© All Rights Reserved

1 views

© All Rights Reserved

- A Study of Inertia Relief Analysis
- 2.2
- MEC 325-Home Work#1
- FEA Mini Project (AutoRecovered)
- som
- axial deformation
- mgpg3
- Continuum Mechanics-lecture-1.pdf
- Lecture1-7
- Composite Material & Structures 3
- Strength of Materials I - Lecture Notes, Study Materials and Important questions answers
- 3871 Ewahyuni MekbanEnglish090214
- wo3-smat.pdf
- Shake91 Input User Manual
- Doc Player
- Lecture-3
- Excellent Doc Plaque
- som-120222041025-phpapp01.pptx
- Stress Strain Uniaxial to Matrix 5.8 PDF
- Cheng 1998

You are on page 1of 77

Topics:

•Introduction and Overview

•Explicit time integration method

•Implicit time integration methods and solution of equilibrium

equations

•Stability of solutions

•Numerical stability

•Material stability

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW:

• Solution procedures for nonlinear finite element analysis of

continua and structures are presented.

• Explicit and implicit methods for transient problems and methods

for the solution of equilibrium problems are described

• Stability is an important topic in NLFEA.

• Stability of solutions, stability of numerical procedures and material

stability are presented.

• In Explicit time integration, we focus on the central difference

method.

• We next describe implicit time integration methods with the

Newmark -method as our focus

• Methods for solution of static problems, i.e., the solution of

equilibrium problems, are developed simultaneously.

• Newton method description also includes techniques used for

convergence checks and line search method.

• A critical step in the implicit scheme and static problems is the

LINEARIZATION of the governing equations. Linearization

procedures for the equations of motion and the Equilibrium

Equations are described.

• In nonlinear problems, stability of solution is of considerable

interest. Methods for examining stability are described.

• We then examine numerical stability of time integration methods

and analysis of central difference method and the Newmark, -

method are performed.

• The topic of material stability concludes the session.

Explicit Time Integration Methods

• The central difference method is among the most popular of the

explicit methods in computational mechanics. The central

difference method is developed from central difference formulae

for the velocity and acceleration. We consider here its application

to Lagrangian meshes. Methods for Eulerian and ALE meshes

are discussed separately. Geometric and material nonlinearities

are included in the equations of motion, and in fact have little

effect on the time integration algorithm.

• Notation: Let the time of the simulation 0 t tE be subdivided

into time steps tn, n = 1 to nTS where nTS is the number of time

steps and tE is the end of simulation. tn and dn d(tn) are the time

and nodal displacements, respectively at time step n.

• The algorithm with a variable time step is considered. This is

necessary in practical calculations since the stable time step

changes as the FE mesh deforms and wave speed changes due to

stress.

• The time increments as

1 1

n n

Δt n t t 2 2

d

1 1

n n 1

d 2

V 2

1

n 1

dn

n

Δt 2

dn+1 = dn + tn+1/2.Vn+1/2

• The acceleration and the corresponding integration formula are

n 12 n

1

d n a n V V

2

n 1 n 1

t 2 t 2

1 1

n n

V 2

V 2

Δt n a n

d a

n n

d n 1

2d n d n 1

Δt n 2

• The equations of motion at time step n are :

M a n f n f ext d n , t n f int d n , t n Eqn(A)

Subject to constraint s :

g I d 0, I 1 to n c

n

These are Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE’s) of second order

in time, often called semidiscrete since they have been discretized in

space but not in time. Generalized representation of the nc

displacement boundary conditions and other constraints on the

model are also appended. Note that these constraints are linear or

nonlinear algebraic functions of the nodal displacements. M the

mass matrix is a constant for Lagrangian mesh.

• The internal and external nodal forces are functions of the nodal

displacements and the time.

• The external loads are prescribed by the analyst as function of

time. They may also depend on nodal displacement because they

may also depend on the deformation configuration of the

body/structure, as when pressure forces are applied to surfaces,

which undergo large deformations.

• The dependence of internal nodal forces on displacements is

obvious. The nodal internal forces depend on the stresses. Stresses

depend on the strains and strain rates by the constitutive equations;

the strains and strain rates in turn depend on the displacements and

their derivatives. The internal nodal forces can also depend directly

on time, e.g., when the temperature is prescribed as a function of

time, then the stresses and hence internal nodal forces are directly

functions of time.

• The equations for UPDATING the nodal velocities and nodal

displacements are:

1 1

n n

V 2

V 2

Δt n M 1 f n Eqn(B)

1 1

n n

n 1

d d Δt

n 2

V 2

forces fn can be determined by sequentially evaluating the strain-

displacement equations, the constitutive equations expressed in

terms of Dn-1/2 OR En and the nodal external forces. Thus the entire

RHS of Eqn(B) can be evaluated, and Eqn(B) used to compute

Vn+1/2. The displacement dn+1 can then be determined.

• The update of the nodal velocities and nodal displacements can

be accomplished without SOLVING any equations provided that

the mass matrix M is diagonal. This is the salient characteristic

of an EXPLICIT METHOD. In an explicit method, the time

integration of the discrete momentum equations does not require the

solution of any equations. However, this hinges critically on the use

of a diagonal mass matrix. The required inversion of diagonal mass

matrix is trivial.

• There are exceptions. For example, the consistent mass matrix is

sometimes used with the central difference method in WAVE

PROPAGATION problems, and the update then does involve the

solution of equations!!

Software Implementation:

Box 6.1 gives the flowchart for explicit time integration. This

flowchart includes nonzero initial conditions, a variable time step,

elements with more than one quadrature point, and DAMPING.

• Damping is modeled by a linear viscous force.

fdamp = Cdamp.V

so that the total force in eqn (B) is f - Cdamp.V

• The implementation of velocity update is broken into two sub

steps by

Vn = Vn-1/2 + (tn – tn-1/2) an

Vn+1/2 = Vn + (tn+1/2 – tn). an

This enables energy balance to be checked at integer time steps.

• The cardinal dependent variables in this flowchart are the

velocities and the Cauchy stress. Initial conditions must be

given for the velocities, the Cauchy stress, and all material state

variables. The initial displacements are assumed to vanish

(initial displacements are meaningless in NLFEA except for a

hyperelastic material since the stress depends on the history of

deformation).

• The main part of the explicit time integration procedure is the

calculation of the nodal forces, which is done in get force. The

major steps in the subroutine get force are

1. Extract the nodal displacements and velocities of the element

from the global arrays by the GATHER operation.

2. The strain measures are computed at each quadrature point of the

element.

3. The stresses are computed at each quadrature point using the

constitutive equations

4. Evaluate the nodal internal forces by integrating the product of

the B matrix and the Cauchy stress over the domain of the

element.

5. The nodal forces of the element are SCATTERED into the global

array.

• In the first step, (n=1), the strain measures and the Cauchy stresses

are not computed, instead, as shown in the flowchart, the nodal

internal forces are calculated directly from the initial stresses.

• In the flow chart, the matrix form of the nodal internal force

calculation, in which the stress tensor is stored as a square matrix. To

change to Voigt form, replace B by B and the square matrix of

stresses by the column matrix {}.

• Most essential boundary conditions are easily handled in explicit

codes. For example, if the velocity OR displacement is prescribed

as functions of time along any boundary, then the prescribed

velocity/displacement boundary conditions can be enforced by

setting the nodal velocities according to the data:

ViIn+1/2 = Vi(XI, tn+1/2)

•Any damping in the system lags by a halftime step. This also holds

for any rate-dependent terms in the constitutive equation evaluation

phase of the step getforce. The time lag is unavoidable if the

implementation is to be fully explicit, i.e., not require the solution of

any equations. However, this decreases the stable time step for the

method.

•The explicit time integration method is easily implemented and is

very robust, by which we mean that the procedure seldom aborts due

to failure of the numerical algorithm. The salient disadvantage is

the conditional stability. If the chosen time step t exceeds a

critical value tcrit, the solution will grow unboundedly!!

•The critical time step also called stable time for a mesh as constant

strain elements and with rate-independent material models is given

by t = .tcrit

tcrit = min (le/Ce) 2/max

• when max is the maximum frequency of the linearized system, le is a

characteristic length of the element e, ce is the current wave speed in

element e, and is a reduction factor that accounts for the destabilizing

effects of nonlinearities. A good choice for is 0.80.98.

•The critical time step decreases with mesh refinement and increasing

stiffness of the material. The cost of an explicit simulation is independent of

the frequency range that is of interest and depends only on the size of the

FE model and the number of time steps.

•An interesting question for elastic-plastic materials is whether the slower

wave speed in the plastic response enables one to increase the time step.

Based on experience, the answer appears to be negative. An elasto-plastic

material can unload at any moment, and in numerical solutions unloading

often occurs due to numerical noise. During elastic unloading, the critical

time step depends on the elastic wave speed, and a time step that exceeds

the critical time step results in instability.

•The mesh time step is obtained from element time steps.

Energy Balance

• Certain instabilities can lead to a large over prediction of

displacements. They are easily detected by an energy balance check.

Any instability results in the spurious generation of energy, which

leads to a violation of the conservation of energy. Therefore, whether

stability was maintained during a nonlinear computation can be

established by checking energy balance.

• The internal and external energies are integrated as follows:

n 1 1 T n

W W Δd f int f int

int

2

n

int

n 1

n 1 n 1 T n

2

n 1

Wext Wext Δd f ext f ext

n 1

where Δd d d n

The kinetic energy is given by

W n

kin V

2

1 n T

M Vn

Note that integer time steps are used for the velocities.

The internal energies can also be computed on the element OR

quadrature point level.

• Energy conservation requires that

Mass scaling, subcycling, and dynamic relaxation:

• When a FE model contains a few small OR stiff elements, the

efficiency of explicit time integration method is compromised

severely, since the time step of the entire mesh is set by these very

stiff elements. Several techniques are available for circumventing

this difficulty.

a) Mass scaling: the masses of stiffer elements are increased so that

the time step is not decreased.

b) Subcycling: a smaller time step is used for the stiffer elements.

• Mass scaling should be used for problems where high frequency

effects are not important. For example, in sheet metal forming

simulation, which is essentially a static process, it causes no

difficulties. On the other hand, if high frequency response is

important, mass scaling is not recommended.

• Subcycling was introduced by Belytschko in 1979. In this

technique, the FE model is split into subdomains and each is

integrated with its own stable time step. The crucial issue in

subcycling is the treatment of the interface between subdomains.

• Dynamic relaxation is often used in explicit codes to obtain static

solutions. The basic idea is to apply the load very slowly and solve

the dynamic system equations with enough damping so that

oscillations are minimized. In path-dependent materials, dynamic

relaxation often yields poor solutions. Furthermore, it is very slow.

Newton methods combined with effective iterative solvers, such as

preconditioned conjugate gradient or multi-grid methods are much

faster and more accurate.

Implicit Time Integration Methods and Solution of Equilibrium

Equations:

• We will combine the description of the solution of equilibrium

equations with time integration by implicit methods since they

share many common features.

• To begin, we write the discrete momentum equation at time step

n+1 in a form applicable to both equilibrium and dynamic

problems:

0 r d n 1

,t n 1

S

D Ma n 1

f int

d , t

n 1 n 1

f ext

d n 1

,t n 1

1

where SD is a switch which is set by:

SD = 0 for a static (equilibrium) problem.

SD = 1 for a dynamic (transient) problem.

The column matrix r (dn+1, tn+1) is called a RESIDUAL FORCE.

The discrete equilibrium equations are nonlinear algebraic

equations in the nodal displacements, dn+1.

The discrete equations for the implicit update of the equations of

motion are also nonlinear algebraic equations in the nodal

displacements, dn+1.

Equilibrium solutions and equilibrium points

•When the accelerations vanish or are negligible, a system is in static

equilibrium and the solution of (1) is called an EQUILIBRIUM

SOLUTION. The equations of equilibrium are given by (1) with SD 0.

0 r d n 1 , t n 1 f int d n 1 , t n 1 f ext d n 1 , t n 1 2

• In equilibrium problems, the residuals correspond to the out-of-

balance forces. Problems in which the accelerations can be neglected

are called static problems. A solution of the above is called an

equilibrium point and a continuous locus of solutions is called an

equilibrium path.

• In equilibrium problems with rate-independent materials, t need not

be the real time. In stead, it can be any monotonically increasing

parameter.

• If the constitutive equation is a differential or integral equation, it

must also be discretized in time to obtain a set of algebraic equations

Newmark Equations:

• We use a popular class of time integration methods called

newmark method. The updated displacements and velocities are

n 1 ~ n 1 2 n 1

d d β Δt a

Δt 2

~ n 1

where d d n Δt V n 1 2β a n 3

2

~ n 1

V V γ Δt a n 1

n1

where V V n 1 γ Δt a n 4

~ n 1

Where t = tn+1 – tn

and are parameters whose useful values and stability

properties are summarized in Box 6.2

• The parameter controls artificial viscosity, a damping introduced

by the numerical method. It is used to suppress noise in the solution,

when = ½, the Newmark method adds no damping for > ½

artificial damping proportional to -1/2 is added by the integration

method.

• Eqn (3) can be solved for the updated acceleration, giving

a n 1 1

β Δt 2

n 1

d d when β 0 5

~ n 1

0r

SD

β Δt 2

M d n 1

~ n 1

d f int

d n 1 n 1

, t f ext

d ,t

n 1 n 1

6

displacement dn+1.

• Equation (6) applies to both static and dynamic problems. In both

the cases, the problem is to find dn+1 so that r(dn+1, tn+1) 0

subject to g(dn+1,tn+1) 0

• Equations (6) are the Discrete Equations of motion/Equilibrium

Newton’s Method: The Newton Raphson Algorithm

• The most widely used and most robust algorithm for the solution

of the set of nonlinear algebraic equations (6) is Newton’s

method. It is often called Newton-Raphson Iterative method in

computational mechanics.

• The Newton-Raphson Iterative procedure is illustrated in Fig 6.1

• The solution of equations (6) by the NR method is an

ITERATIVE PROCEDURE. The iteration number is indicated by

Greek subscript: dn+1 d is the displacement in ITERATION

at time step n+1; the time step number n+1 will be omitted for

brevity.

•To begin the iterative procedure, a starting value for the unknown

must be chosen; usually the solution dn from the last time step is

selected, so d0 = dn. In dynamic problems, a better starting value is

~ n 1 . A Taylor expansion of the residual r about the current value

d

of nodal displacement d and setting the resulting residual equal to

zero gives

r d

r d

d

Δd 0 Δd 0 7

2

A.

We then get

r + A. d = 0 ---------------------------------(8)

which is the linear model of the nonlinear equations. The linear model

is difficult to picture for problems with more than one unknown.

Figure 6.2 shows an example of the first component of the residual for

a function of two unknowns. The linear model is a plane tangent to the

nonlinear function r1(d1,d2). The other residual component is another

nonlinear function r2(d1,d2), which is not drawn.

• The increment in the nodal displacements in the NR-Iterative

procedure is obtained by solving eqn (8), which yields a system of

linear algebraic equations.

A. d = - r (d,tn+1) -------------- (9)

Once the increments in nodal displacements have been calculated, they

are added to the previous iterate

d+1 = d + d

The new nodal displacements is checked for convergence. If the

convergence criterion is not met, a new linear model is constructed

and the process is repeated. The iterative procedure continues until

the chosen convergence criterion is met.

•In computational mechanics, the Jacobian matrix A is called the

Effective Tangent Stiffness matrix and the contributions of the

INERTIAL, INTERNAL and EXTERNAL forces are linearized

separately.

•The Jacobian is written as

r SD f int f ext

A M for β 0

d β Δt 2

d d

• For equilibrium problems; SD 0;

f int

f int

is called the Tangent stiffness matrix denoted by K

int

d d

f ext

f ext

is called the Load stiffness matrix denoted by K ext

d d

• For dynamic problems; SD 1; the jacobian matrix is

SD

A M K int

K ext

β Δt 2

• The Jacobians can be used to relate differentials of the nodal forces

to differentials of nodal displacements by

df int

K dd

int

df K d d

ext ext

dr A d d

Software Implementation

• Flow charts for Implicit integration and Equilibrium solutions are

given in Boxes 6.3 and 6.4, respectively. Both the dynamic problem

and the equilibrium problems are solved by time stepping. The

external loads and other conditions are described by the user as

functions of time, which is incremented over the range of interest. In

equilibrium problems, tine is often replaced by a monotonically

increasing parameter. Solutions of equilibrium processes obtained in

this manner are called Incremental Solutions.

• The flow chart shows the full Newton algorithm, where the

Jacobian matrix is evaluated and inverted in every iteration of the

solution procedure.

•Many programs offer a modified Newton algorithm, in which the

Jacobian matrix is assembled and triangulated only at the beginning

of a step or intermittently during a step. For example, the Jacobin

matrix may be triangulated only when the ITERATIVE procedure

does not seem to be converging well. The modified Newton algorithm

is faster but less robust.

•The Implicit scheme begins with the imposition of the initial

conditions. The initial displacements are considered to be zero. The

initial accelerations are computed as shown in steps 2 and 3 (Box

6.3).

•The nodal displacements dn+1 are obtained by an iterative procedure.

To begin the iteration, a starting value of d is needed; usually the

solution from the preceding time step is used. The residual r is then

calculated for this starting value. In an equilibrium solution, the

residual depends only on the internal and external nodal forces; which

is obtained in the module getforce. In transient implicit solution, the

residuals also depend on the acceleration.

Constraints

• There are four options for treating the constraints.

gI(dn) = 0, I = 1 to nc (no. of constrants)

1. Penalty.

2. Lagrange multiplier.

3. Augmented Lagrangian

4. Perturbed Lagrangian.

the solution of discrete momentum and equilibrium equations in

nonlinear FEA programs.

Convergence Criteria

• The termination of iterations in Newton algorithms is

determined by convergence criteria.

• Three types of convergence criteria are:

1. Based on the magnitude of the residual forces r

2. Based on the magnitude of displacement increment d.

3. Energy error.

Implicit Time Integration Method: Accuracy and Stability

•For linear transient dynamic problems, suitable implicit integration

schemes are unconditionally stable.

•The major restriction on the time step in implicit methods arise from

accuracy requirements and decreasing robustness.

•Large time steps also impair the convergence of Newton method,

particularly in problems with very rough response, such as Contact

Impact. Small time steps improve the robustness of the Newton

algorithm.

•In return for there enhanced stability implicit methods exact a

significant price; they require the solution of a set of nonlinear

algebraic equations in each time step.

• Implicit solutions are now feasible in many problems where they

failed before. We are certain that further improvements are

imminent. Nevertheless, high cost and insufficient robustness still

plague Newton method.

Newton Iteration: Convergence and Robustness:

• The rate of convergence of the ITERATIONS in the Newton

method (or N-R algorithm) depends on the Jacobian matrix A

satisfying the following conditions.

1. The Jacobian matrix A should be sufficiently smooth function

of the nodal displacements d.

2. The Jacobian matrix A should be regular (invertible) and well

conditioned in the entire domain in the displacement space that

the iterative procedure traverses.

• These conditions are not satisfied by engineering problems. For

example, in elastic-plastic material, the residual r is not a

continuously differentiable function of the nodal displacement d:

when an element quadrature point changes from elastic to plastic

or vice versa, the derivative is discontinuous.

• In contact-impact problems with Lagrange multiplier methods,

the residual also lacks smoothness.

• Yet, N-R algorithm is still remarkably effective. It converges!!

• In some nonlinear problems, the conditions for quadratic

convergence of the N-R method are fully satisfied. For example,

in a smoothly loaded FE model with a Mooney-Rivlin material

where load increment is small enough so that equilibrium

conditions are stable.

• In equilibrium problems, the NR method fails to converge in the

vicinity of unstable states.

• In dynamic problems, the convergence difficulties of the NR

iteration are ameliorated by the mass matrix. For many problems,

use of the Newton method is totally unsuccessful, and further

enhancements such as the arc length method are needed.

IMPLICIT VS EXPLICIT

• The selection of time integration scheme depends on:

1. The type of Partial Differential Equation (PDE).

2. The smoothness of the data.

3. The response of interest.

• For parabolic PDE’s, implicit methods are preferred. The

solutions of parabolic systems are smooth even when the data is

rough. The stable time step in a parabolic system decreases by a

factor of four each time the element size is halved, so that

refinement in an EXPLICIT method becomes prohibitively

expensive. Parabolic systems should never be integrated by

explicit schemes.

•There are exceptions where explicit methods are preferred even

when the system is partially or fully parabolic. For example in car

crash simulation (using shell elements) the equations for the shells

which model the sheet metal response are parabolic, yet because the

noise introduced by Contact-Impact algorithm, explicit methods are

preferred.

•Similarly, in complex heat conduction problems, it is often

impossible to take advantage of the large time step permitted by

implicit methods explicit methods are preferred.

•In hyperbolic systems, the choice depends on the response of

interest. Hyperbolic PDE’s govern wave propagation problems and

inertial problems (structural dynamics).

• In structural dynamics problems, the frequency spectrum of the

input is far below the resolution limits of the FE mesh; the FE mesh

refinement is dictated by the need for very high accuracy in the

frequency band of interest. Here, IMPLICIT integration methods

are definite choice. Examples include seismic response also.

• Wave propagation problems are those in which relatively high

frequency parts of the spectrum are of interest. For example, waves

in cellular phones in a drop test, the simulation needs a small time

step to tract the high frequency portion of the ‘response’, and

explicit methods are preferred.

LINEARIZATION

Linearization of the Internal nodal forces

• We now derive expressions for the tangent stiffness matrix Kint

for Lagrangian elements. As will be seen part of the expression

can be derived independently of the material response.

Linearization of the constitutive equation is carried out in two

ways:

1. With the continuum tangent moduli, which does not account for

the actual constitutive update algorithm; the resulting material

tangent stiffness is called the TANGENT STIFFNESS MATRIX.

2. with the algorithmic tangent moduli, which gives rise to the so

called consistent tangent stiffness.

• The choice rests on considerations related to ease of

implementation and on the smoothness of the problem.

• The tangent stiffness matrix will be expressed in terms of CSE, the

tangent moduli relating the rate of the PK2 stress to the rate of the

Green strain in the Total Lagrangian Formulation and in terms of C,

the tangent moduli relating the Truesdell rate of the Cauchy stress to

the rte-of-deformation in the Updated Lagrangian Formulation. These

tangent moduli are related: if the current configuration is chosen to

be the reference configuration, C = CSE.

• We will develop the tangent stiffness matrix by relating the rates of

.The procedure

the internal nodal forces f int to the nodal velocities d

is identical to relating an infinitesimal increment of internal nodal

forces dfint to an infinitesimal increment of nodal displacements d d

•The internal nodal forces in the TLF are given by

f int B T P dΩ A

Ω

OR

N I

f int

Pji dΩ

X j

iI

Ω

the nodal shape functions, and

N I

B

X j

jI

derivation. In the TLF, the only variable, which depends on the

deformation is the nominal stress, i.e., it is the only variable which

varies with time.

• In the ULF, the domain of the element (or body), the spatial

derivatives NI/xj and the Cauchy stress depend on the

deformation and hence on time, which complicates the derivation of

the tangent stiffness matrix.

•Taking the material time derivative of eqn (A),

0

f int B T P dΩ

Ω0

0

• To get the stiffness matrix Kint, it is now necessary to write the

nominal stress rate P in terms of the nodal velocities via the

constitutive equations and the strain measure.

• The material time derivative of the PK2 stress is related to the

material time derivative of the nominal stress P by taking the time

derivative of the transformation P = S.FT.

P S FT S F T

• Finally eqn A becomes

f int

iI

N I

X j

S jr Fir S jr Fir dΩ 0

Ω0

N I

f int

dS jr Fir S jr dFir dΩ0

X j

iI

Ω0

• The above shows that the rate ( or increment) of the internal nodal

forces consists of two parts.

, and thus depends on

1. The first part involves the rate of stress S

the material response and leads to what is called the material

tangent stiffness matrix which we denote by Kmat

2. The second part involves the current state of stress S, and

accounts for geometric effects of the deformation (including

rotation and stretching). This term is called the geometric

stiffness. It is also called the initial stress stiffness matrix to

indicate the role of the existing state of stress. It is denoted by

Kgeo.

• The changes in the internal nodal forces due to these two effects are

given analogous names, so

f int f mat f geo

OR f int f mat f geo

iI iI iI

where

N I

fiImat Ω X j Fir S jr dΩ0

0

N I

f geo

iI Ω X j ir 0

S jr

dΩ

F

0

Material Tangent Stiffness Matrix

• We rewrite the rate of the internal nodal forces, in Voigt notation

f mat BT0 S dΩ 0

Ω0

Where

format.

S is the rate of the PK2 stress in Voigt column matrix

• The constitutive equation in rate form is

S CSE E

ij ijkl kl

or

S CSE E

Where E is the rate of the Green strain.

• We now relate the rate of the Green strain to the nodal velocities

in Voigt notation,

E B 0

d

• Finally we get the material rate of the internal nodal forces

Ω0

f int B T CSE B dΩ d

mat 0 0 0

OR

fmat

int

B T0 CSE B 0 dΩ 0 dd

Ω0

K mat

B C B dΩ

T

0

SE

0 0

OR Ω0

K mat

IJ B C B dΩ

T

0I

SE

0J 0

Ω0

• The material tangent stiffness relates increments (OR rates) of the

internal nodal forces to the increment (or rate) of the nodal

displacements due to material response, which is reflected in the

tangent modulii CSE. Its form is identical to the stiffness matrix in

linear finite element analysis.

Geometric Stiffness: Initial Stress Stiffness Matrix

• The geometric stiffness matrix is obtained as follows.

From the definition

N I

B 0

X i

iI

We can write

ii Ij jr ir 0

f geo B0 S F dΩ

Ω0

B S jr B dΩ 0 u i,J

0

Ij

0

rj

Ω0

B S jr B dΩ 0 δ ik u kJ

0

Ij

0

rj

Ω0

f geo K geo u

I IJ J

K geo

T

IJ I B 0I S B 0J dΩ 0

Ω0

•Note that the PK2 stress S is in tensor form, i.e., a square matrix.

•The geometric stiffness matrix Kgeo is invariant with rotation.

•The above in Total Lagrangian Formulation are easily converted

to ULF (Updated Lagrangian Formulation) by letting the current

configuration be the reference configuration:

K mat

IJ B CT

I B dΩ

στ

j

Ω

K mat BT C στ B j dΩ

Ω

K geo

IJ I B σ BJ dΩ

σ

I

Ω

• The tangent modulii [CSE] and [C] for a wide variety of

engineering materials are presented in the session: Constitutive

Models.

• Tangent material stiffness matrices for specific finite elements

are presented later in this session.

• The numerical values of the above matrices Kmat and Kgeo in the

TLF and ULF are identical, and the choice of which to use is a

matter of convenience.

• The Issue of symmetry of the tangent stiffness matrix deserves

attention. Symmetry speeds the solution of the set of nonlinear

algebraic equations reduces storage requirements and simplifies

stability analysis.

• The material tangent stiffness matrix is symmetric when the

Voigt form of the tangent modulii matrix [CSE] is symmetric.

•The geometric stiffness matrix is always symmetric. Therefore, the

tangent stiffness matrix Kint is symmetric whenever the tangent

modulii possess major symmetry.

•See box 6.5 for Jacobian of Internal Nodal Forces (tangent stiffness

matrix).

External load stiffness

•Follower loads are loads that change with the configuration of the

body (elements). They appear in geometrically nonlinear problems

only. Pressure is a common example of Follower load. A pressure

force is always normal to the surface, so as the surface MOVES the

external nodal forces change even if the magnitude of pressure is

constant. These effects are accounted for in the Jacobian matrix of

external nodal forces, denoted by Kext, which is also called the

LOAD STIFFNESS .

• The load stiffness Kext relates the rate of external nodal forces to

the nodal velocities.

• Consider a pressure load, p(x,t), the external nodal forces on a

surface of element e are given by letting t p n

f I

ext

N I p n dΓ

Γ

• Let the surface be parametized by two variables and . For

quadrilateral surface element, these variables can be the parent

element natural coordinates on the biunit square, since

n dΓ x ,ξ x ,η dξ dη we can write

1 1

f I

ext

pξ, η N I ξ, η x ,ξ x ,η dξ dη

1 1

Taking the time derivative of the above gives

1 1

fIext N I p x ,ξ x ,η p V,ξ x ,η p x ,ξ V,η dξ dη

1 1

•The first term is the rate of change of the external nodal forces

due to the rate of change of the pressure. In many problems, the

rate of change of pressure is prescribed as part of the problem

definition.

•In other problems, such as in Fluid-Structure Interaction

problems, pressure may arise from changes of the geometry: these

effects must then be linearized and added to the Load Stiffness. We

omit this aspect in the following.

•The last two terms represent the changes in the external nodal

forces due to the changes in the direction of the surface and the

area of the surface. These are related by the external load stiffness,

so the RHS of the above equation becomes

1 1

IK VK p N I V,ξ x , η x ,ξ V, η dξ dη

K ext

1 1

IK VK

0 z ,η y ,η 0 z ,ξ y ,ξ

1 1

and K ext

IJ p N I N J, ξ z ,η 0 x ,η N J, η z ,ξ 0 x ,ξ dξ dη

1 1

y ,η

x ,η 0 y ,ξ

x ,ξ 0

• It is immediately apparent that the submatrices of the load

stiffness matrix are not symmetric. So the Jacobian matrix in

general is not symmetric in the presence of follower forces.

However, it can be shown that for a closed structure in a constant

pressure field, the assembled external load stiffness is symmetric.

TWO-NODE ROD ELEMENT

• Consider the two-node rod element shown in Figure 6.9. The ROD

is in a state of uniaxial stress. The x̂ -axis lies along the axis of the

rod and rotates with the rod, i.e., it is a corotational coordinate. The

only nonzero Cauchy stress component is σ̂11 σ̂ xx . The tangent

stiffness and load stiffness matrices are derived in the ULF, i.e., in

the current configuration.

• Material tangent stiffness matrix (ULF)

K̂ mat B̂T Ĉστ B̂ dΩ

Ω

1 0 1 0

στ

AE 0 0 0 0

K̂ mat

l 1 0 1 0

0 0 0 0

• This is identical to the linear stiffness matrix for a rod if E is

replaced by Young’s modulus E.

• The material tangent stiffness matrix relating global components

of Internal Nodal forces and Nodal Velocities is

f Imat K mat VI

K mat T T K̂ mat T

Where T is given by

cosθ sin θ 0 0

sin θ cosθ 0 0

T

0 0 cosθ sin θ

0 0 sin θ cosθ

• Geometric Stiffness Matrix (ULF)

The geometric stiffness matrix is given by

K̂ IJ Ĥ IJ I

Ĥ B̂T σ B̂ dΩ

Ω

1 1

σ̂ xx 1 1 dΩ

1

l 1

Ω

l

σ̂ xx A 1 1

Ĥ

l 1 1

1 0 1 0

0 1 0 1

Aσ̂ xx

K̂ geo

l 1 0 1 0

0 1 0 1

K geo T T K̂ geo T

• The total tangent stiffness matrix is the sum of the material and

geometric stiffnesses.

Kint = Kmat + Kgeo

Load stiffness

The load stiffness for the 2-node ROD element is developed here.

First it is evaluated in the corotational coordinate system x̂, ŷ

0 1 0 1

1 0 1 0

pa

K̂ ext

2 0 1 0 1

1 0 1 0

K ext T T K̂ ext T K̂ ext

Material tangent stiffness matrix in TLF

K mat BT0 CSE B0 dΩ 0

Ω0

2

A 0 E SE l sin θ

2

cosθ sin θ sin θ

2

l0 0

l cos 2

θ cosθ sin θ

sin θ

2

Note the material constant ESE relates the rate of the PK2 stress to

the rate of the Green strain in a uniaxial state of stress.

Geometric Stiffness Matrix in TLF

1 0 1 0

A 0 Su 0 1 0 1

K geo

l 0 1 0 1 0

0 1 0 1

THREE-NODE TRIANGULAR ELEMENT

• We consider the 3-node triangular element in two dimensions in a

state of plane strain.

Material tangent Stiffness Matrix

A

thickness a 1.

The tangent modulus matrix in Voigt matrix form is

C1111

στ στ

C1122 στ

C1112

στ

C

στ στ

C C C

στ

στ 2211 2222 2212

C1211 C1222

στ στ

C1212

Using the known B matrix, since the integrand is frequently

constant, the tangent stiffness matrix is the product of the integrand

with the area.

Geometric stiffness matrix

T

IJ I B

A

1 y 23 y 31 y12

when B

2A x 32 x13 x 21

y 23 x 32

1 σ xx σ xy y 23 y 31 y12

H x13

σ yy x 32 x 21

y 31

4A σ xy x13

y12 x 21

It depends only on the current stress state and the current geometry

of the element

Physical Stability and Continuation Methods:

•In nonlinear problems, stability of solutions is of considerable

interest. However, we will focus on the FEM and application to

nonlinear analysis.

•Consider a beam loaded axially (fig 6.7 (a)). If we perturb the

location of the load P by a distance or 2, then the equilibrium

paths are as shown in Figure 6.7(c). it can be seen that when the load

is below the buckling load, the path for different initial conditions

remain close to AC. However when the load exceeds the buckling

load, the solution for different initial conditions diverge. Therefore,

any process in which the applied load exceeds the buckling load is

unstable.

•As an aside, we remark that when the beam is straight, the numerical

solution usually remains on the path AC shown in Figure 6.7(b). The

lateral displacement is zero even when the applied load P exceeds

the buckling load! If you do not believe this, try it. In a simulation, a

straight beam will usually not buckle in an Incremental Static

Solution or a Dynamic Solution, regardless or whether explicit or

implicit integration is used. Only when round off error introduces a

“numerical imperfection” or when an imperfection is introduced in

the INPUT DATA will the straight beam buckle in a simulation i.e., an

imperfection is needed to break the symmetry.

• It is widely believed among structural mechanicians that the

difficulties associated with unstable behavior can be circumvented by

obtaining a dynamic solution. When a structure is loaded above its

limit point or a bifurcation point in a dynamic simulation, the

structure passes dynamically to the nearest stable branch. However,

the instability is not readily apparent, and the possibility of

imperfection sensitivity is not clear.

• Therefore, to understand the behavior of a structure thoroughly, its

equilibrium behavior should be ecarefully

iI

examined. Many vaganes

of structural behavior may be hidden by dynamic simulations.

•For example, for a cylindrical shell under axial load the intersecting

branch is asymmetric as shown in Figure 6.7(e). A structure with

asymmetric branch is highly sensitive to imperfections, as can be

seen by the large change in the maximum load with the change in the

imperfection in Figure 6.7(e).

•The theoretical bifurcation point of a perfect structure is then not a

realistic measure of the strength: the actual structure may buckle at a

much lower load than the theoretical value because imperfections are

unavoidable in a real structure. A single numerical simulation could

miss this sensitivity completely.

•This sensitivity to imperfections for cylindrical shells was

analyzed by Koiter and is a classical example of imperfection

sensitivity. To ascertain this type of behavior, the equilibrium

branches must be known.

•The behavior of the shallow truss exhibits a turning or Limit Point,

as can be seen from Figure 6.9; Points A and B are turning points.

The branch after the first turning point, point A, is unstable. While

the branch after the second turning point, Point B, is stable!

•The behavior of the beam shown in Figure 6.7(a) is a classic

example of a bifurcation. The point B where the two branches

intersect is the point of bifurcation. Subsequent to the bifurcation

point, the continuation BC of the fundamental branch AB becomes

unstable. Point B, the bifurcation point, corresponds to the buckling

load of the Euler beam.

• Methods for tracing equilibrium branches are called continuation

methods. The tracing of equilibrium branches is often quite

difficult: Robust, automatic procedures for continuation are not yet

developed. A continuation method called arc length method is

implemented in commercial FEA programs. The arc length method

is often called the Rik’s method in structural mechanics literature.

NUMERICAL STABILITY

•A numerical procedure is stable if small perturbations of initial data

result in small changes in the numerical solution.

•General results for numerical stability analysis of the time

integration of the equations of motion are of interest.

•However, we stress that at the present time there is no stability

theory, which encompass the nonlinear problems, which are routinely

solved by Nonlinear FEA programs.

•Difference between physical stability and numerical stability:

Physical stability pertains to the stability of the solution of a model

whereas numerical stability pertains to the stability of the numerical

method. Numerical stability is usually only examined for processes,

which are physically stable.

•Stability analysis of widely used Time Integration Methods are well

documented: example: Explicit Central Difference method; Implicit

Newmark method.

MATERIAL STABILITY

•An important issue in nonlinear continuum mechanics is the

stability analysis of the material model. We now describe criteria for

material stability. Some remedies for the numerical difficulties

incurred by material instabilities are also discussed.

•Material instabilities are usually associated with a localized growth

of the deformation. This is called localization. It corresponds to

phenomena which are observed in experiments: For certain stress

states, metals, rocks and soils will exhibit narrow bands of intense

deformation; these are often called SHEAR BANDS, since the

deformation mode in these bands is usually shear.

•Example: Rate-independent material model.

•Shortly after NLFA Programs became available in the 1970’s,

computational analysts began to include unstable material models

both intentionally and inadvertently, and they discovered many

difficulties. Numerical solutions became often unstable and it was

discovered that the results depend very much on the mesh!

•At that time, it was argued by some mechanicians that material

models that violate the stability postulates should never be used. This

argument had merit for unless a constitutive law is carefully designed

to become unstable only in the rare situations when the material is

unstable, many difficulties are encountered. However, there is no

way to replicate experimentally observed phenomena such as shear

banding without a material model that exhibits strain softening.

•Several techniques have evolved to improve the coarse-mesh

accuracy of the finite element models for unstable material models.

These involve the embedment of discontinuities or enriched fields in

the element.

Ortiz Leroy and Needleman (1987) were the first to modify an

element at the point of material instability: they embedded

discontinuities in the strain field of the 4-node quadrilateral

elements, when the acoustic tensor indicated a material instability in

the element.

Belytschko, Fish and Englemann (1988) embedded a

displacement discontinuity by enriching the strain field with a

narrow band in which the material is unstable.

•Just as shear bands can be viewed as the outcome of a material

instability in the shear stress component, fracture can be considered

as the outcome of a material instability in the stress components

normal (and tangential in the case mode II fracture) to the

discontinuity (i.e., a crack). The relation between damage and

fracture has long been noted where fracture is assumed to occur when

the damage variable reaches a critical value.

•Damage mechanics the modeling of fracture by constitutive models

with damage poses same difficulties encountered in shear band

modeling, since the material model becomes unstable, when the

damage exceeds threshold value.

•These difficulties were resolved in a novel manner. The idea is to

match the energy dissipation in cracking to the energy dissipated in

the element, which exceeds the stability threshold. This is

accomplished by treating the fracture energy as a material parameter

and the energy dissipation in the strain-softening element is equaled

to the fracture energy (a material parameter).

Lemaitre J and Chaboche JL (1990) Mechanics of Solid

Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

- A Study of Inertia Relief AnalysisUploaded byennegi
- 2.2Uploaded byMarina Davidovic
- MEC 325-Home Work#1Uploaded byShafayet A Siddique
- FEA Mini Project (AutoRecovered)Uploaded byz3r0h
- somUploaded byKarthik Iyer
- axial deformationUploaded bySyarif Muhammad
- mgpg3Uploaded bytejesh77
- Continuum Mechanics-lecture-1.pdfUploaded byamit yadav
- Lecture1-7Uploaded byHarpreet Singh
- Composite Material & Structures 3Uploaded byAdrian Arasu
- Strength of Materials I - Lecture Notes, Study Materials and Important questions answersUploaded byBrainKart Com
- 3871 Ewahyuni MekbanEnglish090214Uploaded byandirani24
- wo3-smat.pdfUploaded byjpb111
- Shake91 Input User ManualUploaded byyoki_triwahyudi
- Doc PlayerUploaded byongyinhoe
- Lecture-3Uploaded byAhmad Nawaz
- Excellent Doc PlaqueUploaded bySamagassi Souleymane
- som-120222041025-phpapp01.pptxUploaded byPritesh Kumar
- Stress Strain Uniaxial to Matrix 5.8 PDFUploaded byChristian Gerald Daniel
- Cheng 1998Uploaded byCanh Le
- US Army DeformationandSettlement Ch-5Uploaded byLudy Ramírez
- 264_1Uploaded byManuel
- Orthotropy Theory EnuUploaded bypopaciprian27
- New explicit microplane model for concrete：theoretical aspects and numerical implementation.pdfUploaded bylangxuzeng
- OGJ1989ZfactorUploaded byNilesh Singhal
- 394Uploaded bylijiabinbin
- 2 D ElementsUploaded byBennet Kuriakose
- SPE-172496-PAUploaded byParth Chauhan
- Chap03-AUploaded bySaira Tahir
- asadipour2016Uploaded bySol Angel

- Finite Element MethodUploaded byomer1299
- Bio Trib OlogyUploaded bytech
- Finite element Procedures for Nonlinear Analysis Lagrangian and Eulerian Formulations of 1D.pptUploaded bytech
- FEM Zabaras Cornell University StrongAndWeakProblems1DUploaded byDr. Ir. R. Didin Kusdian, MT.
- Finite Elementet Lecture Fluid (Good)Uploaded byTomer Avraham
- lecfeUploaded byDavid Obike Onuoha
- notes.pdfUploaded bytech
- Post Buckling Behaviour.pdfUploaded bytech

- Dr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Dairy Development Presentation Final1Uploaded byNazir Ahmed Jamali
- Computerized Segmentation and Measurement of Chronic Wound ImagesUploaded byJeffRy SinyOe
- 2004 Seoul Bus ReformsUploaded byGedeon Lim
- Mari YamUploaded bySuresh Ibk
- trig1Uploaded byJLafge
- racewaysUploaded byfarooq929
- The Miraculous Kabbalah Abundance PrayerUploaded byMuneer Hussain
- Tim Rifat - Microwave Mind Control - Microwave WeaponsUploaded bySchweinepack
- SCMA Codebook DesignUploaded byhajiar_yuliana
- Chemistry Investigatory ProjectUploaded byPrathamGupta
- Psychrometry Theory and ProblemsUploaded byVenkadeshwaran Kuthalingam
- APS3-300_APS6-300_500_G.490Uploaded byjhonyroque
- Bro the Very Narrow Aisle WarehouseUploaded bySuvin Nambiar
- TM 1-1500-204-23-9 Tools & Ground Support EquipmentUploaded byokamo
- Astm a53 Grade bUploaded byLuis Villegas
- Anchor Chair Design FinalUploaded byBacha Rachad
- Hydraulic JumpUploaded bySuhaimi Sam
- 2modUploaded bykrishrathore
- Southeastern Sd Commercial Corridor Urban Design GuideUploaded byCriselle Barquilla
- Anatomy and Physiology of NeonatesUploaded byettevyvi
- NAPLEX Drugs TableUploaded bystarobin
- comparison-of-p4-numerical-pain-rating-scale-and-pressure-pain-threshold-in-patients-having-chronic-lowback-pain-an-obse.pdfUploaded byZammira Mutia
- 0625_s11_qp_13Uploaded byImmy Maysmeeka
- Green Computing: Efficient and Eco-friendly Use of Computer Resources to Improve Energy UtilizationUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- The Elements of the Vedantic PhilosophyUploaded bySivason
- NCP LeukemiaUploaded byLuige Avila
- tk-3107Uploaded byAbe Limi
- 828826297d7ea460155685a47ad70b4f-originalUploaded byJohn Lacebal III
- Std Series 2Uploaded byKasey Chase
- The+Extensive+List+of+Percusssion+Rep+(2)Uploaded byΠαντελής Λαλεδάκης