Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

JournalofScienceandTechnology

Volume49,Number4A,2011

pp.2938

DUAL ANALYSIS BY STABILIZED DISPLACEMENT AND EQUILIBRIUM MESHFREE METHODS

CANH V. LE
Department of Civil Engineering, International University, Vietnam National University HCMC. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Vietnam Email: lvcanh@hcmiu.edu.vn

ABSTRACT In this paper, stabilized displacement and equilibrium meshfree models are presented. A moving least squares technique is used to approximate displacement and stress fields, ensuring that the resulting fields are smooth over the entire problem domain. There is therefore no need to enforce continuity conditions at interfaces within the problem domain, which would be a key part of a comparable finite element formulation. A stabilized conforming nodal integration scheme is applied to both displacement and equilibrium models to eliminate numerical instability problems. A penalty technique is used in conjunction with collocation technique to enforce boundary conditions. Key words: mesh-free methods; stabilized displacement and equilibrium models; smoothed technique; penalty method.
1. INTRODUCTION

Solid mechanics problems can be treated using either displacement or equilibrium numerical models which are naturally dual. In the framework of finite element method (FEM), dual analysis was first introduced by de Veubeke [1, 2]. Based on a general formulation for dual analysis presented in [3], Duflot and Nguyen-Dang proposed displacement and equilibrium meshfree models for elastostatic problems [4]. Using a moving least squares technique to approximate displacement and stress fields, these methods posses several advantages: (i) no meshes needed, resulting in flexility of treating problems with arbitrary geometries, (ii) high-order approximated fields, leading rapid convergence property and well-suited to problems requiring high-order of continuity. However, there is still a need to use a background mesh in order to determine integrals involving and a large number of Lagrangian multipliers would be needed when enforcing boundary conditions. In this paper, integrals in the weak form of problem are evaluated using a stabilized conforming nodal integration scheme [5], rather than direct nodal integration which may be unstable (because of

under-integration and vanishing derivatives of shape functions at the nodes). Moreover, a penalty technique will used in conjunction with collocation technique to enforce boundary conditions, ensuring that no additional variable is introduced to the discretized system while providing accurate solutions.
2. DUAL FORMULATIONS FOR SOLID CONTINUA

Consider an elastic body of volume R 3 with boundary , which consists of a Dirichlet portion u where displacement boundary conditions are prescribed and a Neumann portion t where stress boundary conditions are assumed, so that = u t and u t = . General dual formulations can be stated in terms of a statically admissible field and a kinematically admissible field, which are defined as follows. The stress field is statically admissible if it satisfies the equilibrium equation and stress boundary conditions

T = f in (1) n = t on t The kinematic field (strain or displacement field u ) is kinematically admissible if it satisfies the
compatibility and/or kinematical boundary conditions

= s u in
on u

u=u
WT (u) =

(1)

The total potential energy WT and total complementary energy WC are defined as

1 (u) : D : (u)d f u d t u d t 2 1 : D 1 : d n u d u 2

(2)

WC ( ) =

(3)

If u and are respectively the exact displacement and stress solutions, the general duality holds as Wexact = WT (u) = WC ( ) (4) Hence for problems for which exact solutions are not available, one can approximate the exact solutions by using either displacement or equilibrium approaches which will be described in the following sections. 2.1 Displacement-based approach The displacement approach involves finding, among all admissible displacement fields, the particular field that minimizes the total potential energy. The statement can be expressed in the matrix form as

Find u U on such that :

v : D : ud = f v d + t v d, v V
s s t def = B(u, v )

(5)

where U = u|u H 1 ,u | = u , V = v|v H 1 , v | = 0

u u

def = F( v )

Let u h Uh U be the approximation of the exact displacement u , and we define a energy norm as

0 u uh

2 E ()

def

= B(u u h ,u u h )

= B(u,u) + B(u h ,u h ) 2B(u,u h ) = B(u h ,u h ) B(u,u) 2B(u,u h ) + 2B(u,u) = B(u h ,u h ) B(u,u) 2B(u,u h u) = B(u h ,u h ) B(u,u) 2F(u h u) = B(u h ,u h ) 2F(u h ) (B(u,u) 2F(u) ) = 2 WT (u h ) 2 WT (u)
Hence, the following inequality holds

WT (u h ) Wexact
2.2 Stress-based (equilibrium) approach

(6)

The equilibrium approach involves finding, among all admissible stress fields, the particular field that minimizes the total complementary energy. The statement can be expressed in the matrix form as

Find , T = f , n | = t such that :

t

: D

: d = n u , , T = 0, n | = 0
u def = G( ) t

(7)

def = A ( , )

t

applying the technique presented above, we have

h 2 E ()

def

= A ( h , h )

= 2 WC ( h ) 2 WC ( )
Then the following inequality holds

Wexact WC ( h )
2.3 Fundamental results

(8)

From Equations (8) and (6), we obtain bounds on exact energy as follows

WT (u h ) Wexact WC ( h )
3. STABILIZED DISPLACEMENT AND EQUILIBRIUM MESHFREE METHODS

(9)

3.1 Moving least squares approximation Using the moving least squares (MLS) technique [6], the function of the field variable f h ( x) in the domain can be approximated at point x as

f h ( x) = I ( x) f I
I =1

(10)

in which

I (x) = pT (x) A 1 (x)B I (x)

A ( x) = wI ( x)p(x I )pT ( x I )
I =1 n

(11) (12) (13)

B I (x) = wI (x)p(x I )

where n is the number of nodes; p( x) is a set of basis functions; wI (x) is a weight function associated with node I . In this work, an isotropic quartic spline function is used, which is given by

1 6 s 2 + 8s 3 3s 4 wI (x) = 0
with s =

if s 1 if s > 1
(14)

x xI RI

, where RI is the support radius of node I and determined by

RI = hI

(15)

where is the dimensionless size of an associated domain of influence and hI is the nodal spacing when nodes are distributed uniformly, or the maximum distance to neighbouring nodes when nodes are not distributed uniformly. We refer to [7, 8] for an efficient approach to compute the shape functions and their first derivatives. 3.2 Smoothing technique In the framework of meshfree methods it is advantageous if the problem under consideration can be solved by evaluating quantities at the nodes only [9]. The smoothing technique proposed in [5] is one of the most efficient nodal integration methods, and has been applied successfully to various

analysis problems. The main idea is that nodal values are determined by spatially averaging field values using the divergence theorem. In other words, the domain integrals are transformed into boundary integrals to avoid the need to evaluate the derivatives of the meshfree shape functions at the nodes, where they vanish, and this thus eliminates spatial instability problems. This smoothing technique will now be adapted in order to stabilize problems involving first derivatives as follows

~h h f , (x J ) = f , (x) (x, x x J )d
J J

(16) (17)

~h h f , (x J ) = f , (x) (x, x x J )d
~ ~

h h where f , and f , are respectively the smoothed value of the first- and second-derivative of the

function f h at node J , and is a distribution (or smoothing) function that has to satisfy the following properties

0 and

For simplicity, the function is assumed to be a piecewise constant function and is given by

d = 1

(18)

(x, x x J ) =

1/a J , x J x J 0,

(19)

where a J is the area of the representative domain of node J . Substituting equation (19) into equations (16) and (17), and applying the divergence theorem, gives the following equations

~h 1 f , (x J ) = f h ( x)n ( x)d aJ J ~h 1 h h f , ( x J ) = f , n ( x ) + f , n (x) d aJ J where J is the boundary of the representative domain J .

(20) (21)

Now, introducing a moving least squares approximation of the function f h , the smoothed version
h h of f , and f , can be expressed as
n ~h ~ f , (x J ) = I , (x J ) f I

(22) (23)

~h ~ f , (x J ) = I , (x J ) f I
I =1

I =1 n

with

1 ~ I , (x J ) = aJ

I (x)n (x)d =

1 2a J

(n l
ns k k =1

k +1 k +1 +1 + n l I (x k J )

(24)

1 ~ I , ( x J ) = aJ

(
J

I ,

( x) n (x) + I , ( x) n ( x) )d

1 2a J

(n l
ns k k =1

k +1 k +1 +1 + n l I , (x k J )+

1 2a J

(n l
ns k k =1

k +1 k +1 +1 + n l I , (x k J )

(25) where ns is the number of segments of a Voronoi nodal domain J , as shown in the Figure 1, and
k +1 are the coordinates of the two end points of boundary segment Jk , which has length xk J and x J

l k and outward surface normal n k .

3.3 Stabilized displacement formulation In numerical displacement model, kinematic variables must be approximated. Using the moving least squares technique, the approximated displacements u h (x) can be expressed as

u h ( x) = I (x)u I
I =1

(26)

where I are the EFG shape functions described above. Introducing a moving least-square approximation of the displacements and applying smoothing stabilization strains, problem (6) becomes a linear system as ~ (27) Kq = g where q is the system vector consisting of degrees of freedom, g is the force vector, and K is the stabilized (smoothed) stiffness matrix given by (28) q = [u1 , u2 , , un , v1 , v2 , , vn ]

g = T f d + T t d
t
n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K = BT DB d = a J BT (x J ) DB( x J )

(29) (30)

in which the smoothed strain matrix B(x J ) is determined by

J =1

~ 1, x ~ B(x J ) = 0 ~ 1, y

~ ~ 2, x n , x 0 0 ~ ~ 2, y n , y

0 ~ 1, y ~ 1, x

0 0 ~ ~ 2, y n , y ~ ~ 2, x n , x

(31)
xJ

Note that the moving least squares approximation does not satisfy the Kronecker delta property and hence care must be taken when enforcing boundary conditions. Of the several methods that have been developed to enforce boundary conditions in meshfree methods, the penalty method proposed by [10, 11] has been found to be especially efficient and has a significant advantage in practical applications. In this paper, the penalty method will be used for the enforcement of both kinematic

and static boundary conditions. 3.4 Stabilized equilibrium formulation In numerical equilibrium model, stress variables must be approximated. Comparing with the displacement model, the equilibrium model is more difficult to derive because the equilibrium equation, T = f , must be satisfied a prior everywhere in the problem domain. One way of addressing this is to use the Airy stress function in expressing the stress fields [4]. If no body forces is assumed, the stress fields can be expressed as

xx , yy yy = , xx xy , xy

(32)

It is easily to verify that the equilibrium equation is always satisfied, i.e.

xx , x + xy , y = , yyx , xyy = 0,
n

(33)

Using a moving least squares approximation, the Airy stress function can be approximated as

h = I I
I =1

(34)

Now introducing the smooth version of the Airy function second-derivative, problem (8) can be rewritten as a linear system (35) where a is the system vector consisting of degrees of freedom I ; the stabilized flexibility matrix

~ Fa = h

(36)

in which the matrix C(x J ) is determined by

J =1

~ 1, yy ~ ~ C(x J ) = 1, xx ~ 1, xy
and where

~ ~ 2, yy n , yy ~ ~ 2, xx n , xx ~ ~ 2, xy n , xy

(37)
xJ

~ h = CT N u d

(38)

nx 0 N= n y

0 ny nx

(39)

It is worth noting that in engineering practice problems the Neumann portion t is often longer than the Dirichlet portion t , and therefore the number of boundary nodes having stress conditions is significantly larger than the number of boundary nodes having displacement conditions. Consequently, in the equilibrium formulation if Lagrangian multiplier method is used, a large number of Lagrangian multipliers would be needed. On the contrary, when a penalty techique is used in conjunction with collocation technique [12], no additional variable is introduced and computational effort is also reduced.
4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The performance of the stabilized displacement and equilibrium EFG methods that uses a penalty approach to enforce essential boundary conditions will now be tested by examining a clamped beam subjected to a parabolic shear force, as can be seen in Figure (1). For displacement model, a linear basis was used associated with the radius of influence domain = 1.5 ; whereas a quadratic basis with = 3.0 was used for equilibrium model. In all examples, the penalty parameter was set to be equal to 10 5 . The problem was solved for the plane strain case with E = 3.0 10 7 , = 0.25 , D = 4 and L = 8 . Regular meshes of 17 9 , 33 17 , 49 25 and 65 33 were used. Energies obtained by using stabilized displacement and equilibrium meshfree models were reported in Table I. Convergence analysis is also illustrated by Figure 1. Table I: Energies obtained by stabilized displacement and equilibrium meshfree models Number of nodes Nodal spacing 0.500 0.250 0.167 0.125 Displacement model Equilibrium model

WT (u)
0.03845 0.03914 0.03927 0.03932

WC ( )

17 9 33 17 49 25 65 33

0.05948 0.04262 0.04039 0.03946

In order to illustrate the smoothness of numerical results, von Mises stresses were also plotted in Figure 2, where a very coarse mesh of 10 5 was used.

Figure 1: Convergence analysis for the beam problem (reference solution reported in [13])

Figure 2: von Mises stresses obtained by equilibrium model

5. CONCLUSIONS

Stabilized displacement and equilibrium meshfree models for solid mechanics problems have been described. A stabilized conforming nodal integration (SCNI) scheme and a penalty technique are applied, ensuring that stable and accurate solutions are obtained with minimal computational effort. Based on energies obtained by the two models, global errors can be estimated and adaptivity nodal refinement can be performed to increase the accuracy of solutions and to speed-up computational process. These aspects will be investigated in another work.

Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Nguyen-Dang Hung, University of Lige, and Dr Nguyen-Xuan Hung, University of Science VNU HCM, for their encouragement in the course of this study.

REFERENCES

[1] B. Fraeijs de Veubeke, Displacement and equilibrium models in the finite element method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Reprinted 52 (2001) 287-342. [2] B. Fraeijs de Veubeke, O. C. Zienkiewicz, Strain-energy bounds in finite element analysis by slab analogy, Journal of Strain Analysis 2 (1967) 265-271. [3] J. F. Debongnie, H. G. Zhong, P. Beckers, Dual analysis with general boundary conditions, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 122 (1995) 183-192. [4] M. Duflot, H. Nguyen-Dang, Dual analysis by a meshless method, Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 18 (2002) 621-631. [5] J. S. Chen, C. T. Wu, S. Yoon, Y. You, A stabilized conforming nodal integration for Galerkin mesh-free methods, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 50 (2001a) 435466. [6] T. Belytschko, Y. Y Lu, L. Gu, Element-Free Galerkin methods, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 37 (1994) 229-256. [7] C. V. Le, M. Gilbert, H. Askes, Limit analysis of plates using the EFG method and second-order cone programming, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 78 (2009) 15321552. [8] C. V. Le, M. Gilbert, H. Askes, Limit analysis of plates and slabs using a meshless equilibrium formulation, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 83 (2010) 1739-1758. [9] S. Beissel, T. Belytschko, Nodal integration of the element-free Galerkin method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 139 (1996) 49-74. [10] T. Zhu, S. N. Atluri, A modified collocation method and a penalty formulation for enforcing the essential boundary conditions in the Element Free Galerkin method, Computational Mechanics 21 (1998) 211-222. [11] H. Askes, T. Pannachet, Negative penalty functions in the element-free Galerkin method, Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 21 (2005) 97-98. [12] J.Y. Cho, Y.M. Song, Y.H. Choi, Boundary locking induced by penalty enforcement of essential boundary conditions in mesh-free methods, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197 (13-16) (2008) 1167-1183. [13] Zhong HG. Estimateurs derreur a posteriori et adaptation de maillages dans la mthode des lments finis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lige, 1991.