
ijp
W = ij d = d
p
p
ij
(C.7)
isotropic
kinematic or generally anisotropic manner as illustrated for a one-dimensional
and two-dimensional condition in Fig. C.1.
The choice between models especially matters if the load condition/stress is reversed
or cyclic.
a) One-dimensional
b) Two-dimensional
Experiments with metals show that a phenomenon denoted Bauschinger effect occurs.
This means that the material yields a lower stress level when the loading is reversed
than during the initial loading. As shown e.g. for the one-dimensional case in Fig.
C.1a, this feature is not captured by the isotropic hardening.
In the present section only isotropic hardening is considered.
The yield condition is written as
f = H ( p ) = 0
(C.8)
The relation ship between stress and (plastic) strain may be obtained mainly by the
two major different plasticity theories, namely the deformation theory and the flow
theory. Experiments show that the flow theory is the better one when treating
problems with general loading paths, e.g. reversed and cyclic loading. Therefore, the
flow theory of plasticity is described herein.
The flow theory of plasticity yields an incremental relationship between Cauchy
stresses ij and true strains ij. For small strains the same constitutive law can be used
between Piola-Kirchhoff stresses and Greens strains.
It is a fundamental assumption that the total strains ij may be decomposed into elastic
components ije and plastic components ijp
ij = ije + ijp
(C.9)
The elastic components of strain are related to the stresses by Hookes law.
ije = Cijkl kl =
1
9K
1
sij =
ij kk + 2G
1+
ij ij kk
E
E
(C.10a)
or inversely
3K
ij ekk
1+
(C.10b)
where the compression modulus K, modulus of elasticity, E and shear modulus, G are
such that:
3(1 2 ) K = 2(1 + )G = E
(C.10c)
iip = 0
12.108
As was expected in Eq. (C.1) for initial yielding it is assumed that in general there
exists a loading function f. Setting f equal to zero defines a yield surface that bounds
the elastic range. The mathematical expression for the yield surface may be written
f ( ij , ijp , ) = 0
(C.11)
(C.12a-c)
f > 0 inadmissible
df =
f
f
f
d ij + p d ijp +
d
ij
ij
(C.13)
f
d ij < 0 ; f = 0 during unloading
ij
f
d ij = 0 ; f = 0 during naytral loading
ij
(C.14a-c)
f
d ij > 0 ; f = 0 during loading
ij
The final assumption is that the so-called Druckers postulate is valid. This implies
that the yield surface is convex. Moreover, it means that the plastic strain increment
vector is directed along the outward normal to the yield surface. The normality
implication may be expressed as
d ijp = d
f
ij
(C.15)
where d is a nonnegative constant. Eq. (C.15) indicates that the loading function may
be taken as a plastic potential.
According to Eq. (C.14b), the function value of f remains unchanged, like zero, from
one plastic state to another.
12.109
Since,
= ( ijp )
(C.16)
the function f is dependent upon two sets of variables, the stresses and plastic strains
f = f ij , ijp
(C.17)
f
f
d ij + p d ijp = 0
ij
ij
(C.18)
f
d ij
ij
d =
f
f
p
mn mn
(C.19)
3 sij
=
=
ij ij 2
(C.20)
and
f
=
H ( p ) = p H ( p )
p
p
ij
ij
ij
H p W p
1
= p
= H ' ij
p
p
W ij
(C.21)
=
ij ij
and
ijsij = ijij 13 ijij m = ijij 13 2m = 23 2
12.110
as well as using Eqs (C.20 C.21) to rewrite the demoninator of Eq. (C.19), d may
be written as:
d =
d ij
ij
H ' ij
3 sij
d
H'
(C.22)
Now, the derivative of the hardening parameter H with respect to plastic strain, p
can be obtained from uniaxial test. This is obtained from Eq. (10.94) by replacing
and p with the equivalent quantities and p for multidimensional cases.
By combining Eqs (C.15, C.20, C.22) the following expressions for plastic strain
increments result:
dijp =
3 sij
2 H '
(C.23)
d =
3
d kl =
s kl d kl
kl
2
(C.24)
(C.25)
where
9
4 H ' ( )
2
Besides the relation between plastic strain and (equivalent) stress increment it is also
of interest in finite element formulations to have the relationship between plastic strain
increments and the total strain increments, i.e. including elastic increments.
By reformulating Eq. (C.19) and introducing Hookes law:
12.111
f
f
f
d p
dij
=
ij
mn mn
f
=
(E ijkl dekl )
ij
(C.26)
f
f
E ijkl d kl d
ij
kl
Eijkl s kl = 2Gsij
(C.27)
Eijkl = E klij
and applying Eqs (C.20, C.21) gives
d =
3Gs kl d kl
(H '+3G )
(C.28)
d ijp =
9Gsij s kl
2
(H '+3G )
d kl
(C.29)
= Eijkl d kl d klp
(C.30)
ep
= Dijkl
d kl
where
ep
Dijkl
= Eijkl
9G 2 sij s kl
2 (H '+3G )
(C.31)
Dijkl = Dklij
because both terms in the expression ( C.31) are symmetric.
12.112
xy = d xy = 0 ; yz = d yz = 0
(C.32)
zx = d zx = 0
Stresses:
xy = d xy = 0 ; yz = d yz = 0
(C.33)
yy = d yy = 0 ; zz = d zz = 0
By taking into consideration these assumptions, the following stress-strain relation can
be found
d xx D xxxx
d yy = D yyxx
d D
xx zzxx
D xxyy
D yyyy
D zzyy
D xxzz d xx
D yyzz d yy
D zzzz d zz
(C.34)
or
ep
d ij = Dijkl
d kl
(C.35)
or in matrix notation
d = Dd
(C.36)
Eq. (C.33) and Eq. (C.34) gives, when symmetry of stiffness matrix is taken into
consideration
d xx = (D xxxx
D xxyy
2
D yyyy D zzzz D yyzz
(D
yyxx
D xxzz
(Dzzxx D yyyy D yyxx D yyzz ) ) d xx
2
D yyyy D zzzz D yyzz
(C.36a)
(C.37)
12.113
Eq- (C.31) and Eq. (C.37) now give the following expressions for the stiffness
components of Eq. (C.34)
D xxxx = E xxxx
9G 2s 2xx
E(1 )
4G 2 2xx
=
E
2G 2 2xx
2
(1 + )(1 2) (H '+ 3G)
= D xxyy
D xxyy = D yyxx =
D xxzz = D zzxx
D yyyy = D zzzz =
E(1 )
G
D yyzz = D zzyy =
E
G 2 2xx
2
(1 + )(1 2) (H '+ 3G)
(C.38)
2
xx
By combination of Eq. (C.36) and Eq. (C.38) the stress-strain relation can be reduced
to an expression of the form
d xx = Dd xx
(C.39)
Plate
As is generally done for thin plate theory, the following case will be considered.
Strains:
zx = d zx = 0 ; yz = d yz = 0
(C.40)
Stresses:
zx = d zx = 0
yz = d yz = 0
(C.41)
zz = d zz = 0
d yy
d
xy
d
zz
D xxxx
D yyxx
D
xyxx
D
zzxx
D xxyy
D yyyy
D xyyy
D zzyy
D xxxy
D yyxy
D xyxy
D zzxy
D xxzz
D yyzz
D xyzz
D zzzz
d xx
d yy
d
xy
d
zz
(C.42)
or
(C.43)
d zz = D zzkl d kl + D zzzz d zz
(C.44)
and
Dijzz D zzkl
d ij = Dijkl
D zzzz
d kl
(C.45)
s xx = 13 ( 2 xx yy ) ; s yy = 13 ( 2 yy xx )
; s zz = 13 ( xx + yy ) = m
s xy = xy
(C.46)
9G 2s 2xx
E(1 )
9G 2s 2xx
=
D xxyy = D yyxx =
9G 2s xx s yy
E
2
(1 + )(1 2) (H '+ 3G)
D xxzz = D zzxx =
E
9G 2s xx m
+ 2
(1 + )(1 2) (H '+ 3G)
D xxxy = D xyxx =
D yyyy
9G 2s xx xy
2 (H '+ 3G)
9G 2s 2yy
E(1 )
=
(1 + )(1 2) 2 (H '+ 3G)
D yyzz = D zzyy =
9G 2s yy m
E
+ 2
(1 + )(1 2) (H '+ 3G)
D yyxy = D xyyy =
D zzxy = D xyzz =
D xyxy = G
D zzzz =
9G 2s yy xy
2 (H '+ 3G)
9G 2 m xy
2 (H '+ 3G)
9G 2 2xy
(C.47)
2 (H '+ 3G)
E(1 )
9G 2 2m
2
(1 + )(1 2 ) (H '+ 3G)
For the equivalent stress the following expression comes out of Eq. (C.2)
(C.48)
and the equivalent plastic strain increment from Eq. ( C.6 ) becomes
d
4
3
(d
p2
xx
(C.49)
12.115
References
Amdahl, J. and Kavlie, D. (1992). Experimental and numerical simulation of double
hull stranding, DNV-MIT Workshop on Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding,
Hvik, September.
ISO 13819, (1994), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Offshore Structures
Part 1: General Requirements, (1994), Part 2: Fixed Steel Structures, (2001), Draft,.
Int. Standardization Organization, London.
Fried, I. (1984) Orthogonal trajectory accession on the nonlinear equilibrium curve
J. Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Engng. Vol.47, pp 283-297.
Haugen,B. (1994) Buckling and stability problems for thin shell structures using
high performance finite elements Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.
Hellan, . (1995) Nonlinear pushover and cyclic analyses in ultimate state design and
reassessment of tubular steel Offshore Structures, Dr.ing.thesis, Report MTA 1995:
108, Department of Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Norway.
Hellan, ., Moan, T. and Drange, S.O. (1994) Use of Nonlinear Pushover Analysis in
Ultimate Limit State Design and Integrity Assessment of Jacket Structures Proc.
Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS, Boston, Massachusetts, vol. 3, pp. 323-345.
Horsnell, M.R. and Toolan, F.E., (1996), Risk of Foundation Failure of Offshore
Jacket Piles, Paper No. 28th Offshore Technology Conf.., Houston, 381-392.
Moan,T and Nordsve, N.T. (1979) Numerical Prediction of Ultimate Behaviour of
Marine steel Structures, Int. Symp. on Marine Technology, NTH, Trondheim.
Moan, T. and Amdahl, J. (2001). "Risk Analysis of FPSOs, with Emphasis on
Collision Risk", Report RD 2001-12, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston
(restricted).
Moan, T., Amdahl, J. Engseth, A.G., and Granli, T. (1985), , Collapse behaviour of
trusswork steel platforms, Proc. Int. Conference on Behaviour of Offshore
Structures, BOSS, Delft, Holland.
Moan, T., Amdahl, Hellan, . (2002), Numerical Analysis for Ultimate and
Accidental Limit State Design and Requlification of Offshore Platforms invited
papers, Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Viena, Austria, ISBN 39501554-0-6, http://www.wccm.tuwien.ac.at
NAFEMS (1992), Introduction to Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis, E.Hinton (ed.)
NAFEMS, Glasgow.
Nadim, F. and Dahlberg, R. (1996). Numerical Modelling of Cyclic Pile Capacity in
Clay, Proc. OTC Conf., 1, pp. 347-356.
Lehmann, E., Egge, E.D., Scharrer, M. and Zhang, L. (2001). Calculation of collisions
with the aid of linear FE models, Proceedings of PRADS01, Shanghai, 1293-1300.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (2002). Ultimate limit state design of steel-plated
structures, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K.
Paik, J.K. et al. (2003). Report of ISSC Committee V.3, Collision and Grounding,
Proc. 15th ISSC, SanDiego, Published by Elsvier, Amesterdam.
12.117