736 views

Uploaded by Wiwat Tanwongwan

- Introduction to Finite element method (FEM)
- 090601.ImplicitNotes
- Explicit Contents Lecture
- [FEM] Crisfield M.a., Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol.1,2 (Wiley,1996)
- Rubber White Paper - Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Elastomers
- Triaxial Test Report
- Computational Methods for Platicity-Souza
- Wiley_ Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures - Ted Belytschko, Wing Kam Liu, Brian Moran.pdf
- Finite Element Analysis - Lecture Notes, Study Material and Important Questions, Answers
- Load Case Combinations
- Importing Parts in Abaqus
- A Guide to Geometry Import and Repair in ABAQUS CAE
- 2 09 Contact
- 19991437
- 2d & 3d Fe Analysis of Fir-tree
- A Comparative Study of Fini
- IES CONV Mechanical Engineering 1987
- Finite Element Modeling Monolithic Dome Structures
- shock-gl,
- Rotor Blade Finite Element

You are on page 1of 9

for dynamic problems

J.S. Sun, K.H. Lee, H.P. Lee*

Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore

Received 15 April 1999

Abstract

The ®nite element software ABAQUS offers several algorithms for dynamic analysis. The direct integration methods include the implicit

and the explicit methods which can be used for linear and nonlinear problems. The performance of these two methods are compared for

several dynamic problems including the impact of an elastic bar and a cylindrical disk on a rigid wall. The advantages of the implicit

method for small wavefront problems and the explicit method for short transient problems are veri®ed. # 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All

rights reserved.

Keywords: Implicit ®nite element method; Explicit ®nite element method; Dynamic problems

conditionally stable. The stability limit for an explicit

The ®nite element method (FEM) has become the most operator is that the maximum time increment must be less

popular method in both research and industrial numerical than a critical value of the smallest transition times for a

simulations. Several algorithms, with different computa- dilatational wave to cross any element in the mesh. Sec-

tional costs, are implemented in the ®nite element codes, ondly, the nature of the explicit method limits it to the

ABAQUS [1], which is a commonly used software for ®nite analysis of short transient problems. If this method is

element analysis. Understanding the nature, advantages and used for quasi-static problems, the inertia effects must

disadvantages of these algorithms is very helpful for choos- be small enough to be neglected. One way to assure

ing the right algorithm for a particular problem. this is to set the limit on the kinematic energy to be less

Comparison of implicit and explicit methods for ABA- than 5% of the strain energy. Another limit is that only

QUS in nonlinear problems has been reported by ReBelo the ®rst-order, displacement methods elements (four-node

et al. [2]. The unconditionally stable implicit method will quadrilaterals, eight-node bricks, etc.) are available for the

encounter some dif®culties when a complicated three- present version.

dimensional model is considered. The reasons are as fol- For dynamic problems, ABAQUS also offers some other

lows: (i) as the reduction of the time increment continues, methods such as a modal dynamic algorithm. However, only

the computational cost in the tangent stiffness matrix is direct integration methods Ð implicit dynamics and explicit

dramatically increased and even causes divergence; (ii) local methods Ð are suitable for nonlinear problems.

instabilities cause force equilibrium to be dif®cult to Most of the reported works on the comparison of implicit

achieve. and explicit methods are on quasi-static nonlinear problems

The explicit techniques are thus introduced to overcome [2,3]. In this paper, attention is paid to comparison of the

the disadvantages of the implicit method [3]. For the explicit implicit and the explicit method for linear dynamic pro-

method, the CPU cost is approximately proportional to the blems.

size of the ®nite element model and does not change as

dramatically as the implicit method.

2. Solution procedures

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: 65-874-2205; fax: 65-779-1459. The implicit procedure uses an automatic increment

E-mail address: mpeleehp@nus.edu.sg (H.P. Lee). strategy based on the success rate of a full Newton iterative

0924-0136/00/$ ± see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 5 8 0 - X

J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118 111

conditionally stable, so that the time increments must satisfy

Du i1 Du i Kÿ1 i i

t F ÿ I (1)

2

where Kt is the current tangent stiffness matrix, F the Dt

omax

applied load vector, I the internal force vector, and Du is

the increment of displacement. where omax is the element maximum eigenvalue. A con-

For an implicit dynamic procedure, the algorithm is servative estimate of the stable time increment is given by

de®ned by Hilber et al. [4,5]: the minimum value for all elements. The above stability

limit can be written as

u i1 1 aKu i1 ÿ aKu i F i1

M (2)

Le

Dt min

where M is the mass matrix, K the stiffness matrix, F the cd

vector of applied loads and u the displacement vector:

where Le is the characteristic element dimension and cd the

u i1 i

u Dtu_ i

Dt 2

12 ÿ b

u i i1

b

u (3) current effective, dilatational wave speed of the material.

and

3. Example problems

u_
i1 u_
i Dt
1 ÿ g

u
i g

u
i1 (4)

3.1. Impact of an elastic bar against a rigid wall

with

b 14
1 ÿ a2 ; g 12 ÿ a; 1

3 a0 (5) As the ®rst example, the impact of an elastic bar against a

rigid wall is presented. This model is used to compare the

a ÿ0:05 is chosen by default in ABAQUS as a small results by ABAQUS and the reported results by Zhong [6].

damping term to quickly remove the high frequency noise The dimensions of the bar are 1 1 10 m3 . Young's

without having a signi®cant effect on the meaningful, lower modulus is given as E100 kPa. Possion's ratio is n 0, and

frequency response. the mass density is r 0:001 kg mÿ3 .

The explicit procedure is based on the implementation of Eighty C3D8 and C3D8R (eight-node bricks) elements

an explicit integration rule along with the use of diagonal are used for the implicit and explicit methods, respectively.

element mass matrices. The equation of motion for the body An initial velocity of 1 m sÿ1 is prescribed to the bar striking

is integrated using an explicit central difference integration the rigid wall. The elements of the rigid wall are R3D4. The

rule: mesh is shown in Fig. 1.

The impact time can be simply estimated by

u
i1 u
i Dt
i1 u_
i1 ;

u_
i1=2 u_
iÿ1=2 12
Dt
i1 Dt
i

u
i 2L

Dt

c

the acceleration, and i and i ÿ 12,

where u_ is the velocity, u where L is the length of the bar, and c the wave speed for this

1

i 2 refer to the increment number and mid-increment kind

numbers. p of material, which is determined by

E=r 2:0 10ÿ3 m sÿ1 .

For the implicit method, the half-step residual tolerance

i Mÿ1
F
i ÿ I
i

u (6)

HAFTOL is a very important parameter to control the

where M is the mass ``lumped'' matrix, F the applied load computational accuracy [1]. A large value of 10 is set

vector and I the internal force vector. initially. In Fig. 2a, the contact reaction forces are compared.

112

J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118

Fig. 2. (a) Contact reaction force RF1 with HAFTOL10; (b) the stress component S11 with HAFTOL10; (c) contact reaction force RF1 with HAFTOL1; (d) the stress component S11 with HAFTOL1.

J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118 113

It only takes 19 steps and less than 1 s CPU time for the analyze and predict failure. Comparing the stresses by these

explicit method, while it takes 106 s of CPU time for the two methods is helpful for failure diagnosis.

implicit method. However, under this condition, the accu- A three-dimensional example is needed for the above

racy of the results by the explicit method is better than that purpose. This example is shown in Fig. 3. A cylindrical disk

by the implicit method. Fig. 2b shows the stress component is formed by two cylinders. The radius of the bottom

S11. The values of S11 by the implicit method are found to cylinder is 1 m, and the radius of the top cylinder is

oscillate much more than the corresponding results by the 0.25 m. The bottom cylinder is of 0.5 m height, and the

explicit method. height of the top one is 0.1 m. The distance between the

From Fig. 2a, the reaction force is found to be about centers of these two cylinders is 0.31 m. There are 548 eight-

10 N. In order to secure more accurate results, 10% of the node brick elements and 810 nodes for the mesh. Elements

reaction force, 1.0, is set as the revised HAFTOL value. The 173 and 409 are chosen for the purpose of stress comparison.

reaction force and S11 are shown in Figs. 2c and d. The Nodes 311 and 709 are one of the eight nodes for elements

values of S11 by the implicit methods still oscillate more 173 and 409, respectively.

than those by the explicit method, but both the stresses and The material is ductile steel with a Young's modulus of

reaction force oscillate less than the corresponding results E 200 GPa and density of r 7833 kg mÿ3 . Poisson's

for the previous case with HAFTOL10. The CPU time for ration is taken to be n 0 in order that the stresses can

the implicit method signi®cantly increases, from 106 to be simply calculated by

524 s.

E @ui @uj

The periods of the FEM deviate from that of the exact si;j ; i; j 1; 3 (7)

solution. As mentioned above, a is set to ÿ0:05 for the 2 @xj @xi

implicit method to induce arti®cial damping. The numerical

dissipation leads to an amplitude decay of 2px [5], where x is

the algorithmic damping ratio. This is illustrated in Figs. 2a

and c.

wall

both the implicit and explicit method in direction 1 agree

very well with the initial velocity in direction 1, which is

used to control the movement of the bar. Moreover, the

displacements in the other two directions are very small.

Actually, this example cannot show the effects of these two

methods on the displacements of the other two directions

and subsequent effects on the stress distribution. In engi-

neering applications, stress analysis is usually important to Fig. 4. The maximum principal stress SP3 for static contact.

114 J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118

Fig. 5. (a) The contact reaction force RF2; (b) the displacement component U1 of node 311; (c) the displacement component U2 of node 311; (d) the stress

component S11 of element 173; (e) the stress component S22 of element 173; (f) the stress component S33 of element 173.

J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118 115

Fig. 5. (Continued ).

116 J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118

in which si;j are the six independent components of stress, ui 3.3. Slow contact between an elastic cylindrical disk and a

are the three components of displacement, and xj are the rigid wall

three coordinates.

The maximum principal stresses (SP3) by the static The displacement for the bottom surface of the elastic

algorithm are shown in Fig. 4. The original gap between cylindrical disk is set to be 0.02 m. The total time is 1 s,

the model and the rigid wall is 0.01 m. A static displacement which is much larger than in the fast case (0.002 s).

of 0.02 m is applied on the bottom surface of the large Fig. 8a shows the displacement U2 of node 311, whilst

cylinder. Fig. 8b shows the stress component S22 of element 173:

An initial velocity of 10 m sÿ1 is prescribed. Fig. 5a shows differences are apparent.

the agreement of the contact reaction force RF2 for the Fig. 8b shows the stress component S22 of element 409.

results by the two methods. The results show good agreement. Figs. 8c and d compare

The displacements U1, U2 and U3 of node 311 are shown the maximum principal stress SP3. The regularities are the

in Figs. 5a±c. U3 shows a large difference, but the absolute same as mentioned in the last section. The perfect agreement

value of U3 for node 311 is relatively small because node between Fig. 8c and Figs. 6a and b show that the results by

311 is on the axisymmetric axis. Due to the fact that the implicit methods are very accurate, where under these

displacement of the rigid body in direction 2 is compara- conditions inertia effects can be neglected.

tively large relative to the deformation, U2 shows an insig- The stable time step for explicit is 7 10ÿ6 s for the slow

ni®cant change, but Figs. 5d±f show apparent differences of case and 8:5 10ÿ6 s for the fast case. For the slow case, the

stresses of element 173 by these two methods. Although at time increment 139935 is much more than that of the fast

some region such as node 331, the values of U3 are quite case. Thus the CPU cost increases dramatically from 7 min

different for the two methods, the whole displacement to 1 h 17 min. The CPU cost for the implicit method is

pattern of U3 is similar, as shown in Figs. 6a and b. 10 min.

On the other hand, the stress components S11, S22 and

S33 of another element 409 which connects to the contact

surface, show agreement by the two methods in Figs. 7a±c. 4. Closure

Displacements have higher accuracy than stresses, thus the

three displacements U1, U2 and U3 of node 709 obviously Fast and slow linear contact problems have been analyzed

agree. The results are testi®ed in Figs. 6a and b. For stress by different methods in ABAQUS. For the fast case, the

distribution, the regularity is the same. Figs. 7d and e show advantages of the explicit method are apparent within the

that the pattern of stress distribution is similar for most desirable tolerance. The cost of the explicit method is much

regions, especially at regions where the stresses are com- less than that of the implicit method. Due to numerical

pressive and the absolute values are large. This is a com- damping, amplitude decay is observed for the implicit

pressive model, the absolute values of tensile stresses being method.

much smaller than the compressive stresses. The differences For the slow case, the solutions are more unstable because

shown in Figs. 7d and e are all in the region of tensile high frequency numerical noise becomes more important.

stresses. The numerical damping induced in the implicit method

For this fast impact problem, the total time is usually very shows its function to remove the noise and keep the results

short, the computational cost of the explicit begin about one more accurate. Because the explicit method is conditionally

tenth that of the implicit. stable, the stable time period is much smaller than that of the

J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118 117

Fig. 7. (a) The stress component S11 of element 409; (b) the stress component S22 of element 409; (c) the stress component S33 of element 409; (d) the

maximum principal stress SP3 of the impacting disk by explicit; (e) the maximum principal stress SP3 of the impacting disk by implicit.

118 J.S. Sun et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 105 (2000) 110±118

Fig. 8. (Continued ).

many time increments for the explicit method. Thus the

advantages of the implicit method are obvious for the slow

contact problem.

References

[1] ABAQUS User's Examples and Theory Manual, Version 5.7. Hibbitt,

Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., 1998.

[2] N. Rebelo, J.C. Nagtegaal, L.M. Taylor, Comparison of implicit and

explicit ®nite element methods in the simulation of metal forming

processes, in: Chenot, Wood, Zienkiewicz (Eds.), Numerical

Methods in Industrial Forming Processes, 1992, pp. 99±108.

[3] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., Application of implicit and

explicit ®nite element techniques to metal forming, J. Mater. Process.

Technol. 45 (1994) 649±656.

[4] H.M. Hilber, T.J.R. Hughes, Collocation, dissipation and `overshoot'

for time integration schemes in structural dynamics, Earthquake Eng.

Struct. Dyn. 6 (1978) 99±117.

[5] T.J.R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method Ð Linear Static and

Fig. 8. (a) The displacement U2 of node 311; (b) the stress component S22 Dynamic Finite Element Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

of element 173; (c) the stress component S22 of element 409; (d) the NJ, 07632, 1987.

maximum principal stress (SP3) of the slow contact disk by explicit; (e) [6] Z.H. Zhong, Finite Element Procedures for Contact Ð Impact

the maximum principal stress (SP3) of the slow contact disk by implicit. Problems, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.

- Introduction to Finite element method (FEM)Uploaded bygoldencomet
- 090601.ImplicitNotesUploaded bykasreedhar
- Explicit Contents LectureUploaded byBrian Egan
- [FEM] Crisfield M.a., Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol.1,2 (Wiley,1996)Uploaded byJose Antonio Paredes Vera
- Rubber White Paper - Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of ElastomersUploaded byDan Wolf
- Triaxial Test ReportUploaded bySaptarshi
- Computational Methods for Platicity-SouzaUploaded byMel Santos
- Wiley_ Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures - Ted Belytschko, Wing Kam Liu, Brian Moran.pdfUploaded bynikunjkavadia
- Finite Element Analysis - Lecture Notes, Study Material and Important Questions, AnswersUploaded byM.V. TV
- Load Case CombinationsUploaded byrssambhi
- Importing Parts in AbaqusUploaded byAndy Phan
- A Guide to Geometry Import and Repair in ABAQUS CAEUploaded byAnkit Agarwal
- 2 09 ContactUploaded bykiran_wakchaure
- 19991437Uploaded byRitanshu Anand
- 2d & 3d Fe Analysis of Fir-treeUploaded bybharathvg8096
- A Comparative Study of FiniUploaded byBahman Malaki Meyghani
- IES CONV Mechanical Engineering 1987Uploaded bysaisrikanths5168
- Finite Element Modeling Monolithic Dome StructuresUploaded byRenjith Raj
- shock-gl,Uploaded bymavi1979
- Rotor Blade Finite ElementUploaded bysumatrablackcoffee453
- BASIC ReportUploaded byvalflei
- IJERTV2IS70304 (1)Uploaded byNguyễn Văn Điệp
- StressUploaded byjjbananas
- Six Component BalanceUploaded byyashguha23
- ModelingUploaded byRamkishore Reddy
- Report Finite ElementUploaded byEl Julaibib
- 0000707Uploaded byR Vignesh Babu
- Fem II for Mce-e (15-16)Uploaded byសចៀន
- TOP 250+ Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Interview Questions and Answers 30.05.2019 - Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Interview Questions _ Wisdom Jobs IndiaUploaded byसागर पाटील
- SCA1990-01EUROUploaded byRosa K Chang H

- Transient Heat ConductionUploaded byADKMAR
- Laws of Thermodynamics of Energy ConservationUploaded byAnonymous pZp8uy
- Steel Bridge DesignUploaded byChandralal Sarath
- Atkinson Otto Diesel Cycles- Law of ThermoUploaded bySurya Bagas Ady Nugroho
- Goldstein_4_6_7_26Uploaded bybgiangre8372
- CFPS 1 Sir ShakaibUploaded byjanbish
- Borehole Stresses.pdfUploaded bysawan
- Fatigue AnalysisUploaded byIshwarya Srikanth
- ARCHIMEDE’S PRINCIPLE AND ITS APPLICATIONSUploaded byUdit Jain
- Manual Harmonic Analysis and Prediction of TidesUploaded byNur Diyana
- TokioUploaded byRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Brush DC MotorUploaded byganeshn1983631
- phy IUploaded byVyom Chhabra
- MS-2003-Recent Advances in Temper and Skin-Pass RollingUploaded bySurajit Gupta
- Questions for Meta tagging (200 questions).pdfUploaded byUjjwal Shandilya
- Camesa_TechBulletin-008Uploaded byrobin2806
- PHL100 BDG Course SlidesUploaded byPblock Saher
- Kinematics Review QuestionsUploaded byMohammad Jubran
- Analytical DynamicsUploaded byCeleste Romero Longar
- Bar CutooffUploaded bydepend
- Plaxis Bulletin 35Uploaded byongyinhoe
- Clase 10 y 11 - Flexión _(Vigas Doblemente Reforzadas_)Uploaded byWilliam Humberto Noguera
- Ch21_SSMUploaded byFranko Urcia
- A Joint Element for the Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Arch DamsUploaded byFernando Gilio
- Mec 551 ConvectionUploaded byFikri Rahim
- A Fiber Beam Element With Axial, Bending and Shear Interaction for Seismic Analysis of RC StructuresUploaded byjodaki
- 11a.May06-M3Uploaded byMargarita Satraki
- hwch05B.pdfUploaded byonlydlonly
- article_marstruct_04.pdfUploaded byStefano
- SFD-AISC-360-10Uploaded byCarmine Cacchione