CDM With Ansys UserMAT

2nd Workshop on Structural Analsysis of Lightweight Structures.
30th May 2012, Natters, Austria
Continuum damage mechanics with ANSYS

USERMAT:
numerical implementation and application for life prediction of rocket
combustors
Waldemar Schwarz
EADS Astrium Space Transportation, Munich
waldemar.schwarz@astrium.eads.net
Tel: +49 (0) 89 607 33486
Background:
thermal loads in a cryogenic rocket combustor
liquid oxygen T<100 K

Ariane 5
regenerative hydrogen
cooling system
oxygen-hydrogen
combustion T≈3600 K
liquid pressurized
hydrogen T< 40 K
combustion chamber
The hot wall of a combustion chamber separates the hot gases

of ca. 3600 K from the hydrogen coolant of less than 100K.
The resulting thermal gradients lead to severe thermo-mechanical
loading conditions
22.09.2010 – page: 2
Background:
failure mode of the hot wall of cryogenic combustors
A combination of high temperatures, thermal gradients and pressure loads leads to

excessive inelastic deformations of the cooling channel structure.
The deformation remains after shut down and accumulates with each operational cycle.
The initially rectangular cooling channels distort to a roof-like geometry, called doghouse.
22.09.2010 – page: 3
Problem:
life prediction of the combustion chamber hot wall
Conventional process for life prediction
1: structural analysis 2: damage analysis

B
perform FEM choose critical locations
computation evaluate fatigue, creep A
and ductile damage

obtain stress and
strain fields extrapolate damage until
failure
Problem: Discrepancy between observed and

the conventional approach is not able to predict the simulated deformation
observed failure mode and necessitates high
empirical correction factors
hot wall after predicted

end of life deformation
22.09.2010 – page: 4
Solution:
continuum damage mechanics
Thermo-mechanical simulation Predicted vs. observed

including material damage deformation
How to implement in ANSYS ?
22.09.2010 – page: 5
Development scheme of the continuum damage model
damage evolution model

material model
coupled material-
material-damage model
implementation algorithm in ANSYS USERMAT
22.09.2010 – page: 6
Chaboche-type
Chaboche- Continuum damage model
material model
fatigue failure
Nonlinear hardening ductile rupture
Strain-rate sensitivity
Relaxation and creep
Coupled material-
material-damage equations
Effective stress concept
Crack closure effects
2nd order tensorial damage representation
Discretization and implementation into ANSYS USERMAT
22.09.2010 – page: 7
Validated chaboche-
chaboche-type visco
visco--plastic material model:
a) b)
c) d)
a) monotone strain controlled loading c) stress-relaxation test

b) strain controlled symmetric cyclic loading d) compression creep test at different stress levels
22.09.2010 – page: 8
Chaboche-type
material model
fatigue failure
Coupled material-
22.09.2010 – page: 9
Continuum damage model
The point of departure is a Coffin-Manson relation based on the total strain range:
log(C)
Assuming a linear damage accumulation, the damage per 1 cycle is expressed as
22.09.2010 – page: 10
Continuum damage model (2)
To obtain a damage evolution equation, Dcyc is formally derived with respect to time:
and
Note, that the strain range ∆ε is treated as a state variable. Its rate equals the total strain
rate as long as ∆ε>0 and is 0 otherwise.
22.09.2010 – page: 11
Chaboche-type
material model
fatigue failure
Coupled material-
22.09.2010 – page: 12
Coupled material-
The coupling between the damage model and the material equations is performed
basing on the effective stress concept.
SD: surface of cumulated micro-defects

S: remaining undamaged surface
σ: effective stress
σ: observable stress
All constitutive relations are evaluated in the effective undamaged configuration.
Once the effective stress is computed, the observable stress is obtained from
22.09.2010 – page: 13
Coupled material-
material-damage equations:
generalization for the 3D state
In the 3D continuum, the damage variable is a symmetrical second order tensor Dij=Dji.
The strain based damage evolution law is computed in the eigen-frame of the strain
increment dε on the basis of the eigenvalues:
1. Diagonalize the strain incement:
2. Rotate the damage Dij and the inner

strain range ∆εij in to the eigen-
frame of the strain increment dεij
3. Actualize the rotated damage and

strain range on their diagonals using
eigenvalues of the strain increment:
4. Rotate both actualized tensors back to their initial frame
22.09.2010 – page: 14
Coupled material-
material-damage equations:
crack closure effects
Damage acts only on the tensile part of the effective stress tensor:
Tensile and compressive part of the stress tensor:
22.09.2010 – page: 15
Chaboche-type
material model
fatigue failure
Coupled material-
22.09.2010 – page: 16
Algorithm for USERMAT implementation
Input Material law Coupling module
material state USTATEV implicit Euler solution in observable stress
effective stress, σij the effective configuration
inelastic strain, εpij effective stress, σij(t+∆t)
kinematic hardening, Xij inelastic strain, εpij(t+∆t)
isotropic hardening, R kinematic hardening, Xij(t+∆t) algorithmic tangent of the
inner strain range, ∆εij isotropic hardening, R(t+∆t)
damage, Dij
observable stress
Eijkl=dσij/dεkl
increments from global Damage evolution

Newton-Raphson scheme
time increment ∆t implicit Euler update
total strain increment ∆εij inner strain range, ∆εij(t+∆t)
temperature increment ∆T damage, Dij(t+∆t)
updated effective state updated damage state observable observable

effective stress, σij(t+∆t) inner strain range, ∆εij(t+∆t) stress stiffness
Output
inelastic strain, εpij(t+∆t) damage, Dij(t+∆t)

kinematic hardening, Xij(t+∆t)
isotropic hardening, R(t+∆t)
USTATEV STRESS DSDEPL
22.09.2010 – page: 17
Continuum damage model:
parameter identification
Parameter C Parameter γ
Under tensile loads a damage of After C is fixed, γ is identified from best fit to low cycle
D=1 is reached when ε=C, for any γ. fatigue experiments.
C equal to the strain at rupture εR
22.09.2010 – page: 18
Model validation:
monotone tensile test
Simulation of a tensile
test including damage
damage contour
inside specimen
Variate parameter C to fit experiment data of tensile tests
22.09.2010 – page: 19
Model validation:
low cycle fatigue tests
Fix C and variate parameter γ to fit fatigue data
22.09.2010 – page: 20
Application:
life prediction of a combustion chamber hot wall
Finite element model and boundary conditions
Workflow
thermal transient coupled structural-damage
transient thermal loads
analysis analysis
22.09.2010 – page: 21
Application:
life prediction of a combustion chamber hot wall (2)
Predicted deformation and damage of a cooling
channel after n hot runs
NR = number of cycles to reach
n=NR-2 NR-1 NR NR+1 end of life, predicted by the
coupled material damage model
Predicted deformation without continuum

damage mechanics after n hot runs
n=0.5NR NR 2NR
22.09.2010 – page: 22
Application:
comparison to conventional life prediction and to experiment data
Predicted vs. observed Predicted vs. observed

number of cycles deformation
22.09.2010 – page: 23
Summary and conclusions
In the case of the hot wall of rocket combustors, conventional life prediction methods considerably
overestimate the life of the component.
In order to improve the life prediction capabilities, a coupled material-damage model was formulated
and implemented in ANSYS USERMAT.
The damage evolution law was formally derived from an empirical fatigue equation and it was shown
that a proper choice of parameters enables the model to also predict ductile rupture.
The model was applied in a thermo-mechanical simulation of a combustion chamber and it was
shown that it considerably improves the life prediction accuracy.
Outlook
The presented damage evolution law was mathematically derived from an empirical model and thus
lacks of a sound physical basis.
Developments of micromechanical based damage models are presently running
The material properties are probabilistic, so should be the model parameters

Sensitivity and statistical studies of the model input-output relations are planned
22.09.2010 – page: 24

CDM With Ansys UserMAT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDM With Ansys UserMAT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Workshop on Structural Analsysis of Lightweight Structures.

30th May 2012, Natters, Austria

Continuum damage mechanics with ANSYS

liquid oxygen T<100 K

The hot wall of a combustion chamber separates the hot gases

A combination of high temperatures, thermal gradients and pressure loads leads to

1: structural analysis 2: damage analysis

and ductile damage

Problem: Discrepancy between observed and

hot wall after predicted

Thermo-mechanical simulation Predicted vs. observed

How to implement in ANSYS ?

damage evolution model

implementation algorithm in ANSYS USERMAT

Discretization and implementation into ANSYS USERMAT

a) monotone strain controlled loading c) stress-relaxation test

Discretization and implementation into ANSYS USERMAT

Assuming a linear damage accumulation, the damage per 1 cycle is expressed as

Discretization and implementation into ANSYS USERMAT

SD: surface of cumulated micro-defects

All constitutive relations are evaluated in the effective undamaged configuration.

1. Diagonalize the strain incement:

2. Rotate the damage Dij and the inner

3. Actualize the rotated damage and

4. Rotate both actualized tensors back to their initial frame

Tensile and compressive part of the stress tensor:

Discretization and implementation into ANSYS USERMAT

increments from global Damage evolution

updated effective state updated damage state observable observable

inelastic strain, εpij(t+∆t) damage, Dij(t+∆t)

C equal to the strain at rupture εR

Variate parameter C to fit experiment data of tensile tests

Fix C and variate parameter γ to fit fatigue data

Finite element model and boundary conditions

Predicted deformation without continuum

Predicted vs. observed Predicted vs. observed

The material properties are probabilistic, so should be the model parameters

You might also like