Ale Tutorial

AUTODYN
Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics

ALE Tutorial
Revision 4.3

www.century-dynamics.com

AUTODYN is a trademark of Century Dynamics, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Century Dynamics Inc. All Rights Reserved

Century Dynamics is a subsidiary of ANSYS Inc, www.ansys.com

Century Dynamics Incorporated
1001 Galaxy Way
Suite 325
Concord
CA 94520
U.S.A.
Tel: +1 925 771 2300
Fax: +1 925 771 2309
E-mail: customer@centdyn.com

Century Dynamics Limited
Dynamics House
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex, RH12 2DT
England
Tel: +44 (0) 1403 270066
Fax: +44 (0) 1403 270099
E-mail: all@centdyn.demon.co.uk

Century Dynamics
16350 Park Ten Place
Houston
TX 77084
USA
Tel: +1 281 398 6113
Fax: +1 281 398 6061
E-mail: cdhouston@centdyn.com

Century Dynamics
Rntgenlaan 15
2719 DX Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 79 36 20400
Fax: +31 79 36 30705
E-mail: sales@centurydynamics.nl

autodyn.support@century-dynamics.com

www.century-dynamics.com

www.ansys.com

Table of Contents

PREFACE........................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2. ALE Tutorial Problem No. 1 (ALEXP1)...................................................................... 5
Chapter 3. ALE Tutorial Problem No. 2 (ALEXP2).................................................................... 25
Chapter 4. ALE Tutorial Problem No. 3 (ALEXP3).................................................................... 31
Chapter 5. ALE Tutorial Problem No. 4 (HCDA) ....................................................................... 35

Appendix A. Subroutine EXALE(2D) for Tutorial Problem #3 ................................................... 41

.

Preface

1
Preface

AUTODYN Tutorial Manuals
AUTODYN tutorial manuals provide detailed tuition on particular features available in the program.
The manuals assume that you are proficient in setting up, reviewing, executing, and post processing
data for simple problems such as those presented in the AUTODYN-2D or AUTODYN-3D
demonstration manuals. If you have worked through the problems in the demonstration manual, you
should have no difficulty following the tutorials.
Most tutorials are interactive and you are expected to have access to AUTODYN while working
through the tutorial. Some tutorials have associated files which contain sample calculations used in
the tutorial.
Existing manuals are continuously updated and new manuals are created as the need arises, so
you should contact Century Dynamics if you cannot find the information that you need.

.

Chapter 1. Introduction

3
Chapter 1.

Introduction

The ALE (Arbitrary Lagrange Euler) processor in AUTODYN-2D and AUTODYN-3D allows you to
use a combination of the best features of both the Lagrangian and Eulerian methods. The multiple
processor feature of AUTODYN includes Lagrange, Euler, and Shell capabilities, as well as ALE.
In a Lagrange numerical mesh, the gridpoints move with the particle motion of the material.
Typically, Lagrange methods are very good for solids behavior wherein the material motions do not
create large mesh distortions. Material interfaces and history dependent material behavior are well
described using Lagrange. The major disadvantage of Lagrange is that for severe material
distortions or movement, the numerical mesh may become tangled causing inaccuracies in the
solution or even complete stoppage of the calculation.
In Euler, the numerical mesh stays fixed in space and the material flows through it. Material is
transported from cell to cell and, therefore by definition, there is no possibility of mesh distortion.
Euler is well suited for fluid and gas behavior and can be applied to solids where very large
distortions may occur. The primary disadvantage of Euler is that material interfaces, free surfaces,
and history dependent behavior are more difficult to model than in Lagrange.
The ALE processor in AUTODYN-2D and AUTODYN-3D allows the numerical mesh to either:
Move with the material as in a Lagrange mesh
Stay fixed in space as in an Euler mesh
Or move in an arbitrarily specified manner to provide continuous, automatic rezoning
ALE, while encompassing both Lagrange and Euler methods, has some important limitations which
can restrict its applicability to certain problems. The primary limitation of ALE is that material
interfaces and free surfaces must still be treated as Lagrange. Regions within a single material may
be rezoned according to an ALE specification but not at material boundaries. Since many numerical
difficulties tend to occur at material interfaces, the ALE technique does not necessarily avoid such
difficulties. Nevertheless, ALE provides a substantial capability with certain advantages over purely
Lagrange and Euler formulations for many problems of interest.

This tutorial shows you how to apply the ALE technique to some simple problems. These problems
are included in your AUTODYN distribution files. The following discussion pertains to both
AUTODYN-2D and AUTODYN-3D.

Short note on terminology
Various terms are used interchangeably throughout the AUTODYN manuals in referring to portions
of the numerical mesh. For clarification please note the following:
A numerical mesh is composed of a rectangular I-J (2D) or I-J-K (3D) index space. I-lines (lines of
constant I) are sometimes referred to as columns while J-lines (lines of constant J) are called
rows. In 3D, reference is made to I-planes (constant I), J-planes (constant J) and K-planes
(constant K).
Chapter 1. Introduction

A column or row is made up of a series of nodes. These nodes are sometimes equivalently
referred to as vertices or gridpoints. A set of four (2D) or eight (3D) nodes defines a zone. A
zone is generalized quadrilateral (2D) or brick (3D). Such zones are also interchangeably referred
to as cells and elements.

Basic Theory
In AUTODYN, the calculation of an ALE subgrid (a subgrid is defined as a single independent I-J
(2D) or I-J-K (3D) index space) is identical to that of a Lagrange subgrid except for the addition of a
possible rezoning phase at the end of each computational cycle. During this rezone phase, motion
constraints are applied to grid vertices and then relaxed, as specified by the user, to new positions.
For example, you could choose to keep vertices (grid points) at the average position of their
surrounding neighbors. Once these new vertex positions are defined, the corresponding advective
flux calculations (as for an Eulerian calculation) are performed to allow material to move from cell to
cell.
The net effect is a type of automatic rezoning. With the judicious selection of the right algorithm for
the specification of the grid motion, you can obtain a more efficient as well as more accurate
solution to your problem. Because of the additional rezoning phase, a computational cycle
(timestep) will take longer to compute than for an equivalent purely Lagrange cycle. However, the
savings from the elimination of time consuming discrete Lagrange rezoning (see the AUTODYN
Rezone Tutorial) and a possibly larger timestep provided by the improved mesh can more than
compensate for the additional computation required.

4

Chapter 2. ALE Tutorial Problem No. 1 (ALEXP1)

5

Your AUTODYN distribution contains the sample problems used in this tutorial. This first ALE
problem is similar for both AUTODYN-2D and AUTODYN-3D. A highly compressible foam material
is impacted against a rigid wall. Using a purely Lagrange technique it is shown that the mesh
compacts to very long and narrow zone sizes. Such zones are not very accurate. Moreover, they
can lead to small time steps or even termination of the calculation due to mesh distortion and
tangling. Employing an ALE technique to automatically rezone the mesh allows a much more
efficient and accurate solution.
The ALEXP1 problem in AUTODYN-2D is a cylinder (axial symmetry) while the AUTODYN-3D
problem is a 3D rectangular block. Appropriate velocity boundary conditions have been specified in
both problems to obtain a one-dimensional problem for purposes of illustrating the ALE technique.
Begin by activating AUTODYN on your computer in the normal fashion: type AUTORUN2 or
AUTORUN3. Then load Ident: ALEXP1. The screen images shown below are from AUTODYN-2D
but will be virtually identical for AUTODYN-3D.

Choose Modify from the main menu and then View the problem that has already been set up by
selecting Matplot, Vecplot, and Boundplot:

6


7


In both the 2D and 3D simulations only one-dimensional (horizontal) motion has been allowed. This
is accomplished by constraining the y-velocity in 2D and both the y- and z-velocities in 3D. (For the
3D case, you may view these boundary conditions by selecting the displayed boundary condition
names as they appear in the pop-up window.) Constraining the x-velocity to 0 simulates a rigid wall
on the right side of the subgrid.
The problem has been initially defined using a Lagrange processor. If you run this problem you will
obtain the following grid at ~1 microsecond:

(Note: the 3D solution requires a slightly different number of cycles to reach the 1 microsecond
wrapup time)
Note that the first several columns on the right have been compressed to a very small width. This
can be better seen using the Zoom function as shown below:

8


9

Such highly distorted zones are generally undesirable for reasons of accuracy and efficiency. One
solution would be to use the interactive rezoner to respace vertices in the impact region and make
the zones larger. An alternative solution is to run the calculation using the ALE processor to
maintain an optimum grid. We will employ the ALE processor by modifying the above sample
problem. The foam subgrid will be changed from Lagrange to ALE and then suitable motion
constraints will be applied to the vertices of the numerical grid.
The Lagrange and ALE processors are fully compatible in that the user may switch between the two
formulations at any time before or during a calculation in any given subgrid. We first reload cycle 0
of ALEXP1. To change the processor type for the foam subgrid (CYLINDER), first select Subgrid
from the GLOBAL/SUBGRID menu:


(Note that a Material Location plot has been displayed above, previously obtained by View-
Material-Location)
We have only one subgrid named CYLINDER (in 3D the subgrid name is ONE) which is displayed
in the popup window. We select CYLINDER (or ONE for 3D) by pressing return.

10


11

We then select Options.


We select Processor and then switch from Lagrange to ALE by pressing the space bar once. Note
that AUTODYN only allows switching between Lagrange and ALE. Other processors (e.g. Shell,
Euler) are not compatible and thus are not offered as options.
The Active option is not used here. Active is only used in situations where you want a subgrid to be
activated or deactivated in a calculation starting at a specified time. This might be useful in saving
calculational time, when you know the subgrid will have no activity for a period of time.
We press <return> to close the popup window.

12


13

We return to the Subgrid menu by pressing <escape> once. A new Motions option, applicable to
ALE subgrids only, now appears. The Motions option is used to specify the motion constraints for
the ALE vertices. We select Motions.


The following Motion options are then available:
Block: Assign a motion constraint to a block of vertices in index space. Note that within a
subgrid, different blocks may use different motion constraints.

I-line: Assign a motion constraint to vertices along an I-line
J-line: Assign a motion constraint to vertices along a J-line
Node: Assign a motion constraint to a single vertex
Spacing: Set geometric ratios used in constraints that utilize geometric spacing
Frequency: Define the frequency for ALE rezoning. By default the rezoning will occur
every cycle. It is recommended that this default be taken for most cases.
Relax: Define the relaxation parameter for ALE rezoning. Relax has a value 0.0 Relax
< 1.0. By default, Relax is set to 1.0, which denotes that the node will be moved
completely to its newly defined ALE position. Numbers less than 1.0 specify that the
node will be moved that fraction from its current position to the new ALE position. It is
recommended that the default be taken for most cases.
View: View the current motion constraints as applied to the subgrid

14


15

If you select View, you will see that initially, by default, all vertices are free of any motion constraints
and are treated as Lagrange. An ALE subgrid without motion constraints will be equivalent to
Lagrange, except that it will take computationally longer.


Press <escape> once to return to the Motions menu. The first four options of the Motions menu
allow you to assign motion constraints to various portions of the subgrid. We select Block and enter
the above data. By default, the entire subgrid range is selected. We wish to apply the same motion
constraint to the entire subgrid so we simply press enter four times. We then have various options
for the motion constraints:
Equipotential: This option is perhaps the most general-purpose choice when the
expected flow is unknown. An equipotential algorithm is used to position the vertex
relative to its nearest neighbors.

Free (Lagrange): This is the default. Each vertex moves in a free Lagrangian manner
Fixed (Euler): Each vertex is fixed in (x,y) space.
Equal spacing in X: The x-coordinate of each vertex (i,j) is moved to the average position
of its four neighbors. The y-coordinate is unchanged.
Equal spacing in Y: Analogous to equal spacing in X
Equally spaced I: Each vertex is moved to a point equidistant between adjacent I-lines
(columns)
Equally spaced J: Analogous to equally spaced I

16


17

Equally spaced (I, J): Each vertex is moved to the midpoint between adjacent I-lines and
J-lines
Geom. spaced I: Analogous to Equally spaced I except that the specified geometric ratio
will be used to space I-lines in the direction of increasing I.
Geom. spaced J: Analogous to Geom. spaced I
Geom. spaced (I,J): Analogous to Equally spaced (I,J) except that geometric ratios can
be applied to the spacing
Flow averaged: This option is useful in situations where the flow is diverse and none of
the previously described options are obviously applicable. Flow averaging is designed to
maintain good spacing of grid lines in the direction of flow. An octagon is constructed
around each (i,j) vertex by joining the eight surrounding vertices. The velocity vector at
(i,j) intersects this polygon at two points. The vertex (i,j) is moved to the midpoint of these
two intersections.
User defined: This option allows you to specify your own motion constraints using
subroutine EXALE. By including your own custom subroutine you may specify an
arbitrary positioning of vertices.
For this example problem, which is one-dimensional, we choose Equally spaced I.

Note that in AUTODYN-3D the same motion constraints as above are available with the addition of
the analogous features for the z-direction and k-index.


Selecting View, you are shown the above picture(without I,J notations) which indicates that I=1 and
I=IMAX will be treated as Free (Lagrange). Remember that free surfaces and material interfaces in
an ALE subgrid must be treated as Lagrange, except for certain special conditions. Thus, even
though we have specified Eq.Sp.I for the entire grid, AUTODYN automatically resets any
inconsistent motion constraints. After redefinition to Lagrange, any other specified boundary
conditions (stress, velocity, etc.) will then be applied. In our case, the previously defined fixed
velocity condition at I=IMAX, representing a fixed wall, will be utilized.
Any nodes that are co-linear (2D) or co-planar (3D), even though they may be on a grid boundary,
may have an ALE constraint so long as the nodes remain co-linear or co-planar. In our example
case, J = 1 and J = JMAX which are initially co-linear and will remain so because of imposed
velocity conditions. Thus, they will remain as Equally spaced I even though they are on a grid
boundaries.
We can verify this by selecting Next.

18


19

We now see that the vertices at J=1 and J=JMAX will use the Eq.Sp.I motion constraint.


We return to the Motions menu by pressing <escape>.
Additional Motions options are available.
The Spacing option allows you to set the geometric ratios used with motion constraints which utilize
ratios (e.g. Geom. spaced I, etc.) . The default ratios are 1.0 as shown above. You can define one
set of ratios for each subgrid. The equally spaced I-line specification does not use geometric ratios
and so we can skip this option by pressing <escape>.

20


21

The Frequency option allows you to specify the frequency of cycles where ALE rezoning will be
performed. The default as shown is every cycle (1). This is the recommended value for most cases.

For our problem we will keep the recommended default of 1 by pressing return.


The Relax option specifies a relaxation coefficient for the ALE rezoning. The relaxation parameter
defines the rate at which vertices are relaxed to the positions specified by their motion constraints.
The coefficient value must be 0.0 Relax < 1.0 . If the value is 1.0, vertices are moved directly to
their constrained positions immediately. If the value is 0.5, they would be moved halfway from their
current position to the constrained position.
The default, as shown, is 1.0 . If there are significant differences between the initial coordinates and
the constrained positions, it is recommended to specify the relaxation coefficient less than 1.0 to
allow the vertices to move over several rezones. For example, a coefficient of 0.2 will allow the
gradual movement of the vertices to their constrained positions over several ALE rezone cycles. In
our example, the initial coordinates and the constrained positions are both equally spaced I-lines, so
there will not be an immediate large ALE rezoning required. The default of 1.0 can be therefore be
taken.
ALE rezoning will be most accurate when the remapping phase does not involve large advective
fluxes (i.e. large differences between current vertex and constrained positions). Generally, it is
recommended to always utilize the default frequency of 1 and the default relaxation coefficient of
1.0. This has been proved to provide a more efficient and more accurate solution as the advective
fluxes in a given rezone cycle are minimized.

The input for this example is now complete. We return to the main menu by pressing <escape>
several times. We can Save the database and then Execute.

22


23
Upon reaching the Wrapup time the gridplot below appears. Note that now that the I-lines are
equally spaced and that reasonable zone sizes are maintained as compared with the purely
Lagrange calculation (shown on page 9).

There are very different internal mesh sizes between the two calculations. The ALE simulation
provides a very regular mesh while the Lagrange approach has extremely small zones. Moreover, in
this example it only takes the ALE calculation 29 cycles to achieve the 1 microsecond wrapup time
vs 103 cycles for the Lagrange calculation. This is a direct result of the larger timestep allowed by
the larger zonal dimensions of the ALE simulation.
(Note: if you are comparing the 2D and 3D solutions there is a difference in the number of cycles
required between 2D and 3D. The timestep is calculated differently in the two programs because of
the additional dimension in 3D).

Final note: As in most situations, there is always a trade off in using different numerical techniques.
It has been shown above that the ALE technique can provide a much more regular mesh. On the
other hand, it is also true that the spatial resolution at the impact front will be much finer for the
Lagrange calculation. In the Lagrange case, many cells define the gradient that will exist in the
impact region versus ALE where a single averaged cell must resolve this the spatial variation. This
can be readily demonstrated by producing a profile plot of pressure along the foam subgrid. Utilizing
the Post Processing profile plot feature produces the following ALE and Lagrange results,
respectively:

ALE Calculation

Lagrange Calculation

The large pressure peak is averaged out in the ALE calculation. However, the impulse at the wall
(an integral quantity) will be comparable for the two calculations.

24


25

A second ALE tutorial problem is provided in which a solid unstressed steel cylinder is translated
with a fixed velocity. As the cylinder translates in space, the internal vertices undergo major
rezoning through use of the ALE processor. This example, while artificial, does show the power of
the ALE processor.
Load cycle 0 of this problem (Ident: ALEXP2) and select Modify, View, Gridplot:


Selecting Vecplot we can see the constant translational velocity.

26


27

The ALE motion constraints may be viewed by selecting Subgrid, Motions, View. Equally spaced
(I,J) has been specified (free Lagrange overwrites the option of equally-spaced (I,J) ). Note that the
outer free surface will be automatically treated as Lagrange with no motion constraints. Choosing
Next we see that the interior nodes will be constrained according to Eq.Sp.(I,J):


The Frequency has been specified as 1 (every cycle) and the Relaxation coefficient as 0.2 . Use of
a Relaxation coefficient less than 1.0 is important as the initial coordinates initially differ greatly from
the specified ALE positions ( Eq. Sp (I, J) ). This will allow the coordinates to be adjusted gradually.
Note that once the coordinates have found their natural position, the user may reset the relaxation
coefficient to 1.0 .

28


29


Execute the problem until wrapup (10 cycles) and you will see the grid has been gradually rezoned
to the much smoother zoning shown above.
Advective fluxes are accurately computed during the ALE rezoning so that the cylinder remains
unstressed and maintains its initial constant velocity throughout the calculation.

The equivalent AUTODYN-3D problem also produces a similar mesh. Note that the velocity in 3D
has been specified at an angle as a variation on the 2D problem.

30


31

If the standard motion constraints offered by AUTODYN do not meet your needs, you may provide
your own constraints by including the user subroutine EXALE.
A detailed discussion of how to include user subroutines in AUTODYN is given in the User
Subroutines Tutorial. If you are not familiar with the procedure, please refer to that tutorial.
The EXALE capability exists for both AUTODYN-2D and AUTODYN-3D. However, this third tutorial
problem is only provided for AUTODYN-2D. A subroutine EXALE.TUT which is a small Fortran
program is included with your AUTODYN-2D distribution. This EXALE.TUT should replace the
regular (dummy) routine included in USRSUB2.F .
Start AUTODYN-2D and Load ALEXP3.
If you quickly view this problem you will see that it consists of a tantalum cylinder impacting a rigid
wall. The grid is similar to the one used in the first sample problem, but the outer surface of the
cylinder can deform radially in this case.


32


33

The subroutine EXALE shown in Appendix A and included with your distribution will provide a
constraint that keeps all I-lines vertical by setting the horizontal (x) position of each vertex on a
given I-line to the same x-coordinate as the vertex at the outer (JMAX) row. In addition, the
subroutine equally spaces the vertices along each I-line.
The subroutine logic is straightforward and is documented within the routine.
Executing the problem for 100 cycles provides the following grid:


The user defined constraint works properly with all of the I-lines remaining vertical and the nodes
along each I-line spaced equally.

34

Chapter 5. ALE Tutorial Problem No. 4 (HCDA)

35

The above examples were relatively simple in formulation. The following example illustrates some of
the real power of the ALE technique used in a three-dimensional simulation. The problem is a TNT
explosion inside a water filled tank. The tank walls in this example are taken as rigid. When
calculated using a Lagrange formulation, the TNT rapidly expands, in the process compressing the
surrounding water and causing large distortions and crushing of the water cells. This can lead to
inaccuracies and the premature termination of the calculation. An alternative is to employ ALE which
will maintain the water region with a much more regular mesh.
The HCDA (Hypothetical Core Disruptive Accident) problem is only included with the AUTODYN-3D
distribution. Start AUTODYN-3D and Load Ident: HCDA.
The problem is already completely defined and ready to Execute. View the problem setup by
producing various plots:


You see two identical 1/4 cylinders. The left cylinder uses a Lagrange processor while the right
cylinder uses an ALE processor. The ALE motion constraint is specified as equipotential for the
entire subgrid. AUTODYN will automatically redefine material interfaces and free surfaces as
Lagrange as required. Running the Lagrange and ALE formulations side by side allows you to
observe the differences between the two approaches. Planes of symmetry are specified for X and Y.

36


37

A small charge of TNT is located along the axis of each cylinder. This is detonated at time=0.0 . The
expansion of the explosion and compression of the surrounding water is apparent. The water free
surface is accelerated upward eventually impacting on a steel cover plate. Note that the ALE
solution provides a much smoother mesh in the water region. This allows a more accurate and
potentially much longer problem time to be attained. The Lagrange solution will eventually terminate
because of tangled and distorted water cells.

It is instructive to view the Motion constraints for this problem. At cycle 0 the entire ALE subgrid is
specified with an Equipotential constraint. AUTODYN then checks the ALE motion constraints and
automatically redefines any material interfaces and free (non-planar) surfaces as Lagrange. Note
that nodes that lie along symmetry planes, even though they are on the surface of the mesh are not
interpreted as free surfaces and will still be constrained to be rezoned according to the equipotential
specification. Moreover, nodes on the top surface of the mesh which initially lie on a plane will be
treated as Equipotential until the free surface becomes non-planar due to the dynamic upward
movement of the water.

38


39

You will also note that the internally joined nodes necessitated by the Type 2 cylinder predef are
treated as Lagrange.


Viewing the ALE motion constraints at cycle 150 after the upper surface of the water starts to move
and is no longer planar, the nodes are now treated as Free (Lagrange) and will not be subject to
rezoning. At a later stage, should these nodes again lie on a plane due to impact on the upper plate,
they could again be subject to equipotential ALE rezoning.
Thus, AUTODYN will automatically apply the ALE motion constraints whenever it is possible to do
so and will dynamically redefine these constraints, between Free Lagrange and the specified ALE
motion constraints.
You are referred to the publication Calculation of Blast Loading in the High Performance Magazine
with AUTODYN-3D, Department of Defense Explosive Safety Seminar, Miami, 1994 for further
illustration of the use of the ALE processor of AUTODYN-3D for the calculation of explosive-
structure interaction problems.

40

Appendix A. Subroutine EXALE(2D) for Tutorial Problem #3

Appendix A. Subroutine EXALE(2D) for Tutorial Problem #3
SUBROUTINE EXALE (IREZ,JREZ,NREZ,XREZ,YREZ)

USE mdgrid
USE kindef
USE locsub
USE wrapup

IMPLICIT NONE

INTEGER (INT4) :: IREZ, JREZ, NREZ
REAL (REAL8) :: XREZ, YREZ

INTEGER (INT4) :: IJMAX, IJ
REAL (REAL8) :: DYB

! ******************************************************************
!
! THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE CONSTRAINED GRID VELOCITIES FOR
! VERTICES ASSIGNED THE "USER" MOTION CONSTRAINT
!
! INPUT PARAMETERS:
!
! IREZ - I INDEX FOR VERTEX TO BE CONSTRAINED
! JREZ - J INDEX FOR VERTEX TO BE CONSTRAINED
! NREZ - SUBGRID # FOR VERTEX TO BE CONSTRAINED
! XREZ - CURRENT X-COORDINATE OF VERTEX
! YREZ - CURRENT Y-COORDINATE OF VERTEX
!
! OUTPUT PARAMETERS:
!
! XREZ - CONSTRAINED X-COORDINATE OF VERTEX
! YREZ - CONSTRAINED Y-COORDINATE OF VERTEX
!
! ******************************************************************
!
! THIS LOGIC SETS THE X-COORDINATE OF EACH VERTEX (I,J) TO THE
! X-VALUE AT VERTEX (I,JMAX) AND EQUALLY SPACES THE Y-COORDINATES
! BETWEEN (I,1) AND (I,JMAX)
!
IJMAX = IJSET(IREZ,JMAX)
IJ = IJSET(IREZ,JREZ)
XREZ = XN(IJMAX)
DYB = YN(IJMAX)/FLOAT(JMAX-1)
YREZ = DYB*FLOAT(JREZ-1)
!
! TERMINATION OF SUBROUTINE EXALE
RETURN
END SUBROUTINE EXALE
41

Ale Tutorial

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ale Tutorial

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AUTODYN

Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi