Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Finite Elements: Modelling methods, Implicit

and Explicit analysis

IFB

Brief introduction to the Implicit method: Element stiffness and

assembly for bars

Exercises on Explicit integration for a simple bar element using

Fortran and/or VBA Excel:

1.

2.

Timestep and stability

3.

Nodal damping

4.

Contact treatment

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Finite Elements: Some modelling hints

Contents:
Meshing guidelines.
Creating meshes and models.
Poor elements - try to avoid them.
Convergence - refined meshes for better results.
Application of symmetry to save CPU costs.
Example.
2

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Some comments on meshing from NAFEMS

.
Extract from: NAFEMS (National Agency for Finite Element
Methods and Standards) A finite element primer

Clear meshing rules are difficult to define, much depends on experience and instinct.
Carefully study and examine the results check for meshing/analysis errors and look
for possible mesh improvements.
3

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

How a pre-processor creates a mesh and analysis model (1/2)

Generally most simple preprocessors build up a mesh as follows:
1. Points are specified which will be used as reference points for lines. They can also be
future locations for loading, boundary conditions, output of information, etc.
2. Lines (straight, arcs, spline, etc.) are generated from the points.
3. For 2D meshes surfaces are generated from/between the lines.
4. For 3D meshes volumes are generated from the surfaces.
5. The 2D surfaces, or 3D volumes are meshed using the
selected element types.

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

How a pre-processor creates a mesh and analysis model (2/2)

You may want to regrade the mesh until you feel it is appropriate for the geometry
Then apply boundary conditions; make sure you have sufficient constraints to
suppress all rigid body modes of the structure.
Define geometry information (thickness, inertias...) and material data (Modulus,
Poissons ratio, plasticity law...).

t, E, .

OR CAD data that defines the

geometry is used with
automatic/manual meshing tools

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Most pre-processors (mesh generator

programs) are able to clean-up the
CAD data and generate an FE mesh

e.g. Visual Mesh can automatically

surface mesh this complex structure in
But the initial CAD data should be good.

Only limited control is possible for the

mesh sizes and element distributions

Final FE Mesh

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Good and bad elements

Try to avoid distorted elements the formulation of [k] and the results they
yield can be poor(er)
Shape

good

poor

Aspect ratio
Avoid poor aspect ratio
elements

Warping
Avoid warped shell elements

ETC.
7

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Grading of FE meshes
Incorrect way of joining meshes
Incompatible displacement fields
between elements due to free nodes
holes will appear in the structure!
A

Either remesh (e.g. as below) or use

specialised tied constraint options that are
available in most codes to overcome this
and tie elements row A to element row B.
Extra constraint conditions are imposed
that tie free nodes to other structural nodes

Mesh grading can be done by introducing new

elements and triangles. Be careful the new
(distorted) elements and triangles are not
particularly good, so try to avoid doing this

8

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Grading meshes using interface elements

E.g. detailed model of a spotweld: The local model
uses a carefully graded mesh from the boundary to the
nugget. For the box beam a coarse mesh of shell
elements is used to transfer loading to the area of
interest; namely the spotweld (modelled as 3D solids).
Note: This study uses the explicit FE crash simulation
code PAM-CRASH.

Special constraint conditions tie the

coarse shells to the fine solids

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Examples of meshing at a stress concentration

Try to distribute elements according to stress gradients. In stress concentrations fine
elements are needed; in areas of low stress gradients a coarse mesh is sufficient to save
CPU/memory. In between grade the elements carefully.
Exactly the same logic applies for flow type problems (e.g. heat or fluids): Use fine
meshes in areas of high flow gradients and coarse meshes in areas of low gradients to
save CPU/memory costs.
close to input point
(heat, liquid...)
High stresses and
located at the root of
the notch (use a FINE
mesh)
Areas of low stress
COARSE regular mesh)

Low flow gradients remote from input point

(heat, liquid...).
But beware of any potential gradients at
boundary conditions (= FINE meshes again).

10

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

ST RESS
CONT OURS OF SY

Examples of meshes for a notch analysis

using automatic and manual meshing

0
0.23828
0.47656
0.71484
0.953121
1.1914
1.42968
1.66796

Poor

Better

F 1.90624
2.14452
2.3828
2.62108
2.85936
3.09764
3.33592
3.5742

C
E

M ax 3.632 at Node 1
M in -0.1801 at Node 40

B
A

Good

Note:

E
Z

Modern CPUs are so powerful that many

elements may be used if necessary.
BEWARE results in stress concentration areas will
be dependent on the mesh use the same mesh
in parametric type studies.

F
G
H
I
JK
L
X

MN

Local mesh
around the
notch

Study the results and see if you are happy with

the meshing strategy.

11

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Other examples where fine meshes are needed

Explicit: Crash

E.g. buckling:
In buckling problems:
1. Explicit codes for crash and folding/buckling
2. Implicit codes for buckling (Eigenmode) analysis
The mesh must be fine enough to capture the required
physical buckling modes.

Implicit: Eigenmodes
Z

12

True
(physical)
folding
mode

Best folding
mode with
coarse mesh

Necessary element
sizes to capture
the physical folds

MODE
1

EIGENVALUE
53.5783

FREQUENCY

ERROR NORM

1.16497

0.606236E-12
0.458210E-12

57.7202

1.20916

-57.7215

0.000000E+00 0.477816E-12

-62.1734

0.000000E+00 0.404732E-12

62.1760

1.25496

0.926765E-12

63.1296

1.26455

0.190411E-10

A finer mesh will also predict

the same true folds (it will not
be mesh dependent)

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Convergence: The more elements the better, but the CPU/memory

costs increase fast

13

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Symmetry: Always try to make use of this to reduce model size

1. Planar symmetry
If a symmetric part of the model is
used for analysis then the correct
boundary conditions are essential.

2. Circular symmetry

Beware: In these cases the geometry

allows definition of symmetry planes,
valid for this symmetry

A quarter symmetry could also be

used here. But further reductions are
possible using boundary conditions
defined in a skew axis system.

A so-called skew axis to which local

boundary conditions act
14

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Beware point loads at nodes give concentrated loads that may not be what you want. If
you want distributed loading you may need to superimpose elements to physically model
the effect you want (or use local element stiffening).
P

may help to distribute unrealistic
local loads (for both forces &
moments).

Pressure loads are distributed to nodes; note that nodal loads depend on the area they
act over.

Distributed 100N/mm2

50N

100 100

50

50

100

100 75 50 50 50

25

0.5mm

1mm

NB FE codes have options to

automatically distribute pressures to

15

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

1
RESULTS FILE =
1
DISPLACEMENT
CONTOURS OF DY
-12.5311
-11.7479
-10.9647
-10.1815
-9.39829
-8.6151
-7.83191
-7.04872
-6.26553
-5.48234
-4.69915
-3.91595
-3.13276
-2.34957
-1.56638
-0.783191

Dmax =
12.53mm

Y
X

These two examples have the

same total applied loads, but
give very different maximum
deflections in the structure !

RESULTS FILE =
DISPLACEMENT

1
1

CONTOURS OF DY
-1,59696
-1,49715
-1,39734
-1,29753
-1,19772
-1,09791
-0,998098

Max 0.0000E+00 at Node 1

Min -12.53 at Node 310

-0,898288
-0,798478
-0,698669

mid span of a beam

Dmax =
1.6mm

-0,598859
-0,499049
-0,399239
-0,299429
-0,19962
-0,0998098
Max 0.0000E+00 at Node 1
Min -1.597 at Node 20

16

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Simplified FE models
A correct model of the part and loadings/BC can be difficult to make and require alot of effort
to get right (+ CPU expensive); but a simplified model can provide quick and valuable
information to help guide a design.
The simplified model can help understand:
Failure mechanisms.
Means to increase performance (even if it does not
accurately predict maximum load).
Or other effects (e.g. points of max stress )

Use correct composite

models (layups and
materials) possibly
with failure

17

IFB

Use special delamination

elements, if this failure
mode is to be modelled

Critical areas must be

modelled properly

Try to model
supports accurately

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Simplified FE models: Results

It is possible to
use the
simplified
model for a
design of
experiments
approach

Variation

18

Maximum

Change in failure

Reference model

1,68

2,07

+23%

2,08

+23%

2,55

+51%

2,503

+49%

flange (0)

2,38

+42%

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Some basics of the Implicit method:

1. Computing a stiffness matrix
2. Element assembly
3. Obtaining a solution

Comparison of the Implicit and Explicit methods

The Explicit method and Exercises:
1. Fortran and Excel code for the simple single element case
3. Timestep controls
4. Element with damping
5. Contact: Rigid wall and penalty force methods

19

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Some basics of the Implicit method:

1. Computing a stiffness matrix
2. Element assembly
3. Obtaining a solution

Comparison of the Implicit and Explicit methods

The Explicit method and Exercises:
1. Fortran and Excel code for the simple single element case
3. Timestep controls
4. Element with damping
5. Contact: Rigid wall and penalty force methods

The Explicit algorithim in PAM-CRASH

20

10

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Consider the simple (1D) Bar element

Length L, Modulus E and sectional area A
Only axial loads Fi , Fj and axial displacements ui, uj are allowed
It is said to have 1 d.o.f. (degree of freedom) per node. Torsion bending and transverse
shear are not permissible for this element type.
Sign convention

Fj(=-Fi)

Fi

u j= 0

ui

Fi(=-Fj)

Fi = -(EA/L)uj, Fj= (EA/L)uj

ui = 0

uj

Fi EA / L EA / L ui
=

F j EA / L EA / L u j

In matrix form

For the general case ui0 and uj0

Fi = (EA/L)*( ui-uj)

{F }= [K ]{d }

Fi k
=
F j k

Fj = (EA/L)*(-ui+uj)
21

Spring stiffness

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Fj

Stiffness matrix

k ui

k u j

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Connectivity of two elements (1/2)

L1
1

L2

E1, A1

E2, A2

k1 = E1A1/L1

k2 = E2A2/L2
u2

u1

2 ,

F2

Element 1

k1
k
1

Element 2

k2
k
2

2
F1=- f11

Force equilibrium
f11

u3

u 1 , F1

F1

3,

F3

dof

k1 u1 f
=

k1 u 2 f
1
1
1
2

Internal
nodal forces

dof

k 2 u2 f 22

=
k 2 u3 f 32

22

11

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Connectivity of two elements (2/2)

The stiffness matrices for each element are:

u1

u2

u1

u3

u2

u3

d.o.f.

0
0 0

0
k
2

k 2

Element 2 only
0 k 2 k 2

k 1 k 1 0

Element 1 only k 1 k 1 0
0
0 0
ASSEMBLY
Global stiffness matrix of the assembly

[K ]{U } = {F }
1

k1
k1
k k + k
1
2
1
k2
0

23

IFB

Force equilibrium at nodes requires:

Nodes 1: forces=0 -f11

dof

= F1

0 u1 F1

k 2 u2 = F2

k 2 u3 F3

Nodes 3: forces=0 -f32

= F3

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Solution for unknowns (application of Boundary conditions)

Matrix [K] is singular (it can have any number of solutions since the structure is unsupported
and can undergo arbitrary Rigid Body Motion (RBM). At least one support must be imposed.
To suppress RBM set, for example, u3=0: (u1=0 or u2=0 would also suppress RBM).

k1
k1
k k + k
1
2
1
0 0 k 20
Operations done
to enforce u3 =0

= -P

0 0 u1 F1

k 20 u2 = F2

=0
0
k 2 1 u3 F3

u2 = - P / k2

1
P

2
1

3 dof
2

u1 = -P / k1 - P / k2

u3 = 0

Stresses and strains could also be found using:

1 = E1 1 = E1 (u2-u1) /L1 etc.
Note:

24

Ditto for 2

Of course changing the position of the constraint to suppress RBM changes

the problem and the results.

Exercise: Impose the constraint at d.o.f 2; what are the expressions for displacement
and strain? (hopefully 2 = 0).

12

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Structure of a simple Implicit FE program

1. Read in the nodal coordinates to a node array
2. Read in the element connectivity information
3. Read in material data for each element (usually done in groups - Material cards)
4. Compute the stiffness matrix [k] for each element and assemble to the global stiffness
matrix [K]
5. Assemble all loads to the load vector {P}
6. Apply boundary conditions to the Global stiffness matrix (making it positive definite) and
also to the load vector {P}
7. Invert the Global stiffness matrix [K] giving [K]-1
8. Compute the nodal displacements {u} from {u} = [K]-1 * {P}
9. Compute element strains from nodal displacements
10. Compute element stresses from strains with chosen material law
11. Check the solution: e.g results and deformations, load/reaction balance!

[k2]

[k1]

[k3]

[K]
25

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

After assembly the stiffness matrix is inverted for nodal displacements

{P}

{P} = [K ]{u}
{u} = [K ]1{P}

{u}
For STATIC linear
problems [K] = constant

{P}

constant
[K ] =requires
a simple
linear solution

Linear versus Non-linear

Most problems are obvious.
But for some it is less clear
and a comparative analysis
(Linear versus Non-linear) is
needed to check the required
analysis type.
26

[K ]

constant
requires a non-linear
(iterative) solution;
e.g. interative
Newton-Raphson

{u}

13

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)
P

Linear versus Non-linear FE analysis

Force vs Displacement for the 4 point bending can be
predicted using beam theory (NB this is based on initial
geometry and assumes small displacements).

Both only have a limited range of validity.

P=

24dEI
a (3L2 4a 2 )

Linear FE analysis
Analytical formulae
Point A (limit of
linear assumption)
varies depending
on the problem:
geometry
materials.

Explicit FE analysis
Non-linear FE analysis
Linear analysis
region

Non-linear
analysis region

27

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Some basics of the Implicit method:

1. Computing a stiffness matrix
2. Element assembly
3. Obtaining a solution

Comparison of the Implicit and Explicit methods

The Explicit method and Exercises:
1. Fortran and Excel code for the simple single element case
3. Timestep controls
4. Element with damping
5. Contact: Rigid wall and penalty force methods

The Explicit algorithim in PAM-CRASH

28

14

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

IFB

Explicit method

Implicit method

{P} = [K ]{ }

Stiffness
Displacements

(1) &x&n = m1(fn kxn )

(2) x& n+1/2 = x& n1/2 + tn&x&n

(3)

 CPU efficient and robust

 Static problems

problems

 Highly non-linear materials

 Large deformations
 CPU efficient for contact problems

29

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Implicit FE

Main codes

1. NASTRAN (large linear

structures)
2. ABAQUS (Non linear)
3. PAM-Implicit
4. MARC (Non linear)
5. ANSYS (general purpose)
6. IDEAS (meshing + FE)....

Literature
Industry
Car companies
Applications

30

Explicit FE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

90%

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

DYNA3D
PAMCRASH
PAMSTAMP
PAMFORM
ABAQUS explicit

Others
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

CFD codes
Vehicle dynamics
Welding simulation
Casting simulation
Vibro-acoustics
....

10%

90%

10%

50%

50% (due to importance of crash/safety/etc..)

Stress Analysis
Stiffness
Eigenvalue (vibrations)
Flow problems; eg
Heat, Magnetism.
Fatigue
.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Crash
Safety
Stamping
Biomechanics
..

15

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Explicit FE codes are particularly strong on:

Large deformations and extreme material nonlinearities
Handling buckling
Efficient CPU times
Large structures
Contact (internal and to other structures)

31

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Typical Explicit FE examples

32

16

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Time integration: The Explicit integration scheme

m&x& + kx = f (t )

We start with the dynamic equation of equilibrium for the node

k
known
starting
point

&x&(t )

f (t ), x , x&, &x&

m&x&n + kxn = f n (t )

&x&n

&x&n 1

(1)

&x&n = m 1 ( f n kxn )

( 2)

(3)

x& (t )

x&n +1 / 2

x&n 1 / 2
x (t )

tn
tn +1 / 2

xn +1

xn
tn 1

tn 1 / 2

tn

tn +1 / 2

tn +1

33

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

m = AL/2

t
k = EA/L

L, E, ,

c= E
bar

spring-mass

L
c

is the speed of sound in

the material
is the Traversal time

Small elements (small L) are bad for the timestep (small) >> High CPU cost
Similarly, stiff (large E) or light elements (low ) also reduce the timestep
The timestep criteria ensures that the shock wave (information) does not pass more than
one element in one timestep
Note: The worst (smallest timestep) computed for all elements in the structure is
used for analysis! Unless specialised sub-cycling techniques are activated.
34

17

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Time integration methods for dynamic problems using Implicit integration

is also possible

m&x& + kx = f (t )
Known at n
m&x&n+1 + kxn+1 = f n+1 (t )
To find
( x& x& )
&x&n+1 = n+1 n
tn

f (t ), x, x&, x&&
&x&(t )

x&n+1 =

( xn+1 xn )
(x x )
x&n = n n1
tn
tn

&x&n+1 =

( xn+1 2xn + xn1 )

tn2

&x&n +1

known

&x&n

x& (t )

x&n +1

x&n

m
(2xn xn1 )
tn2
m

2 + k
tn

f n+1 +

x (t )

tn

xn +1

xn
tn 1

tn

tn +1

xn+1 =

t
k is function a function of xn+1
(iterative solution required)

35

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Implicit versus Explicit (for transient solutions)

Explicit methods use direct integration of the dynamic equations of motion to advance the
solution,

x n+1 =

f(

i.e. new information at time (n+1)T can be explicitly found from

previous known information at time nT.

The solution is said to be conditionally stable (i.e. its stable provided a

valid timestep is used).

x n+1 =

36

f(

i.e. new information at (n+1)T requires information of velocities and

accelerations at (n+1)T, which are not directly not known (they are a
function of xn+1 and can only be found implicitly).

The solution is unconditionaly stable (theoetically any timestep can be used).

18

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Comparison: Explicit versus Implicit

Number of time steps:

Although unconditionally stable, Implicit methods needs many time

steps in order to correctly trace the physical phenomena.

Explicit analysis requires a small time step. This leads to many, but
CPU cheap solutions: Contact, material and geometrical nonlinearities
are easily handled.

Equations to be solved:

Implicit analysis requires CPU expensive matrix inversion. The

solution of non-linear problems requires iterative solution strategies.

Static problems:

Explicit methods can only solve quasi-static problems by careful

choice of slow and ramped loading and maybe some added damping.

37

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Propagation of shock wave information in a 1D explicit integration system

Node 1
Mass M

2
2M

3
2M

L o , F int = 0

4
M

L o , Fint = 0

L o , Fint = 0

Pext
A n = (Pext- Fint)/M
V n+ =V n-+A n * T
X n+1=X n + V n+ * T
n=0

An = 0
V n+ =0
X n+1= 0

An = 0
V n+ =0
X n+1= 0

L n+1 = Ln- X n+1

Fn+1 = K *X n+1
Pext

F int = (Fn+1)
A n = (Pext- Fint)/M
V n+ =V n-+A n * T
X n+1= Xn+ V n+ * T

F int = 0

=0

A n =(Pext - Fint)/ 2M
V n+ =V n- +A n * T
X n+1= Xn +V n+ * T

An = 0
V n+ =0
X n+1= 0

n=1
L n+1 = Ln - X n+1
Fn+1 = K *X n+1
Pext

F int = (Fn+1)

L n+1 = Ln - X n+1
Fn+1 = K *X n+1
Fint = (Fn+1)

Fint = 0

ETC

38

19

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

timestep
Node1

Axial force
Bar 3
Bar 2
Bar 1
Node 2
acceleration
velocity

Timestep

displacement

39

IFB

T=0

T=1

T=2

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Some basics of the Implicit method:

1. Computing a stiffness matrix
2. Element assembly
3. Obtaining a solution

Comparison of the Implicit and Explicit methods

The Explicit method and Exercises:
1. Fortran and Excel code for the simple single element case
3. Timestep controls
4. Element with damping
5. Contact: Rigid wall and penalty force methods

The Explicit algorithim in PAM-CRASH

40

20

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

The basic problem

A simple elastic spring, fixed at the base with velocity (or force) loading at the free end:

Free end

Length = 100mm

Added mass = 50kg

E = 70 kN/mm2
Area = 100 mm2

Fixed end
Consistent units used: kg, mm, msec, kN
41

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Ex 1. Explicit integration for the

simple elastic spring (Fortran version)
Program ElasticSpring
c
c... opening output files
Open(unit=3,file='Force_TimeHistory.xls')
Open(unit=4,file='Length_TimeHistory.xls')
c
c... initialization ( bar and integration data)
Alength_O = 100
Initialisation
Area
= 100.
and
Emod
= 70.0
meshing
c
TimeTotal = 0.0
Timestep = 0.001
Tend
= 10.
Fint = 0.
PreVold = -2.5
processing
Uold = 0.0
Fext = 0.0
c
42

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

c... start of integration: update acceleration,

c... velocities and displacement (explicit)
c
100 Fres = -Fint
Acel = Fres / AddedMass
Vnew = Vold + Acel * Timestep
Vold = Vnew
Unew = Uold + Vnew * Timestep
Uold = Unew
Solution
Alength = Alength_O + Unew
Strain = Unew / Alength_O
c
F=(EA/L)*
Fint = Emod * Strain * Area
TimeTotal = TimeTotal + Timestep
c
c... outputs (bar force and length time histories)
write(3,21)TimeTotal,Fres
write(4,21)TimeTotal,Alength
21 Format(E20.8,',',E20.8)
c
If(TimeTotal.gt.Tend)go to 200
go to 100
Postc
Processing
200 stop
end

21

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Exercises
There are seven simple Excel VBA codes I have prepared:
Ex 1. Explicit_SimpleSpring.xlsm

Explicit spring with velocity control

Ex 2. Explicit_SimpleSpring_Force. xlsm

Explicit spring with force control

Ex 3. Explicit_SimpleSpring_ForceTimestep.xlsm

Explicit spring to study stable timestep

Ex 4. Explicit_SimpleSpring_ForceDamp.xlsm

Explicit spring with nodal damping

Ex 5. Explicit_SimpleSpring_Contact.xlsm

Explicit spring with penalty contact

Ex 6. Explicit_SimpleSpring_ContactEnergies.xlsm

Explicit spring with energy balance check

Ex 7. Explicit_SimpleSpring_ContactEnergies_Timestep.xlsm

43

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Try to:

Copy to a working directory and open the first example (Ex.1)

Study and understand it (see next slide for hints on using VBA Excel)

Compile, run and study the results (see additional handout notes)

Try to use this (Ex. 1) as a basis to do the other examples on the following pages:
2. Study timestep stability criteria for the explicit method (Ex. 3)
3. Apply nodal damping to get a quasi-static solution (Ex. 4)

Modifying Example 1 to do Examples 2,3,4; if you get stuck I have also supplied the
Excel VBA codes for all of these.

Try example 5, 6 and 7 yourself which cover contact analysis and energy balance for
stable and unstable solutions. Hints on doing these are given in the following slides.

44

22

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

How operate Microsoft Excel VBA

1. Start Micosoft Excel and read in the required file
(e.g. Ex 1. = Explicit_SimpleSpring.xlsm)
2. Press Alt with F11 to enter the programming mode
3. The coding is under Module; open this. Press the
right mouse key and code anzeigen to see the code
4. If either sicherheitswarnung appears activate it so the
macros (coding) can be seen/changed !
5. Any lines of the code can now be modified
6. To run the (modified) code press
7. If there are programming errors these will be
described and error line highlighted
8. To see the results go back to the spredsheet by
pressing Alt with F11
9. Note Alt with F11 toggles between code and
45

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Solutions: Ex 1. The simple (initial velocity) case

46

23

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Ex 1. Results for the simple elastic spring (VBA Excel)

1. After running the code as previously described you should get the following spreadsheet
Time

101,5
101
100,5
100
99,5
99
98,5

47

IFB

0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,1
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
0,18
0,19
0,2
0,21
0,22
0,23
0,24
0,25
0,26
0,27
0,28
0,29
0
0,3

Bar length
99,975
99,9500088
99,925035
99,9000875
99,8751749
99,8503061
99,8254896
99,8007342
99,7760486
99,7514413
99,7269211
99,7024964
99,6781758
99,6539679
99,6298811
99,6059238
99,5821045
99,5584314
99,5349129
99,5115571
99,4883723
99,4653666
99,442548
99,4199245
99,397504
99,3752944
99,3533035
99,3315389
99,3100082
2
99,2887191

Time

0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,1
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
Bar length
0,17
0,18
0,19
0,2
0,21
0,22
0,23
0,24
0,25
0,26
0,27
0,28
0,29
6
0,3

Res. Force
0
1,75
3,4993875
5,24755021
6,99387629
8,7377545
150
10,4785745
12,215727
100
13,948604
50
15,676599
17,3991072
19,11552560
20,8252537 0
-50
22,5276929
24,2222474
-100
25,9083242
27,585333
-150
29,2526869
30,9098025
32,5560995
34,191002
35,8139376
37,4243383
39,0216405
40,6052851
42,1747179
43,7293895
45,2687559
846,7922782
10
48,2994231

Bar (nodal
force) versus
time

Res. Force

10

12

Mass = 50kg

Bar length
versus time

12

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Modify Example 1

Force = 1000kN

The added force creates a permanent end displacement which

should oscillate around ca. 115mm length

Mass = 50kg

There is no damping in the system so the oscillations continue.

This is typical for dynamic explicit integration and many short
duration impact problems do not consider damping; e.g. car crash

1,40E+02

Mean
length ca.
115mm

1,20E+02

length

1,00E+02
8,00E+01

Extract of modified code for additional

force:

Date

6,00E+01
4,00E+01
2,00E+01
0,00E+00
0,00E+00 2,00E+00 4,00E+00 6,00E+00 8,00E+00 1,00E+01 1,20E+01
time

48

24

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Ex 3. Simple spring and

timestep stability study

Try analyses using:

Modify example 2.

Program and use the equation

for stable timestep, instead of
the fixed value.

3. Tfac = 1.1-1.5 (this should be poor/wrong). You

will need to increase Tend = 100; beware it may
also abort the Solution!!

1. Tfac = 0.001

1,40E+02

T = Tfac * Tnodal

1,20E+02

1,00E+02

Tfac =
Dat
0.001 e

8,00E+01

Tfac = 1.0
6,00E+01

4,00E+01

If Tfac 1.0 the solution is

stable and results are similar
1,60E+02
1,40E+02

2,00E+01

1,20E+02
1,00E+02

0,00E+00
0,00E+00 2,00E+00 4,00E+00
8,00E+016,00E+00 8,00E+00 1,00E+01 1,20E+01

Tfac = 1.1

6,00E+01
4,00E+01
2,00E+01
0,00E+00
0,00E+00

49

IFB

5,00E+00

1,00E+01

1,50E+01

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Ex 4. Apply nodal damping

Modify example 2.
(resistive) damping force
(Fdamp) which is added to the
nodal forces (= Fdamp - Fint).
You will need the period of
oscillation (T) for qcrit which is
obtained from a pre-analysis.

1,18E+02

Typically a percent of critical

damping (0.1-0.3), i.e. 10-30 %
is applied.
Note the solution quickly damps
to a stable solution.

1,16E+02
1,14E+02
1,12E+02
1,10E+02

IMPLICIT solution:

1,08E+02

In practice damping should not

It should only be switched on
once the maximum deformation
are imposed.
50

Date

F=k

1,06E+02

1000 = (EA/L)

1,04E+02

= 14.2mm

1,02E+02
1,00E+02
9,80E+01
0,00E+00

2,00E+00

4,00E+00

6,00E+00

8,00E+00

1,00E+01

1,20E+01

25

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Ex 4. Nodal damping: Some things you can try

A

Critical damping

Undamped solution

Overdamping

1. Try critical damping 1.0 * qcrit

2. Try over damping (say 2.0 * qcrit)
3. Try under damping (say 0.2 * qcrit)
4. The usual (safe) way is to apply sub-critical damping only when the steady state
deformations are reached (after A) for about 2 cycles and then switch it off to see if the
structure starts moving again (i.e. This checks if the steady state solution been reached)
51

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Contact: Explicit FE codes (mostly) use two types of contacts

1. Contact at a rigid surface/wall
In this case nodal velocities and accelerations are set to
zero if contact occurs and the velocity is in the direction of
the wall.
Note the usual explicit accelerations and velocities are
computed. The Rigid wall condition checked and if contact
occurs the values are overwritten.
2. Contact between deformable bodies (and internal self
contact)
In this case accelerations and velocities cannot simply be
adjusted. Instead temporary penalty forces are introduced
to resist the contact. Contact with separation is possible.
Penalty force = Intrusion dist. * material stiffness *
empirical factor (e.g. 0.1-10)

Ex 5. Contact: This considers the simple spring problem with a penalty contact force
(temporary spring) to stop displacements on one side on the
oscillations (see next slide).
52

26

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Ca. 1mm

0.5mm

Mass = 10 kg

Ca. 1mm

Add additional spring force when displacements Unew

> say 0.5mm.
Fcont = factor (e.g. 10.)*Emod*(Unew -0.5)

Ex 5. Contact: You could try this with the simple spring example (Ex.1 is easiest).
Impose penalty force treatment at Unew = say 0.5mm. This is simply
an extra (stiff) spring that is only active when the displacement of the
free node is greater than 0.5mm.

53

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Materials laws
1

4
.

2
5

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Simple elastic law (programmed)

Elasto plastic with unloading (e.g. most simple metals)
Strain rate effects to plasticity laws (most metals and plastics)

54

27

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Energy computations
Numerical stability in the explicit method must be checked: check the general results and
especially from the energy balance.

Numerical instability is often caused by violation

of the timestep criteria. It may lead to:
Rapid generation of nonsense results (e.g.
large numbers) and failure
Or local instability causing e.g. artificial
plasticity; the analysis can then regain
stability. This can be identified by
generation of energy.

Example energies in the .out and results files

for PAM-CRASH. Overall structural and energies
per material are available.

55

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Energy computations
For a simple impact problem; such as car crash the initial Kinetic energy is converted to
Internal (plastic or damage) energy.
Indication of numerical instability

KE =
*Mass*
vel^2

Total Energy (KE +

IE = constant)
Internal Energy (IE)
Kinetic Energy (KE)

For problems where energy is fed into the system e.g. Application of external loading the
constant energy check is more difficult; but still look for sudden energy increases.
Contact can be responsible for such numerical instability.

Ex 6. Energy balance:
Compute and check energy balance for the contact example (Ex 5.). You will have to
compute energies for the bar (internal), contact spring and kinetic energy. Then add these
together to check the total is constant.

Ex 7. Contact and stability:

Combine Ex. 6 with the stable timestep criteria (Ex. 3) and try Tfac = 0.01, 0.1 and 1.1; take
56 a look at the results and the energy balance.

28

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Comparisons with PAM-CRASH explicit

Essentially the same operations are done in PAM-CRASH
The masses are assembled (lumped) at the nodes giving a 6*6
mass matrix.
1. The accelerations (3 translational + 3 rotational) are computed

6. Next cycle
57

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

mx

my

mz

0
Ix
Iy

Iz

The translational mass

and rotational inertias are
in different frames:
Translational Global fr.
Interia Principle fr.
This keeps the matrix
diagonal (= no matrix
inversion)!

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

PAM-CRASH FE models: Velocity, force and damping examples

A simple elastic spring, fixed the base with velocity (or force) loading at free end:
Free end
Length = 100mm

Fixed end

Added mass = 50kg

E = 70 kN/mm2
Area = 100 mm2
Consistent units used:
kg, mm, msec, kN

Example results for

nodal displacement
(z) for the case of

58

29

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Solutions to VBA Excel

Explicit examples

59

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Solutions: Ex 2. The simple (initial velocity and force) case

..

..
60

30

IFB

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Solutions: Ex 3. Timestep stability study

..
Still set but not used

..

61

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

..

..
62

31

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Solutions: Ex 5. Penalty contact force

..
Reduced to lower mass effect

Position of contact (Unew>0.5mm), Try

scale factors 1., 10., 100.

..

63

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University of Stuttgart

Composites modelling:
Modelling and Finite Elements (continued)

Solutions: Ex 6. Check on energy balance

..
New code at the top for

..
..