Implicit and Explicit Finite Element Method - IMechanica

5/21/2014 Implicit and Explicit finite element method | iMechanica
http://imechanica.org/node/5396 1/12
iMechanica
web of mechanics and
mechanicians
recent posts user list about contact poll
research education mechanician opinion software industry conference job
video
Search
User login
Username: *
Password: *
Log in
Create new
account
Request new
password
Navigation
Post a new blog
entry
Search
iMechanica
Recent blog
posts
Postdoctoral
Associate in
Computational
Mechanics
Looking for a
postdoc
position in US
Post Doctoral
Researcher in
Experimental
Analysis of
Composite
Manufacturing
Processes
Introduction of
the hyperfoam
model in
ABAQUS
box rayban
wayfarer
sunglasses
such as swing
sets rayban
sunglasses
sale
loved ray ban
polarized
wayfarer
Motorola Atrix
2 accessories
rb3025
country, blues,
hip hop ray
ban rb2140
possibly save
a little time
rayban 3025
more
What we
talked about
ABAQUS
tutorial
Home blogs vijay310105's blog
Implicit and Explicit finite element method
Submitted by vijay310105 on Mon, 2009-05-04 13:24. education
i am not clear about implicit and explicit FEM
kindly let me know the difference of two and where to use which one
vijay310105's blog Login or register to post comments 89249 reads
difference between explicit and implicit FEM
Submitted by yawlou on Mon, 2009-05-04 14:34.
Hello,
The following is how I understand it. I have done some of both in
graduate school. The following is a brief answer, since this would
take a lot to answer thoroughly.
1. Preliminary comments regarding the incremental nature of Explicit and
Implicit Analysis
A geometric and/or material nonlinear analysis requires incremental load (or
displacement) steps. At the end of each increment the structure geometry
changes and possibly the material is nonlinear or the material has yielded.
Each of these things, geometry change or material change, may then need to
be considered as you update your stiffness matrix for the next increment in the
analysis.
2. Explicit
An Explicit FEM analysis does the incremental procedure and at the end of each
increment updates the stiffness matrix based on geometry changes (if
applicable) and material changes (if applicable). Then a new stiffness matrix is
constructed and the next increment of load (or displacement) is applied to the
system. In this type of analysis the hope is that if the increments are small
enough the results will be accurate. One problem with this method is that you
do need many small increments for good accuracy and it is time consuming. If
the number of increments are not sufficient the solution tends to drift from the
correct solution. Futhermore this type of analysis cannot solve some
problems. Unless it is quite sophisticated it will not successfully do cyclic
loading and will not handle problems of snap through or snap back. Perhaps
most importantly, this method does not enforce equilibrium of the internal
structure forces with the externally applied loads.
3. Implicit
An Implicit FEM analysis is the same as Explicit with the addition that after each
increment the analysis does Newton-Raphson iterations to enforce equilibrium
of the internal structure forces with the externally applied loads. The
equilibirium is usually enforced to some user specified tolerance. So this is the
primary difference between the two types of anlysis, Implicit uses Newton-
Raphson iterations to enforce equilibrium. This type of analysis tends to be
more accurate and can take somewhat bigger increment steps. Also, this type
of analysis can handle problems better such as cyclic loading, snap through,
and snap back so long as sophisticated control methods such as arc length
control or generalized displacement control are used. One draw back of the
method is that during the Newton-Raphson iterations one must update and
reconstruct the stiffness matrix for each iteration. This can be computationally
costly. (As a result there are other techniques that try to avoid this cost by
using Modified Newton-Raphson methods.) If done correctly the Newton-
Raphson iterations will have a quadratic rate of convergence which is very
desireable.
A suggestion. If you'd like to learn further about these two techniques it
would be instructive for you to use both techniques and compare on the same
Quick guide
Ask iMechanica
Having difficulty with
posting comments?
How to add an image
How to post an entry
Journal Club
Lecture notes
RSS Feeds
FAQ
Similar links
What is the status of
open source finite
element code?
New theory of elasticity
& deformation
Beam Theory
Journal Club Theme of
December 2009:
Impact Behaviour of
Materials with Cellular
Structures
SIMULATION OF
WELDING
Recent comments
Karel Matous,
9 sec ago
a good sample
21 hours 44 min ago
Hi Sam, So far in my
2 days 9 hours ago
XFEM learning
2 days 9 hours ago
Dr. Ramesh Gupta, PhD
3 days 23 hours ago
Dimensions? Velocity?
4 days 19 hours ago
Re: Equivalent shear
strain question aka too
dumb/too tough
5 days 15 hours ago
Hi Anthony, I noticed
6 days 3 hours ago
Some additional info
may be required:
6 days 5 hours ago
Could you reproduce
exactly
6 days 7 hours ago
More comments
comments at a glance
Popular content
Today's:
I share the vision of
iMechanica, but am not
ready to post anything,
should I register?
How to cite a journal
article in your post?
ABAQUS UMAT
Cauchy stress
Geometry &
Mechanics
in situ
Mechanics
Large elastic
deformation
Logarithmic
strain
Mechanics of
growth
Mesh-free
methods
Objective rates
of stress
Plastic potential
Poroelasticity
Stress and
strain
Temperature
tensor
tensor and its
invariants
Timoshenko
lectures
Viscoelasticity
Why is rubber
incompressible?
Writing a paper
Writing a
proposal
Sites of
interest
AAM
AMD
Basic energy
science
Buckled Shells
CFD online
eFluids
Electroactive
polymers
EMI
IUTAM
PolymerFEM
PoroNet
SES
Soft Matter
World
USNC/TAM
problem. Explicit can be done by simply turning off Newton-Raphson iterations
in an Implicit routine, or by setting the equilibrium tolerance to a large number
in an implicit routine.
As to the question of which method to use, the answer is that it depends. The
type of analysis that is sufficient for your needs will depend on the type of
problem that you are trying to solve. Often times since dynamic analyses are
computationally intensive they are done with the explicit method. However,
for static problems now days it is becoming more common to do the full Implicit
type of analysis.
Nonlinear analysis takes lots of experience and a careful understanding of
what you want to accomplish and also a careful understanding of the anlaysis
capabilities of the software you are trying to use. As I mentioned I have
worked with the above methods of analysis in graduate school and know a
little about it, however, I would be happy for others here at iMechanica who
have more experience than me to give their thoughts on this as well.
It is indeed a very big topic that is difficult to cover in just a brief blog. You
should consider looking at Crisfield's book volume 1 for additional information.
Also, look at the following location for nonlinear fem information
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/NFEM.d/Home.html
I hope this helps,
Louie
Login or register to post comments

good
Submitted by safaei on Mon, 2009-11-09 08:04.
thanks

thanks a lot for the
Submitted by sriramk on Fri, 2012-02-24 23:54.
thanks a lot for the information that u have posted.
using abaqus/explicit is that possible to do machining simulation?


Machining simulation is indeed possible with
ABAQUS/Explicit.
Submitted by nas on Wed, 2012-09-12 07:24.
Hi, It is ofcourse possible to simulate machining process. I have
performed simulation of drilling in ABAQUS/Explicit

Thanks a lot for your
Submitted by nikohj on Mon, 2009-05-04 20:58.
Thanks a lot for your explanation.
It is also quite useful for me.

(and how to access a
paper cited in someone
elses post?)
How to email a post or
a comment to a friend
Post-doc position in
Computational
Mechanics: Crash
Modeling and
Simulation
Looking for a
Postdoctoral Position
2014
About iMechanica
Abschlussarbeit
Numerische Verfahren
in der
Kontaktmechanik
Forschung,Voraus- und
Technologieentwicklung
Theoretical and Applied
Mechanics Letters, Vol
4, Issue, 1, 2014
box rayban wayfarer
sunglasses
Online now
There are currently 6 users
and 123 guests online.
Syndicate
Implicite vs Explicit solution
Submitted by Peyman Khosravi on Fri, 2009-05-08 18:56.
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
Hi Vijay;
Generally there are two methods to solve a dynamic
equilibrium equation at every time step. One method is to predict the solution at
time t+dt by using the solution at time t. This is called explicit. In this
method, one does not need to inverse the stiffness matrix (see the book Finite
Element Procedures, 1996,
Bathe, page 770 for explanation). This may seem at first a good method, however
one should note that it is not stable (i.e. it diverges from the correct
answer) unless the time step is very small. This is why it is called
conditionally stable. So it is used only when the time duration of the problem
is short (like crash problems).
On the other hand, one can solve the equation at time t+dt
based on itself, and also using the solution which has been found for time t. This is
called
implicit, and the most famous one is Newmark method. In this case you need to
inverse the stiffness matrix (because of
the nature of the equations), however since it can be unconditionally stable you
may be able to choose a larger time step. This is a great advantage, which
enables us to finish the problem faster.
For more information refer to the above book.
Cheers
Peyman

the words explicit and implicit used in dynamics
and statics
Submitted by yawlou on Thu, 2009-05-07 20:29.
Thanks Peyman
I'm glad that Peyman has added his comments. My experience
using the words explicit and implicit has been in the context of static
problems. However, Peyman has wisely added comments for the case when
the words explicit and implicit are used in a dynamic context. This added
information provided by Peyman makes the discussion more complete.
regards,
Louie


Question for Louie
Submitted by kajalschopra on Fri, 2009-05-08 16:57.
Dear Sir,
While you were talking about "Explicit" analysis above, you said:
"Perhaps most importantly, this method does not enforce equilibrium of the
internal structure forces with the externally applied loads. "
I have a simple question (pleae excuse me if fundamentally wrong)
While we upgrade the stiffness matrix, following geometry or/and material
change (if applicable), we solve F = ku, which indeed is the equilibrium
equation, then, how ican we say equilibrium is not enforced?
Thanks,
kajal

answer for kajal
Submitted by yawlou on Fri, 2009-05-08 19:04.
Hi Kajal,
In an incremental analysis the equation F=kU is really F=
(kcurrent)u, so you apply an incremental force and get an
incremental corresponding displacement using the current stiffness
matrix. The current stiffness matrix is based on the current material properties
and possibly the current geometry if significant geometry changes have taken
place.
If you sum up all the incremental externally applied forces and compare them
to the current internal forces they will not be in equilibrium.
You are asking a very good question that is one of the very fundamental
issues of a nonlinear static analysis. The fact that the forces are not in
equilibrium, between internal and external forces, is the very reason that we
must use Newton-Raphson iterations to correct each u until external and
internal forces are in equilibrium for the load step we are currently working on.
As a first step to understanding this it would be helpful for you to go over the
Newton-Raphson method for a single nonlinear equation f(x). You may find
this in standard numerical analysis text books. Then usually the books also
discuss how to extend the method to a set of simultaneous nonlinear
equations. Essentially, we are solving F=F(u), where if we linearize this
equation the stiffness matrix k(u) is a nonlinear function of u. We keep
updating it and it does not stay constant. Hence, the sum of our incremental
internal forces are not equal to the sum of the incrementally applied external
forces.
This is indeed a difficult thing to explain in words. You will need to consult
some nonlinear finite element textbooks and ponder this for a while. Perhaps
do a single bar in tension with a geometrically nonlinear stiffness equal to
k(u)=1+u^2,(therefore since df/du=k(u), by integration it follows that
f(u)=u+u^3/3). Apply three equal load increments of 1 unit each. The results
are as follows by repeatedly using the relation f=k(u)u:
Step1, uo=0, k(uo)=1, f=1, u1=f/k(uo)=1
Step2, u1=uo+u1=1, k(u1)=2, f=1, u2=f/k(u1)=1/2
Step3, u2=u1+u2=1.5, k(u2)=3.25, f=1, u3=f/k(u2)=1/3.25
u3=u2+u31.81
The sum of external applied forces is 1+1+1=3=Fext
The current internal forces are f(u3)=Fint=(u3+(u3)^3/3)3.79
Hence it is clear that FextFint, not in equilibrium.
To be clear, my example is an illustration of an explicit analysis with just 3 load
steps. If instead we applied 6 load steps of 0.5 units of force Fint and Fext
would be closer to each other in value. For an Implicit analysis, using Newton-
Raphson iterations, Fint would be equal to Fext to the precision that we
specify/ or at best to the precision of the computer.
I hope this helps and hopefully I didn't make any computational mistakes
above.
regards,
Louie

A correction to my previous comment
Submitted by Peyman Khosravi on Fri, 2009-05-08 19:11.
Thanks Louie;
I would like to correct my previous comment (I edited that):
Regarding the implicit and explicit dynamic analysis methods, no
Newton-Raphson iteration is required unless we deal with a
problem which is nonlinear in its nature e.g. geometrically nonlinear problems.
So the main difference as I said is in the stability of the method and required
time step and inversing stiffeness matrix. Overall, explicite methods are not
usually recommended.
Another good reference is chapter 20 of the book written by "Edward L.
Wilson" which is available on his website for free, however instead of t and
t+dt he uses t-dt and t. If you want to use this reference, remember that there
used to be some typos in the coefficients of table 20.1. So check it before
using it.
Thanks

questions on louie's example
Submitted by kajalschopra on Sat, 2009-05-09 13:02.
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for the reply.
You said:
"----Perhaps do a single bar in tension with a geometrically nonlinear stiffness
equal to k(u)=1+u^2,(therefore since df/du=k(u), by integration it follows that
f(u)=u+u^3/3).----"
Sorry, if what i am asking is too stupid:
I understand that by integrating we get f(u) = u + u^3/3--here f(u) is the
internal force.
1) Can you show me the internal force in the bar at every step of incremental
displacement- without using the integrated formula.In other words I do not
want that f(u1),f(u2),f(u3) to come from using the integrated formula-I want to
physically use summation to get final internal force.Please excuse me for
asking a entry level question.
2)Basically, with increase in displacement, the stiffness of the bar should
reduce-where in your example is this degradation of stiffness reflected?Can
you show me the reduction in stiffness at Step 1, step 2, step 3?
Respects,
kajal

just an example function to illustrate explicit
analysis
Submitted by yawlou on Sun, 2009-05-10 14:27.
Hi Kajal,
Answers to your questions:
1) For the example as given, one cannot calculate the internal force without
using the equation. The problem would need to be more elaborate and have
strains calculated and stress strain relations prescribed as is done in a normal
solid mechanics finite element problem. Then the internal stresses could be
calculated from those relations. From the internal stresses the internal forces
may be obtained. This is often done by using the common expression "integral
of B transpose times sigma".
2)There is no law or requirement that says the stiffness must degrade. In fact,
for the example I have given, the stiffness for this problem increases with
displacement. Stiffening with increasing displacement is actually possible in
real problems, so the problem is not too farfetched.
Additional Comments/observations
1. The example given was constructed to demonstrate an incremental explicit
analysis for a simple static problem. The 3 steps provided illustrate the
incremental approach and the final comparison between the external applied
loads and the final internal force showing that the explicit analysis does not
stay in equilibrium. More load steps would be required to achieve better
equilibrium or an implicit analysis would be needed to enforce equilibrium by
using Newton-Raphson iterations.
2. I say that the example is for a geometrically nonlinear analysis, however,
there is really nothing here that establishes it as geometrically nonlinear. We
could just as easily have said it was materially nonlinear, for this problem.
What is most important for the purposes of this example is that F is a
NONLINEAR function of displacement. An explicit analysis is a way to
approximately analyze the nonlinear problem as illustrated. It would be
helpful for you to plot load versus displacement comparing the exact solution
to the explicit data points that are calculated. A simple matlab problem can be
constructed to do this and it will illustrate how increasing the number of
increments can improve the results.
3. The problem is just a contrived example where force is GIVEN as a
nonlinear function of displacement. In general in a nonlinear finite element
analysis we do not have an exact closed form expression for the load versus
displacement. Instead we would have to keep track of the strains in the
structure we are analyzing and from those internal strains we may calculate
the internal stresses and from the stresses we may calculate the internal
forces. Theses steps are not shown in the simple problem I have posed
above. The problem above only illustrates many of the relevant concepts
associated with force, stiffness, explicit, implicit, the incremental nature of the
solution procedure, external forces, internal forces, lack of equilibrium, and if
someone does more steps it illustrates the improvement of results between
Fext and Fint.
I hope this helps,
Louie


explicit and implicit at global level in static
context
Submitted by yawlou on Fri, 2009-05-29 20:52.
Several comments.
1. To be complete it may be helpful to recognize that the explicit
and implicit methods I have described in previous posts above are for static
problems at the global level. (Peyman has mentioned explicit and implicit in a
dynamic context) At the constitutive level (at a material point in the structure)
it is also possible to have either explicit or implicit computer routines that solve
for the amount of plastic flow that the material point has undergone (in the
case of plasticity). This process at the constitutive level is at a local material
point and I have not discussed that in my previous blogs. Therefore, it is
helpful to realize that explicit and implicit may be used in a variety of contexts.
2. For the simple problem I have mentioned above I have created a small
tutorial that describes the explicit method and the implicit method. There are
also matlab files(which go with the tutorial) I have constructed which
demonstrate the explicit and implicit methods for the simple problem. The
tutorial is fairly basic and perhaps I will find time to improve it over time, but for
now it is short and to the point. The files may be found at the following
location.
http://people.wallawalla.edu/~louie.yaw/nonlinear/
This is for iMechanica and all individuals who have a sincere desire to learn.
regards,
Louie

Solving large plastic deformation quasi-static problems
Submitted by Sidhu on Tue, 2010-08-24 07:29.
Normal
0
21
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Why are implicit
solvers (implicit FEM software) such as MSC.Marc, Deform, Forge, are preferred
(dominates) to explicit FEM (LS-Dyna) in solving large deformation quasi-static
problems such as e.g. in case of metal forming with an expectation sheet metal
forming/IHU?

Are explicit
solvers (LS-Dyna) are faster in solving large plastic deformation quasi-static
problems? How about the accuracy of the results when compared with implicit
solvers?

Are explicit solvers or contact algorithms used in
explicit FEM (LS-Dyna) faster in Elasto-Plastic slide contact with friction?

Thank you Prof Louie
Submitted by karthic_newbee on Tue, 2010-08-24 21:21.
Dear Prof Louie

Your handouts are a treat to read. Very nicely written and clear explanations
are given.
Thank you very much for enhancing our knowledge

Karthic
NTU, singapore

Few related queries
Submitted by sagarfea on Tue, 2011-05-24 00:02.
Hello everyone,

Can someone please guide me on these queries, so that it will be usefull to
all:

1. When we should go for Explicit Analysis(few thumb rules).
2. What is the difference between Implicit Dynamics and Explicit
Dynamics. (is Explicit analysis is prefered for all dynamic problems??)

Waiting for the answer.......!

Sagar


stiffness matrix in explicit method
Submitted by julianxqwang on Fri, 2011-08-05 02:23.
Hi Everyone,
I have been trying to use DYNA3D for dynamic analysis of very flexible
structures. The discussion here is very instructive. I have one question: in the
explicit method, is the tangent or the nonlinear stiffness matrix explicitly
generated so that it can be output or not? If not, is there any type of stiffness
matrix used in the solution process and can be output?
Hope someone here could give me a response. Thanks!
Julian

Stiffness matrix in explicit method
Submitted by Nachiket Gokhale on Fri, 2011-08-05 10:06.
No, typically tangent matrices are not explicitly generated. I'd be surprised if
Dyna3D does this. -Nachiket

Limitation of ABAQUS for explicit and implicit
Method
Submitted by manojsinghkiran on Fri, 2012-02-17 07:32.
Hi everyone
I am doing resaech in Damahe Mechanics .
I want to Know , How the result very in Explicit and implicit FEM in ABAQUS.
What is limitation to use ABAQUS at high velocity Impact .

With Regards
Manoj Kumar

Staitc riks and arc length
Submitted by shijo_iitr on Wed, 2012-03-07 02:04.
can someone help me with static riks method and the associated option of arc
length???

explicit and implicit methods
Submitted by mohamadzare on Thu, 2013-01-03 00:55.
as we know finite element method is a method for
solving gifferential equations that governed to
physical problem. beyond many of engineering
problems, is a certain differential equation
governs that. for example consider heat transfer in a long
rod that governing equation is "Q/t=k*2 Q/x2" (0)
that Q is temprature and t is time and x is coordinate
along the rod. by using taylor aproximation we can write:
2 Q/x2 =(Q(x+x)-2*Q(x)+Q(x-x))/x2 (1)
proof:Q(x+x)=Q(x)+Q'(x)*x+(Q''(x)/2)*x2
Q(x-x)=Q(x)-Q'(x)*x+(Q''(x)/2)*(-x)2 =Q(x)-
Q'(x)*x+(Q''(x)/2)*x2
putting this data to equation (1), we can write: 2 Q/x2
=Q''(x)
and Q/t=(Q(x,t+t)-Q(x,t))/t (2)
main difference between explicit and implicit method start
in here that in the explicit method we calculate equation(0)
in time=t. by using explicit formulation we can write:
2 Q/x2 =(Q(x+x)t-2*Q(x)t+Q(x-x)t)/x2=(1/k)
(Q(x,t+t)-Q(x,t))/t
lets we name Q(x,t)=Qmt and Q(x+x,t)=Qm+1 t
Q(x,t+t)=Qm t+1 that super script t refer time and
subscript m refer to segment that we consider for solve the
equation(m= a certain element in the rod that is created by
meshing in the finite element method).
then we can write :
k*(Qm+1 t -2*Qmt + Qm-1 t )/x2= (Qm t+1 -Qmt )/ t
(k*t/x2)*(Qm+1 t -2*Qmt + Qm-1 t) +Qmt=Qm t+1
(3)
that as see temprature at time t+1 is explicitly calculate,
cause we know all quantities at left side of equation (3) at
time t(for example we know the temprature at the end and
start of the rod at time t=0 from boundary condition). as
show in here this is a progressive procedure that dont
satisfy the equilibirium of temperature in all of the rod, but
satisfy this in certain level.
what about the implicit method?
in the implicit method the equation (0) is solved at time
t+t. let thinking about this.
we can write equation (1) at time t+t (or for simplicity
t+1):
k*(Qm+1 t+1 -2*Qmt+1 + Qm-1 t+1 )/x2= (Qm t+1 -
Qmt )/ t (k*t/x2)*(Qm+1 t+1 -2*Qmt+1 + Qm-1
t+1) +Qmt=Qm t+1 (4)
as see in above equatin (4) for solving this equation and
obtain temperature at time t+1 at certain location, we need
to know all quantities at the left side of equation (4) in
time t+1. cause we dont know at first this quantities at
time t+1 (our oubject really is obtain this values at time
t+1), we should solve a set of equation to obtain solution.
by enforcing boundary condition at the end and start of the
rod, we can solve heat transfer equation. as you see using
the implicit method satisfy the heat equilibirium at all
location of the rod.since we must solve a set of equation in
this method,the calculation time is more than explicit
method, particulary when our problem's domain is relatively
large. really in heat conduction problem, if we devide the
rod to n element, we should solve n simultaneous equation
to obtaing solution in each time steps. if our problem be 2
or 3 dimensional problem, and in each nodes of the domain
after meshing, we have certain degrees of freedom, the
advantages of using explicite metod apear. cause for
implicit method we should solve (n=number of nodes)*(dof)
simultaneous equation for obtain solution at each step.

Explicit vs Implicit for material properties varying with
time
Submitted by BMEstudent on Tue, 2012-07-03 19:09.

Hi all,
I followed comments on this topic. I know about mathematical
background of both methods and little bit and stability and conditional
stability of these methods. I have a general question about material
nonlinearity and choosing between one of these methods.
I'm modeling a viscoelastic material in Abaqus. As you know this
type of material is history dependent material and based on this fact my
supervisor says since in explicit method, we update material properties in each
step directly from previous step, we should use explicit procedure and not
implicit one. Mathematically I think, providing proper time steps for both
methods, the results should not differ but I cannot answer philosophically my
supervisor! What do you guys think?


Crisfield's book
Submitted by mahmood seraji on Wed, 2012-09-12 21:32.
Dear yawlou
Would you please give some more information about the introduced book of
(Crisfield's book volume 1)?
Thanks


Crisfield's books
Submitted by yawlou on Wed, 2012-09-26 17:23.
The Crisfield books I mentioned are as follows:
M. A. Crisfield, Essentials, Volume 1, Non-Linear
Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures,
Wiley, 1996
M. A. Crisfield, Advanced Topics, Volume 2, Non-Linear
Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Wiley,
1997

Thanks a lot dear yawlou.
Submitted by mahmood seraji on Mon, 2012-10-15 23:28.
Thanks a lot dear yawlou.

Arc length method
Submitted by irushdie on Wed, 2012-09-26 00:11.
Can anyone please tell me the alogotithm for E Ramm's arc length method. I
am using the following type of algorithm but am not getting the correct result--
--
u{0}, lamda=0
Fext
n no of steps
Kg (stiffness with u{0})
u1=(Kg)^-1 * Fext'
[L D]=ldl(Kg)
m=det(D)
arc_length=norm(u1)
lamda= 0.1*arc_length/sqrt(u1'*u1+1)
if m<0
lamda=-lamda
end
u=lamda*u1
iterations:
Kg(u{0}+u)
Fint(u{0}+u)
Fres=Fint-lamda*Fext
ur=-inv(Kg)*Fres'
u1=inv(Kg)*Fext
del_lamda=-(u'*ur)/(u'*u1)
del_ur=ur+del_lamda* u1
u==u+del_ur
lamda=lamda+del_lamda
if norm(Fres)<10^-5)
end
u{0}=u{0}+u
if lamda>=2
end

So please help me..Waiting for the solution eagerly .

Thanks
Md Rushdie Ibne Islam

hi
Submitted by alihab on Thu, 2013-11-07 08:32.
salam

Each entry is copyright 2006-2014 by the individual user and can be used in accordance with the Creative Commons License. iMechanica is powered by
Drupal, and hosted at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Implicit and Explicit Finite Element Method - IMechanica

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

Implicit and Explicit Finite Element Method - IMechanica

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5/21/2014 Implicit and Explicit finite element method | iMechanica

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Login or register to post comments

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi