Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Distributors Worldwide
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ...................................................................................................... 1
2 Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................... 3
2.1 Basic Finite Element Equations................................................................. 3
2.2 Linear Static Analysis And Equation Solution ........................................... 8
2.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis ......................................................................... 21
2.4 Linear Step By Step Dynamics................................................................ 45
2.5 Nonlinear Dynamics ................................................................................ 60
2.6 Eigenvalue Extraction .............................................................................. 63
2.7 Natural Frequency Analysis .................................................................... 75
2.8 Eigenvalue Extraction For Buckling ........................................................ 78
2.9 Eigenvalue Extraction Including Damping ............................................... 80
2.10 Modal Analysis ...................................................................................... 81
2.11 Steady State Field Analysis ................................................................... 90
2.12 Transient Field Analysis ........................................................................ 95
2.13 Thermo-Mechanical Coupling ............................................................. 102
2.14 Fourier Analysis ................................................................................... 108
2.15 Analysis With Superelements.............................................................. 112
2.16 Activation and Deactivation Of Elements ............................................ 121
2.17 Hygro-Thermal Analysis ...................................................................... 123
2.18 Analysis of Porous Media .................................................................... 127
2.19 Load Optimisation / Target Load Analysis .......................................... 134
3 Geometric Nonlinearity ............................................................................. 139
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 139
3.2 Virtual Work Equation ............................................................................ 139
3.3 Lagrangian Geometric Nonlinearity ....................................................... 140
3.4 Eulerian Geometric Nonlinearity ........................................................... 146
3.5 Co-Rotational Geometric Nonlinearity ................................................... 157
3.6 General Comments ............................................................................... 164
4 Constitutive Models ................................................................................... 167
4.1 Linear Elastic Models ............................................................................ 167
4.2 Elasto-Plastic Models ............................................................................ 171
4.3 Plasticity Models For Beams And Shells ............................................... 218
4.4 Interface Models .................................................................................... 225
4.5 Damage ................................................................................................. 232
4.6 Viscoelastic Models ............................................................................... 235
4.7 Multi-Crack Concrete Model .................................................................. 240
4.8 Resin Cure Model .................................................................................. 256
4.9 Shrinkage .............................................................................................. 256
4.10 Concrete Creep and Shrinkage Models .............................................. 256
4.11 Generic Polymer Material .................................................................... 273
4.12 Joint Models ........................................................................................ 289
i
Theory Manual Volume 1
ii
Introduction
Notation
Standard matrix notation is used whenever possible throughout this manual and the
expressions are defined as follows:
Basic Expressions
Vector
| |
Determinant of a matrix
|| ||
Norm of a vector
tr bg Trace of a matrix
bg T
Transpose of a vector of matrix
bg 1
Inverse of a matrix
dbg Variation
b g Virtual variation
ch
Rate
bg Increment
b g Summation
iii
Introduction
, Orthogonality condition
ch
Variables defined in local axes
Subscripts
cr Critical value
g Ground displacements, velocities and accelerations
g Gasous mixture (air+water vapour)
h Hydration
i Component i
max Maximum value
n Normal component in slideline analyses
o Initial components (initial strains)
t Thermal components (thermal strains)
T Temperature, thermal
v Water vapour
w Liquid water
x Tangential component in slideline analyses
x,y,z Components in the local x,y,z Cartesian system
X,Y,Z Components in the global X,Y,Z Cartesian system
Z Zienkiewicz constants
,x Differentiation with respect to x (or other variable)
Superscripts
i Iteration I
l Local quantities (co-rotational for continuum elements)
t Values at time t
iv
Introduction
Scalars
aR Rayleigh damping coefficient (multiplies mass matrix M)
B Bulk modulus
C0 neo-Hookean constant
C1 , C2 Mooney-Rivlin constants
c Cohesion in friction based material models
c Wave speed
E Youngs Modulus
F Yield surface
g Initial gap for nonlinear joint models
G Shear Modulus
v
Introduction
k Bulk modulus
kT Thermal conductivity
K Thermal conductivity
KI Intrinsic permeability
Kw Relative water permeability
l Length of local contact segment
m Water mass
M Moment
n Porosity
N Stress resultant
p Number of required eigenvalues
P Participation factor in spectral response analysis
P Axial force
P Pressure; Partial pressure for a gas component
Pc Capillary pressure
Psat Water saturation pressure
q Field variable flux in field analysis
q Number of starting iteration vectors for subspace iteration
Q Rate of internal heat generation in field analysis
Qh Heat of hydration
Q1,Q2 Constants for shock wave smoothing
vi
Introduction
u Axial stretch
V Element volume
w Crack width in concrete model
W Work
X Normal penetration distance
vii
Introduction
1
Root mean square of residuals convergence criterion
2
Maximum absolute residual convergence criterion
Degree of hydration
e Lodes Angle
e Angle between old and new displacement vector in arch-length
method
e Angle of orthotropy
e Angle defining crack directions in concrete model
Load factor
i Eigenvalue (ith)
i Principal stretches
Friction coefficient
w Viscosity of water
p , p Ogden constants
Poissons ratio
viii
Introduction
Mass density
Effective stress
Potential energy
Vectors
a Nodal displacement vector
g Gravity acceleration
J Flux
ix
Introduction
q~ Euler parameters
v velocity
Pseudovector of rotation
i ,i Eigenvector
x
Introduction
B Strain-displacement matrix
K Stiffness matrix
xi
Introduction
M Mass matrix
R Rotation tensor
Matrix of eigenvalues
Density matrix
Matrix of eigenvectors
xii
Introduction
xiii
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 General
The objective of this manual is to outline the theories on which the LUSAS finite
element analysis system is formulated.
The manual aims to provide sufficient information for the user to understand the basic
concepts of the procedures and to provide references to more detailed information.
Therefore, by itself, the manual does not provide comprehensive coverage of all topics,
and in this sense it is only a reference volume.
The manual also supplies many useful hints on how to select the best options for each
analysis type e.g. the most effective element and load incrementation scheme. As such,
the manual should also be a useful aid to a reader who is unfamiliar with a particular
area of finite element analysis.
1
Introduction
2
Analysis Procedures
2 Analysis Procedures
2.1 Basic Finite Element Equations
This section provides a brief introduction to the formulation of the equations of both
static and dynamic equilibrium. These equations form the basis for the evaluation of
the response of a structure using the finite element method.
z z z
maintained, i.e.
v
T dv v uT f dv s uT t ds duT F (2.1-1)
u( e) N ( e) a( e) (2.1-2)
( e)
where N is the displacement interpolation or shape function matrix and a( e ) is the
vector of nodal displacements.
3
Theory Manual Volume 1
( e) B( e) a( e) (2.1-3)
For linear elasticity, the stresses within the finite element are related to the strains
using a constitutive relationship of the form
where D( e ) is a matrix of elastic constants, and o(e) and o(e) are the initial stresses
and strains respectively, e.g. due to thermal effects.
Therefore, using (2.1-2), (2.1-3) and (2.1-4), the virtual work equation (2.1-1) may be
discretised to give
n
a
e1
T
z
v
B( e)T D( e) B( e)dv a
LM z N f dv z N t ds OP
n
( e )T ( e)
n
( e )T ( e )
(2.1-5)
a M
MM z B ( D )dv FPPP
s
v s
T e1 e1
n
( e )T ( e) ( e) ( e)
N Q
e1
v o o
( e)
where N s are the interpolation functions for the surfaces of the elements and n is
the number of elements in the assemblage.
By using the virtual displacement theorem, the equilibrium equations of the element
assemblage becomes
Ka R (2.1-6)
e1
z
K B( e)T D( e) B( e)dv
v
(2.1-7)
4
Analysis Procedures
e1
z
Rb N ( e)T f ( e)dv
v
(2.1-9)
e1
z
Rs N (se)T t ( e )dv
s
(2.1-10)
e1
z
Ro B( e)T ( (oe) D( e) (oe) ) dv
v
(2.1-11)
Equation (2.1-6) may be utilised for situations where the applied loading is independent
of time or when the load level changes very slowly. If rapid changes in the load level
occur, inertia and damping forces must be included in the equilibrium equations.
u( e) N ( e) a( e) (2.1-13)
acceleration
u( e) N ( e) a( e) (2.1-14)
e1
z
Rb N ( e)T f ( e) ( e) N ( e) a c( e) N ( e) a dv
v
(2.1-15)
where is the density and c is the damping constant for the material.
Substitution of (2.1-15) in (2.1-6) leads to the dynamic equilibrium equations
5
Theory Manual Volume 1
Ma Ca Ka R(t ) (2.1-16)
e1
n
z
M N ( e)T ( e) N ( e) dv
v
(2.1-17)
e1
z
C N ( e)T c( e) N ( e) dv
v
(2.1-18)
Note the influence of geometric nonlinearity on the basic equilibrium equations will be
considered in Section 3.
where x i is the vector connecting the origin and node i. Pi and M i are equivalent
nodal forces at, and moments about, node i respectively. n is the number of problem
nodes. The discrete form of the equation is only approximate, the accuracy of which is
determined by the type of loading.
The following assumptions have been made when processing nodal loads:
1. For axisymmetric analyses (except Fourier) the nodal forces do not contribute
towards the moment at the origin. In addition, the forces on one radian of revolution
6
Analysis Procedures
me z
volume
dvol (2.1-20)
m x i i
G i1
(2.1-21)
Ms
n = number of nodes in structure
The element nodal masses are calculated by distributing the element mass equally
between its nodes. The structural nodal masses mi are then the summation of all the
nodal contributions from elements connected to the node.
The moments of inertia of the structure I o about the origin are given by [S9]
n
I o mi S ( x i )S ( x i )T (2.1-22)
i 1
LM 0 zi yi OP
S( x ) M z 0 xi PP (2.1-23)
MN y
i i
i xi 0 Q
Expansion and summation of (2.1-22) results in
7
Theory Manual Volume 1
LM I xx Ixy Ixz OP
Io M I yy I yz PP (2.1-24)
MN
SYM Izz Q
The parallel axes theorem is used to compute the moments of inertia about global
directions with the origin at the centroid of the structure, I G .
Ka R (2.2-1)
where the load vector R is replaced by a matrix R which may contain several load
cases.
These equations can be solved directly using Gaussian reduction [H6] or iteratively
using a conjugate gradient technique [M6],[C10] and [H3]. The frontal solver utilises
Gaussian elimination to invert the stiffness matrix K , followed by a back-substitution
process to evaluate the displacements a . This technique may be performed on several
load cases simultaneously, reducing the analysis costs. The iterative solver is effective
for extremely large and comparatively well conditioned problems where only one load
case is to be solved. The success of this method depends very much on the condition of
the stiffness matrix and the preconditioning stage is an imperative part of the solution
process.
8
Analysis Procedures
LM( K ) OP
m
( j) 2
DN Q ii
j 1
i (2.2-2)
Kii( m)
where
If Di Dkl (default 1.0E+05) then a warning is output and the solution in the region
of this node should be examined carefully.
If Di Dkl (default 1.0E+12) then the solution is terminated as the matrix has become
singular, probably due to insufficient restraints.
9
Theory Manual Volume 1
The specific form of Gaussian reduction implemented in LUSAS is the frontal solution
technique [I2]. This technique uses sophisticated 'housekeeping' techniques which are
designed to minimise the number of operations performed and the memory required
during the equation solution.
Instead of assembling the complete structural stiffness matrix, the elements are
considered in turn according to a prescribed order, with assembly and elimination
processes proceeding simultaneously. Whenever a new element is called in, its stiffness
contribution is added to the currently active structure stiffness by either
10
Analysis Procedures
the next starting element (return to step 2.). Otherwise return to step 2.a
unless the complete mesh has been considered.
If the maximum frontwidth for the current starting element is less than the
previously obtained value, update optimum starting element and maximum
frontwidth.
3. Form element assembly order using the starting element that provides the smallest
frontwidth.
The procedure is illustrated for a simple example in fig.2.2-2. As the algorithm uses
element rather than nodal data, it is computationally efficient. Also, the simple rules
utilised to choose the starting element and update the front, ensure that the algorithm is
very stable, i.e. it will always produce reasonable element assembly order. However,
for certain cases the element order may be significantly greater than the true optimum.
This is illustrated by the examples in fig.2.2-3. For the long, thin mesh the algorithm
produces a maximum frontwidth close to the optimum value. Whereas for the square
mesh, the maximum frontwidth is significantly greater than the optimum value.
11
Theory Manual Volume 1
The LUSAS implementation of the method works on elements rather than on nodes to
reduce the size of the problem.
The present optimisation algorithm employs these criteria in an iterative manner and it
is divided into two phases.
Phase 1 The elements are relabelled on the span criterion and the ponderation
criterion respectively. The relabelling process is repeated a number of times
respecting these two criteria until no more reduction in bandwidth is obtained.
Phase 2 The elements are relabelled such that the ponderation criterion and the
sum criterion are respected simultaneously. This process is repeated until no
further reduction in bandwidth is realised. Usually the process terminates after a
finite number of iterations.
1 1 2 4 5 12 3 6
2 2 1 3 4 5 6 21 3.5 7
3 3 2 5 6 16 4 8
4 4 1 7 2 5 8 27 4.5 9
5 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 45 5 10
6 6 2 3 5 8 9 33 5.5 11
7 7 4 5 8 10 11 45 7.5 15
8 8 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 72 8 16
9 9 5 6 8 11 12 51 8.5 17
10 10 7 8 11 36 9 18
11 11 7 8 9 10 12 57 9.5 19
12 12 8 9 11 40 10 20
TABLE 2.2-1
Note that this optimiser will function with two or more unconnected meshes (e.g. in a
slideline analysis).
12
Analysis Procedures
RMS wavefront
Bandwidth
Profile
The basic steps taken in this optimisation method are as follows:
1. Choose a node to be relabelled as 1. This node should be one with the lowest
connectivity.
2. The nodes connected to the new node are relabelled 2,3 etc., in order of increasing
degree (connectivity).
3. The sequence is then extended by relabelling the nodes which are directly
connected to the new node 2 and which have not been previously relabelled. The
nodes are again listed in order of increasing degree.
4. The last operation is repeated for the new nodes 3,4 etc., until renumbering is
complete.
5. Finally, the Reverse Cuthill-McKee method requires that the ordering of the
relabelled nodes is reversed.
Steps 1. to 5. are repeated for all the nodes with the lowest degree of connectivity. The
final sequence chosen is the one which best satisfies the criterion to be minimised.
When the optimum node sequence has been established the element solution order is
modified to reflect the new sequence. To illustrate how this is done reference will be
made to the finite element mesh shown in figure 2.2-6. The following steps are taken
[S12,S13]:
1. The element topology is taken as:
Element label Node labels Element number
2 597 1
3 832 2
4 796 3
7 352 4
8 257 5
2. Form a list of element labels in ascending order : 2,3,4,7,8
3. Initialise the element solution order to 1,2,3,4,5
4. Form a list of unique node labels by looping through elements in ascending order:
5,9,7,8,3,2,6
5. List the original node label locations for each element:
element 1 element 2 element 3 element 4 element 5
1,2,3, 4,5,6, 3,2,7, 5,1,6, 6,1,3
6. Read the optimised list of unique node labels after Reverse Cuthill-McKee
optimisation: 8,9,7,6,2,3,5
7. Using the location data in 5. form a modified list of 'element' node labels based on
the optimised list in 6.:
13
Theory Manual Volume 1
14
Analysis Procedures
1
f (a) aT Ka RT a c (2.2-3)
2
where the first term on the r.h.s. of (2.2-3) is the strain energy, the second term the
potential energy of the applied loads and c is an arbitrary constant corresponding to
some reference value. The gradient of f(a) is the vector:
where (a) is called the residual. In structural finite element applications the residual
can be viewed as the out of balance force vector which should be zero at equilibrium.
Since the functional f(a) decreases most rapidly in the direction opposite of the
gradient, it is advantageous to search in this direction for the minimiser of f(a). A first-
degree iteration is commonly written:
ak1 ak k pk (2.2-5)
15
Theory Manual Volume 1
where pk is the search direction for the kth iteration and k >0 is a step length. Hence,
from the point a k , the approximation proceeds in the direction pk for a distance ak
along the surface f(a), attempting to choose ak and pk at each step so as to approach
the minimum point of f(a).
This forms the basis of iterative solution methods and in LUSAS the conjugate gradient
method is used which is an algorithm that seeks to accelerate 'the method of steepest
descent'. Full details of this method can be found in [M6], [C10] and [N3] but the basic
iteration procedure can be summarised as follows:
TK K
K (2.2-6)
pTK K pK
ak1 ak k pk (2.2-7)
k1 k k K pk (2.2-8)
|| Tk 1||
test for convergence -> < (default =1e-6)
|| R||
if no convergence continue iterating
Tk 1 k 1
k T (2.2-9)
k k
pk1 k1 k pk (2.2-10)
2.2.3.2 Preconditioning
In the analysis of structural problems very ill-conditioned equations may arise. The
condition number of a symmetric matrix K can be related to its extreme eigenvalues
N
(K) (2.2-11)
1
16
Analysis Procedures
If the condition number is large, then a small change in K or R may cause a gross
change in the solution a , and Ka R is said to be ill-conditioned. Rounding errors
and approximations make the solution a unreliable if the condition number is very
large. A further disadvantage of a large condition number is that it usually reduces the
rate of convergence of iterative methods.
Preconditioning is a method of clustering the eigenvalues more closely together and
thereby improving the efficiency of the iterative procedure. The basic idea of any
preconditioning method is to replace the system
Ka R (2.2-12)
by
~ ~
Ka~ R (2.2-13)
~ ~
where K H 1 K H T , a~ H T a , R H 1 R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
17
Theory Manual Volume 1
1 Current front
Non-assem bled
elem ents
Assembled elements
1 4
2 3
Neighbours of elem ent 1
added to front
1 4 9
2 3 8
Neighbours of elem ents 2,3
5 6 7 and 4 added to front
1 4 9 12
2 3 8 11
Neighbours of elem ents 7,8
5 6 7 10
and 9 added to front
Frontwidth achieved = 7
Optimum frontwidth = 6
18
Analysis Procedures
5 6 7 10 31
2 3 8 11 32
1 4 9 12 33
1 4 49
2 3 48
47
46
45
44
37 38 39 40 41 42 43
3 6 9 12
2 5 8 11
1 4 7 10
19
Theory Manual Volume 1
wavefront
1 x x x
2 x x x x x
. x x x x x
. x x x x x x
maximum wavefront
. x x x x x x x
. x x x x
. x x x x x
n x x x x
1 2 n
LM 1 wavefront OP
Nn Q
2
The root mean square of the wavefront = n
1 2 n
1 x
2 x x
. x x
. x x x
. x x x x
. x x x
. x x x x x
n x x x x
bandwidth
20
Analysis Procedures
8 2 7 6
3 8 4
7 2
3 5 9
21
Theory Manual Volume 1
Stress
Yield
Yield Hardening
point
Stress
Loading
Elastic unloading/reloading
Strain
Bar 1
Force
Bar 2
Problem Definition
Force
Bar 1 Yield
stress
Displacement
22
Analysis Procedures
Force
Bar 2
Yield
stress
Displacement
Bar 1 yields
Displacement
Another simple example is the bar assemblage of fig.2.3-4. As the load is increased, the
response exhibits softening until 'snap-through' occurs, after which the response shows
stiffening.
23
Theory Manual Volume 1
Displacement
at apex
24
Analysis Procedures
Load Load
K1 + K2
Contact
Gap K1
Spring
K1 Supports K2
Displacement
(a)t t Pt t R (2.3-1)
t t
z
P BT
v
t t
dv (2.3-2)
t t
and R is the external force vector.
Therefore, a correction procedure is required to restore equilibrium. The simplest
corrector may be derived by using a Taylor series expansion to obtain the approximate
solution, i.e. assuming that for iteration i-1 we have evaluated ai1 then
ai1 ai ai1 i1 a
i
(2.3-3)
a
where a is the change in displacement for the ith iteration and the higher order terms
i
are neglected. Since we require a zero residual for iteration i, (2.3-3) becomes
25
Theory Manual Volume 1
L OP (a
a M
i
1
i1
N a Q i1 ) (2.3-4)
ai ai1 ai (2.3-6)
Load (R)
R
y(a2)
K2T
y(a1)
K1T
P2
P1
Displacement (a)
Da1 Da2
26
Analysis Procedures
Load
t+tR
No stiffness reformulation
tR
Displacement
27
Theory Manual Volume 1
Load
t+tR
tR
Stiffness reformulation
Displacement
Load
t+tR
tR
Stiffness reformulation
Displacement
ai ai1 i a (2.3-7)
28
Analysis Procedures
where is the step length and is selected to minimise the potential energy.
i i
corresponds to the parameter ETA output in the nonlinear logfile. The stationary value
may thus be obtained as
i (i ) i (i ) ai
0 (2.3-8)
i1 ai i
The first term is the gradient of the potential energy, and partially differentiating
(2.3-7) with respect to enables (2.3-8) to be written as
i (ai )T a 0 (2.3-9)
i i1
Where EPSLN (the nonlinear logfile parameter) is computed for a a and the
tolerance factor (corresponding to the parameter toline in the NONLINEAR
CONTROL data chapter) is usually set to between 0.4 and 0.8. If equation (2.3-10) is
not satisfied with the initial step length of unity, then a simple linear interpolation
(fig.2.3-8) is used to calculate a new step length. Typically, for line search step j+1 the
step length is j+1 evaluated using
ij 1 ij
LM a T i 1
OP (2.3-11)
MN a (
T i i
j
i 1
) PQ
The process is repeated until the convergence criterion (2.3-10) is satisfied or until a
preset maximum number of line searches per iteration (corresponding to nalps) is
exceeded. Line searches are not carried out if the computed length is close to unity or
close to zero. If the step length is close to unity, little would be achieved by the line
search. If the step length is close to zero, little progress would be made with the
solution, and the new iterative direction provided by re-solution would be beneficial.
29
Theory Manual Volume 1
Potential
energy
Satisfactory zone
Step
length
Load
t+2tR
t+tR
Displacement
2.3.2.3 Convergence
When using incremental/iterative solution algorithms, a measure of the convergence of
the solution is required to define when equilibrium has been achieved. The selection of
appropriate convergence criteria is of utmost importance. An excessively tight
tolerance may result in unnecessary iterations and consequent waste of computer
resources, whilst a slack tolerance may provide incorrect answers.
Assigning tolerance values is very much a matter of experience. In general, sensitive
geometrically nonlinear problems require a tight convergence criteria in order to
maintain the solution on the correct equilibrium path, whereas a slack tolerance is
30
Analysis Procedures
usually more effective with predominantly materially nonlinear problems in which high
local residuals may have to be tolerated.
There are many ways of monitoring convergence and within LUSAS the following
criteria are available
Euclidian residual norm,
Euclidian displacement norm,
Euclidian incremental displacement norm,
work norm,
root mean squares of the residuals,
maximum absolute residual.
A description of each of the above follows, in which the bracketed parameter equivalis
the ent variable in the nonlinear logfile.
|| ||2
100 (2.3-12)
|| R||2
where R contains the external loads and reactions. Owing to the inconsistency of the
units of displacement and rotation, usually only translational degrees of freedom are
considered although all freedoms may optionally be included. For problems involving
predominantly geometric nonlinearity, a tolerance of
is suggested.
|| a||2
d 100 d (2.3-15)
|| a||2
31
Theory Manual Volume 1
As in the residual norm, usually only translation degrees of freedom are considered but
all freedoms may be optionally included. The criterion is a physical measure of how
much the structure has moved during the current iteration. However, if convergence is
slow then false convergence may be obtained with this criterion. Typical values are
. d 10
01 . (reasonable)
(2.3-16)
0.001 d 01. (tight )
(iii) EUCLIDIAN INCREMENTAL DISPLACEMENT NORM (dtnrm)
The Euclidian incremental displacement norm dt is defined by the norm of the
iterative displacements a as a percentage of the norm of the displacements a for that
increment, and is written as
|| a||2
dt 100 (2.3-17)
|| a||2
As in the residual norm, usually only translation degrees of freedom are considered but
all freedoms may be optionally included. The criterion is a physical measure of how
much the structure has moved during the current iteration with respect to the
incremental displacement. Typical values are
. dt 10
01 . (reasonable)
(2.3-18)
0.001 dt 01. (tight )
(iv) WORK NORM (wdnrm)
The work measure is defined as the work done by the residual forces on the current
iteration as a percentage of the work done by the external forces on iteration zero, i.e.
for iteration i
( i )T ai
w T 1 100 (2.3-19)
R a
where i is the current residual force vector, R is the external force vector for the
current increment, a is the iterative displacement for iteration 1, and ai
1
is the
iterative displacement for the current increment.
The following are typical values
32
Analysis Procedures
. e3 W 10
10 . e1 ( slack )
. e W 10
10 6
. e 3
(reasonable) (2.3-20)
. e9 W 10
10 . e6 (tight )
Note Line searches attempt to minimise ( i )T ai for the current iteration [Section
2.3.2.2]. Therefore, convergence of the work norm may occur to a local minimum for
iterations when line searches are used. Therefore, the work norm is normally
supplemented with an alternative norm when line searches are used.
|| ||2
1
(2.3-21)
max | |
2
(2.3-22)
The criterion is dependent upon the units of the problem. It is an extremely stiff
criterion, which may be useful near bifurcation points of sensitive geometrically
nonlinear problems where large residuals may pollute the solution.
33
Theory Manual Volume 1
be overridden, so that the next load increment is applied to the current unconverged
configuration.
If the solution fails to converge with automatic incrementation, the increment size will
be reduced and convergence sought at this load new level. However this load reduction
may be overridden, so that the solution may be either terminated or continued by the
application of the next load increment.
The constant load level incremental/iterative methods fail when the solution reaches the
limit points (fig.2.3-10). These are points where either displacement or load reversals
occur, resulting in a singular or near singular stiffness matrix. At point A, for example,
a small increase in load is matched by a large increase in displacement and the solution,
if one exists, will very often fail to converge.
The most common limit point occurs at A and may be crossed using displacement
control. In this approach, a known displacement pattern is incremented and the load
obtained from the reactions. However, if the displacement pattern is not known, such as
with pressure loading, then this method cannot be used.
Load
t+tR
Iterative
procedure
A diverges
B
Limit
tR points
Displacement
34
Analysis Procedures
tR
Displacement
Fig.2.3-11 Modified Arc Length Load Incrementation For A One Degree Of Freedom
Response
Therefore, in general, if limit points occur in the structural response, the modified arc
length incrementation procedure should be used.
(ii) THEORY
The residual force vector at a load level is defined as
(a, ) P R 0 (2.3-23)
where is the load level and R is the load vector and P is the vector of internal forces.
For a small change in load level D (2.3-23) becomes
35
Theory Manual Volume 1
(a, ) P ( ) R (2.3-24)
(a, ) ( ) R (2.3-25)
a a aT (2.3-26)
where a is the usual iterative displacement vector due to the residual forces and
aT is the iterative displacement vector due to the change in load level of .
The incremental displacement vector for iteration i is updated as
ai ai1
i
a (2.3-27)
In order to determine the change in load level , an arc length constraint equation is
utilised (fig.2.3-11). A circular arc is used and the constraint equation is derived using
the Pythagoras theorem as
A difficulty exists in selecting values for the scalars a and b due to inconsistency of
units. Since the aim of the constraint equation is to prevent the displacements from
becoming too large, Crisfield [C2] proposes that should be taken as unity and as
zero. This has been adopted in LUSAS, i.e. (2.3-28) becomes
k12 k2 k3 0 (2.3-30)
k1 (i )2 aTT aT (2.3-31)
k2 2
i
aTT aTi1 2(i )2 aTT a (2.3-32)
36
Analysis Procedures
k3 ( a i1 )T ai1
(2.3-33)
(i )2 a T a 2i a T ai1 l 2
Note For a general iteration i, the terms in square brackets cancel out.
Equation (2.3-30) may be solved for and the total load level for iteration i is then
updated as
i i1 (2.3-34)
i f (ai ) q 1 qT (2.3-35)
In this case, the solution should be manually restarted from the penultimate increment
with an alternative arc length. The value chosen is dependent upon the phenomenon
that is creating the convergence difficulties. Typically if a bifurcation is possible in a
geometrically nonlinear problem, increasing the arc length may cause the solution to
jump over the problem area and proceed along the required or a complementary path.
Alternatively, for a materially nonlinear problem, structural collapse may be occurring
near this load level, and a reduction of arc length will be required. Therefore, assigning
an alternative value is a matter of experience or trial and error.
Note Failure to find real roots may also be associated with structural problems such as
poor idealisation, element mechanisms or approximations in the nonlinear
formulations.
37
Theory Manual Volume 1
angle between the old incremental displacement vector and the new incremental
displacement vector must be acute [C2]. This can be enforced by selecting the root for
which the cosine of is given as
( ai )T ai1
cos (2.3-36)
|| ai || || ai1||
is positive. If both roots yield a positive value of Cos , then the root chosen is that
which is closest to the linearised solution
k3
lin (2.3-37)
k2
where k2 and k3 are the constants from equation (2.3-28)
sign( aT qTT )
RS+ve loading (2.3-39)
T-ve loading
which is an unscaled version of the current stiffness parameter [B2]. This criterion is
not affected by bifurcation points but will always fail in situations where snap-back is
occurring. In this case both the loads and displacements become negative and hence
(2.3-39) is positive.
Selecting the incorrect root is more detrimental than finding no real roots as it is more
difficult to detect and will often manifest itself in the form of a rather jagged load
deflection curve or a looping finite element system.
Note The selection of an incorrect root, or failure to find real roots, is usually
associated with structural problems such as poor idealisation, element mechanisms or
approximations in the nonlinear formulation.
38
Analysis Procedures
where D is the fixed magnitude for the incremental displacement at variable k; the
iteration counter is given as i. Using equations (2.3-26) and (2.3-27) for the particular
variable k, may be obtained from
D aki1 iak
(2.3-41)
aT ,k
Note that, in contrast to standard displacement control, the variable k would be one
where physically there would be no real displacement control and hence no reaction.
Rheinboldt's method uses this approach with the variable k being changed for each
increment so that it relates to the variable with the largest predictor component.
39
Theory Manual Volume 1
t
the number of iterations required to converge on the t previous increment N with a
preset desired number Nd (itd) as
t t
l tl
LM N OP 1/ 2
NN Q
d
t (2.3-42)
A criterion to limit the maximum change in the arc length is also available. If the load
level at time t is t , the load level at time t+t must be within the limits
|t |
|t t | max |t | (2.3-43)
max
This criterion is automatically converted from a load level limit to an arc length limit
using (2.3-30) giving
t t
l aTT aT ( max )2 2 aTT a max 2aT a (2.3-44)
where a is the incremental displacement vector for the previous increment and aT
are the tangential displacements evaluated using the current tangent matrix, i.e.
aT ( K T )1 RT (2.3-45)
40
Analysis Procedures
Load
limit point
Cstiff<0
Cstiff>0 Pivm in<0
Pivm in>0
Displacement
Fig.2.3-12 Nonlinear Solution Path For One Degree Of Freedom Showing Limit Point
Load
Cstiff>0
Pivm in<0
Bifurcation point
Cstiff>0
Pivm in>0
Displacement
Fig.2.3-13 Nonlinear Solution Path For One Degree Of Freedom Showing Bifurcation
Point And Secondary Path
41
Theory Manual Volume 1
initiated once the smallest pivot becomes negative. The previous increment is then
halved and the new solution point is computed. This process is continued until the
smallest pivot obtained is reasonably small (note that too tight a tolerance will lead to
ill-conditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix).
The performance of the bisection method is greatly improved if the magnitude of the
smallest pivot is used as a guide to the 'distance' between the present solution and the
critical point. To avoid complicated and possible dangerous extrapolation a simple
linear interpolation is adopted: the interpolation is always done between a pair of
solutions closest to, and on either side of, the critical point.
For materials whose properties and behaviour depend upon loading history, this
technique has to be modified since artificial unloading, when the increment size is
halved, must be avoided. Under such circumstances the critical point must be
approached from one direction only (i.e. the stable solution). This is called non-
reversible bracketing.
Eigenmode injection
Here, a small perturbation is added to the current displacement field
a predictor acurrent c
(2.3-46)
where c is a specified constant and is the first eigenvector of the tangent stiffness
matrix at the bifurcation point. It can be shown [S10] that, in the case of symmetric
bifurcation, is the exact tangent to the secondary path. However, numerical
experience [S10] has confirmed that it is often a good predictor for asymmetric
bifurcations as well. This branching method is used in conjunction with the Crisfield
arc-length control method (see section 4.3.3.2).
Once the first point on the secondary path has been computed the remainder of the path
can be obtained using the normal nonlinear algorithms described in this section.
42
Analysis Procedures
43
Theory Manual Volume 1
5. The solution and load incrementation scheme suitable for the present analysis is
chosen and the nonlinear analysis or series of nonlinear analyses is performed. At
this stage, the solution may indicate that re-meshing of areas of the structure is
required. In this case the analysis process would return to 1.
6. The accuracy of the nonlinear analysis is then assessed by performing further
analyses with refined data, e.g. smaller load steps or finer discretisation in areas of
high stress. If no significant differences in the solution are observed, then the
solution is close to optimal for the given modelling assumptions.
Problem
definition
Finite element
model
44
Analysis Procedures
Problem
definition
Finite element
m odel
Ma Ca Ka t R (2.4-1)
In order to reproduce the complete time history response of a structure to the t forcing
t
function R , step by step integration of (2.4-1) must be performed.
The theoretical basis for direct integration, using either implicit or explicit schemes, is
outlined in the following section together with guidance on the applicability of the
methods to certain classes of problems.
45
Theory Manual Volume 1
These assumptions transform the set of second order differential equations into a set of
simultaneous equations at each time interval t. Direct integration proceeds by
advancing the solution in time from known conditions
t
a , t a and
t
a at time t to
t t t t t t
unknown values a , a and a at time t+t. If the solution at time t+t is
obtained by considering equilibrium conditions at time t then the integration scheme is
termed explicit. However, if the solution at time t+t is obtained by considering
equilibrium at time t+t then the scheme is termed implicit.
Explicit algorithms permit de-coupling of the equilibrium equations removing the need
to invert the stiffness matrix. However they are only conditionally stable, which
implies that the time step length t must be smaller than a critical value tcr , in order
for the solution process to converge.
Implicit algorithms require inversion of the stiffness matrix at every time step. They are
unconditionally stable, i.e. convergence to a solution is guaranteed, with the maximum
time step governed by accuracy considerations alone for linear elastic material
behaviour.
46
Analysis Procedures
algorithm. Ideally, the algorithm should exhibit no numerical dissipation in the lower
modes that govern the response of the structure, whilst providing high dissipation in the
higher modes which have not been integrated accurately.
The dissipative characteristics of many schemes are illustrated by examining the
relationship between their spectral radii and t/T for a one degree of freedom problem
(fig.2.4-1) [B1]. From the figure, the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm appears to have
better characteristics than the Newmark (with dissipation), Wilson-, and Houbolt
algorithms. These schemes are too dissipative in the lower modes. This implies that
time steps smaller than those demanded for accuracy alone are required in order to
prevent amplitude decay influencing the solution.
M an f n
47
Theory Manual Volume 1
M a n1 (1 )C v n1 C v n
(1 )K d n1 K d n
(1 ) f n1 f n
t 2
d n1 d n t v n (1 2 ) an 2 an1
2
v n1 v n t (1 ) an an1 (2.4-3)
where , and are free parameters which govern the stability and numerical
dissipation of the algorithm. If =0 this family of algorithms reduces to the Newmark
family. If the parameters are selected such that
13 0, (1 )2 , (1 2 ) 2 (2.4-4)
For explicit analyses, the optimum (and mandatory in LUSAS) parameters are = 0,
= 0, = 1/2.
It is convenient to rearrange the equations (2.4-3) so that the displacements are solved
for at each time step. This substitution and rearrangement results in the following
system of equations that are used for linear dynamic analysis
K* d n1 f *
where
1 (1 )
K* M C (1 )K
t 2
t
48
Analysis Procedures
f * (1 ) f n1 f n
M
LM 1 d 1 v (1 2 ) a OP
N t t 2 Q
2 n n n
so that
1 (1 2 )
an1 ( d n1 d n t v n ) an
t 2
2
v n1 v n t (1 )an an1 (2.4-5)
Tmax 2 2
tcr (2.4-6)
max
and max is the maximum circular frequency of the system ( is the corresponding
eigenvalue). If the time step is larger than this value the higher frequencies will not be
integrated accurately and the errors will tend to grow, polluting the solution. For wave
propagation problems, uniform meshes of low order elements must be used, and the
time step length may be chosen as t < S/c where S is the shortest distance between
two nodes and c is the maximum wave speed of the material.
Note, however, that LUSAS will automatically compute an appropriate t if this is not
specified. It is computed automatically as follows.
At each time increment a time step value is computed for all elements using the
following equation based on a linear application of the Courant stability criterion
Kr Lc
tcr
Q (Q2 c2 )1/ 2
49
Theory Manual Volume 1
where
Here Q1 and Q2 are dimensionless viscosity coefficients which default to 1.5 and 0.06
respectively and may be modified as necessary via the SYSTEM command. DKK is
the trace of the velocity strain tensor and Lc is the characteristic length of the element
which is related to the smallest element diagonal (see section 7.3.3.6 for 2D elements
and section 7.4.3.5 for 3D elements).
The smallest value of t cr is then taken as the time step for use in the next time
increment (this may be larger or smaller than the current time step).
There is no restriction on the decrease of the time step between each increment but
there is a restriction imposed on the increase of the time step according to
Here Kcr (parameter dtincf in the DYNAMIC CONTROL command section) defaults
to 2.0 so that doubling a time step is permitted.
50
Analysis Procedures
has little effect on the structural response. Therefore when selecting t, a Fourier
analysis of the loading should be performed to evaluate the maximum frequency max
contained in the loading. Then the maximum frequency of the modes that may
influence the solution are generally given as
where Tmax is the period of oscillation of the highest mode which influences the
solution. This should ensure all the lower modes are integrated accurately. Note that
with the HHT scheme set to the default parameters, the amplitude decay will be zero
for all t.
Hilber-Hughes-Taylor Newark=0.25,=0.5)
Newark=0.25,=0.6) =-0.1,=0.3025,=0.6)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Spectral Radii
0.6
Wilson-
0.5
0.4
Houbolt
0.3
0.2
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
t/T
Fig.2.4-1 Spectral Radii For Common Explicit Schemes Without Structural Damping
51
Theory Manual Volume 1
a a a sin pt
4
=0.0
=0.2
2
=0.5
=0.7
1
=1.0
0
p
Fig.2.4-2 Dynamic Load Factor For A Single Degree Of Freedom Analysis [B1]
52
Analysis Procedures
19
Newark=0.25, =0.5)
11 Wilson-
PE/T*100%)
7
5 Houbolt
3 AD
1 T PE
t/T
19
Percentage amplitude decay
15
11 Wilson-
(AD*100%)
5 Houbolt
3 AD
1 T PE
t/T
Fig.2.4-3 Percentage Period Elongation And Amplitude Decay For A Single Degree Of
Freedom Analysis [B1]
53
Theory Manual Volume 1
analyses an option also exists for automatic time step selection. The algorithm used,
which was originally proposed by Bergan and Mollestad [B5], is based on the notions
of 'current frequency' and 'current period' of dynamic response.
Larger time steps may be used in implicit dynamics as the integration schemes
employed are referred to as being 'unconditionally stable'. However, the use of too
large a time step may lead to a loss of accuracy in the solution obtained. Moreover, for
nonlinear dynamics, large time steps often lead to non-convergence of the iterative
process and to some unexpected phenomena such as 'dynamic locking' and 'blowing up'
[C14]. Choosing appropriate time steps for a particular problem can be a difficult task
and it is considered to be a matter of experience. It is therefore desirable to have an
automatic time stepping algorithm for general applications.
In LUSAS, at the end of each time step, an extended form of the Rayleigh quotient is
computed from which the current frequency and period can be derived. The new
optimal time step is then computed using the current period.
The current frequency is computed from the expression:
d Tn K n d n
T
2
(2.4-8)
d n Md n
n
where:
K n is taken as the stiffness matrix at the start of the increment ( K n is constant for
linear problems)
M is the mass matrix
d n is the incremental displacement vector
2
Tn (2.4-9)
| 2n |
It is worth noting that the current period changes with time for a non-stationary
response of a multi-degree of freedom system. Tn relates to the current stiffness and
response and is not generally a measure of the time elapsed between zero amplitudes.
Knowing the current period, Bergan and Mollestad [B5] suggest using the following
formula to adjust the time step:
t n Tn (2.4-10)
54
Analysis Procedures
55
Theory Manual Volume 1
f0 f
a0 M 1 f 0 (2.4-11)
These equations indicate that the initial velocity and force vectors need to be defined.
The initial acceleration will then be automatically computed.
For the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor implicit procedure these are
d0 d
v0 v
f0 f
a0 M 1 ( f 0 C v 0 K d 0 ) (2.4-12)
These equations indicate that the initial displacement, velocity and force vectors need
to be defined. The initial acceleration will then automatically be computed if the vector
on the right hand side of equation (2.4-12d) is non-zero, otherwise the initial
accelerations will be assumed to be zero.
56
Analysis Procedures
2.4.3 Damping
One of the most common models of damping used in finite element systems is
proportional damping. In this model no attempt is made to construct damping elements,
but instead the arbitrary assumption is made that the damping is a linear combination of
the mass and stiffness matrices. This is usually called Rayleigh damping and defines
the damping matrix C as
C aR M bR K (2.4-13)
There is no real physical justification for this and in reality this assumption is made for
mathematical convenience as it simplifies the solution procedure [N2]. It should be
noted that the damping distribution is rarely known in sufficient detail to warrant any
other more complicated model. Proportional damping will serve to give each mode of
vibration the correct order of magnitude of damping and, provided that the component
of the response of interest is not controlled by the damping, it is often sufficient. It
ceases to be reliable when the damping within the system becomes significant, say
above 10% critical, or where the damping is concentrated in a small region of the
structure. This is especially the case if some damping has been included into the
structure with the specific purpose of controlling the dynamic response.
The values aR and bR may be chosen to give the correct order of magnitude for the
damping at two frequencies [N2]. If the required damping ratio at a circular frequency
of r is r and the required damping ratio at a circular frequency of s is s then
the values of aR and bR are
2 r s ( s r r s )
aR (2.4-14)
2r 2s
2( r r s s )
bR (2.4-15)
2r 2s
Figure 2.4-5 indicates how proportional damping varies with frequency for various
values of specified damping. It can be seen that for the case where r s the
damping increases rapidly with frequency. This assumption is often used when
proportional damping is being employed to provide numerical damping since it gives
rise to higher damping in the less accurate higher modes. For the case where r s
the damping between the two frequencies is less than the specified values and that
outside of this range it rises rapidly. Figure 2.4-5 also illustrates the variation of the
damping when r s where the high frequency damping does not rise so rapidly
although it still does increase. It can also be seen from this diagram that this model
cannot really be physically correct since it gives infinite damping at zero frequency.
57
Theory Manual Volume 1
Rayleigh damping has some notable characteristics which affect the way in which this
damping is applied to a structure. These characteristics arise from the following:
As a result of these two factors, a damping matrix ( C ), based on the mass coefficient (
aR ) only, will provide a 'total damping' response and a damping matrix based on the
stiffness coefficient ( bR ) only, will provide a 'relative damping' response. Total
damping would cause rigid body motion to be restrained (e.g. fish in the sea). Relative
damping would permit rigid body motion but restrain any internal vibrations within the
structure (e.g. large structures under earthquake loading).
58
Analysis Procedures
59
Theory Manual Volume 1
60
Analysis Procedures
with
d (n0)1 d n
where (k) indicates the iteration number and n the time step number as before.
Substituting equations (2.5-1) into equations (2.4-3) and rearranging we obtain the
equations that are to be solved at each iteration. The non-linear solution process and
equations are given below.
For each timestep n=1,...N-1:
For each iteration k=0,1,... solve:
K*( k )d ( k ) f *( k )
where
1 (1 )
K*( k ) M C (1 )K
t 2
t
f *( 0) (1 ) f n1 f n
M
LM 1 v (1 2 ) a OP
N t 2
n
Q n
L(1 ) v (1 )t(2 ) a OP
CM
N n
2 Q n
f int
n
f *( k ) R( k 1)
here f int
n
denotes the internal force vector and R the residual vector.
Then compute:
d (nk11) d (nk)1 d ( k )
61
Theory Manual Volume 1
(1 2 )
a(nk11)
1
t 2 d
d (nk11) d n t v n i 2
an
The residual vector and reaction computations are closely linked in nonlinear analysis,
consequently a dynamic force vector can be computed as
f dyn
n1
M a(nk11) (1 )C v(nk11)
C v n (1 ) f int(
n1
k 1)
f int
n
f n
and an external force vector (summation of applied forces and reactions) is computed
as
f ext
n1
f n1 r(nk11)
62
Analysis Procedures
K M (2.6-1)
63
Theory Manual Volume 1
Note. The ith column of the ith iteration vector converges linearly to i with
convergence rate i q1 . Therefore increasing q increases the convergence rate to
the first p eigenvectors. However, the computer effort per iteration increases with an
increase in q so that a balance is required.
It is also important to note that the number of starting iteration vectors cannot exceed
the number of free degrees of freedom of the system. Bathe [B1] suggests that q should
be determined from
q = min (2p, p+8, N) (2.6-2)
where N is the number of free degrees of freedom in the structure.
There are two means of providing the starting vectors
Automatic system choice. The starting iteration vectors are formed
automatically so that they excite all the mass degrees of freedom with emphasis
placed on the degrees of freedom with large mass to stiffness ratios. This has the
effect of minimising the Rayleigh quotient. The starting algorithm constructs the
iteration vectors such that M X1 contains
K X k 1 M X k (2.6-3)
where X k1 are effectively Ritz basis vectors. The projections of K and M onto
Ek1 are then evaluated, i.e.
64
Analysis Procedures
K k 1 X k 1 K X k 1
T
(2.6-4)
XT M X
M (2.6-5)
k 1 k 1 k 1
K k 1 Q Q
M k 1
k 1 (2.6-6)
k 1 k 1
where Q and k1 are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the reduced system
k1
which is then solved using the generalized Jacobi method (this is ideal as K k1 and
M k1 tend to become diagonal as the solution converges because the iteration vectors,
X k1 approach the full system eigenvectors).
The eigenvectors Q are then used to obtain an updated approximation for the
k1
iteration vectors
X k 1 X k 1 Q (2.6-7)
k 1
and
X k1 tends to eigenvectors of the full system
Subspace iteration is repeated until convergence is obtained. This is measured by
| k+1
i i |
k
rtol i 1, p (2.6-8)
k+1
i
65
Theory Manual Volume 1
missing, the analysis must be repeated with a different number of starting iteration
vectors and/or a different convergence tolerance.
K i i M i
i (2.6-9)
K i
where i and i are the ith eigenvector and eigenvalue of the solution. This estimate
effectively states that, for an accurate solution, the norm of the out of balance forces
divided by the elastic nodal forces should be small.
2.6.2.1 Theory
The Guyan reduction procedure [G1] is utilized in natural frequency, linear buckling
and field analyses to solve generalized eigen-problems of the form
K M (2.6-10)
( K M)a 0 (2.6-11)
66
Analysis Procedures
F LMK OP LM
K ms M M ms OPI RSa UV 0
GH NK mm
T
ms
K ss
Tmm
Q N M ms M ss QJK Ta W
m
s
(2.6-12)
where the subscripts (m) and (s) refer to the "master" and "slave" degrees of freedom
respectively.
For Guyan reduction/condensation it is assumed that, for the lower frequencies, the
inertia forces on the slave degrees of freedom are insignificant compared to the elastic
forces transmitted by the master degrees of freedoms. Hence we may discard all mass
terms except that relating directly to the master freedoms
F LMK OP LM
K ms M 0 OPIJ RSa UV 0
GH NK mm
T
ms
K ss
mm
Q N 0 0 QK Ta W
m
s
(2.6-13)
and hence
as K 1
ss
( KTms am ) (2.6-15)
a
RSa UV Xa
m ~ R I UV
S (2.6-16)
Ta W s TK K W
m 1
ss
T
ms
~T
Substitution into (2.6-12) and premultiplication by X allows the condensed system
to be written as
K c m c M c m (2.6-17)
where the condensed stiffness and mass matrices are given by the expressions
~T ~ ~T ~
Kc X K X , and Mc X M X (2.6-18)
Hence progressive condensation of the equations associated with the slave freedoms
results in a reduced equation system in terms of the master freedoms which has the
solution
( K c M c )a m 0 (2.6-19)
67
Theory Manual Volume 1
The fully condensed stiffness and mass matrices are (m*m) symmetric and are
generally full. The condensed system is solved using either implicit QL or Jacobi
iteration for the master eigenvalues.
Scanning of the progressively condensed matrices is repeated until the fully condensed
matrices contain only those components associated with the specified number of master
freedoms. Furthermore, since the remaining equations will have been automatically
sorted they will contain only those components associated with the lowest stiffness to
mass ratios as required.
68
Analysis Procedures
X
A transformation matrix is formed, and a reduced set of q equations are
formed.
The reduced set of equations are solved using either the implicit QL or Jacobi
iteration to obtain the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the reduced system.
The eigenvectors of the full system are obtained using the transformation matrix
X
.
Further, for certain special cases, Guyan reduction and the first subspace iteration are
equivalent and provide identical solutions [B1].
The major advantage of the subspace iteration technique is that the starting basis is
improved with each update of the subspace, whereas the Guyan reduction procedure is
a "one off" solution. Consequently, a poor choice of initial master degrees of freedom
may only necessitate more iterations to convergence in subspace iteration, whereas it
would be detrimental to accuracy in Guyan reduction. Therefore, subspace iteration is,
in general, the more effective algorithm.
2.6.4 Shifting
An important procedure that may be used in eigenvalue extraction is shifting. If rigid
body modes are present in the system the stiffness matrix will be singular and cause
numerical problems in the inversion of the stiffness matrix of (2.6-6). This may be
overcome by applying a shift to form a modified stiffness matrix. Let
(2.6-20)
The calculated eigenvalues will then all be positive. To obtain the actual
eigenvalues the shift is subtracted from the calculated eigenvalues (2.6-18). This is
done automatically within LUSAS.
The value used for the shift should ideally be between 1/2 to 1/10 of the fundamental
eigenvalue. If is too small K will still be almost singular and if is too large, the
convergence of the eigenproblem will be slow. In a LUSAS analysis, singularities will
cause solution failure with negative or zero eigenvalues. If the approximate value of the
fundamental frequency is not known, it is suggested that a shift equal to 1/2 of the
lowest non-zero frequency is used.
69
Theory Manual Volume 1
i
i j=1,m
max(ij )
(2.6-22)
where m is the order of the eigen-system.
Alternatively, the eigenvectors may be normalised such that the generalised mass is
unity
i
i 1/ 2 (2.6-23)
M i
T
i
M K (2.6-24)
1
max( i ) (2.6-25)
min( i )
70
Analysis Procedures
mK Mru 0 (2.6-26)
within a certain specified range. Both K and M are symmetric matrices but they can be
singular.
The inverse iteration method with shifts can be shown to converge to the eigenmode
that is closest to the shift defined [B1]. Defining
0 (2.6-27)
where 0 is a defined constant called the shift point, equation (2.6-26) can be
rewritten as
ncK Mh Msu 0
0 (2.6-28)
which can be solved for and hence can be extracted. Using this equation with
inverse iteration only allows a single eigenmode to be extracted for each shift point and
it therefore becomes an inefficient and cumbersome process if many modes are to be
extracted within a desired frequency range without knowing approximately where the
eigenvalues exist within the range defined.
The inverse iteration method also has known defects that include:
71
Theory Manual Volume 1
This method has thus been modified to overcome these problems and to enable
eigenmodes within a defined range to be extracted efficiently. The method utilised here
is based on the Inverse Power Method using an iteration algorithm from [B1]. This
method is general enough to extract a nominal number of eigenmodes in the region of a
defined shift point.
There is a possibility that the inverse power method may miss eigenmodes particularly
if they are clustered in groups within a small frequency band. This problem has been
overcome in the LUSAS implementation by the use of Sturm sequence checks in order
to make sure that this is not the case. Additional passes over the shiftpoints are also
carried out which will also alleviate this problem.
( K 0 M )wn f n1 (2.6-29)
k
u n wn Ti Mwn i (2.6-30)
i 1
f n Mu n (2.6-31)
n
eu f j
T
n n1
(2.6-32)
eu f j
T
n n
eu f j
1/ 2
n T
n n
(2.6-33)
fn
fn (2.6-34)
n
Here i are k normalised eigenvectors that have been previously found. It may be
shown that n converges to , the shifted eigenvalue closest to the shiftpoint and
that un u n / n converges to the corresponding mass normalised eigenvector.
72
Analysis Procedures
The equation (2.6-30) is a sweeping operation which removes all previously found
eigenvectors from the iteration vectors. This ensures that different eigenvectors are
computed and that all eigenvectors are orthogonal. It must be noted that even
eigenvectors found outside the range are stored and swept from the solution. For
example, if 2 eigenmodes have already been computed and the above iteration loop is
being used in order to compute a third, equation (2.6-30) will become
1. Sturm sequence checks will be carried out on min and max to determine the
number of eigenmodes, Ne, that exist within the range.
2. The frequency range will then be divided into Ns shiftpoints according to
Ns-1 < Ne/Nn < Ns (2.6-36)
The n=1,...,Ns shiftpoints are distributed evenly across the range with their locations
given by
sn min ( n 05
. )*( max min ) Ns (2.6-37)
The value 0.55 allows the range of each shiftpoint to overlap the neighbouring range by
10%.
3. For each shiftpoint a maximum of Nn eigenmodes are computed. If less
eigenmodes exist near a shiftpoint then the process moves onto the next shiftpoint.
If more modes exist near a shiftpoint then the process automatically updates the
shiftpoint so that further eigenmodes can be computed as efficiently as possible.
4. The process is terminated only when the desired number of eigenmodes have been
computed or when Ne eigenmodes have been located, whichever occurs first.
73
Theory Manual Volume 1
closest to the shiftpoint. Two iteration vectors are required for the convergence
checks so that this information will always be available.
3. Continue until an eigenvalue is found that lies outside the computed range of the
shift point.
4. At this stage use a new arbitrary selected starting vector and compute one
eigenmode.
5. If the eigenvalue found in step 4. lies outside the range of the shifting point go to a
new shifting point since all eigenmodes within the range have been computed.
If the eigenvalue does not lie outside the range repeat steps 2, 3 and 4. until the
eigenvalue found in step 4. does lie outside the range. This ensures that all eigenvalues
within the range are computed even for eigenmodes that have the same eigenvalue. The
maximum number of times that steps 2., 3. and 4. will be repeated is equal to the
maximum number of eigenvectors that have a common eigenvalue.
74
Analysis Procedures
subspace iteration to ensure correct results. With inverse iteration this is not the case
and therefore knowledge of what these matrices may be like is not required.
Ma Ca Ka R(t ) (2.7-1)
For natural frequency analysis, we consider the damping C and the external force R(t)
both to be zero. Each freedom is assumed to excite harmonic motion in phase with all
other freedoms
(K - i M) a = 0 where i 2i (2.7-3)
K M (2.7-4)
Neglecting the trivial solution 0 the values of i and i that satisfy (2.7-4) are
defined as the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the problem respectively, which are
evaluated using subspace iteration [section 2.6]. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors are
the resonant vibration frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of a structure
respectively.
z
M N T t N dv
v
(2.7-5)
where N is the element shape function array and is the density matrix.
75
Theory Manual Volume 1
LM 0 0 0 0 0 OP U| translational DOF
MM 0
0 0 0 PP V|W
M PP
0 0 0
(2.7-6)
MM h2
12 0
h2
0
PP U|V rotational DOF
MMN sym 12 0
h2
12 PQ |W
where h is the thickness of the shell.
The lumped mass matrix is formed by scaling the diagonal terms of the consistent mass
matrix such that the total mass of the element is preserved, i.e. for translational degrees
of freedom
mii
z NiT t Ni dv z t
dv
z
v
n
v (2.7-7)
i 1
v
N Ni dv
Tt
i
mii
z NiT
t h3
12 Ni dA z t h3
A 12
dA
z
A
m
(2.7-8)
i 1
A
N T t h3
i 12 Ni dA
where n and m are the number of translational and rotational degrees of freedom
respectively.
Neither consistent or lumped mass matrices are ideal for all applications. It is known
that if the finite element mesh correctly represents the volume of a structure, the
elements are compatible and not softened by low order integration, so that consistent
mass matrices will provide an upper bound to the natural frequencies. On the other
hand diagonalised matrices generally yield natural frequencies less than the exact
values. In general, consistent mass matrices are usually most accurate for flexural
problems and lumped mass matrices are usually more effective for wave propagations
problems.
76
Analysis Procedures
i D B i (2.7-9)
S D E (2.7-11)
D Boa (2.7-12)
77
Theory Manual Volume 1
z z z
K BT D B dv GTS G dv NT N dv (2.7-13)
v v v
Notes
Centripetal stiffening effects are limited to 2D-continuum, axisymmetric solid,
3D-continuum, semiloof shell, and 3D numerically integrated beam elements.
Centripetal stiffness effects are only included in nonlinear analyses via the Total
Lagrangian geometric nonlinearity facility.
dK K i a dK K i ba ag R
(2.8-1)
78
Analysis Procedures
Subtraction of the first equation from the second yields the generalised eigenproblem
dK K i 0
(2.8-2)
where are the eigenvalues which are used as multipliers to evaluate the buckling
loads and are the eigenvectors which give the associated buckling modes shapes.
The critical loads, Rcrit , are obtained using the following equation
Rcrit 1 R (2.8-3)
where 1 is the smallest eigenvalue of the system and R is the initially applied load
vector. The eigenvalue problem is solved using the subspace iteration method [Section
2.6].
Occasionally the computed stress stiffness matrix may be non-positive definite causing
both negative and positive eigenvalues. To overcome this problem (2.8-2) may be
recast in the following form
K 1 K (2.8-4)
dK K i K
(2.8-5)
where now we seek the smallest positive eigenvalue g. The critical load 1 factor is
given by
1
1 (2.8-6)
(1 1 )
Notes
In certain situations the eigenvalues may be very closely spaced, causing
convergence problems in the iterative solution.
When shifting is used, if 1 is large then 1 will be close to 1.0 and an error in
1 can yield a large error in 1 . Thus, the applied load must be reasonably
close to the buckling load to yield a small value of 1 .
Negative eigenvalues may indicate bifurcation in tension or bifurcation that
would occur if the loading is reversed in sign.
79
Theory Manual Volume 1
The problem of finding natural frequencies and mode shapes in a given structure
amounts to solving the differential equation
Ma Ca Ka R(t ) (2.9-1)
where a is the displacement vector, M is the mass matrix, K is the stiffness matrix
and C is the damping matrix, with R(t ) 0 for natural (as opposed to forced)
oscillations. For undamped motion, C0 and the resulting generalised eigenvalue
problem takes the form
Ka Ma (2.9-2)
where both K and M are real, symmetric matrices such that M 1 K is symmetric,
and thus the standard eigenvalue problem
M 1 Ka a (2.9-3)
For damped motion, C is a real non-zero matrix that may or may not be symmetric,
A B (2.9-4)
80
Analysis Procedures
A
LM M 0 OP , B
LM 0 M OP (2.9-5)
N 0 KQ N M C Q
and
LM xOP (2.9-6)
NxQ
which in turn reduces to the standard eigenvalue problem
~
A (2.9-7)
~
where A is given by
LM
1 1
~ M C M K
A
OP
I MN 0 PQ (2.9-8)
~
A is clearly not symmetric, and thus and can now be complex, with
corresponding conjugate solutions and . Note that the dimension of the problem
has doubled due to the addition of damping.
Full details of the use of the Arnoldi method to solve this complex eigenvalue problem
can be found in [S15].
81
Theory Manual Volume 1
where yi are the factors applied to the vectors so that their sum equals a . The choice
of orthogonal vectors is arbitrary. However, the use of the eigenvectors i of the
system
cK Mh 0
2
i
(2.10-2)
has advantages, where i have been scaled to the mass matrix. Writing the
displacement vector a as
a Y (2.10-3)
where the matrix contains m eigenvectors which may be some or all of the
eigenvectors of the system (2.10-2). The equation of linear dynamic equilibrium is
Ma Ca Ka t R (2.10-4)
M Y CY K Y t R (2.10-5)
T M Y T CY T K Y T t R (2.10-6)
The advantage of using the eigenvectors of (2.10-2) is now apparent, as pre and post
multiplying the mass and stiffness matrices, M and K , by results in their
diagonalisation. Provided the damping matrix C is diagonal, the reduced equilibrium
equations are uncoupled
Since the eigenvectors were normalised with respect to the mass matrix the following
relationships apply
Ti M i 1 i=1,m
82
Analysis Procedures
Ti C i 2 i i i=1,m
(2.10-8)
Ti K i 2i i=1,m
where i are the modal damping ratios and i are the circular frequencies of the
system. Using these relationships (2.10-7) becomes
Yi 2i iYi 2i Yi Ti t R i=1,m
(2.10-9)
The reduced linear equations in the form of (2.10-9) are particularly useful since
methods for their explicit solution are readily available in standard mathematical texts.
The major limitation of the method is that the response is restricted to linear small
displacement theory in accordance with the principles of mode superposition.
Modal damping may be specified directly with unique damping coefficients associated
with each mode or for a frequency range from which the modal damping will be
interpolated. Alternatively, the Rayleigh damping parameters (2.4-13)for each mode
may be specified. These are then automatically converted to the equivalent modal
damping using the relationship
i 12
LM a
R
+ bR i
OP (2.10-10)
N i Q
Modal damping factors may also be computed to model the physical distribution of
damping in a structure. This may be done for viscous and/or structural damping and
utilises the element damping matrices together with the eigenmodes to compute the
modal damping coefficient. Unique Rayleigh damping coefficients may be specified
for a frequency range from which the coefficients will be interpolated for the required
modal frequency and the distributed damping factor computed. Alternatively, the
Rayleigh damping coefficients may be extracted from the material properties input.
Element damping matrices are then computed using equation (2.4-13) which are
assembled allowing the equivalent modal damping coefficients to be obtained using the
damping relationship in equation (2.10-8).
Two modal analysis types are implemented in LUSAS and are detailed in the following
sections.
83
Theory Manual Volume 1
am a
K C
ag
Force is transmitted to the mass from the earth via the spring and dashpot.
If there are no other applied loads, the equation of motion of the mass M is
where the force in the spring is induced by relative displacement between the earth and
mass. Similarly, the viscous force is developed when there is a relative velocity
between the ground and mass. If a relative displacement coordinate system is now
defined as
a am ag a am a g a am ag (2.10-12)
and, substituted into (2.10-11), this gives
Ma Ca Ka Mag (2.10-13)
which defines the relative motion of the mass with respect to earth arising from the
earthquake. Dividing (2.10-11) by M recovers the reduced modal equation (2.10-9) for
a multi-degree of freedom system
84
Analysis Procedures
a 2a 2a ag (2.10-14)
KSd Ma
m (2.10-15)
or
K
am Sa Sd 2Sd (2.10-16)
M
where Sa is the absolute acceleration of the mass. The true velocity of a the mass is a
which is not readily obtainable from the formulation. Instead a pseudo velocity is
introduced S v which relates the kinetic energy of the mass to the maximum energy
stored in the spring
1
2 MSv2 12 KSd2 (2.10-17)
or
Sv Sd (2.10-18)
Sa Sv 2Sd (2.10-19)
85
Theory Manual Volume 1
Yi 2 i iYi 2i Yi Pa
i g (t ) i=1,m (2.10-20)
Yi = PS
i di (2.10-21)
where S di is obtained for the modal frequency i by interpolation from the design
spectrum. Where the damping inherent in the spectral curve differs from the viscous
damping specified a damping correction can be applied. The use may select from the
following formulae.
Eurocode formula
2
(2.10-22)
2
where is the damping correction factor, is the specified spectral curve damping
and is the specified viscous damping.
Kapra formula
F I
G J
0.4
HK (2.10-23)
86
Analysis Procedures
Tolis & Faccioli [T3] proposed a modified version of the equation, which they state is
only applicable for damping values of 5% and greater:
15
(2.10-24)
10
Bommer & Elnashai [B11] also proposed an alternative equation, which lies between
the original EC8 formulation and the proposal of Tolis & Faccioli (1999):
10
(2.10-25)
5
The mass participation factor is also output and is defined as
Pi 2
MPi (2.10-26)
XT M X
Once the Yi are known for all modes the displacements for the finite element model
can be obtained by using (2.10-3).
To obtain an approximate solution, only part of the modal contributions need to be
included in the superposition. In general, the lower modes make the principal
contributions to the response and good approximations can frequently be obtained by
considering only the first few modes in the analysis.
87
Theory Manual Volume 1
m m
uk design u u
i 1 j 1
k
i
k
ij j (2.10-28)
2
The cross modal coefficients ij are functions of duration and frequency content of the
loading and of the modal frequencies and damping ratios of the structure. Within
LUSAS the coefficients are evaluated from
8( i j )1/ 2 ( i r j )r3/ 2
ij (2.10-29)
(1 r 2 )2 4 i j r(1 r 2 ) 4( 2i 2j )r 2
t
where the loading R is given in terms of a real and imaginary function.
For zero damping and the real component of load, the structural response is in phase
with the harmonic loading with maximum displacement occurring at the same time as
the peak in the applied loading. If viscous damping is introduced, the structural
response is delayed, with the maximum displacement now occurring after the peak in
the applied loading. This phase difference between the loading and response leads to a
complex solution for (2.10-30). To generalise the loading to allow out-of-phase loads,
the loading is represented by real and imaginary parts. Similarly, the structural
damping is given an imaginary component.
The harmonic response system of dynamic equilibrium equations may be solved
directly using a complex equation solution algorithm to invert the equivalent stiffness
88
Analysis Procedures
matrix for each loading frequency of interest. However, this is expensive and it is
generally more efficient to transform to a system of normal (modal) coordinates, as the
excitation of the lower modes of vibration is usually of interest.
The reduction of (2.10-30) to the modal form gives
where
( 2j 2i ) f R (2 j ji j 2j ) f I
(YR ) j (2.10-33)
( 2j 2i )2 (2 j ji j 2j )2
and
( 2j 2i ) f R (2 j ji j 2j ) f R
(YI ) j (2.10-34)
( 2j 2i )2 (2 j ji j 2j )2
The real and imaginary structural displacements are then obtained as
a R (Y R ) and a I (Y I ) (2.10-35)
Alternatively, rather than use the resolved real and imaginary components, the
amplitude and phase angle of the response may be used. The particular integral is then
i j
Yj a j e eiit (2.10-36)
where the real and imaginary components are related to the phase and amplitude by
89
Theory Manual Volume 1
fR fI
(YR ) j (YI ) j
( 2i )
2
j ( 2i )
2
j
(2.10-38)
As the loading frequency approaches the (j)th modal frequency (i.e. the loading
frequency is that of the natural harmonic frequency of the (j)th mode) then
i j (2.10-39)
and the case of perfect harmonic resonance is created with the generalised modal
displacements and, hence, the structural displacements tending to infinity. However,
since in reality some form of damping is present at each mode, displacements resulting
from the resonant condition are generally large but finite. Furthermore, since the higher
natural modes tend to be subject to a higher degree of damping it is usually only the
lower modes of vibration which are significant.
LM
K X ()
OP
KY ()
LM OP
X N X Y Q Y N Q
KZ ()
LM
Q() 0
OP (2.11-1)
Z N
Z Q
where, typically, for thermal conduction
= temperature.
The quasi-harmonic equation for heat conduction is based on the following
assumptions
90
Analysis Procedures
The material particles in the body are at rest, i.e. convective terms are ignored.
The thermal and stress response are completely uncoupled, i.e. thermal-structure
interaction is ignored.
The thermal response is independent of time.
The boundary conditions for heat conduction problems in field analysis have the
following form
Prescribed Temperatures. The temperature may be prescribed at individual
nodal points.
Field Problem Unknown () K Q
Prescribed Heat Flow. The heat flow across any surface may be prescribed as
K X ( ) LX KY () LY KZ () L
Y Y Z Z (2.11-2)
q qc () qr ()
where LX , LY and LZ are the direction cosines between the outward normal and the
X,Y and Z axes respectively.q is the imposed heat flux, qc is the convective heat flux
and qr is the radiative heat flux. The convective and radiative heat flux are generally
defined as
where hc and hr are the convective and radiative heat transfer coefficients
respectively, and e is the temperature of the surrounding environment.
K R (2.11-4)
z
K BT K B dv hc
v zsc
NsT Ns ds (2.11-5)
and R as
z
R N TQ dv
v z
s
N Tq ds hc zsc
NsTe ds (2.11-6)
where N and B are the shape functions and shape function derivatives and k is the
matrix of thermal conductivities.
Equation (2.11-2) has an identical form as the static analysis equilibrium equation,
therefore the solution algorithm is identical.
Notes
The conductance matrix and flux vector are formulated directly from the quasi-
harmonic equation in which the only degree of freedom is the field variable .
The conductance matrix is dependent on the boundary heat transfer conditions,
this may limit the analysis to one load vector.
() t t
P()t t K () (2.11-7)
where
92
Analysis Procedures
t t
P B z T t t
q dv (2.11-8)
t t
and R is the applied flux vector. A Newton iteration procedure is therefore utilised
(see section 2.5). Using this procedure, the discretised equations become
t t
K i1 i t t
Ri1 t t
Pi1 (2.11-9)
where
t t
K i1 t t
K ik1 t t
K ic1 t t
K ir1 (2.11-10)
in which
t t
K ik1 z NT t t
k i1 N dV (2.11-11)
z
V
t t
K ic1 t t i1
ch NST NS dS (2.11-12)
S
and
Further
t t
K ir1 z S
t t i1
rh NST NS dS (2.11-13)
t t t t t t t t
Ri-1 Qi-1 Qi-1
c
Qi-1
r
(2.11-14)
ext ext
t t
Qi-1 = z t t
q NS dS
z
S
(2.11-15)
t t t t
Qi-1 N dV Qcon
V
t t t t
where q is the boundary heat flux, Q is the rate of internal heat generation and
t t
Qcon is the concentrated nodal heat flux. Also the heat flow due to convection is
t t
Qi-1
c
ext
93
Theory Manual Volume 1
t t
Qi-1
rext
zS
t t i1
hr NST NS t t e dS
t t t t t t t t
Fi-1 Qi-1
c
Qi-1
r
Qi-1
k
(2.11-18)
int int int
t t t t
where Qi-1
c
is the internal heat flow due to convection, Qi-1
r
is the internal heat
t t
flow due to radiation, and Qi-1
k
is the internal heat flow due to conduction.
in which
t t
Qi-1
c
z t t i1
hc NST NS t t i-1 dS (2.11-19)
z
int S
t t
Qi-1
r
t t i1
h r NST NS t t i-1 dS (2.11-20)
int S
and
t t
Qi-1
k
int z V
BT t t
k i1 Bt t i-1 dV
Newton procedure with convergence on either the temperature and residual norms.
94
Analysis Procedures
LM
K X ()
OP
KY ()
LM
OP
X N X Y Q YN Q
LM
KZ ()
OP
Q() C()
(2.12-1)
Z N Z Q t
where c is the specific heat and is the density. Here K is the thermal conductivity,
is the temperature and Q is the heat supply. After discretisation this equation has the
form
K R 0
C (2.12-2)
z
C NT c()N dv
v
(2.12-3)
z
K BT B dv
v
(2.12-4)
95
Theory Manual Volume 1
z
R NTQ dv
v
(2.12-5)
Here N and B are the shape functions and shape function derivatives and is the
matrix of thermal conductivities. The solution of (2.12-2) is performed in a step-by-
step fashion.
t t R (1 ) t R 0 (2.12-6)
By use of the BETA facility on the CONSTANTS command in TRANSIENT
CONTROL, LUSAS gives the user the facility to vary the time integration constant ,
allowing a variety of procedures to be specified. Some of the more common procedures
are listed in table 2.11-1.
Scheme Beta ( )
When choosing an integration scheme and an increment of time the stability of the
integration scheme must be examined. The stability of (2.11-6) is defined by [Z1] as
it 2 1 2 (2.12-7)
Where i is the circular frequency of mode i of the eigenproblem obtained from (2.11-
2). This condition is always satisfied for 1/2 which provides unconditionally stable
algorithms regardless of the value of t. The Crank-Nicholson, Galerkin and Backward
Euler schemes are of this form. When < 1/2 then the algorithm is only conditionally
stable with the maximum time step length defined by
96
Analysis Procedures
2
t (2.12-8)
1 2 max
Where max is the maximum circular frequency of the system. Violation of this
criterion results in divergence of the solution algorithm.
For = 0, the integration scheme becomes explicit. If the C matrix is also diagonal, a
trivial solution without a matrix inversion is obtained. For = 0, the integration
schemes are termed explicit.
Theoretically, the Crank-Nicholson scheme should provide the greatest accuracy of the
implicit algorithms. However, for < 1 all algorithms are susceptible to oscillatory
effects in the solution as the time step becomes large and these are most pronounced
with the Crank-Nicholson scheme. Therefore, the Galerkin scheme is recommended as
this scheme also provides better accuracy than the backward Euler scheme and is less
susceptible to oscillations than the Crank-Nicholson scheme. The backward Euler
scheme provides the greatest resistance to oscillations although, for cases in which a
ramping of the thermal load is used, a subsequent reduction in oscillation will normally
be seen.
The time step used for implicit algorithms is dependent upon the number of modes that
influence the response of the system. Generally, the major part of the response is
governed by the lower modes so that
1
t (2.12-9)
3p
Where p is the circular frequency of the pth mode where p << n and corresponds to
the highest mode that is likely to influence the solution. Alternatively, an approximate
time step may be obtained from the diffusivity of the system as
2c
t (2.12-10)
4k
97
Theory Manual Volume 1
t t
i t t i1 i (2.12-11)
so that
t t i t t i
C t t Ki 1i t t Ri 1 t t Fi 1 (2.12-12)
The integration of the rate term is performed using the backward Euler method.
Consequently, the rate term is approximated as
t t
i 1
t
t t
i1 i t
(2.12-13)
1 1 t t i t t
t
t t i
C t t Ki 1 i t t R t t Fi 1 C i 1 t
t
(2.12-14)
whilst (2.11-14) can be simplified to
1 t t 1 t t i t t
i t t
t C K R t t Fi 1 C i 1 t (2.12-15)
t
(2.12-16)
98
Analysis Procedures
f
H
c1 d L c2 d f
ref f
(2.12-17)
and for alloy substances (fig.2.12-1b)
H
c1 d f
ref
(2.12-18)
f
dL
H
c1 d
d cf d
f f
ref ref
(2.12-19)
f f f
H
ref
c1 d
f
cf d
f f
c2 d f
(2.12-20)
where c1 , c2 and cf are the specific heat values below, above and during the phase
change respectively.
The transient term in the governing equation for transient heat flow (2.12-1) may be
rewritten as
H dH d * d
c (2.12-21)
t d dt dt
where c* is the effective heat capacity including the effects of the latent heat of
evolution.
99
Theory Manual Volume 1
H x T x H yT y
c (2.12-22)
T x 2 T y2
Lemmon [L3,L4]
1
H x 2 H y 2 2
c (2.12-23)
T x 2 T y2
where the enthalpy H is interpolated from nodal values using the element shape
functions, i.e.
n n
H N
H
i 1
NiHi so that
x
i 1
x
iH
i (2.12-24)
100
Analysis Procedures
Temperature
Temperature
f
Solid temperature
f + f
Liquid temperature
f f
f
Transition Transition
region region
Enthalpy H Enthalpy H
101
Theory Manual Volume 1
102
Analysis Procedures
103
Theory Manual Volume 1
The approach adopted for the solution of the coupled problem is to partition the
structural and field analyses either sequentially or in parallel. The time integration
process is performed over each system component.
Communication is achieved via a data transfer file which is common to both analysis
modules. Reading and writing of datasets occurs from or to this file at defined intervals
throughout the analysis. Information transfer occurs at an incremental level if the
analyses are performed independently. If two analyses can be run concurrently
information may be transferred either on an iterative or an incremental level.
wp 12 Tp n t t
t s (2.13-1)
where
104
Analysis Procedures
t t = stresses at time t
Equation (2.13-1) is evaluated at the Gauss points and may be distributed to the nodes
in a manner similar to that when dealing with body force potentials so that
z
R Nwp dv
v
(2.13-2)
and R will contribute towards the element right hand side in the thermal analysis. The
vector R will be passed to the thermal analysis so that the heat flux will be given by
hf
Q R (2.13-4)
tint
where hf is the heat fraction, tint the time interval over which the work is generated
and Q the heat flux. Q can now be added into the element right hand side in the
same manner as a 'concentrated load'.
Option 1 In this instance the current time is always available in the dynamic
analysis so that the time over which the load is applied is known. However, the
105
Theory Manual Volume 1
field analysis dictates the time increment over which the heat flux is to be
applied. The use of a steady state thermal analysis means that the heat build up
is assumed to be instantaneous as time is not considered.
Option 2 Times are available at every stage of the analysis, allowing
interpolation between dumps and direct correlation between the two analyses. If
the time interval for data transfer is specified, the user defined timestep will be
adjusted so that the exact transfer times can be achieved.
Option 3 Using this option both thermal and structural equilibrium are
considered to be achieved instantaneously.
Option 4 This option is appropriate if inertia effects are not significant in the
structural analysis. The use of a transient thermal analysis allows control over
the diffusion rate for heat generated due to plastic work.
General considerations
1. The heat flux generated due to plastic work is a function of the time increment over
which the work is done. For a meaningful solution to this type of problem the
thermal analysis should be transient. This allows control over the rate at which the
plastic work is assumed to be done.
2. It is important not to miss data by inconsistent data transfers during an analysis.
This could result in the heat due to plastic work being applied over a different
period in the thermal analysis to when it was generated. It is recommended that
reading and writing to the data transfer file are carried out at the same point in the
analysis to prevent this occurring.
3. The structural analysis must be run first when problems involving semi-coupled
analysis are run. In general, for analyses run in parallel, the thermal analysis must
wait for the structural analysis to write before attempting to read from the data
transfer file (or DTF).
4. A fully coupled analysis involving iterative transfers will give the best solutions but
the extra expense in computation may not be justified in some cases. Iterative
coupling is justified when the temperatures generated produce significant thermal
strains or when the material properties are temperature dependent. The option of
running problems in parallel but coupling on an incremental basis should prove to
give the most efficient solutions in terms of accuracy and computer cost.
5. It may prove necessary to read and write to the data transfer file at different times
on the initial load step for some problems. If this is not done the situation could
arise where both analyses are waiting to read new data in the data transfer file
before anything has been written. Care should be taken in this respect when the type
of analysis is required to perform a 'static' step before commencing the actual
solution.
6. When using explicit elements in the structural analysis a driven timestep should be
specified in an accompanying transient field analysis.
7. The thermal softening facility will not be available if OPTION 118 is disabled by
the user.
106
Analysis Procedures
t+t b d
This iterative strategy is different from that usually in force for a coupled analysis in
the sense that values computed at time t+t in the structural analysis are used at time t
in the thermal analysis. The heat flux due to plastic work done over the time step t is
computed (points a to b). This flux is transferred to the thermal analysis (points b to c)
and used at time t (points c to d). The first temperature distribution is then transferred
to the structural analysis (points d to a). New temperature dependent properties and a
thermal loading are now applied to the initial structural analysis (points a to b) and the
iterative cycle continues until convergence is achieved.
107
Theory Manual Volume 1
m m
v v ( X , Y )cos n v ( X , Y )sin n
n 0
s
n
n1
a
n (2.14-1)
m m
w n1
wns ( X , Y )sin n w ( X , Y )cos n
n 0
a
n
where u,v and w are defined in the cylindrical coordinate system with axial, radial and
tangential displacements, as opposed to the more familiar displacements U,V,W in
global cartesian system. Note that for all references to Fourier analyses and elements,
capital letters, U,V,W,X,Y,Z refer to the global cartesian system whilst lower case
letters refer to the cylindrical coordinate system.
An analysis is performed for each harmonic component n, and the solution of the
original problem is obtained by combining the response of each harmonic. This is
consistent with the principle of superposition for linear elastic structural response.
By using this semi-analytical approach, the three dimensional analysis is reduced to a
series of two dimensional analyses, with the consequent saving in computational effort
being dependent upon the number of harmonics required to accurately reproduce the
structural response. Further details may be found in references [C1] and [Z1].
108
Analysis Procedures
The boundary conditions that must be applied on the axis of symmetry are
axisymmetric about X axis: v = 0, w = 0
axisymmetric about Y axis: u = 0, w = 0
2.14.2.2 n=1 Harmonic
Combinations of the tangential and radial displacements model the global displacement
of the cross-section in a direction perpendicular to its axis of symmetry; this is the
bending deformation of the structure.
Symmetric terms - bending about global Y axis
Asymmetric terms - bending about global Z axis
The decomposition of the loading into the n=1 Fourier components, resolves the
load in the global X and Y directions.
The boundary conditions that must be applied on the axis of symmetry are
axisymmetric about X axis: u = 0
axisymmetric about Y axis: v = 0
Further harmonics characterise cross-sectional deformation.
109
Theory Manual Volume 1
z
2
0
f( )cos n d Pi
m
cos n
n0
i (2.14-2)
110
Analysis Procedures
m m
Ry n0
Ryns cos n Ry
n1
a
n sin n (2.14-3)
m m
Rz n1
Rzns sin n Rz
n0
a
n cos n
where
NNodes is the number of restrained nodal reactions
rj is the radius of node j (note rj 1 for centre line nodes)
Rx j is the axial reaction at node j
Asymmetric - the total torque reaction which will be equal and opposite to the
structural torque TZ , can be calculated from
NNodes
TZ 2r Rz
j 1
j j (2.14-5)
where
NNodes is the number of restrained nodal reactions
rj is the radius of node j (note rj 1 for centre line nodes)
Rz j is the torsional reaction at node j
111
Theory Manual Volume 1
where
NNodes is the number of restrained nodal reactions
rj rj 1
is the radius of node j (note for centre line nodes)
Ry j
is the radial reaction at node j
Rz j
is the torsional reaction at node j
where
NNodes is the number of restrained nodal reactions
112
Analysis Procedures
K ff a f P f (2.15-1)
where f denotes the set of statically independent 'free' variables. This is then partitioned
as
LMK OPL O LM OP
QMN PQ N Q
K ms a m P
mm
m (2.15-2)
NK sm
K ss a s Ps
113
Theory Manual Volume 1
where subscript m denotes the active set which includes all exterior freedoms and
subscript s denotes the omitted set which includes all interior freedoms. Note that
subscripts denote the type of variables that matrices relate to.
Rewriting the second set of equations gives
as K 1
ss
Ps Gsm am (2.15-3)
where
Gsm K 1
ss
K sm (2.15-4)
K mmam Pm (2.15-5)
where
K mm K mm K ms Gsm (2.15-6)
and
Pm P m GTsm Ps (2.15-7)
Here K mm represents the stiffness of the substructure and Pm represents the the
boundary loads transmitted to the rest of the structure.
No approximation has been performed in the static condensation so that for a static
analysis the substructure solution will be identical to a solution that does not use the
substructuring technique.
K ff a f 2 M ff a f P f (2.15-8)
For this case the mass contribution of the internal or slave nodes are neglected to
permit the equations to be reduced in the same manner. This results in an identical
expression for the stiffness and mass being defined as
114
Analysis Procedures
A similar expression may be derived for the damping matrix. Unlike the condensation
of the stiffness matrix which is exact, the condensation of the mass matrix is only
approximate. The accuracy of the solution obtained will depend on the suitability of the
external or master freedoms to represent the response of the structure. Further, dynamic
analyses will require internal master nodes in order to reproduce the correct response.
2.15.5 Transformations
The freedoms at a node associated to a superelement may be transformed at both the
superelement generation and use stages. Therefore transformation of the superelement
stiffness, mass and force vectors between the superelement generation and
superelement use axes systems is defined as
Stiffness: K u T u T Tg K g T g T Tu (2.15-10)
Mass: M u T u T Tg M g T g T Tu (2.15-11)
Force: f u T u T Tg f g (2.15-12)
where subscripts 'u' and 'g' refer to values defined in the use and generation phases
respectively.
115
Theory Manual Volume 1
eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector is dependent upon the suitability of the Ritz
basis vectors used in reducing the component matrices. This in turn is dependent on
how accurately the boundary conditions are represented in the eigen-analysis of the
components.
Generally the master freedoms are assumed to be either fixed or free, however a better
approximation is usually obtained by utilising point masses and stiffnesses to represent
the effects of the remaining structure. It is possible to invoke an automatic procedure
for distributing the stiffness and mass of the remaining structure to the boundary nodes.
This is achieved by modifying the master freedoms for each superelement in turn and
then performing a Guyan reduction analysis. This provides the reduced stiffness and
mass from which the superelement stiffness and mass are subtracted to give the
boundary mass and stiffness.
116
Analysis Procedures
automatically reduce the stiffness and mass of the remaining structure to the
exterior freedoms.
Both methods use the same concept, however the first requires the user to estimate the
stiffness and mass of the remaining structure.
Once the component mode reduction has been carried out for each superelement the
residual structure can be assembled and the natural frequencies computed. At this stage
it will also be possible to automatically distribute the mass and stiffness of the residual
structure to each superelement. This is useful when computing the natural frequency
solutions for the individual superelements since it allows more accurate interface
stiffnesses and masses to be utilised. It is possible to insert spring masses and
stiffnesses into these interface variables as described above but these values could be
difficult to calculate by hand. It should also be noted that the distribution of stiffness
and mass could be carried out before any natural frequency computations are done at
the superelement level. Once this redistribution has been carried out, the natural
frequencies of the individual superelements can be computed more accurately.
Note that when interface freedoms are defined as masters on the superelements,
compatibility between the superelements is ensured. This is true even though the
eigenvectors defining the generalised variables of the individual superelements may be
incompatible. If no interface freedoms are retained in the superelement then the
relationship between the interior freedoms and the generalised coordinates is fully
defined by the eigenvectors (see equations (2.15-15) and (2.15-16)). Consequently,
compatibility has to be ensured by utilising eigenvector components of the variables
along the common interface between the two superelements.
( K ff M ff ) f 0 (2.15-13)
LMa OP LM
s sq OP a q
Na Q MN PQ (2.15-14)
m mq
117
Theory Manual Volume 1
we wish to represent the response for the internal (or omitted) freedoms in terms of the
master freedoms as well as the generalised freedoms. This representation can be written
as
It remains to evaluate the matrices Gsm and Gsq required for this equation and to use
these to transform the governing equations (2.15-1) and (2.15-13) into a form that only
uses the master freedoms and generalised coordinates.
From the static reduction equation (2.15-14) we have already determined
Gsm K 1
ss
K sm (2.15-16)
LMa OP LMG
s sm OPLM OP
Gsq a m
(2.15-19)
Na Q NI
m 0 aq
QN Q
which can be used to compute the reduced stiffness and mass matrices which
adequately represent the characteristics of the superelement.
The transformations can be written generally as
118
Analysis Procedures
and therefore the static properties of the structure will be properly represented at the
exterior degrees of freedom. Using equations (2.15-20) we obtain the following
reduced matrices for a superelement
reduced stiffness matrix
LMK mm
K ms Gsm 0 OP (2.15-21)
MN 0 GTsq K ss Gsq PQ
Note that equation (2.15-16) has been used to zero the off diagonal terms.
reduced mass matrix
LMG T
sm
M ss Gsm GTsm M sm M ms Gsm M mm GTsm M ss Gsq M ms Gsq OP
MN GTsq M ss Gsm GTsq M sm GTsq M ss Gsq PQ
(2.15-22)
reduced damping matrix (for dynamics)
LMG T
sm
Css Gsm GTsm Csm Cms Gsm C mm GTsm Css Gsq Cms Gsq OP
MN G Css Gsm G Csm
T
sq
T
sq
T
G Css Gsq
sq PQ
(2.15-23)
reduced load vector (for dynamics)
LMG P P OP
T
sm s m
(2.15-24)
MN G P PQ T
sq s
These matrices fully represent the superelement characteristics and can be assembled
with the residual structure in order to obtain the solution for the full structure.
119
Theory Manual Volume 1
1
2 2 T (2.15-25)
A1 T 2A 2 (2.15-27)
A A
where
A T ( T )1
A A A (2.15-28)
mn mn mm
and it is assumed n is less than or equal to m. The impedance matrix can therefore be
expressed in the form:
Z A A1 K A 2 M A (2.15-29)
where
K A TA 2A A (2.15-30)
and
M A TA A (A TA )1 (2.15-31)
120
Analysis Procedures
The reduced stiffness KA and mass MA matrices for a component A can, thus, be
computed from the natural frequencies and mass normalised eigenvectors via equations
(2.15-30) and (2.15-31) respectively.
where:
for equilibrium:
121
Theory Manual Volume 1
(t ) 0 (2.16-2)
where
Rr ( t ) ' = nodal forces 'equivalent' to the internal stress state for the elements
removed (i.e. stress state just prior to removal)
For equilibrium to be maintained:
where:
If the residual forces, Rr ( t ) ' , are preserved in the system the internal stress state in the
active elements will remain the same as it was prior to deactivating some of the
elements. In the case of tunnelling, it may be necessary to redistribute some of these
equilibrating forces to the remaining material prior to the introduction of a tunnel
lining. This relaxation can be achieved by redistributing a fraction of the residual prior
to activating the elements representing the tunnel lining. For example,
where:
122
Analysis Procedures
( t 1) (1 f ) Rr ( t ) (2.16-10)
force in the system is now given by . The remaining residual force, , can now
be redistributed in the final assembly after the activation of elements representing the
tunnel lining:
where:
( t2) 0 (2.16-13)
It should be noted that residual forces only exist at the boundary nodes between active
and deactivated elements. All internal forces and loading at nodes which exist solely on
deactivated elements will be zero.
123
Theory Manual Volume 1
Assumption
Pg Patm const. (2.17-1)
Saturations
Sw Sg 1 (2.17-2)
Sw Sw Pc (2.17-3)
Mass content equations
w nSw w (2.17-4)
g nSg g (2.17-5)
v nSg v (2.17-6)
Ideal gas law
Pv Rv vT (2.17-7)
Capillary pressure
Pc Pg Pw (2.17-8)
Pc wRvT ln Pv / Psat (T ) (2.17-9)
Hydration
mh mw (2.17-10)
n n (2.17-11)
Qh Qh ,T , t (2.17-12)
Darcys law
vw
Kw K I
w
P g
w w (2.17-13)
Flux equations
JT kT T (2.17-14)
Jw w vw (2.17-15)
Jv v vv g Dva v / g (2.17-16)
Liquid water mass balance equation
w
J w mh mevap (2.17-17)
t
Water vapour mass balance equation
v
Jv mevap (2.17-18)
t
Energy balance equation
CT J mevap Hv Qh (2.17-19)
t T
124
Analysis Procedures
Eliminating the rate of water evaporation mevap results in the following system of
differential equations:
CT H w
JT Hv J w Hv mh Qh
t t
v
(2.17-20)
w v
J w J v mh
t t
The temperature T and the capillary pressure Pc are chosen as the dependent unknowns.
The partial differential equations 2.17-20 are rewritten explicitly in terms of T and Pc
using the relationships 2.17.-1 to 2.17.16. Discretizing the domain into finite elements
and applying the Galerkin weighted residual method converts them into a system of
ordinary differential equations with respect of time. Applying the backward Euler
difference scheme gives the required algebraic equations.
The following notation has been used above:
Variables
T Temperature Pc Capillary pressure
S Saturation Psat Water saturation pressure
Qh Heat of hydration Pv Partial water vapour pressure
Rv Gas constant of water P Pressure
Dva Water vapour diffusion through H Latent heat of evaporation
air coefficient
KI Intrinsic permeability Kw Relative water permeability
n Porosity m Water mass
kT Thermal conductivity t Time
Density Degree of hydration
Vectors
J Flux v velocity
g Gravity accelaration differential operator
Subscripts
w Liquid water v Water vapour
h Hydration g Gas (air+water vapour)
T Temperature
... Quantity defined per unit
125
Theory Manual Volume 1
126
Analysis Procedures
dvs: the partial volume of the solid phase within the REV
dvw: the average volume or pore space occupied by the water within the REV;
dvg: the average volume or pore space occupied by the gas within the REV.
Obviously, dv = dvs + dvw + dvg; the total pore volume is dvw+ dvg. The porosity
(2.18-1)
(2.18-2)
(2.18-3)
The volume fractions s, w and g of the solid phase, water and gas constituents are
respectively
(2.18-4)
and
(2.18-5)
Stress is defined as tension positive for the solid phase; pore pressure is defined as
compressive positive for fluids.
127
Theory Manual Volume 1
Assume that in the partially saturated zone the air phase flows without
resistance within the pores of the medium and always remains at atmospheric
pressure, which is taken as the reference pressure. The equilibrium pressure of
the gas constituent cannot be determined; it is usually assumed to be 0, i.e., pg
= 0. In the saturated zones pore pressures are positive, whereas this pressure is
negative in the unsaturated zone. The free surface which separates the two
zones has pw = 0. It is then feasible to neglect the mass balance equation for
the gaseous phase.
The excitation is relatively slow, so that the fluid acceleration relative to the
solid skeleton (including the convective terms) can be neglected.
(2.18-7)
128
Analysis Procedures
where s is the intrinsic density of the solid phase; w (M/L3) is the intrinsic density of
water.
The effective stress principle gives
(2.18-9)
where represents the stress responsible for all deformation of the solid, pw (M/LT2)
is the pressure of the liquid phase (water), and the vector
(2.18-10)
Biots constant (designated with subscript b) is introduced to account for the
deformability or more specifically compressibility of the grains. It is
(2.18-11)
where Ks is the averaged bulk modulus of the solid grains, KT is the tangential bulk
modulus of the porous skeleton. The constitutive relationship for the solid phase is
(2.18-12)
where represents the strain; DT is the tangent stress-strain matrix of the solid skeleton.
Assuming that the mass rate of evaporation is zero, and neglecting the gradient of water
density and the fluid acceleration relative to the solid skeleton (including the
convective terms), the mass balance equation for water is
(2.18-13)
where Kw is the bulk modulus of the pore fluid (water), (L2) is the intrinsic
permeability, rw is the relative permeability of water through the porous media,
is the effective permeability (L2), and w (M/TL) is the dynamic viscosity
of water. represents the gravitational acceleration. The unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity (L/T) may be adopted instead of the effective permeability above.
These two forms can be transformed from one to the other using relationship
(2.18-14)
(2.18-15)
129
Theory Manual Volume 1
The capillary pressure pc, which also coincides with the matrix suction s, is the pressure
difference between the gas phase and the liquid phase, hence
(2.18-16)
when the pressure of the gas phase pg = 0, and the capillary pressure relationship for
isothermal conditions reads
(2.18-17)
and the relative permeability
(2.18-18)
Taking into account that
(2.18-19)
where
(2.18-20)
is the specific moisture content, the mass balance equation (2.18-13) becomes
(2.18-21)
130
Analysis Procedures
(2.18-23)
(2.18-24)
Swc, , and pb (or ) are material constants. Swc is the irreducible saturation at
which the relative permeability goes to zero (also called the residual water saturation or
the displacement residual saturation), is the saturation when the soil is saturated (
1), is the pore size distribution index, pb is the bubbling pressure, and (< 0) is the
air-entry pressure head value above which the soil is assumed to be saturated.
van Genuchten model
van Genuchten model gives
, and (2.18-27)
and the corresponding relative hydraulic conductivity is usually obtained with the
formula of Mualem [M8] as
(2.18-28)
where material parameter is a fitting parameter related to the air-entry value of the
soil (> 0), and is a fitting parameter related to the rate of water extraction from the
soil once the air-entry value has been exceeded.
Instead of the effective saturation Se, the volumetric water content , which is related
to the degree of saturation Sw as , is often used to represent the above
relations.
Valiantzas model
Valiantzas model defines the relation via
131
Theory Manual Volume 1
(2.18-29)
The resulting relation with three parameters hc ( 0), ns (> 1) and weight factor
(0 ) w ( 1) is a continuously differentiable function.
The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is also a linear combination of the models of
Mualem [M8] and Burdine [B12], using the same weight factor w incorporated with the
proposed water retention function
(2.18-30)
The Valiantzas model tends to the van Genuchten - Mualem model when w tends to 1
(with ); whereas when w tends to 0, it tends to the Brooks - Corey -
Burdine model (with and ).
(2.18-31)
The imposed boundary values for displacements and water pressures are
on u
on w (2.18-32)
The traction boundary condition for the stresses is
on (2.18-33)
where is the prescribed traction. Denote the unit normal vector
(2.18-34)
the matrix
132
Analysis Procedures
(2.18-35)
on (2.18-36)
(2.18-37)
(2.18-38)
where Nu and Np are shape functions, and au and ap are corresponding nodal values.
Denote the strain-displacement matrix
(2.18-39)
The Bubnov-Galerkin weak form corresponding to (2.18-6) and (2.18-33) gives
(2.18-40)
(2.18-41)
(2.18-42)
(2.18-43)
133
Theory Manual Volume 1
(2.18-44)
(2.18-45)
(2.18-46)
(2.18-47)
(2.18-48)
(2.18-49)
from which the tangential stiffness matrix KT can be defined for a general nonlinear
solid-phase satisfying (2.18-12) as
(2.18-50)
The effect of the dynamic seepage forcing term is negligible and usually removed
from (2.18-41).
134
Analysis Procedures
the minimum load which will allow us to satisfy our two constraints? This is known as
an optimisation problem.
In figure 2.19-1 we have four views of a cable stayed bridge showing the deflection
caused by different load types. The first drawing shows the deflection of the bridge
under self-weight with the next three drawings the deflections of the bridge due to
loads in individual cables. Note, the self weight and cable tensions are applied in the
absence of any other load on the structure so as to isolate the exact affects of each of
the loadings.
Cable 1
A
Cable 3
Cable 2
Displacement for unit load in cable 2 Displacement for unit load in cable 3
Now taking advantage of linear superposition we can calculate the displacement at any
point on the structure corresponding to the dead load and the tensions in each cable. At
point A the vertical displacement due to the dead load is and the displacement
due to application of the unit load in cable 1 is ,. for cable 2 and
for cable 3. By summing contributions from each of the loads we find that the
vertical displacement at A is
(2.19-1)
135
Theory Manual Volume 1
(2.19-2)
Obviously there are an infinite number of combinations of S1, S2 and S3 which will
satisfy the equation. To obtain a unique answer we must introduce one other piece of
information known as the object function. For example, we could say that we want the
combination of S1, S2 and S3 which produces the minimum force possible in all the
cables or we can say we want the combination of S1, S2 and S3 which produces the
minimum bending moment at the base of the tower and so on. In figure 2.19.2 we see
the solution corresponding to question what are the lowest cable stresses to produce an
essentially level deck?
Fig 2.19-2 Optimised solution for level deck and minimum force in cables
We can also introduce further demands on the structure, either in the form of equalities
in which a piece of data sets an exact value or in the form of an inequality for which we
give a range of possible values. Looking again at fig 2.19-2. we could specify that we
want the displacements at end of each of the two mainspan cables to be zero as well as
setting the sway at the top of the tower to zero.. These three equalities are matched by
three variable cable tensions and we can solve exactly for the load scale factors S1, S2
and S3.
We can introduce as many equalities and inequalities as we like with the solution
method depending on the relative number of equalities, inequalities and load variables.
We call loads which are scaleable load variables, the other non-scaleable loads are just
dead loads. When we have less equalities than load variables we must use an
optimisation solution. When we have the same number of equalities as number of load
variables we can solve exactly. Finally, if we have more equalities than load variables
we must use either the discrete least squares or Chebyshev best fit methods. Both of
136
Analysis Procedures
these methods seek to reduce the errors in satisfying the exact equations. When
inequalities are present in the solution an optimisation method must be used.
The table below summarises the choice of solution method for various combinations of
load variables, equalities and inequalities.
In general both the exact and the discrete least squares methods will always produce
solutions of one sort or another. This is not always the case for an optimised solution.
Sometimes we can impose mutually exclusive conditions. For example if we say that
the vertical displacement at node A must satisfy the inequalities and
then it is obvious that wA cannot be located anywhere. Whilst it is easy to see
the contradiction in a simple situation sometimes the contradiction may be more subtle.
For instance, if all combinations of load variables produce a negative displacement at a
point and we require a positive displacement again we are in situation which cannot be
resolved. The best way to approach an optimisation problem is to start with the most
critical constraints and then add others gradually so that you can identify possible
contradictions.
The Simplex algorithm is used to solve the optimisation problem. It assumes that all
variables are positive so if we want to allow a variable to be negative we must
explicitly declare that it is allowed both positive and negative values. For instance, we
may have a tension in a cable even though its load variable is zero. To slacken this
cable off we need to use a negative load variable.
Both the exact and discrete least squares methods can produce anwers with positive and
negative load variables. It is quite common when solving a bridge with lots of cables
that some will go into compression or in reality go slack. However, in the solution the
compressive forces can be very large and should not be just ignored. The presence of
compressive forces indicates that you should slacken off some of the exact values
which have been imposed.
137
Theory Manual Volume 1
138
Geometric Nonlinearity
3 Geometric Nonlinearity
3.1 Introduction
Four geometrically nonlinear formulations are available in LUSAS
Total Lagrangian formulation,
Updated Lagrangian formulation,
Eulerian formulation.
Co-rotational formulation
In the Lagrangian formulations all variables are referred to a reference configuration.
This will be the undeformed configuration in what is termed Total Lagrangian, or the
configuration at the last converged solution in what is termed Updated Lagrangian. A
Lagrangian approach tends to be preferred in structural problems where it is required to
monitor the path of a particular particle through space. It is thus termed a referential or
material description. The derivation which follows applies to both Total and Updated
versions except where the differences are highlighted. The limits of integration are
carried out over the undeformed configuration for the Total approach and the
configuration at the last converged solution for the Updated approach.
In the Eulerian formulation all variables are referred to the deformed configuration. In
the past this has been preferred for fluid problems where it is required to monitor the
path of fluid through a particular control volume and not the path of one particle in its
entirety. It is thus termed a spatial description. For structural problems its use has been
limited as the deformed configuration is unknown. The formulation used in LUSAS is
not Eulerian in the strictest sense but the term is used to avoid confusion with the
Lagrangian description.
In the co-rotational formulation all strains are computed in a local frame which follows
the element as it deforms. This approach is generally applicable, but is especially useful
when used to formulate elements with rotational degrees of freedom. At present, this
formulation is available for one beam element and for all 2D and 3D continuum
elements including the solid composite elements.
139
Theory Manual Volume 1
Considering a set of virtual displacements u , the work done by the external surface
tractions t and body forces f is given by
We = z A
T
u t dA + z
V
T
u f dV
(3.2-1)
and considering a corresponding set of virtual strains , the work done by the
internal stresses is given by
Wi = z
V
T
dV
(3.2-2)
where and represent general strain measures and may be replaced by any specific
work conjugate strain measures. The virtual work equation can then be written as
z
V
uT dV = z
V
dV -
T
z A
uT t dA - z V
uT f dV
(3.2-3)
where the left hand side represents the work done by the residual or out of balance
force vector . The variation of the virtual work equation can now be obtained by
taking the variation of equation (3.2-3). If the loading is assumed to be conservative,
the variation of the external work terms due to the surface and body loadings can be
ignored. The variation of equation (3.2-3) can then be written as
z
d uT dV =
V zV
T
d( ) dV + zV
Td dV + zV
T d(dV)
(3.2-4)
140
Geometric Nonlinearity
ds2 - dS2
E = (3.3-1)
2dS2
where dS is the length of a vector dX in the reference configuration and ds is the length
of the corresponding vector dx in the deformed configuration. Equation (3.3-1) can be
written in tensor notation in terms of displacement gradients as
LM
1 ui u j u k u k OP
Eij =
MN
2 X j
+
Xi
+
Xi X j PQ (3.3-2)
Equation (3.3-2) is exact for arbitrary large deformations. For the specific case of the 3-
D continuum strains, equation (3.3-2) becomes
| X
| || 1 u 1 v 1 w ||
R| U| |Y | | 2 LMY OP 2 LMY OP 2 LMY OP |
v 2 2 2
|| ||w || || 1 NL u QO 1 NL v OQ 1 LNwOQ ||
xx
|| yy
S| zz
|| || ||Yv wX || || X Y X Y X Y ||
xy
yz
T zx W ||Z Y || || Yu Zu Yv Zv wY wZ ||
|TXw Zu |W || u u v v w w ||
T Z X Z X Z X W (3.3-3)
where all derivatives are evaluated with respect to the reference configuration.
The specific form of (3.3-3) is given for each element in Section 6.
The standard finite element strain-displacement matrix is formed by the discretisation
of (3.3-3) giving
1
E = Bo a A
2 (3.3-4)
141
Theory Manual Volume 1
= Ga (3.3-5)
dE B da + A d (3.3-6)
E B a + A (3.3-7)
and finally the variation of the virtual variation may be defined by taking the variation
of equation (3.3-7) as
d( E) dA (3.3-8)
dS = D dE (3.3-9)
Provided that the deformation involves large displacements and rotations but small
strains, (3.3-9) is a natural description of the material response. This is a consequence
of the invariance of the stresses and strains under rigid body rotation.
The invariance of the stresses also implies that any material description that has been
developed for infinitesimal displacement analysis using engineering stress and strain
measures may be employed directly in a Lagrangian large deformation analysis with
Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses and Green-Lagrange strains, provided that the strains
are small. Therefore nonlinear material models, e.g. elasto-plastic models, may be
utilized directly for both Total and Updated Lagrangian analysis.
142
Geometric Nonlinearity
aT
a V z
da = a GTS G + BT D B dV da
(3.3-10)
B = Bo + A G
(3.3-11)
and S is the stress matrix [Z1]. Therefore from (3.3-10) the tangent stiffness matrix
may be identified as
KT z
V
G S G dV +
T
z
V
T
B D B dV (3.3-12)
Note. If a constitutive relationship appropriate for large strains had been utilized in
(3.3-9), then equation (3.3-11) would have included a term for the variation of the D
matrix which in turn would have resulted in an additional term in the tangent stiffness
matrix.
z z T
aT V N dV = aT V B S dV - aT R (3.3-13)
where the matrix B is given by equation (3.3-11) and R is a vector of discretised nodal
external loads. Cancellation of the nodal displacements identifies the nodal residual
force vector as
= z
V
T
B S dV - R
(3.3-14)
The external force vector R may contain non-conservative loads, i.e. loads that vary
with structural deformation e.g. body forces and surface tractions.
In LUSAS, deformation dependent loading cannot be represented by the Total
Lagrangian formulation, however they may be approximately represented for the
143
Theory Manual Volume 1
t tt u
T t t
f dV (3.3-15)
v
Surface forces:
t tt u
T t t
t dV (3.3-16)
v
Note. Non-conservative loading is only available for two and three dimensional
continuum elements when using this formulation.
S( i) = D E(i) (3.3-18)
144
Geometric Nonlinearity
t t T t + t
t + t
= F SF
t
(3.3-21)
t + t x
F=
t x (3.3-22)
1
and the ratio of the mass density is computed as .
Det F
Note. Equation (3.3-21) is only valid for small strains.
If the element constitutive relationship is formed using global stresses, omission of
equation (3.3-21) would limit the formulation to small rotations as well as small strains,
as (3.3-21) rotates the stresses from the old configuration to the current configuration.
However, if the constitutive relationship is defined in terms of a local convected
coordinate system, then the stresses will be rotated as a consequence of the geometry
145
Theory Manual Volume 1
update and the omission of equation (3.3-21) will lead to a limitation of small strains
only.
-
b gd i
t + t t + t t + t
Ezz = Exx + Eyy
1-
(3.3-23)
or for isochoric plasticity
b gd i
t t t t
EZZ Exx t tEyy
1
t tE p xx t tE p yy (3.3-24)
t t
However, EZZ may also be defined in terms of the thicknesses at time t and time
t+t, i.e.
t + t
t + t h2 - t h2
Ezz =
2t h2 (3.3-25)
Therefore, the thickness may be updated as
t + t
c
h = t h 1 + 2t + t Ezz h
1/ 2
(3.3-26)
146
Geometric Nonlinearity
The logarithmic or natural strain measure is defined in terms of the change in length dS
per unit instantaneous length S as
dS
d =
S (3.4-1)
and the total logarithmic strain may then be determined by integration along the
length of the fibre as
= z
S0
S dS
S
dS = ln
S
So
= ln
(3.4-2)
where ln denotes the natural logarithm, So is the fibre original length and is the
stretch of the material.
In 3D, the principal stretches may be evaluated from the right stretch tensor as
U = T (3.4-3)
where
= [N1, N2 , N3 ] (3.4-4)
and N i are the direction cosines of the principal stretch directions with respect to the
global and hence, unrotated, configurations.
The direction of the principal stretch and the principal strain coincide
= T (3.4-5)
where is a diagonal tensor containing the principal logarithmic strains. These are
evaluated as
i = ln i (3.4-6)
The total logarithmic strain may also be evaluated [M1] by integrating the rate of
deformation tensor D over some time interval dt
147
Theory Manual Volume 1
= ztO
t
D dt
(3.4-7)
1 v v LM LM OP OP
T
D =
2 x
+
x MN N Q PQ (3.4-8)
Integration of the rate of deformation tensor (or velocity strain tensor) is performed at
the midpoint configuration, which provides a second order appproximation to the
logarithmic strain.
where R is a rotation tensor that defines the rigid body rotation of the principal
directions of strain, and U is the right stretch tensor that completely defines the
deformation of the material particles.
The right stretch tensor is evaluated by noting that [M1]
Since C is a second order tensor, the eigenvectors of C1/ 2 are identical to those of C
and the eigenvalues of C1/ 2 are the roots of the eigenvalues of C .
Therefore the eigen-problem
cC - Ih N = 0
2
(3.4-11)
may be solved for i , the principal stretches and N i , the corresponding eigenvectors
which define the principal directions of strain. The right stretch tensor U is then given
by
U = N NT (3.4-12)
148
Geometric Nonlinearity
aT
a V z
da = a BT B + GT G + BT D B dV da
(3.4-14)
where and are stress matrices [H3] and B is evaluated in the current deformed
configuration.
Note. A stiffness contribution due to the variation of the volumetric strain has been
neglected in (3.4-14) as it leads to a non-symmetric tangent matrix.
The tangent stiffness matrix may be identified from (3.4-14) as
KT = z
V
B B dV +
T
z
V
T
G G dV + zV
T
B D B dV
(3.4-15)
Note. By default, the first term in 3.4-15 is neglected. This improves the convergence
rate of the iteration process when the rigid body rotation is removed exactly in the
strain computations.
149
Theory Manual Volume 1
5. Form the deformation gradient and deformation tensor at time t+t and use the
t+ t
polar decomposition theorem to evaluate u
6. Form the strain tensor from the stretch tensor
t+ t
R = T and ii = ln i1/2 , ij = 0 d i (3.4-20)
10. Rotate to the Cauchy stresses for internal forces and output
t+t
= t+ot Rt+t R t+ot RT (3.4-24)
150
Geometric Nonlinearity
t+ t/2
from which the rotation matrix R is computed as before. The current strain
o
increments are evaluated from the velocity strain and may be rotated at this midpoint
configuration as
R = t+t/2o RT t+t/2o R
(3.4-29)
whence, the total strain is updated in the unrotated configuration
t+t/2
R = t-t/2 R + R (3.4-30)
t+t
and the rotation matrix o
R computed. Finally, the new Cauchy stress is rotated
back to the current rotated configuration
t+t
= t+t R t+t t+t
RT (3.4-33)
151
Theory Manual Volume 1
The total strain measure may also be rotated in a similar manner for
output/restart/plotting purposes as
t+t/2
= t+t/2 R t+t/2 R t+t/2
RT
(3.4-34)
t+ t/2
r = e t+ t/2 t + t
t+ t/2
T
j t+ t/2
t
(3.4-38)
d J = D d (3.4-39)
where D is the infinitesimal modulus matrix and d J is the Jaumann variation of the
Cauchy stress.
152
Geometric Nonlinearity
Similarly, any nonlinear constitutive model formulated with engineering stress and
strain measures is valid, even in the presence of large strains.
= z T
B dV (3.4-40)
where the matrix B is evaluated in the deformed configuration and the is a vector
of Cauchy stresses.
The external force vector q may contain non-conservative loads i.e. loads that vary
with structural deformation, e.g. body forces and surface tractions. These are
represented by integrating the forces at time t+t in the current iterative configuration
at time t+t as
Body Forces: z b gc
t+ t V i-1
t+ t
u h T t+ t
f dV (3.4-41)
Surface Forces: z b gc
t+ t V i-1
t+ t
uh
T t+ t
t dV (3.4-42)
Note that non-conservative loading is only available for use with two and three
dimensional continuum elements when using this formulation.
The structural geometry is updated by adding the iterative displacement vector abig
to the nodal coordinates as
t+ t
bg
x i = t x + abi g (3.4-43)
t
where x are the nodal coordinates at the end of the last converged increment.
153
Theory Manual Volume 1
-
bzzig =
b ge
1-
bxxig + byyig j
(3.4-44)
or for isochoric plasticity
-
bzzig =
b ge
1-
j
bxxig + byyig - pxxbig - pyybig
(3.4-45)
big
However, zz may also be defined in terms of the thickness at time t and time t+t,
i.e. using a mid-point rule
b ig
zz =
LM
1 hbi g
+
hbi g OP
t
2N h t
h + hbi g Q (3.4-46)
rearrangement of (3.4-46) gives the thickness update as
bg LM LM e j OP OP
t + t h i = t h bzzig + 1 + bzzig
2 1/ 2
N N QQ (3.4-47)
154
Geometric Nonlinearity
where
R is a rotation tensor that defines the rigid body rotation of the principal
directions of strain, and
V is the left stretch tensor, which is defined in the Eulerian
(spatial) triad. The above decomposition of the deformation gradient may be viewed as
rotation followed by stretching, rather than the stretching followed by rotation,
given in Section 3.4.2.
The left stretch tensor is given as [C16]
cb - Ih n = 0
2
(3.4-50)
may be solved for i , the principal stretches and ni , the corresponding eigenvectors
which define the principal directions of strain in the spatial coordinate system. The left
stretch tensor V is then given by
V = n nT (3.4-51)
R = V-1 F (3.4-52)
155
Theory Manual Volume 1
2. Form the deformation gradient and deformation tensor at time t+t and use the
t+t
polar decomposition theorem to evaluate V
t+t
3. Perform eigen analysis of V to get principal stretches and directions of the
Eulerian triad
4. Update the current Kirchhoff stress on the basis of step 3 and the actual constitutive
model
5. Form the strain tensor from the stretch tensor (only needed for output purposes)
t+ t
= nnT and ii = ln i1/2 , ij = 0 d i (3.4-54)
= z T
B dV0
(3.4-56)
The tangent stiffness matrix is derived from the variation of the virtual work equation.
Equation (3.2-4) may be discretised as
aT
a V z
da = a GT G + BT DtTK B dV0 da
0
(3.4-57)
where J , and is the stress matrix [H3] and B is evaluated in the current
deformed configuration.
The tangent stiffness matrix may then be identified as
KT = z
V0
T
G G dV0 + z
V0
T
B DtTK B dV0
(3.4-58)
where DtTK is tangent constitutive matrix associated with the Truesdell rate of
Kirchhoff stress. This matrix is obtained by rotating the tangent constitutive matrix
156
Geometric Nonlinearity
associated with the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress DtTKE , which is defined in
principal directions of the Eulerian triad into the base (spatial) triad. Matrix DtTKE
depends on the actual constitutive model applied.
e = Re (3.5-1)
157
Theory Manual Volume 1
where R represents the local axes and e the axis of rotation or unit vector in the
direction of the pseudovector. Defining the pseudovector as
= e (3.5-2)
Argyris [A6] has shown that the local axes may be expressed as
LMI + sin
S ( ) +
c1 - cos h S( )SbgOP
R =
MN
2
PQ (3.5-3)
LM 0 - 3 2 OP
Sb g = M 0 1 PP
MN
3
2 1 0 Q (3.5-4)
q =
RSq UV
o
Tq W (3.5-6)
Using (3.5-5) and (3.5-6) in (3.5-3) allows the local axes to be expressed in terms of
Euler parameters
d i
R = q o2 - q T q I + 2qq T + 2q 0S q bg (3.5-7)
The local axes representing the current configuration are therefore not updated directly
but are defined by an updated set of Euler parameters. It is the updating of the Euler
158
Geometric Nonlinearity
parameters which involves the use of quarternion algebra, in particular, the quarternion
product is required. If the Euler parameters qo relate an original set of local axes to
the global frame and qi is formed from an iterative rotation increment then the
updated parameters are given by the quarternion product
qu = qiqo (3.5-8)
The quarternion product may be expanded to give
159
Theory Manual Volume 1
= B a (3.5-10)
where are local engineering strains and a are global nodal displacements. Using
(3.5-10) in the virtual work equation (3.2-3) allows the out of balance force vector to be
written as
= zV
T
B P dV - R
(3.5-11)
P represents the local internal forces which are work conjugate to . A consistent
derivation of the stiffness matrix will now involve taking the variation of all terms in
(3.5-11). Assuming conservative loading this gives
d = zn
V
BTdP + dBT P dV s (3.5-12)
where the first term on the right hand side of (3.5-12) gives rise to the material or linear
tangent stiffness and the second term the geometric stiffness. The derivation of these
matrices is quite involved and further details of this procedure relating to beam
elements may be found in [C6], [C7] and [C8]. Non-conservative loading is available
with this formulation.
X1i = Xi - X1 (3.5-13)
160
Geometric Nonlinearity
where X1i are the original local co-ordinates of node i , Xi are the original global co-
ordinates of node i and X1 are the original global co-ordinates of node 1. Note that
throughout this section the original configuration is expressed in upper case characters
whereas the current configuration is written in lower case.
Now, it is necessary to establish the local axes within the nonlinear process. This local
frame is used to map the initial configuration of the element onto its final
configuration. The approach used is to compute the rotation tensor R , as defined in
(3.4-9), at the centroid which gives the rotation from the original i1, i2 , i3 frame into
the current e1, e2 , e3 frame (co-rotating base vectors), as shown in fig.3.5-1, hence
producing the desired local co-ordinate system. The demonstration of the assertion
given above can be seen in [M4] and [M5]. The rotation matrix is therefore given by
b
X1i = X1i + a1i = RT xi - x1 = RT xi1g (3.5-15)
In order to obtain a relationship between the variation of the local displacement and the
variation of the global displacement it is necessary to compute the differentiation of
(3.5-15) which results in
b g
a1i = RTS xi1 + RT ai = zi + RT ai (3.5-16)
where b g
S xi1 is the skew symmetric matrix of the vector xi1 and is the variation
of the `pseudovector' of rotation b
= 1, 2 , 3 g.
161
Theory Manual Volume 1
Now, has to be established. In 2D, the angle is used to evaluate the local frame
(fig.3.5-1). It can be computed via a procedure in which the local `spin' at the centroid
is set to zero. In fact this means that defines the set of axes for which the spin at the
centroid is zero. This is equivalent to saying that
u1 v1
1 =
T
+ = A1 a1 = 0
y1
x1
(3.5-17)
where 1 is the local spin at the centroid and A1 is a vector obtained from shape
functions. Note, however, that for a 2D analysis the rotation only involves an angle
which is a scalar, i.e., e1 = cos , sin and e2 = -sin , cos . For a 3D
case, a similar expression to that of (3.5-17) can be written but now it relates the
pseudovector to the matrix A1 as
1 = A1 a1 = 0
T
(3.5-18)
a1 =
RSddiag R i - zLMeA zj A ddiag R iOPUV a = T a
1T
1
1T
N QW
T T
T (3.5-19)
At this stage the principle of virtual work is applied to derive the relationship between
local and global internal force vectors. Hence, equating the virtual work in the local and
global systems leads to
P = TT P (3.5-20)
where P and P are the global and local internal force vectors, respectively. The
differentiation of (3.5-20) results in the consistent tangent stiffness matrix, with the
variation of the local internal force vector leading to the standard local stiffness matrix
K1 for the linear element. The final equation can be written as
P = KT a + K a
(3.5-21)
162
Geometric Nonlinearity
It should be emphasised here that the stress measure used within this co-rotational
technique for continuum elements is a `non-conventional' stress type and it is difficult
to visualise [M4]. Therefore, the local Biot-type stresses applied in the formulation
should be converted into a more standard measure. The approach utilised is to
transform the local stress into Kirchhoff stress which is equivalent to Cauchy stress but
related to the original volume or configuration of the element rather than the current
volume or configuration [C11]. This can be accomplished via the definition of the
principal Kirchhoff stresses with respect to the principal Biot stresses, so that,
i = i bi (3.5-22)
where i are the principal Kirchhoff stresses, i are the principal stretches and bi
are the principal Biot stresses. The Kirchhoff stress tensor can be written as
= R b U RT
(3.5-23)
d
= R b I + 1 RT i (3.5-24)
The Kirchhoff tensor computed as above recovers its exact value for a homogeneous
stress state within the element.
Non-conservative loading is available with this formulation.
163
Theory Manual Volume 1
Y1
Original Final
Configuration Configuration
Y
i2
e2
X1
e1
i1
164
Geometric Nonlinearity
Note. For shell elements, local coordinate axes are used. Therefore the second Piola-
Kirchhoff stresses are a reasonable approximation to the Cauchy stresses.
165
Theory Manual Volume 1
3.6.5 Conclusions
In general it is suggested that the TL formulation is used, unless
The elements contain rotational degrees of freedom and large rotations are
present. In this case the UL or co-rotational formulation should be more
effective.
Large strains are present. In this case the Eulerian formulation is most effective.
Cauchy stresses are required with elements formulated with global constitutive
relationships, e.g. continuum elements. In which case either the UL or Eulerian
formulations should be employed.
Non-conservative loading is required, in which case any of the other
formulations should be employed.
Rubber materials are being used with continuum elements in which case the co-
rotational technique has to be applied.
166
Constitutive Models
4 Constitutive Models
4.1 Linear Elastic Models
Within LUSAS, the continuum and resultant elastic constitutive models available are
Isotropic linear elastic (available with all elements)
Orthotropic linear elastic (available with 2D continuum, plates, shells,
axisymmetric solids and 3D solids)
Anisotropic linear elastic (available with 2D continuum, plates, shells,
axisymmetric solids and 3D solids)
In addition, rigidity or resultant modulus matrices may be defined directly for plate,
space membrane and shell elements. This permits the representation of sandwich and
voided cross-sections by defining equivalent continuous resultant moduli.
Each material type may also be used in conjunction with the thermo-elastic model,
which permits specification of temperature dependent material properties.
167
Theory Manual Volume 1
those for the isotropic constitutive model (typically, four for 2-D continuum elements
and nine for 3-D continuum elements).
The principal material directions are defined by either
Note. The material constants are used to form a compliance matrix C which relates
the stresses to the strains
Y
y
168
Constitutive Models
Y
y
The angle of orthotropy and the orientation of the Cartesian sets are independent of
deformations. Therefore, for geometrically nonlinear analysis with orthotropic
materials the Total Lagrangian formulation should be used.
169
Theory Manual Volume 1
LM D 1 D2 D4 . . OP R| U| 1
D =M
M D3 D5 . . PP |
b g = TS V
|2
MM D6 .
.
.
.
PP and o t
|| . ||
3
MNsym. Dm PQ |T |W
n (4.1-2)
b
M = D - o - Mo g (4.1-3)
where
T T
M = MY , MX , MXY , Mo = MY0 , MX0 , MXY0 (4.1-4)
= Y , X , XY , o = Y0 , X0 , XY0
T T
(4.1-5)
and the modulus matrix and coefficient of thermal expansion vector are,
LM D D2 D4 OP T
1
b g R|S U|V
b g
1
D= M D3 D5 PP and o t = 2
MNsym. D6 Q z
3 |T |W (4.1-6)
where Di , i = 1,6 are the upper triangular terms of the modulus matrix, i , i = 1,3 are
the coefficients of thermal expansion.
The type and number of terms in the modulus matrix (m) and in the thermal coefficient
vector (n) is element dependent. The value of n for each element is defined in the
LUSAS Element Library and the stress resultants and strains are defined in section 7.
170
Constitutive Models
t
b g
T = N i ,i t T (4.1-7)
where b g
N i ,i is the element shape function vector, and
t
T is the vector of current
element nodal temperatures.
The thermal strains are obtained using the temperature rise and the coefficient of
thermal expansion. Explicit forms of the temperature strains for each element are given
in section 7.
Temperature dependent material properties are defined to be piecewise linear functions
of temperature. This is achieved by specifying a table of material properties with
corresponding temperatures. The current material properties at each Gauss point are
t
then interpolated from the table using the current temperature T.
The thermo-elastic model may be employed in geometrically nonlinear analyses with
the Total Lagrangian formulation. It may also be employed in materially nonlinear
analyses with the continuum elastoplastic models.
171
Theory Manual Volume 1
= e + p (4.2-1)
The formulations then use three basic concepts
a yield condition to specify the onset of plastic deformation,
a flow rule to define the plastic straining,
a hardening rule to define the evolution of the yield surface with plastic
straining.
172
Constitutive Models
t
d i
F t ,t T,t 0
(4.2-2)
where
t
are the current stresses,
t
T is the current temperature, and
t
is the state
t p
variable dependent upon equivalent plastic strain e . In classical plasticity, stress
states that provide a positive value of the yield function cannot exist. However in
numerical models, positive values of the yield function indicate that yielding should
occur and the stress state is modified by accumulating plastic strains until the yield
criterion is reduced to zero. This process is known as the plastic corrector phase or
return mapping.
Non-associated
flow Associated
flow
Elastic zone
Yield surface
Plastic potential
surface Inadmissable
zone
tQ
dp = t
t (4.2-3)
173
Theory Manual Volume 1
tQ
where defines the direction of plastic straining,
t
and is the Lagrangian plastic multiplier defining the magnitude of plastic straining
and is determined by enforcing the yield criterion (4.2-2)
The function Q is known as the 'plastic potential' [O1] and is usually defined in terms
of stress invariants. For all LUSAS models Q = F , T, which is termed b g
'associated flow', that is, the direction of the plastic strain vector is orthogonal to the
yield surface.
t e p ot Ht e p e p (4.2-4a)
e H e e
c p c
o
c p p
(4.2-4b)
where co and ot are the initial yield stresses in compression and tension
c t
respectively. H and H are the corresponding tangent hardening parameters. For the
standard isotropic case
e p o H e p e p (4.2-4c)
where o is the initial yield stress and H is the isotropic hardening tangent.
A kinematic hardening law is also available for plane strain in which the centre of the
yield surface is defined by
t t
= t + 2 / 3H ep ep c h (4.2-5)
where is the position in stress space of the centre of the yield surface. H is the
kinematic hardening tangent.
174
Constitutive Models
H3
H2
ep1 ep2 ep
175
Theory Manual Volume 1
Stress return
path
Direction of plastic
flow evaluated at
final stress point
Direction of plastic
flow evaluated at
contact stress point
Stress return
path
176
Constitutive Models
For the explicit algorithm, the hardening data and direction of plastic flow are
evaluated at the 'contact stress' point, i.e. the point at which the elastic stress increment
crosses the yield surface. Whereas, for the implicit algorithm, evaluation occurs at the
final stress point and at the elastic predictor stress point for the steepest descent
algorithm.
The explicit algorithm is relatively simple and integrates the stresses directly, i.e. no
iterations are required at a Gauss point level. However, it suffers from three
disadvantages
It is only conditionally stable
Sub-incrementation is required during the stress update to maintain acceptable
accuracy
An 'artificial return' method is required to correct for drift from the yield surface
Further, a tangent modulus matrix consistent with the return algorithm cannot be
formed. This results in the loss of the quadratic convergence rate for the Newton-
Raphson iteration process.
The implicit algorithm furnishes sufficient accuracy without either sub-incrementation
or 'artificial return' and it is also unconditionally stable. However, for general yield
criteria, iterations may be required at the Gauss point level to update the stresses.
Tangent matrices consistent with the return algorithm may be evaluated, so that the
quadratic convergence rate of the Newton-Raphson iteration process is maintained.
Therefore, the algorithm is usually computationally more efficient than the explicit
algorithm, even when iteration is performed at the Gauss point level.
The steepest descent method is a return mapping algorithm applicable to a very large
class of elastoplastic constitutive models. The models may exhibit non-associated flow
and be defined by arbitrary yield criteria and hardening laws. For many yield criteria,
including the von Mises criterion with linear isotropic hardening, the steepest descent
algorithm and implicit algorithm coincide. For these cases, the algorithm has the same
advantages as the implicit algorithm over the explicit method.
Where an implicit or steepest descent algorithm is available for a LUSAS model, it
should prove more effective than the explicit algorithm.
Stress
t t
= D d t t
- t+t p i (4.2-6)
Plastic strain p = t p + t a
t t
(4.2-7)
where
t
a = tF / t
177
Theory Manual Volume 1
Hardening law
t+ t
c h
= y H te p te p (4.2-8)
t+ t L2 O
= M : Pt p t p
1/ 2
Equivalent plastic strain ep
N3 Q (4.2-9)
Yield criterion
Consistency condition
t+ t
F= F c t+ t
h
,t+t T,t+t = 0 (4.2-10)
The constitutive relations involve plastic state variables evaluated at time t and may
therefore be integrated directly.
3. If the trial stress lies within the yield surface the stress update has been completed.
Otherwise, the stress lies outside the yield surface and must be returned to the yield
surface by plastic straining.
4. The contact stress c is now evaluated. This is defined as the stresspoint where
the elastic stress vector crosses the yield surface. The elastic stress increment
e , is divided into an admissible stress increment 1 r e and a non- b g
admissible stress increment r e . The contact stress is then given by
c = + 1- r e
t
b g (4.2-13)
where
i d
F trial
,
Fd , i - Fd , i
r = trial t
(4.2-14)
5. Physically, further straining would cause the stress point to traverse the yield
surface. This is approximated by sub-dividing the excess stress into m smaller
b jg
stress increments exc which are applied consecutively (fig.4.2-4). Each stress
increment moves the stress point into the inadmissible zone, and a corrector stress
178
Constitutive Models
increment, formed by plastic straining, is used to return the stress to the yield
surface. The direction of plastic straining is normal to the yield surface at the point
t t
of application of the elastic stress increment (fig.4.2-5). The updated stress
is then given by
b g - db jg D ab jg
m
t t
= c + j
exc (4.2-15)
j=1
bg c h
m = min 200 1- F / ep 1 , 200 (4.2-16)
Notes
The position of the yield surface is updated using the hardening law at the end
of each sub-increment j.
The stress state after the application of each plastic strain increment is corrected
for drift from the yield surface by direct scaling.
Unloading is assumed to be elastic.
trial
r
(1-r) Excess stress is divided
into sub-increments
Yield
surface
Sub-increments are applied
consecutively
t
t+t
179
Theory Manual Volume 1
Correction for
drift
t+ t
= D d t t
- t t p i (4.2-17)
Plastic strain
t t
p = t p + tt a (4.2-18)
where
t+t F
c h
t
a=
tt - tt
Hardening laws
180
Constitutive Models
t t
= y + H c t+ t
ep h t t
ep
(4.2-19)
t t
= t + 2 / 3H c t+ t
p h t t
p
Equivalent plastic strain
t t L2
e = M t t
:p t t O
P p
1/ 2
N3 Q
p
(4.2-20)
Yield criterion
Consistency condition
t t
F= F c t t
, t t
T, t t
, t t
h
= 0
(4.2-21)
INTEGRATION OF STRESSES
Equations (4.2-17) to (4.2-21) are a set of nonlinear algebraic equations, unique to each
Gauss point, which have be solved for the unknowns , and . For the generalt t
case, Newton iteration is used to evaluate the unknowns by iteratively enforcing the
consistency condition (4.2-21). However, for many cases, the algebraic equations may
be solved exactly or the number of unknowns may be reduced, e.g. for a 3-D
continuum the von Mises criterion with linear isotropic hardening is solved exactly,
whereas for plane stress situations, the number of unknowns is reduced to one variable.
Once the algebraic equations have been solved, the current stress state is updated, so
that the return-mapping is accomplished using a single step.
181
Theory Manual Volume 1
t+t(1)
t t+t
182
Constitutive Models
Stress t t
1 t D
(4.2-22)
t t p1 t p
Plastic strain (4.2-23)
Hardening law t t
t (4.2-24)
1
t t p1
Equivalent plastic strain e t e p (4.2-25)
PLASTIC PART (where superscript (i) denotes values for iteration (i))
Stress t t
i1 t i D
pi (4.2-26)
t t Pi 1 t t Pi
ai
i t t
Plastic strain (4.2-27)
t t Pi 1 pi
t t
Pi
Hardening law e (4.2-28)
pi
1
t t Pi 1
t t e t t Pi :t t Pi
Pi i 2
Equivalent plastic strain e
(4.2-29)
The relaxation of the stresses and plastic strains is achieved in a step by step manner
(fig.4.2-6), by linearising the yield function or consistency condition at each iteration
about the current values of the state variables. The yield function in general form is
defined as (neglecting temperature)
b g
F = F( ) - ep = 0 c h (4.2-30)
183
Theory Manual Volume 1
e = bi g a where a =
2 tt bi g tt bi g LM OP
1/ 2
N3 Q
p
a : a (4.2-33)
tt
t+ t
H big (4.2-34)
tt e pbi g
Then the plastic multiplier is defined as
Fbi g
t+ t
= (4.2-35)
e t t b i g T
a j
D t+tabi g - H a
Substitution of into (4.2-26) and (4.2-27) yields the updated plastic state. The
iteration then continues until plastic consistency is restored to within a prescribed
tolerance, i.e.
F
t t i 1
Tol (4.2-36)
Note. For models where the algorithm coincides with the implicit backward Euler
algorithm, convergence is obtained with a single iteration.
2. Elastically re-load the structure at time t + t using the material moduli interpolated
t t
at temperature T , i.e.
t t
= + t+t D t e +
*
d i (4.2-38)
where = t+t -t
The stresses are then integrated in the normal manner using one of the three integration
algorithms.
184
Constitutive Models
Notes
Temperature dependent material properties are limited to the von Mises, Tresca,
Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, Hill, modified von Mises and Hoffman
materials. This facility is not applicable to the stress resultant models.
Temperature dependent material properties are also restricted to formulations
based on total strains, i.e. infinitesimal and total Lagrangian formulations.
The variation of temperature over an increment is fixed.
b g
F , = - ep = 0 c h (4.2-39)
where = b g
3 J2
1/ 2
(4.2-40)
185
Theory Manual Volume 1
plane
1+ 2+3=0
Hydrostatic axis
1== 3
von Mises
1 Tresca
von Mises
Tresca 2- 3
von Mises
Tresca
1- 3
186
Constitutive Models
b g
F , = 1 3 e p c h (4.2-41)
b g
F , = 2 J2 bg 1/ 2
c h
cos ep (4.2-42)
The material is integrated using the explicit forward Euler algorithm and is available
for all stress types, i.e. uniaxial, plane stress, plane strain, axisymmetric solid,
axisymmetric shell, and 3-D solid . Hardening is restricted to linear isotropic.
187
Theory Manual Volume 1
t+t
t
F(T,)=0
t+t
t+t
F(T,) = Constant
t+t
t
F(T,) = 0
188
Constitutive Models
Numerical difficulties are encountered when the stress point lies at a singular point on
the yield surface, as the direction of plastic straining is indeterminate. This occurs for
the Tresca criterion as the lode angle approaches 30. Therefore, the stress
integration algorithms are modified for this case. When a value of > 29 is
encountered, the von Mises criterion is used to form the flow vector, for both
evaluating the modulus matrix and integrating the stresses.
b g b
F , = - c - n tan = 0 g (4.2-43)
where is the magnitude of the shearing stress, n is the normal stress, c is the
cohesion, and the angle of internal friction. The Mohr-Coulomb yield function can be
written in terms of the stress invariants as
b g
F , = n sin + J 2 b g LMNcos -
1/2 1
3
OP
sin cos - c cos
Q (4.2-44)
where both the cohesion, c and the friction angle, depend upon the strain hardening
parameter .
The model is integrated using the explicit forward Euler algorithm for all stress types,
i.e. uniaxial, plane stress, plane strain, axisymmetric solid, axisymmetric shell, and 3-D
solid. Hardening is restricted to linear isotropic.
Numerical difficulties are encountered when the stress point lies at a singular point on
the yield surface, as the direction of plastic straining is indeterminate. This occurs for
the Mohr-Coulomb criterion as the lode angle approaches 30 and also at the apex.
Therefore, the stress integration algorithms are modified for these two cases. When a
value of > 29 is encountered, the Drucker-Prager criterion is used to form the flow
vector for both evaluating the modulus matrix and integrating the stresses. When a
stress point passes beyond the apex, it is returned directly to the apex and the tangent
modulus matrix is initialised for this stress point.
189
Theory Manual Volume 1
3 Drucker -Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
c cot
Mohr-Coulomb
Drucker -Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
190
Constitutive Models
Arranging the principal stresses in the order the principal active yield
surface is written
(4.2-45)
(4.2-46)
When we have the situation where the two largest principal stresses are equal
the stress return is to the line which joins the two yield surfaces
(4.2-47)
The multi-surface approach ensures that we satisfy both the yield criteria
simultaneously. If we have the situation where the two smallest principal stresses are
equal the stress return is to the line which is formed from the intersection of
the two yield surfaces
(4.2-48)
The approach can be extended to include more planar surfaces. Thus we can impose
both tension and compression cut-offs. Figs.4.2.10 and 4.2.11 show views of two
possible cut-offs, the first when the principal stress reaches a maximum value is
known as the Rankine cut-off and the second is when the pressure reaches a maximum
value.
191
Theory Manual Volume 1
Fig 4.2.10 Failure Surface forms for the stress cut-off options
(4.2.49)
192
Constitutive Models
where is the maximum permitted tensile stress. For the pressure cut-off the yield
surface is
(4.2-50)
Where is the maximum permitted pressure. Depending on where the stress is to
be returned determines which yield surfaces are active. If for instance we have the
situation where the principal yield surface is active and we would solve
together
(4.2-51)
The stress will be returned to the line which is formed from the intersection of these
two yield surfaces. In addition to providing limits to both the tensile and compressive
stresses, the surfaces are allowed to strain harden. The cohesion c, the maximum tensile
stress and maximum compressive stress are each permitted to vary with the
effective plastic strain
(4.2-52)
Where values with a superscript o are initial values and the functions are linear piece
wise functions. Similar functions are expressed for and if the pressure is to
be limited.
Plastic flow can be either associative or non-associative. The dilation angle is
introduced to allow non-associated plastic flow. By setting the internal angle of friction
equal to the Tresca yield criterion is recovered.
The transformation to and from the full stress space to the principal stress space is
accomplished using the transformation matrix A which is formed from the vectors
defining the axes of the principal stresses
where the subscripts G and L denote global and local values respectively. The
transformation of the material modulus matrix evaluated in the principal stresses to the
general stress space is given by
193
Theory Manual Volume 1
D ATD AT (4.2-54)
G L
where the modification matrix T [C18] is
1
1
1
1 2
P P
1
T 1 2
1P 3P
1
1 3
3
P P
1 2
2 3
(4.2-55)
Off-diagonal terms are zero. The terms and are the plastic stresses
required to return the trial stress state to the yield surface.
b g
F , I1 J2 k (4.2-56)
where I1 is the first stress invariant, J 2 is the second stress invariant and and k
are constants that define the yield surface.
I1 xx yy zz (4.2-57)
J2
1
2 xx
b
m g d
2
yy m i b
2
zz m g
2
xy yz zx
(4.2-58)
where
194
Constitutive Models
1
m I (4.2-59)
31
The Drucker-Prager yield surface takes the form of a circular cone (see figure 4.2-12).
By making the cone coincide with the outer apices of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
(figure 4.2-13), the yield function can be re-written as [O1]
2 sin 6 cos
b g
F ,
b
3 3 sin
I1
g J2
b
3 3 sin
c
g (4.2-60)
where is the angle of friction and c is the cohesion. This is the form of the
Drucker-Prager criteria used in LUSAS.
There is another form of the Drucker-Prager material model that coincides with the
inner apices of the Mohr-Coulomb model [O1], see figure 4.2-13, and is given by
2 sin 6 cos
b g
F ,
b
3 3 sin
I1
g J2
b c
g
3 3 sin (4.2-61)
It is possible to modify the outer Drucker-Prager cone in figure 4.2-13 so that it
coincides with the inner corners of the Mohr-Coulomb model. This is achieved by
modifying the angle of friction and the cohesion used in the outer cone form of the
yield function in (4-2.60) so that it simulates the form for the inner cone.
The first step is to compute values for and k in (4-2.56) that represent the inner
cone formulation. Comparing the formulation in (4-2.61) with the more general
formulation in (4-2.56), gives
2 sin 6 cos
int kint
b
3 3 sin g and
b
3 3 sin
c
g
(4-2.62)
Next, by comparing the inner cone formulation in (4-2.60) with (4-2.61), int and
k int can then be used to derive an angle of friction and a cohesion that simulates the
inner cone, from
3 int 3
sin (4-2.63)
2 int 3
195
Theory Manual Volume 1
c
b
kint 3 3 sin g (4-2.64)
6cos
In the computation of the cohesion in (4-2.64 ) the value of computed from (4-2.63)
is used. Using the values for and c computed from (4-2.63) and (4-2.64) in
LUSAS will simulate the inner cone form of the Drucker-Prager material model.
The procedure outlined above can be used to simulate other forms of the Drucker-
Prager yield criterion in LUSAS. The different forms of the yield criterion actually
correspond to different states of stress. The most significant cases are summarised here.
Triaxial compression
In this case the Drucker-Prager cone touches the outer apices of the Mohr-Coulomb
hexagonal pyramid (compression meridian mc, figure 4.2-14). The angle is 60o. This
situation is encountered in common laboratory triaxial testing conditions [M8]. This is
the form used in LUSAS and the yield function is given in (4-2.60).The parameters
and k are given by
2 sin
b
3 3 sin g (4-2.65)
6 cos
k
b
3 3 sin
c
g (4-2.66)
Plane shear
For plane shear the Drucker-Prager cone is formulated to match the shear meridian
when the angle is 30o (figure 4.2-12). The parameters and k for this case are
given by [M8]
2
sin (4-2.67)
3
k 2 c cos (4-2.68)
Tension
In this case the Drucker-Prager cone touches the inner apices of the Mohr-Coulomb
surface, with an angle of 0o (figure 4.2-12, tension meridian mt). The yield function is
given in (4-2.61) and the parameters and k for the tension case are given by [M8]
196
Constitutive Models
2 sin
b
3 3 sin g (4-2.69)
6 cos
k
b
3 3 sin
c
g (4-2.70)
There is also a proposed modification for plane strain corresponding to an adjustment
of failure loads in which
sin and k c cos (4-2.71)
3
Each of these forms of the Drucker-Prager yield criterion can be modelled in LUSAS.
To do this, the angle of friction, , and the cohesion, c , used to define the material
properties in LUSAS should be modified using the procedure outlined earlier.
The approximation that the Drucker-Prager yield criterion gives to the true failure
surface can sometimes be poor for certain stress combinations [O1]. Care is, therefore,
needed in identifying the dominant stress state and adjusting the Drucker-Prager
material parameters accordingly.
Associative plasticity is utilised with the Drucker-Prager material model in LUSAS.
The point at which the apex of the cone meets the hydrostatic axis, however, introduces
a singularity into the definition of the plastic flow vector. Numerical difficulties can
then be encountered since the direction of plastic straining is indeterminate. When a
stress point passes beyond the apex, it is returned directly to the apex and the tangent
modulus matrix is initialised for that stress point.
The model is integrated using the Explicit forward Euler algorithm and is available for
all stress types, i.e. uniaxial, plane stress, plane strain, axisymmetric solid,
axisymmetric shell, and 3-D solid. Hardening is restricted to linear isotropic.
A useful reference for the analysis of geotechnical materials using material models in
LUSAS, including details of the Drucker-Prager material model, is [D5].
197
Theory Manual Volume 1
1 Drucker-Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
c cot
Mohr-Coulomb Drucker-Prager
inner cone
Drucker-Prager
outer cone
This shows the two forms of the Drucker-Prager material model. The outer cone coincides
with the outer apices of the Mohr-Coulomb model while the inner cone coincides with the
inner apices of the Mohr-Coulomb model.
198
Constitutive Models
Mohr-Coulomb
mt
mc
Drucker-Prager
199
Theory Manual Volume 1
200
Constitutive Models
The virgin compression and swelling/recompression lines are assumed to have slopes
of - and - respectively. The equation of the isotropic virgin compression line (which
is called the isotropic normal consolidation line NCL) is
(4-2.72)
Where N is the specific volume of the soil when P=1. Note that the effective mean
stress is denoted as positive in compression which is the opposite to the normal
continuum mechanics convention of labelling tension as positive. It can be seen that the
theory cannot be applied to a situation in which the soil is subjected to tension as ln(P)
would require the evaluation of a negative log.
The equation of a swelling/recompression line is given by
(4-2.73)
In this case V is the volume occupied by the soil at a mean effective pressure P of 1.
As this volume depends on the consolidation pressure of the sample it is a measure of
the plastic strain of the soil. The plastic volumetric strain cannot be reversed because
soil cannot sustain tensile loading. A reduction of mean pressure simply leads to elastic
unloading along a swelling/recompression line.
In the presence of shear stress, q, the soil yields before attaining the pressure indicated
by the NCL. The limiting surface is called the Stable State Boundary Surface (SSBS).
Within the surface the soil behaves elastically, otherwise the soil must lie on the
surface. It is impossible for soil samples to exist in states equivalent to points above the
surface. Figure 4.2-17 shows an isometric view of the SSBS.
Figure 4.2-17: Isometric perspective of the Stable State Boundary Surface (SSBS)
201
Theory Manual Volume 1
q
MP
V lnP (4-2.74)
The two lines EF and GH in figure 4.2-17 have a special significance. Using (4-2.73),
(4-2.74) can be expressed in the form
q
V ( )1 (4-2.75)
MP
Where is the specific volume at unit pressure for a line parallel to the NCL. Then
setting the shear stress q to zero we recover
V N (4-2.76)
Which is the normal consolidation line NCL line EF. The second line GH follows the
locus of the highest point of the surface and corresponds to the critical state line CSL.
In triaxial tests the CSL is the point of failure of the soil when it is possible to continue
to shear the sample with no change in stress or volume of the soil. The CSL is defined
by the following equations
q MP (4-2.77)
V lnP (4-2.78)
V (4-2.79)
P
q MP ln c (4-2.80)
P
It is independent of the specific volume V. The plastic strains are calculated, as in
standard elasto-plastic theory, from the normal to the yield locus (4.2-80).
Figure 4.2-18 shows the different types of yield behaviour predicted by the Cam-Clay
model. At the point at which the CSL intercepts the yield locus the plastic normal
vector is vertical. In this case plastic yielding occurs purely in the shear component as
found in the triaxial tests.
202
Constitutive Models
203
Theory Manual Volume 1
Figure 4.2-19: Compressive Behaviour and the Yield Function for the Modified
Cam-clay Model
Note that the y axis of the compressive behaviour now plots the volumetric strain rather
than the specific volume and also the minus sign in front of the effective pressure P.
As the standard sign for pressure is now being used, in compression P will be negative.
The gradients * and * are known as the modified compression index and modified
swelling index respectively. It can be shown that these indices are defined by
(4-2.82)
(4-2.83)
The modified Cam-clay yield surface is elliptical and Pc is the compressive failure
stress.
1 T 1
f P T p fc ft 0
2 3 (4-2.84)
204
Constitutive Models
where fc and ft represent the generic yield stresses in compression and tension
respectively. The definitions of the projection matrix P and the projection vector p
reflect the orthotropic nature of the model [B1].
LM b g
1
1 1
0 0 0 OP
b g
3 31 12 3 12 3 31
MM 1 1 1
0 0 0 PP
b g
3 12 3 12 23 3 23
P M PP
1 1 1
3- 13 3 3 23 31 0 0 0
MM 0 0 0 2 44 0 0
PP
0 2 55
MMN 00 0
0
0
0 0 0 2 66
0
PQ
(4-2.85)
l
pT = 11, 22 , 33, 0, 0, 0 q (4-2.86)
12 fc ft
FG 1 1
1 IJ
where
H c t
11 11
c t
22 22 c t
33 33 K (4-2.87)
13
F 1 1
f fG
1 IJ
H
c t c t
11 11
c t
33 33 t22
c
22 K
23 f fG
F 1 1
1 IJ
H
c t c t
22 22
c t
33 33 c t
11 11 K
f f F I
3 GH JK
c t
11 c t 11
c t
11
11 11
f f F I
3 GH JK
c t
22 c t 22
c t
22
22 22
f f F I
3 GH JK
c t
33 c t 33
c t
33
33 33
205
Theory Manual Volume 1
fc ft
44
3 223
fc ft
55
3 31
2
fc ft
66
3 12
2
cii and iit are compressive and tensile yield strengths in the axes of orthotropy and
b g
ij i j are the shear yield strengths.
Both the tensile and compressive yield stresses, fc and ft , may harden as functions of
the equivalent plastic strain. Hardening for the Hoffman material model is assumed to
be proportional in both tension and compression. The following relationships are
therefore enforced for the component directions.
ft f
t
bg
bf g
t y
bf g ct
b g bh g bh g
t z
x
(4-2.88)
h ht x t y t z
fc
bf g
bf g
c y
bf g cc
bh g bh g bh g
c x c z
(4-2.89)
h c x c y c z
where h , hc and ht are the hardening gradients. Figure (4.2-20a) shows an initial
yield surface which hardens proportionally with ct equal to cc from equations (4.2-
88) and (4.2-89). In this instance the shape of the initial yield surface is maintained.
The plastic strain vector is defined as
p = a (4-2.90)
f
a P p (4-2.91)
Substituting (4.2-91) into (4.2-90) gives
206
Constitutive Models
p P pn s (4-2.92)
The term involving P in (4.2-92) is the deviatoric component of the plastic strain for
which there is no change in volume following plastic straining. The term involving p
in (4.2-92) is the pressure dependant component and defines the plastic volumetric
change.
Using a work hardening approach, the effective plastic strain increment is defined as
ps
1
T p
n
T P p s (4-2.93)
The backward Euler algorithm is used to integrate the stresses. The equation for ps
in (4.2-93) is non-linear and is solved via a Newton Raphson iterative procedure in
each iteration of the backward Euler algorithm. To ensure global quadratic
convergence, a consistently linearised tangent modulus matrix is used. Since the
modulus matrix is non-symmetric, the non-symmetric solver (LUSAS Solver Option
64) is switched on by default whenever the Hoffman material model is used.
The Hoffman material model can be used alongside all creep and damage laws as well
as the viscoelastic material model.
207
Theory Manual Volume 1
Initial yield
surface
Strain hardened
yield surface
208
Constitutive Models
1 T 1
f P T p fc ft 0 (4-2.95)
2 3
where fc and ft represent the generic yield stresses in compression and tension
respectively.
The material model is characterised by the same tensile yield strength in the three
component directions x, y and z and the same compressive yield strengths in the three
component directions. This isotropic nature of the model makes it a special case of the
more general Hoffman material model section 4.2.4.7, with [B1]
11
c
c22 33
c
fc (4-2.96)
11
t
22
t
33
t
= ft (4-2.97)
fcft
and 12 23 31 (4-2.98)
3
The projection matrix P for the modified von Mises material is, therefore, defined as
LM 2
3 13 13 0 0 0 OP
MM 1
3
2
3 13
13 23
0 0 0 PP
P M PP
1
3 0 0 0
(4-2.99)
MM 0 0 0 2 0 0
PP
MMN 00 0 0
0 0
0
0
2
0
0
2 PQ
while the projection vector p is defined as
p
1
b
f ft j
3 c
g (4-2.100)
where l
jT = 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0 q (4-2.101)
209
Theory Manual Volume 1
An alternative expression for the yield function can be obtained by noting that the
effective stress, , and the mean stress or hydrostatic pressure, m , are defined as
3 T
P (4-2.102)
2
1 T
m j (4-2.103)
3
Using these in (4.2-95) enables the yield function for the modified von-Mises model to
be rewritten as
f
1 2
3
b 1
g
fc ft m fc ft 0
3
(4-2.104)
Both the tensile and compressive yield stresses, fc and ft , may harden as functions of
the equivalent plastic strain. Figure (4.2-20) shows the case of different hardening in
tension and compression. In this instance, the shape of the yield surface evolves in a
non-proportional manner.
The plastic strain vector is defined as
p a (4-2.105)
f
a P p (4-2.106)
Substituting (4.2-106) into (4.2-105) gives
n
p P p s (4-2.107)
The term involving P in (4.2-107) is the deviatoric component of the plastic strain for
which there is no change in volume following plastic straining. The term involving p
in (4.2-107) is the pressure dependant component and defines the plastic volumetric
change.
Using a work hardening approach, the effective plastic strain increment is defined as
ps
1
T p
n
T P p s (4-2.108)
210
Constitutive Models
The work hardening approach ensures that the uniaxial case is correctly recovered and
also ensures that ps is always positive at a converged state on the yield surface.
The backward Euler algorithm is used to integrate the stresses. The equation for ps
in (4.2-108) is non-linear and is solved via a Newton Raphson iterative procedure in
each iteration of the backward Euler algorithm. To ensure global quadratic
convergence, a consistently linearised tangent modulus matrix is used. Since the
modulus matrix is non-symmetric, the non-symmetric solver (LUSAS Solver Option
64) is switched on by default whenever the modified von Mises material model is used.
The modified von Mises material model can be used alongside all creep and damage
laws as well as the viscoelastic material model.
1 T 1
f P 2 0 (4-2.109)
2 3
where represents the generic yield strength. The definition of the projection matrix
P can be found in equation (4.2-85) in section 4.2.4.7, noting that properties in
tension and compression are the same. For the hardening of the yield surface the
following relationships are enforced for the component directions.
x y z
c (4-2.110)
h hx hy hz
4.2.4.10 Creep
The inelastic deformation of a material which causes a permanent change in the
material once the loading is removed can be considered as the product of two
independent processes, one of which is time independent and is known as plastic
straining and the second, a time dependent process, which is known as creep. Plastic
straining requires that the equivalent stress in a body exceeds a certain value before an
211
Theory Manual Volume 1
inelastic deformation is produced. Creep, on the other hand, occurs as soon as the body
is stressed, is independent of a yield criterion, and takes place over a (usually
prolonged) period of time.
rupture
creep
strain
c
time
stress
time
212
Constitutive Models
In the first case of a bar subject to constant load, a large portion of time dependent
straining takes place at an initial stage, known as primary creep (shown as [a] on fig. 4-
2-21a). This stabilises with a constant rate of straining occurring over a prolonged
period of time, termed secondary creep (shown as [b] on fig. 4.2-21a). Finally, there is
an abrupt increase in strain rate leading to material rupture, denoted as tertiary creep
(shown as [c] on fig. 4.2-21a).
In the second case the bar is stretched, introducing an initial stress. As the material
creeps a greater portion of the elastic strain is replaced by inelastic creep strains and
consequently the stress reduces in the bar. This process is known as relaxation (see fig.
4.2-21b).
A combination of the two behaviours will take place within a general structure; the
particular behaviour at a point is determined by the degree of constraint provided by the
surrounding material and the applied loading pattern.
Many creep laws have been proposed to model particular materials or particular parts
of the creep behaviour. The laws are produced for uniaxial behaviour and then
generalised to multiaxial formulations. The two classes of simpler models are
time hardening laws,
strain hardening laws.
(i) TIME HARDENING LAWS
If primary or tertiary creep is of interest then the corresponding hardening and
softening must be included in the creep law. Then for time hardening
b
c = f q,T, t
g (4-2.111)
Typical laws include
c = At m + Bt + Ct n and
c = AeCt + BeDt (4-2.112)
where A, B, C and D are functions of stress and temperature and 0 < m < 1 (hardening)
with n > 1 (softening)
The time hardening equation is a response function giving the development of strain for
a constant stress.
It is possible to use relaxation tests to compute the parameters. In this case, provided
the response is of a similar form to the response in the relaxation test, a reasonable
solution will be produced.
213
Theory Manual Volume 1
usually derived directly from the time hardening laws so that no special test data is
required. The general form is
c f q,T, c (4-2.113)
1
c Aqn t m1 (4-2.115)
m 1
so that
1/m1
m 1 c
t (4-2.116)
Aq n
Then substituting in equation (4.2-114) gives the equivalent strain hardening power law
as
m 1/m1
c Aq n m 1 e c (strain hardening) (4-2.117)
The material parameters defining the creep behaviour are usually very sensitive to
stress and temperature. Further, the data is often sparse so care has to be taken in
interpreting the results.
Three creep laws are included in LUSAS.
c A q nt m (4-2.118)
where A, n and m are temperature dependent constants. This leads to time and strain
hardening forms of the creep rate as
Time Hardening c = m A q nt m1
(4-2.119)
Strain Hardening c = m A q n c
c h m1 1/ m
(4-2.120)
214
Constitutive Models
Notes
In differentiating (4.2-115) with respect to time, the variation of the equivalent
stress q and parameter A with respect to time is ignored.
By setting m = 1 the Norton law for steady state creep is recovered.
c bg
= A q 1- e-Bbq gt C q t bg (4-2.121)
= cp + sc (4-2.122)
where
bg
pc = A q 1- e-Bbq gt (4-2.123)
bg
pc A q (4-2.124)
bg
sc C q t (4-2.125)
which is the secondary creep strains and which grows linearly with time. A, B and C
are functions defined as
bg
A q a exp bqb g
Bbq g = c q d
(4-2.126)
Cbq g e exp bfq g
and a-g are constants. The creep strain rate is obtained by differentiating (4.2-123) with
respect to time
bg
Note. If C q is set to zero then the law defines a visco-elastic creep law.
215
Theory Manual Volume 1
c h
c = Aq b t c + Dt d + Et f eg/T (4-2.128)
where A, D, E, a - g are constants and T is the temperature in Kelvin. The creep strain
rate is obtained by differentiating (4.2-128) with respect to time.
c h
c = Aq b ct c-1 + dDt d-1 + fEt f-1 e g/T (time hardening)(4-2.129)
t crit
b g
4 1
(4-2.130)
dc
3E
dq
Some creep laws predict an infinite rate of creep at time t=0. To overcome this, the
initial evaluation of the required creep gradients is performed at a small time offset
from t=0 (the offset is the input timestep t). Given these gradients (4-2.130) then
predicts the initial timestep.
Subsequent timesteps are evaluated by limiting the difference of the max incremental
creep strain cmax calculated using conditions at the beginning and end of the
increment
cmax ctt ct t
ctt
ct (4-2.131)
thus
216
Constitutive Models
cmax
t c (4-2.132)
tt
ct
Two alternative automatic step control formulae are available in addition to Cormeau's
and the above methods.
1. t is calculated as a function of the total strain and the current creep strain [O1]
L . OP
t M
t t
1
2
N . Q
c c
(4-2.133)
2. t is calculated as a function of the total elastic strain and the creep strain rate [Z1]
L . OP
dt M
e e
1
2
N . Q
c c
(4-2.134)
Equation (4.2-132) severely restricts the timestep in regions where there is a high
degree of nonlinearity in the rate of creep straining. Equally, if the rate is
approximately linear (4.2-132) it predicts an infinite timestep. The timestep is therefore
subject to two constraints
The growth of the timestep from one timestep to the next is restricted to be a
factor of the old timestep
tnew tmax
Equation (4.2-133) requires that the time derivative of e is known at the end of the
increment. In practice t is calculated using data from the preceding timestep. During
the iterations, the updated timestep is monitored and if it is less than the assumed value
(subject to a prescribed tolerance) the time is cut
217
Theory Manual Volume 1
The restriction factor corresponds to the parameter "dtincf", and tmax corresponds to
the parameter "dtmax" in the VISCOUS CONTROL command section.
218
Constitutive Models
Area associated
with Gauss
point 3
219
Theory Manual Volume 1
Once the displacements have been evaluated, the continuum strain is calculated at each
integration point. For the beam elements, the fibres are considered to be subject to uni-
axial strain only, whilst for the shell elements the fibres are considered to be subject to
in-plane strains only, i.e. plane stress conditions.
Once these strains have been evaluated, the elastoplastic formulation used to integrate
the stresses is identical to that of the general continuum models [Section 4.2.4] (fig.4.3-
2). Cross-section or through-thickness integration is then performed to evaluate the
stress resultants.
Note. The formulation neglects the effects of through-thickness shear stress and
torsional stress on the nonlinear response.
220
Constitutive Models
0 0
Theoretical
stress
distribution
0 0
Yielding
zones
Stress distribution
after yielding
221
Theory Manual Volume 1
Line of action of
stress resultant Stress along line
of action < 0
222
Constitutive Models
3
p2 r mz my2 t 2 1
4
for my
2
3
b g
1 p mz (4.3-1)
3
p2 m2z rmy t 2 1
4
for mz
2
3
b g
1 p my (4.3-2)
6
5
3
rp + p2
5
4p2 9
5r 10
r - p m y mz b gd i (4.3-3)
9
m ymz t 2 1
20
for my
2
3
b g
1 p and mz
2
3
b g
1 p
LM FG1 pIJ OP 0
m2y m2z r 2 sin2
N 2 H r KQ (4.3-4)
where
my My / Mpy mz = Mz / Mpz
, ,
c h
r = 1- t 2
1/ 2
,
p = P / Po , t = T / To
and
d
To is the fully plastic torsional moment = soZpy soZpz i
223
Theory Manual Volume 1
1 1 LM
Qt Qm Q2m Q2tm
OP
1/ 2
Qt Qm Q2tm
1 (4.3-5)
2 4 N Q b
4 Qt 0.48Qm g
where
N M MN
Qt 2
, Qm 2 , Qtm (4.3-6)
No Mo Mo No
and
1 1
MN = Mx Nx My Ny Mx Ny My Nx 3 Mxy Nxy
2 2 (4.3-9)
where No is the uniaxial yield force/unit width and Mo is the uniaxial yield
moment/unit width.
The constant is used to overcome the numerical problems caused by the discontinuity
in the slope of the yield criterion as
1 2
Qm Q2tm tend to zero
4
224
Constitutive Models
1. The contact stress c cannot be computed directly and is found using an iterative
process.
2. The reduction to the yield surface at the end of the sub-incremental return algorithm
is also an iterative process.
225
Theory Manual Volume 1
D) or two (3-D) axes are tangent to the plane of the joint or interface (fig.4.4-1). This
requires the correct ordering of the element topology (fig.4.4-2).
The relationship between the local strain ( ) and the global displacement (a ) is
then defined as
B a (4.4-1)
226
Constitutive Models
e2
e1
e3
e2
e1
227
Theory Manual Volume 1
6 5
7
OUT
IN
4
8
3
2
1
18
19 17
16
20
14
13 15
OUT
IN
11
12
IN
10
9 6
5
7
4
8
2 3
1
228
Constitutive Models
where ' and ' are the local stress and strain vectors and D' is the matrix of elastic
properties. The modulus matrix is orthotropic and is defined by the following
properties
where E, G and are the Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and shear modulus of the
material, and subscripts 'in' and 'out' denote properties in and out of plane respectively
(fig.4.4-3).
229
Theory Manual Volume 1
Mohr-Coulomb
criterion
Limited
tension
criterion
yz
xz
Mohr-Coulomb
criterion
Limited
tension
criterion
230
Constitutive Models
bg
F 0 (4.4-4)
where
bg bg bg
F F1 , F2
T
(4.4-5)
where
n is the stress normal to the plane of the interface ( y in 2-D model and z in 3-D
model)
a is the allowable tensile stress.
bg
F2 is the Mohr-Coulomb criterion defined as
bg b
F2 c n tan g (4.4-7)
where
c is the cohesive strength,
f is the friction angle,
t is the maximum shear stress between the two surfaces of the element (i.e. out of
plane).
The maximum shear stress is known directly for the 2-D model and is evaluated for the
3-D model using
d i d i
2
xy yz
2 1/ 2
(4.4-8)
231
Theory Manual Volume 1
4.5 Damage
Continuum damage analysis is based on the thermodynamics of an irreversible process.
To model an isotropic damage process it suffices to consider a scalar damage variable
d.
The damage models available within LUSAS fall under a type of stress-based elastic-
damage model, in which the damage is determined by a norm of elastic complementary
energy. They are
Simo's damage model
Oliver's damage model
Simo's model allows damage to occur equally in tension and compression but the
difference between tensile and compressive damage strength may be accounted for in
Oliver's model.
e i (4.5-1)
0
e d (4.5-2)
1
d (4.5-3)
1 d
For the material with linear elastic behaviour the elastic complementary energy can be
written as
0 T D1
1
(4.5-4)
2 e
e d D1 (4.5-5)
232
Constitutive Models
t
b g 20 e b gj
t
(4.5-7)
For Simo's damage model = 1, whilst for Oliver's damage model it is given as
FG 1 IJ
H n K (4.5-8)
where
3
i 1
3 (4.5-9)
i 1
i
cd
n (4.5-10)
dt
where dt and cd are the initial damage strengths in tension and compression. i
(i = 1,2,3) are principal undamaged stresses and
i R
S
i
if i 0
(4.5-11)
T0 otherwise
t
brg in the damage function (4.5-6) is the current damage strength measured with an
energy norm and can be given as
t
brg maxo brg, b gt 0 t
(4.5-12)
233
Theory Manual Volume 1
where
0
brg denotes the initial damage threshold of the material.
4.5.3 Damage Rule
The damage flow rule defines the damage softening and is given by
d t
e c hj
t G t, d
(4.5-13)
where 0 is the damage consistency parameter and defines damage loading/
unloading conditions according to the Kuhn-Tucker relations
b g b g
0 , g , r 0 , g , r 0 (4.5-14)
r (4.5-15)
From the consistency of the damage condition in (4.5-6) and the definition in (4.2-69)
it is given that
r (4.5-16)
According to (4.5-16), the definition (4.5-7) and the form of 0 in (4.5-4), we have
2 T 1
De (4.5-17)
t
bG g defines the damage rate with respect to the undamaged elastic
complementary norm. If the damage potential function G is assumed to be independent
of d, substitution of (4.5-16) into (4.5-13) will lead to
dG (4.5-18)
R|Gc rh U| 0
S| b g b g V|
t
(4.5-19)
T t
W r 0 r
234
Constitutive Models
e b gj 1 brgb1brg Ag e b g b gj
0
A exp B r r
t 0 t
G r t
(4.5-20)
Ge brgj 1
t brg expLMAFG1 brg IJ OP
0 t
(4.5-21)
brg MN H brgK PQ
t 0
Viscoelastic (Maxwell)
Elastic-Plastic and
Damage
235
Theory Manual Volume 1
4.6.1 Notation
t Current time
t Current time step increment
G(t) Stress relaxation function
Gv Viscoelastic shear modulus
Viscoelastic decay constant
v Deviatoric viscoelastic stress tensor
Incremental strain tensor
Incremental deviatoric strain tensor
Cv Viscoelastic component of fourth order constitutive tensor C
Dv Viscoelastic component of constitutive matrix D
tr[a] The trace of the tensor a
4.6.2 Deviatoric Viscoelastic Stresses
At the current time t, the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses are obtained from the
deviatoric strain rate as [A5,D1,N1];
bg z b g dds
v t 0 2G t s
t
ds (4.6-1)
where the stress relaxation function G(t) is assumed to be a function of the viscoelastic
shear modulus, Gv, and a decay constant, , as [F4]
bg
G t Gvet (4.6-2)
b
v t t g z
0
t + t
b
2G t t s g dds
ds
(4.6-3)
This expression may be rewritten as
b g z
v t t 0 2G t t s
t
b
g dds ds z t
t+ t
b
2G t t s g dds
ds
(4.6-4)
236
Constitutive Models
Substituting equation (4.2-67) into (4.2-83) and introducing the assumption that the
strain rate is constant over a time increment t gives
b g z
v t t 0 2Gv e bt t sg
t d
ds
ds 2Gv
t z
t
t + t
e bt t sg ds
(4.6-5)
Recalling equations (4.2-82) and (4.2-83) enable the first term on the right hand side of
(4.2-84) to be rewritten as
z0
t
2Gv e bt t sg
d
ds z
ds e t 2Gv e bt sg
t
0
d
ds
ds
(4.6-6)
bg
e t v t
In addition, the integral in the second term emerges after some simple algebra as
z t + t
e b
t t s g ds 1 ec
t
h (4.6-7)
t
Equations (4.2-53) and (4.2-64) can now be combined with equation (4.2-67) to yield
an expression for the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses at the updated position t+t as
b g
v t t v t e 2Gv
t
1 e t
bg c h (4.6-8)
t
This recursive relationship for the calculation of the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses can
be utilised in both implicit and explicit integration schemes. At each iteration, the
viscoelastic stresses are assembled into the elemental stress tensor, t t , after the
plasticity, creep and damage have all been processed. In this way stress states outside
the yield surface are permissible. However, under constant load these viscoelastic
stresses will relax to give a state of stress equivalent to that of the underlying elastic-
plastic material.
It is assumed that the viscoelastic stresses play no part in causing the material to yield,
or in the calculation of damage and creep. The viscoelastic stresses are therefore stored
separately and deducted from the total stress tensor at each iteration prior to any
plasticity, creep or damage computations. Note that this applies to both implicit and
explicit integration of the creep equations.
237
Theory Manual Volume 1
for these components first note that the updated viscoelastic stress tensor can be
expressed as the sum of the component at time t and an increment in viscoelastic stress
as
v
b g bg
v t t v t v (4.6-9)
Combining equations (4.2-50) and (4.2-45) enables an expression for v to be
obtained in terms of the viscoelastic stress at time t and the incremental deviatoric
strain tensor as
c
v e 1 v t 2Gv
t c
1 e t
h bg h (4.6-10)
t
Noting that the viscoelastic component, C , of the fourth order constitutive tensor
v
relates the increment in viscoelastic stress to the incremental strain tensor as
v Cv (4.6-11)
v ij
Cv ijkl
kl (4.6-12)
tr
1
(4.6-13)
3
1
ij ij kk (4.6-14)
3
enables the components of the viscoelastic constitutive tensor C to be determined
v
from the second term on the right hand side of equation (4.2-49). These can be more
conveniently expressed using standard matrix-vector notation, in terms of a viscoelastic
238
Constitutive Models
LM 4
3 - 23- 23 0 0 OP
0 LM xx OP
M 4
- 23 0 0 0PP MM PP
FG1 e IJ MM
3 yy
t
PP MM PP
4
0 0 0
Dv Gv ,
H t KM
3 zz
(4.6-15)
1 0 0
MM PP MM PP
xy
sym 1 0
MN PQ
yz
1 N zx Q
To be consistent with the assembly of the elemental stress tensor, the viscoelastic
components of the constitutive matrix are assembled into the elemental D matrix after
the plasticity, creep and damage have all been processed.
Gt G Gvet (4.6-16)
239
Theory Manual Volume 1
Note that this is equivalent to the linear viscoelastic models currently implemented in
LS-DYNA3D [D1], NIKE2D [N1] and ABAQUS [A5]. Finally, when the viscoelastic
properties are coupled with a nonlinear material, constant loading will also result in the
relaxation of the viscoelastic effects and the stress and strain states will return to that of
the underlying material properties.
Due to the nonlinear constitutive behaviour inherent with the viscoelastic model, even
when coupled with a linear elastic material, NONLINEAR CONTROL (Option 80)
must always be used when viscoelastic properties are assigned. In addition, due to the
rate dependence of the model, a time increment is always required. Consequently, for
implicit analyses either VISCOUS CONTROL (Option 213) or DYNAMIC
CONTROL (Option 43) must also be used. If these are not specified, the viscoelastic
properties will be ignored.
A function from which local strains can be computed such that the local and
global constitutive relationships are both satisfied. This is termed the total-
local function;
240
Constitutive Models
241
Theory Manual Volume 1
the fact that the yield function has straight meridians. In [J5, J6, J7] a confining limit is
suggested beyond which the model is considered inaccurate.
The sections below will summarise some of the main aspects of the model; a more
complete description can be found in [J4-J7].
4.7.1 Theory
4.7.1.1 Global local stresses and strains
The global stress-strain relationship is given by
F np
I
GH
= De ( p ) N jT (I Mx )e j
j1
j
JK (4.7-1)
in which De is the elastic tensor, the stress vector, the strain vector and p the
plastic strain vector, np is the number of damage planes, M is a local damage-contact
x
The plane of degradation (POD), along with its defining local and global coordinate
systems, is shown in Figure 4.7-1.
y r
s
t
x
si Ni (4.7-2)
242
Constitutive Models
LMr1
2
r22 r32 2r1r2 2r2 r3 2r1r3 OP
N = Ms 2
s22 s23 2s1s2 2s2s3 2s1s3 PP (4.7-3a-c)
MNt
1
2
1 t 22 t 23 2t1t 2 2t 2 t 3 2t1t 3 Q
r1 ,r2 ,r3 are the x, y and z components of the unit vector rd , normal to the POD
surface, similarly for sd and t d , the in-plane vectors forming an orthogonal set. sd is
generated in the same [H14] generated shear directions for micro-planes, in that the
directions are chosen orthogonal to r d and to each of the reference axes in turn.
The local stresses are related to the normal and principal shearing stresses on the POD
as follows,
Effective local strain and total global strain vectors are as follows
T
e er es et and = xx yy zz xy yz xz
T
(4.7-5a-b)
The global stress- elastic strain relationships are given by
De e (4.7-7)
e Ce (4.7-8)
s DL ee and ee CL s (4.7-9a-b)
where
243
Theory Manual Volume 1
LME 0 0 OP LM 1E 0 0 OP
M 0 0 P
n n
M0 PP
DL
MN 0
E 0 and CL
MM 1
E PP
0 E Q MN 0 0 1
E PQ
The relationship between the local effective strains e and the local stresses is given by
si DL Mx ei Dls ei (4.7-10)
i i
e j e
efi Mx1 I CL si I Mx ei Clsf si
i i
j i
(4.7-11)
244
Constitutive Models
er
eful
Open
g
Interlock e Interlock
g
es
Closed
In the open state the stress in the debonded component is assumed zero. In the interlock
state the debonded stress is derived from a contact law in which the stress is assumed to
depend upon the distance (in local strain terms) to the contact surface that is denoted by
the vector g and which is termed the embedment. In the closed state, g is equal to the
local strain vector since the contact point coincides with the origin of the local strain
space. The interlock and closed functions used to identify which state is active are
bg
int e mger e2s e2t (4.7-12)
beg e m
cl r g e2s e2t (4.7-13)
bg
If cl e 0, state closed.
245
Theory Manual Volume 1
The constant mg can be obtained from experimental data from tests in which shear is
applied to an open crack, for example from the tests conducted by [W6]. The default
value of mg is taken as 0.425 but it is considered that a reasonable range for mg for
normal strength concrete is 0.3 to 0.6. It was found that a low value of 0.3 could lead to
second cracks forming at shallow angles to the first, due to the development of
relatively large shear forces.
It is assumed that there is a crack opening strain beyond which no further contact can
take place in shear and this is denoted eful.. In this implementation of the model, eful is
made a multiple of 0, i.e. eful=mful 0. Trials suggest that when concrete contains
relatively large coarse aggregate i.e. 20 to 30mm, a value of m ful in the range 10-20 is
appropriate, whereas for concrete with relatively small coarse aggregate, i.e. 5 to 8mm,
a lower value is appropriate, in the range 3 to 5. This variation is necessary because the
relative displacement at the end of a tension-softening curve (related via the
characteristic dimension to 0) is not in direct proportion to the coarse aggregate size,
whereas the clearance displacement is roughly in proportion to the coarse aggregate
size. Thus eful is not in a fixed ratio to 0.
with
ti c1
1 e (a bec1m cec1mp ) (4.7-15)
246
Constitutive Models
The form used to derive the constants is the direct relationship between fs and :
ti
in which
0 ti
c1 and p are both assumed to be fixed at 5. The constants a, b, c and m are determined
from the following four conditions;
fs fti at 0 (4.7-17)
fs
E at 0 (4.7-18)
fs ft at k (4.7-19)
fs
0 at k (4.7-20)
in which E is Youngs modulus and k is at k .
The damage evolution function is solved numerically and full details of the iterative
procedure are provided in [J7].
247
Theory Manual Volume 1
The decision of whether a localised or distributed fracture model is used is left to the
user. If the effective end of the softening curve parameter, 0 , is set to zero in the data
file, it will be calculated from (4.7-21). Otherwise, if a finite value is given for 0 ,
Gf will be ignored.
5G f
e0
w c ft
(4.7-21)
A plane of degradation (POD) is formed when the principal stress reaches the fracture
stress (ft); the POD is formed normal to the major principal axis. Thereafter, it is
assumed that damage on the plane can occur with both shear and normal strains. The
damage surface, shown in Figure 4.7-4, is similar to that used by [K4].
es 2 e t 2
Damage surface
1
er
LM F I OP 1 2
b g e
e, r 1
2 r MN GH JK PQ 2r dr
2
2
i c
2 e2r 4r2 e2s e2t h
(4.7-22)
248
Constitutive Models
The material constants r and are the strain equivalents of the relative shear stress
intercept r c / ft and the asymptotic friction factor , noting that c is the shear
stress intercept. These, the stress ratios, are set to 1.25 and 1.0 respectively.
If I is the stress tensor upon which the crack direction is based, then the derivative of
N i
the stress transformation matrix with respect to I is required i.e. . This is
I
calculated using the chain differentiation rule, such that if a new plane is associated
249
Theory Manual Volume 1
with the major principal value 1 of I , and the normal and shear directions are given
Ni
by the unit vectors r d , sd and t d , then is given by
I
N i
FG
Ni rd Ni sd Ni t d 1
IJ
I H
rd 1 sd 1 t d 1 I K (4.7-23)
When the alternative criterion, of the damage function being greater than zero on the
nearest plane to the existing and the major principal stress planes, is used the above no
longer applies. A scheme to deal with this case for the formation of a second damage
plane with one existing plane having the normal r e is briefly explained here. The
criterion is applied that a new plane cannot form within an angle of p from an existing
plane. If the major principal direction of the stress state under consideration ( r ) is
within p of re i.e. r e r cos pd i , then the damage function is checked on a
plane which has a normal which lies in the same plane as re and r but is at an angle
of p to r e . The unit vector in the plane of re and r orthogonal to r e is denoted ro
and may be calculated as follows
re r
ro re (4.7-24)
re r
The normal to the required plane ( r n ) at an angle p to r e is then given by
r n cos(p )r e sin(p )r o (4.7-25)
In this case (4.14-23) still applies but r n replaces r d , and both sd and td are
constructed from the new direction rn .
When two or three planes form in one increment, the above problem does not arise
because the directions are orthogonal to each other since they are all based on principal
directions.
250
Constitutive Models
Unloading-reloading (u-r) behaviour that is near elastic until well into the
post-peak range, except under high confining pressures.
A relatively simple, but powerful, plasticity component is included in the present
model. A smooth triaxial yield surface is developed from the yield function used by
[L5] and from [W7] smoothing function. Since a consistent formulation is to be used in
the final implementation, the second derivative of the yield function is required, and
therefore it was considered expedient to use a relatively simple yield surface with
straight meridians.
The model includes friction hardening and softening to account for pre and post peak
non-linear behavior, and uses work hardening in which the total work required to reach
the peak stress envelope is made a function of the mean stress. The model is developed
with a dilatancy parameter that allows plastic flows to be associated or non-associated,
although to simulate experiments accurately non-associated flow is required.
The accuracy of the model reduces for stress states with high triaxial confinement
because the model does not simulate non-linearity under hydrostatic compression and
the yield function has straight meridians. This is quantified in [J7], where a confining
limit is suggested beyond which the model is considered inaccurate.
where
F 2 cos()2 b2 I
A r () c G
GH cos() b 2 cos()2 c JJK
and I1 = 1st stress invariant, J2 = 2nd deviatoric stress invariant, is the Lode angle (with
range 0 to 60o) and is a friction hardening factor, which is a function of the work
hardening parameter . varies from a possible value of 0, at which the yield surface
degenerates to a line on the hydrostatic axis, up to 1 at the peak surface position. The
initial position of the yield surface is governed by the initial value of =0 . For most
251
Theory Manual Volume 1
br 1 5 3(1- )
, b 2 1, c 2 2, 1 , , c 3
2b r 1 2 2 2 -1 3
(4.7-27)
A comparison with the surface of [L5] in the pi-plane is shown in Figure 4.8-1.
Comparisons with the curves and the meridians form the yield surface of the yield
function used by [K3] are made in [J6, J7].
90
120 60
150 30
Lubliner
180 0
Craft
210 330
240 300
270
Figure 4.7-4: Yield function on the pi-plane
c b gh
G , Z J 2 Ar b g FGH IJ I Z f Z b1 g
3K 1 c (4.7-28)
The flow rule is derived from the plastic potential in the standard way as follows
252
Constitutive Models
G
p
(4.7-29)
G
T 0
(4.7-30)
X()T p (4.7-31)
A single friction hardening/softening function for has been adopted which gives a
smooth transition from pre to post peak behaviour, as follows
Z Z0
b1 Z g e e1 e j
0 cc1 cc2
(4.7-32)
a
c
To ensure that the peak occurs at = 1, the constants of (4.7.32) must satisfy the
cc2 e cc2
following relationships cc1 and ac ecc1 (1 ecc2 ) . The actual values
1 e cc2
used are cc2= 5, cc1 = 0.0339182745 and ac = 0.9601372615.
The following expression for p was derived by integrating the equation in [S15] over a
uniaxial stress strain curve in compression and then removing the elastic component,
using data typical for structural concrete
FG fc IJ
H
p fc 0.72 c
2E K (4.7-33)
253
Theory Manual Volume 1
in which c is the uniaxial compressive strain at the peak uniaxial compressive stress
(fc).
The expression used for the enhancement factor is as follows
X e e1 XI (4.7-34)
I1
where 0.55 and XI 0.0022
0.9fc
The enhancement factor will never be required for stress states for which I 1 is
positive i.e. tensile.
254
Constitutive Models
255
Theory Manual Volume 1
4.9 Shrinkage
The cure of materials such as concrete and thermoset resins is accompanied by an
isotropic shrinkage. It is a consequence of a chemical reaction and results in a reduction
in volume which takes place over a period of time. Shrinkage in a geometrically
restrained element which prevents free movement, leads to the development of stress.
The shrinkage of concrete has been addressed in the design code CEB-FIP 90 and
EUROCODE 2: EN1992, the equations of which are given in section 4.10.4. The
shrinkage of a thermoset resin is normally related to the degree of cure assuming a
linear or bilinear relation. The degree of cure (DOC) is calculated in a transient thermal
analysis in which the rate of heat generation from the reaction and heat flows are taken
into account. The resulting DOCs are then read into a structural analysis in which the
effect of the shrinkage is evaluated.
For a homogeneous material the shrinkage is equal in each of the coordinate directions.
Therefore the implementation of shrinkage is described by
bg
sxx syy szz F (4.9.1)
where F is the linear shrinkage function and may be time or degree of cure depending
on the analysis type. For non-composite beams and shells shrinkage only produces
inplane stresses. It does not induce bending or shear stresses as it is constant through
the thickness.
256
Constitutive Models
EUROCODE 2: EN1992
All codes are based on the fore-mentioned linear assumptions and predict the mean
behaviour of concrete due to creep effects.
The following points relate to both the CEB-FIP Model and EUROCODE2:
1. Shrinkage can also be taken into account
2. The model is valid for ordinary structural concrete (12-80 MPa) that has been
loaded in compression to less than 40% of its compressive strength at time of
loading, t0.
3. Relative humidities in the range 40-100% and temperatures in the range 5-
30oC are assumed.
4. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 is only strictly applicable to a uni-axial stress
state but the law has been extended in LUSAS to accommodate multi-axial
stress states.
The following points relate to the Chinese Creep Code for Dams:
1. Shrinkage can be taken into account but only via a Solver data file. It is not
possible to model shrinkage for this code via the Modeller user interface at the
moment.
where
t0 i is the initial strain at loading
t c is the creep strain at time t>t0
t s is the shrinkage strain
t T is the thermal strain
t is the stress dependent strain: t t0 i t c
t n is the stress independent strain: t n t s t T
257
Theory Manual Volume 1
In LUSAS Solver the thermal strains are dealt with in the usual manner and this section
will concentrate on the computation of creep and shrinkage strains. For simplicity the
theory will be written for the uniaxial case as the procedure is identical for each stress
(or stress resultant) component [K6].
t , 1
J t , C
E (4.10-4)
where C is defined as the creep coefficient.
Within the range of service stresses there is assumed to be a linear relationship between
creep and stress. For a constant stress at time t0 this leads to:
C
t,t0 c t,t0 t0 (4.10-5)
where A is the elastic compliance (multiplied by Youngs modulus). For plane stress
the following expressions would be used:
T
x y xy (4.10-7)
258
Constitutive Models
T
x y xy (4.10-8)
1 0
A 1 0 (4.10-9)
0
0 2 1
Note that if the creep compliance value, J, is included in the matrix A , equation
(4.10-6) will reduce to the standard linear model for viscoelasticity [Z7].
To obtain a more familiar form of equation (4.10-10) the following substitution can be
made to give a specific value to the general function yi (t )
yi (t) t / i
(4.10-11)
which results in
m
t , C
i 1
ai ( ) 1 e(t )/ i
(4.10-12)
where i are known as retardation times which govern the shape of the creep curve
and ai ( ) are creep compliance coefficients which depend upon the age of loading .
259
Theory Manual Volume 1
Gm G2 G1
m
Kelvin unit m Kelvin unit 2 Kelvin unit 1
Figure 4.10-1: A series of Kelvin units used in the definition of creep strain. Each
Kelvin unit is made up of a spring in parallel with a linear viscous damper. Gi
represents the spring stiffness of the i'th Kelvin unit while i is the viscosity.
The total creep strain at time t idealised with m Kelvin units can then be defined as
m
t
c
i=1
t
i (4.10-13)
where
t
i is the strain of the ith Kelvin unit which, using (4.10-10), is given by:
t
i z0
t
a i ( ) 1 e(yi ( ) yi ( t ))
( ) yi ( )
yi ( )
d (4.10-14)
The following derivation takes the form described in [K6]. Equation (4.10-14) can be
rearranged to give:
t
i z0
t
a i ( )
( ) yi ( )
yi ( )
d t gi (4.10-15)
where
t
gi z0
t
a i ( )e(yi ( ) yi ( t ))
( ) yi ( )
yi ( )
d (4.10-16)
In order to derive the creep strain increment the relationship between creep strain at
b g
time t t with that at time t is needed. bg
Considering (4.10-16) to begin with, at time t t we have b g
260
Constitutive Models
t+t
gi z0
t t
a i ( )e( yi ( ) yi ( t t ))
( ) yi ( )
yi ( )
d (4.10-17)
Splitting the integration in (4.10-17) to isolate the current time step gives
t+t
gi z 0
t ( ) yi ( )
a i ( )e( yi ( )yi (t t ))
yi ( )
d
z
(4.10-18)
t t ( ) yi ( )
a i ( )e( yi ( )yi (t t )) d
t yi ( )
Substituting equation (4.10-11) for the function yi to relate it more directly to the basic
Kelvin unit, equation (4.10-18) becomes:
t+t
0 z
gi eb-(t+t)/ i g a i ( )eb / i g
t ( )
d
z
(4.10-19)
( )
eb-(t+t)/ i g a i ( )eb / i g
t t
d
t
t
Recognising the definition of gi in (4.10-16) leads to
t+t
gi eb t/ i g t gi eb (t t)/ i g zt
t t
ai ( )eb / i g
( )
d
(4.10-20)
If the stress varies linearly over a time step and the material properties remain constant,
then
t+t
gi eb t / i g t gi eb (t t )/ i gai (t )
t z t
t t
eb / i gd
(4.10-21)
The integration of the second term in (4.10-21) leads to
t+t
gi eb t / i g t gi ai (t )i 1 eb t / i g (4.10-22)
t
Returning to equation (4.10-15) to complete the evaluation of creep strain at time
b g
t t :
261
Theory Manual Volume 1
t t
i z t+t
0
ai ( )
( )
d t+t
gi (4.10-23)
Splitting the integration in (4.10-23) as before to isolate the current time step gives
t t
i z t
0
ai ( )
( )
d zt
t+t
ai ( )
( )
d t+t
gi
(4.10-24)
Using the assumptions of a linear variation of stress over a time step and constant
material properties, after some manipulation leads to
t t
i t i t gi t ai t+t gi (4.10-25)
The creep strain increment for the ith Kelvin unit is then obtained from
i t+t
i ti (4.10-26)
Substituting for
t+ t
gi from (4.10-22) and subtracting t i gives
i t ai t ai i 1 e t / i t gi 1 e t / i
t
(4.10-27)
The total creep strain increment is then obtained from
m
c
i=1
i (4.10-28)
or
c L
M a
m
t a t
i i 1 e( t / i )
OP g 1 e
m
t ( t / i )
N i 1
i
t Q i=1
i
(4.10-29)
262
Constitutive Models
computed using a formula for their estimation. The data required for the concrete are
the values of total creep strain under unit stress (= t , C ) for a number of loading ages
and observation times t. The following procedure [K6] is then followed in order to
make a best fit approximation of the creep data with the degenerate kernel, equation
(4.10-12).
1. For CEB-FIP and EUROCODE, the number of retardation times is taken as m=9
and these were set to m = 0.01, 0.1, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 and 1000 days; it was
found that these retardation times provided the best curve fit to a wide range of
observation times. The retardation times used for the Chinese code are taken from
the input data.
2. 50 loading ages, 0 , are taken ranging from 0.025 days to 9125 days (25 years).
3. 60 observation times, n, are also taken ranging between 0.05 days and 25 years after
initial load 0 . The observation times t j , j 12
, ,..., n are generated at log10
equivalent intervals as are the loading ages.
4. Values of j 0 C are computed at j 1,2,..., n points using the equations given in
t ,
Section 4.10.5.
5. The following system of equations is set up:
1 e(t10 )/ 1 1 e(t10 )/ 2
1 e(t10 )/ m 0 a1 t1,0C
1 e(t2 0 )/ 1 1 e(t2 0 )/ 2 1 e(t2 0 )/ m 0 a2 t2 , 0C
tn , 0
1 e
(tn 0 )/ 1
1 e(tn 0 )/ 2 1 e(tn 0 )/ m 0 am
C
(4.10-30)
or in symbolic form:
A a bn1 ,
nm m1
n m (4.10-31)
Steps 1 to 6 are repeated for a number of loading ages to cover the total time of the
analysis.
263
Theory Manual Volume 1
It was found that this combination of number of loading ages, observations times etc.
provided acceptably small errors for the curve fitting process over a wide range of data
input values. Typically, the highest percentage error in the least squares fit is less than
2 % over the loading age range taken.
CEB-FIP
Model Code
1990 Chinese Creep Code for Dams EUROCODE 2
Creep coefficient t ,
t ,
C
Eci
t ,
C f1 g1 p1
1 er1t
t ,
C
t ,
Eci
f2 g2 p2 1 e 2
r t
r3 r3 t
f3e 1 e
Modulus of E cc
0.5
Eci
E E 1 ea
b
t ,t0
t
LM 1 OP t ,t0
t0 t ,t0
(4.10-32)
NE EQ J
0
t0
ci
where
t ,t0
J is the creep function or creep compliance, representing the total stress dependent
strain per unit stress
264
Constitutive Models
t0
E is the modulus of elasticity at the time of loading, t0; hence, t0 E 1 , represents the
t
initial strain per unit stress at loading. 0 E is computed in the following
manner:
t0
E cc Eci
t 0.5
(4.10-33)
Where
t
cc is a coefficient that depends on the age of concrete t:
R| L F 28 I
expSsM1 G
1/ 2
OPU|
cc
|T MN H t / t JK PQV|W
t
(4.10-34)
1
with
s is a coefficient which depends on the type of cement: s = 0.20 for rapid hardening
high strength cements RS, 0.25 for normal and rapid hardening cements N and R,
and 0.38 for slowly hardening cements SL.
t1 =1day
where
0 RH ( f cm ) (t0 ) (4.10-36)
with
1 RH / RH0
RH 1 (4.10-37)
0.46(h / h0 )1/ 3
53
.
( f cm ) (4.10-38)
( f cm / f cmo )0.5
265
Theory Manual Volume 1
1
(t 0 ) (4.10-39)
. (t0 / t1 )0.2
01
where
h is the notional size of the member (mm) = 2Ac/u (where Ac=area of cross section,
u= length of the perimeter of the cross section which is in contact with the
atmosphere)
fcm is the mean concrete compressive strength (MPa) at 28 days.
fcmo=10MPa
RHis the relative humidity of the ambient environment (%)
RHo=100%
ho =100mm
L (t t ) / t OP
(t t ) M 0 1
0.3
c
N (t t ) / t Q
0
H 0 1
(4.10-40)
with
R| F . RH I
150S1 G12
18
U| h 250 1500
H
|T H RH JK V| h (4.10-41)
0 W 0
(4.10-42)
266
Constitutive Models
(4.10-43)
where
t
cc is a coefficient that depends on the age of concrete t
(4.10-44)
For heat curing of precast concrete elements, t (before 28 days) is adjusted according to
(4.10-55);
t
cc is limited to 1. s is a coefficient which depends on the type of cement:
Cement
Class S 0.38
Class N 0.25
Class R 0.20
(4.10-45)
where t is the age of the concrete in days at the moment considered; t0 is the age of the
concrete at loading.
The notional creep coefficient
(4.10-46)
with the effect of RH on the notional creep coefficient
for (4.10-47)
for
where RH is the relative humidity of the ambient environment (%); the effect of
concrete strength on the notional creep coefficient
(4.10-48)
and the effect of concrete age at loading on the notional creep coefficient
267
Theory Manual Volume 1
(4.10-49)
(4.10-50)
where Ac = area of cross section, u = length of the perimeter of the cross section which
is in contact with the atmosphere.
The development of creep with time after loading is given by
(4.10-51)
(4.10-52)
(4.10-53)
where t0,T is the temperature adjusted age of concrete at loading in days adjusted
according to (4.10-55); the coefficient depends on the cement type as
cement
Class S -1
Class N 0
Class R 1
(4.10-54)
268
Constitutive Models
(4.10-55)
where T(ti) is the temperature in C during the time period ti, and n is the number of
days where a temperature T prevails.
4.10.6 Shrinkage
4.10.6.1 Shrinkage Strain Assumptions in CEB-FIP Code
where
cso is the notional shrinkage coefficient (4.10-43)
s is the coefficient to describe the development of shrinkage with time (4.10-47)
t is the age of concrete (days)
t s is the age of concrete (days) at the beginning of shrinkage or swelling
with
where
where
269
Theory Manual Volume 1
3
RH
sRH 1 (4.10-60)
RHo
As previously stated, the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 is only strictly applicable to a
uni-axial stress state but the law has been extended in LUSAS to accommodate multi-
axial stress states. Care should be taken when estimating a value to use for h when
applying CEB-FIP shrinkage to concrete members that are not beam-like in nature. In
general, the larger the value for h, the longer the time taken for shrinkage strains to
reach a final value; for large values of h, it must be decided whether this behaviour is
reasonable. An illustration of the effect on shrinkage of varying the input parameter HR
(=h/ho) is shown below. As CEB-FIP creep and shrinkage input parameters can be
defined separately, it is possible, if necessary, to use different HR values for creep and
shrinkage on the same assignment.
(4.10-62)
270
Constitutive Models
where t is the age of concrete (days); t s is the age of concrete (days) at the beginning
of drying shrinkage (or swelling).
The drying shrinkage strain is given by
(4.10-63)
100 1.0
200 0.85
300 0.75
500 0.70
The basic drying shrinkage strain
(4.10-64)
Class S 3 0,13
Class N 4 0,12
Class R 6 0,11
and the relative humidity coefficient
(4.10-65)
(4.10-66)
(4.10-67)
with the final autogenous shrinkage
(4.10-68)
271
Theory Manual Volume 1
The creep strain computation for this material model takes the following form:
1. During the very first pass through a time step, the incremental stresses are
estimated to be zero, so that
t t
t
(4.10-70)
t t 1
p K
i
(4.10-72)
272
Constitutive Models
273
Theory Manual Volume 1
1t,c
G1t,c
nt,c
External Damage Eyring Gnt,c
spring model dashpot
Figure 4.11-1: Mechanical analogue for the Generic Polymer Material model. The
superscripts t and c refer to tension and compression respectively.
The purpose of each individual component in the GPM model shown in Figure 4.11-1
and the relevant material properties that need to be defined can be found in Table
4.11-1. Superscripts c and t refer to compressive and tensile properties respectively.
The GPM model allows the inclusion of different properties in tension and
compression for the Maxwell unit, the Eyring dashpot and the external spring. Some
generic properties applicable to all stress states, such as the Bulk Modulus and the
damage parameters, also need to be defined.
The arrangement in Figure 4.11-1 is for illustrative purposes only. The more Maxwell
units that are defined the better the representation of the material behaviour over a
wider range of time-periods.
At c, t c
274
Constitutive Models
can be removed whilst the viscous properties of one of the Newtonian dashpots
comprising the Maxwell unit could be set to zero, leaving just a spring in parallel with
other Maxwell elements. The latter arrangement for the Maxwell unit is recommended
in the Visco-Scram model [H15].
Various failure criteria have been implemented in order to allow for degradation of the
material. These failure criteria act on an individual Maxwell element basis in order to
provide a better representation of the material.
ij eij m ij
1
m ii
3 (4.11-1)
ij sij m ij
1
m 3K m
3 ii
where
m mean stress
m mean strain
ij Kronecker delta
K bulk modulus
The individual components of the model are described separately and then assembled
to form the GPM model. Understanding how each component in the model interacts
with each other is the key to deriving the governing differential equation for the model
and hence the finite element implementation. In the case considered here, the strain rate
of the model is the sum of the strain rates from the Maxwell unit, the Eyring dashpot,
the external linear spring and the Visco-Scram damage element as can be seen from
Figure 4.11-1. Thus, the total deviatoric strain rate is the sum of the strain rate from the
Eyring dashpot, the damage model, the spring, and the Maxwell units:
e ij e ijve e eyr
ij e ij e
dam spr
ij
(4.11-2)
e ijve e ij e eyr
ij e ij e
dam spr
ij
where
275
Theory Manual Volume 1
The equations for each of these components are derived and explained below.
For the single element Maxwell model represented in 1-D in Figure 4.11-2, the
relationship between the deviatoric stress and deviatoric strain in the elastic spring
element is given as:
The total viscoelastic strain rate is the sum of the spring strain rate and the viscous
damper strain rate. From (4.11-3), the spring strain rate is given as
s ij
e ij (4.11-5)
2G
Therefore, for a single Maxwell element, labelled n, the stress strain relation using
(4.11-4) and (4.11-5) is
sijn
sijn 2G ne ijve (4.11-6)
n
276
Constitutive Models
where e ijve is the deviatoric viscoelastic strain rate and is the sum of the strain rate in the
Maxwell spring and the viscous damper. The retardation is defined as,
n
n (4.11-7)
Gn
For a generalised deviatoric Maxwell element consisting of N such units, the deviatoric
stress rate can then be expressed as:
N
sijn
sij
n1
(2G ne ijve
n
) (4.11-8)
where, as in the one-dimensional case, the deviatoric stresses for each Maxwell element
are additive and can be evaluated from (4.11-3) and (4.11-4).
FG IJ
kT RT
F
FG IJ
eyr 2X
h H K
e sinh
RT H K (4.11-9)
FG IJ
A sinh
RT H K
where A is associated with the activation energy and is the activation volume [S16].
The other quantities in (4.11-9) are as follows:
X = flow parameter
k = Boltzmann constant
T = temperature (K)
h = Plancks constant
F = Energy barrier
R = Universal gas constant
The Eyring dashpot provides the viscoplastic or permanent deformation response of the
model.
Another equation relating the strain rate for the Eyring model to the stress in 3-D is
required. This relation is defined below as in [B6]:
277
Theory Manual Volume 1
ij
e eyr
3A sij
2 e
b g
sinh t e (4.11-10)
where t and e , the effective deviatoric stress, is defined as:
RT
F3 I
1
G s s J
2
e
H2 K ij ij (4.11-11)
ecrack
ij c3sij (4.11-12)
In the work of Hackett and Bennett [H15], a single definition for is used. The single
definition implies the use of a single damage function and a single damage surface
across tensile and compressive regions. From [H15] is defined as
1
2Ga 3
(4.11-13)
278
Constitutive Models
where a is the initial flaw size and G is the shear modulus. With the GPM model the
shear modulus is approximated as G , the sum of the Maxwell shear modulii.
N
G G
n=1
n
(4.11-14)
where G is the shear Modulus of the spring in the nth Maxwell element and N is the
n
bg bg bg
ij t c t sij t
ecr
3
(4.11-15)
The time derivative of (4.11-15) gives the cracking deviatoric strain rate as
ecrack
ij c sij
3c2 sij c3 (4.11-16)
t t t
Using equation (4.11-14) in (4.11-13) and substituting for in (4.11-16) gives the
cracking deviatoric strain as
3 c FG IJ 2
c 1 c
3
FG IJ
e crack
ij
2G a HK a
sij
2G a ijHK
s (4.11-17)
Equation (4.11-17) is in a particularly convenient form that can be integrated into the
GPM model directly.
The various quantities in (4.11-17) are now defined. The cracking rate is defined as
c Vmax
FG K IJ when m
HK K KI < K
I
(4.11-18)
1
F FK I I 2
c Vmax GG1 GH K JK JJ o
when KI K (4.11-19)
H K I
where
3c
KI ss for m 0 (4.11-20)
2 ij ij
279
Theory Manual Volume 1
3c
KI for m 0 (4.11-21)
2 ij ij
where m is the mean stress, defined as
m 3Km (4.11-22)
The definition for KI in (4.11-20) and (4.11-21) is dependant on the sign of the mean
stress, and therefore introduces an element of pressure dependency into the ViscoScram
damage model via the cracking rate. The definition in (4.11-20) applies in compression
whilst the definition in (4.11-21) applies in tension.
The remaining definitions are
m
K1 K m 1 (4.11-23)
2
2
K Ko 1 (4.11-24)
m
mc1 2 F mc1 2 I
Ko Ko 1
Ko
1 GH Ko JK (4.11-25)
45 s
(4.11-26)
e
2 3 2 2s j
where
Vmax maximum value of the rate of growth of the average crack radius
m cracking parameter
Since the ViscoScram damage model defines the damage behaviour of the material, the
damage strain and strain rate are equivalent to the cracking strain and strain rate in the
model.
edam
ij ecrack
ij e dam
ij e crack
ij (4.11-27)
280
Constitutive Models
cb gh FGH IJK
Q d m , eff
c 3
a
(4.11-28)
ecrack
ij
1
2G
bg
Q d sij (4.11-29)
These are the starting point for the damage formulation developed.
Tension Compression
identifier, identifier,
ITDAM Description ICDAM Description
281
Theory Manual Volume 1
To incorporate the various components defined above into the GPM model, we
substitute the viscoelastic strain rate from (4.11-2) into equation (4.11-8) for the
generalised Maxwell model. Thus, the deviatoric stress rate for the material model is
F sbij g
n I
GGH 2Gb g ee J
N
sij
i 1
n
ij e eyr
ij e ij e
dam j
spr
ij
b g JK
n
(4.11-30)
Note that deviatoric stress rate for each Maxwell element in (4.11-28) is affected by the
presence of damage.
else use compression properties. This is illustrated in Figure 4.11-4 where the Maxwell
element is shown in the three directions the deviatoric stresses act. The shear modulii
b g
G11, G22 , G33 can be switched from tension to compression or vice-versa based
on the values of the respective deviatoric stress component.
282
Constitutive Models
Figure 4.11-4 Maxwell element showing the three deviatoric stress components and the
associated shear modulii.
ij
e eyr
3A sij
2 e
c
sinh t e h
(4.11-31)
F3 I2
1
e G sijsij J
H2 K
Taking the natural logarithm of both sides of equation (4.11-31),
ij ln
ln e eyr
FG 3A IJ lnFG sij sinhct e hIJ
H 2 K H e K (4.11-32)
F sij sinhc hI
ij ln C lnG
ln e eyr
H e t e JK
where C is a constant. Equation (4.11-32) can be further simplified if the experiment is
carried out under uniaxial conditions and fairly high stresses are developed such that;
c 1
h
sinh t e exp t e
2
c h
(4.11-33)
3
e sxx
2
283
Theory Manual Volume 1
F 1CI
ln eyr
xx ln GH 6 JK t xx (4.11-34)
Plotting the natural logarithm of the strain rate against the stress yields a straight line
with a gradient linked to the activation volume and an intercept on the y-axis
1
equivalent to the activation energy multiplied by a factor of .
6
Gnkl
ijn sijn (4.11-35)
G mean mn
where
Degrading individual Maxwell elements as opposed to the global element should allow
a gradual failure of the element. This is thought to be more in line with experimental
observations. The approach proposed here would seem suitable for tension and for
modelling debonding. The failure flag for each Maxwell element is stored in the state
variable array and can be accessed for plotting purposes in Modeller.
284
Constitutive Models
max 1 2 , 2 3 , 3 1 y (4.11-36)
where 1, 2 and 3 are the principal stresses and y the yield/critical stress.
von Mises
This can be used to predict yielding or failure in ductile materials. The
criterion is expressed as follows.
1
1 2 2 3 3 1 2y
2 2 2
(4.11-37)
2
c 1, 2 , 3 t (4.11-38)
Mohrs circle
This can be used to predict failure in brittle materials. Failure occurs when the
Mohrs circle at a point in the body exceeds an envelope created by the
Mohrs circle for uniaxial tensile strength and the Mohrs circle for uniaxial
compressive strength. When all principal stresses are tensile or compressive
the failure criterion is the same as that for maximum normal stress criterion.
Intermediate stress states are governed by the failure envelope. Figure 4.11-4
shows the case for a two-dimensional stress state.
285
Theory Manual Volume 1
Failure
envelope
Uniaxial
tension
c t
Uniaxial
compression Intermediate
stress state
1 1tu
Tension 2 2t
u
(4.11-39)
12 12
u
1 1c
u
Compression (4.11-40)
2 2c
u
286
Constitutive Models
eq 23 1 2 2 3 3 1
2 2 2
(4.11-41)
The criterion limits the accumulation of local strain in the material at a given
strain rate by comparing the value of eq against a critical value. The latter
will be based on experimental data for the material under consideration.
z
U ijd ij
ij
(4.11-42)
The dissipated energy in the material is mostly due to damage and viscous effects. The
strain energy density can therefore be written as:
z
Strain energy density ijd ij (w)ve (w)cr
ij
(4.11-43)
where
wve viscous work per unit volume
wcr damage work per unit volume
All energy or work quantities in the derivation below are per unit volume and the latter
description will be dropped for simplification.
The viscous work rate for an N-component Maxwell model is
287
Theory Manual Volume 1
aw f sijnsijn
N N
sijne ijve (4.11-44)
n 1 2G
ve n n
n 1
where sij and eijve are the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses and strains; G and are
shear modulus and retardation time. The cracking damage work rate is
aw f 1 c LM F I 2
c c 3 F I OP
cr 3
2G a NH K ss
HK Q
s s
a ij ij a ij ij
(4.11-46)
aw f
1 Q LM
es s Qsijs ij
OP
cr
2G d ij ijN Q (4.11-47)
total = ij ij
(w) (4.11-48)
The elastic strain energy rate can be evaluated as the difference between the total work
rate and the sum of the viscous and damage work rates. Thus,
Using (4.11.44), (4.11.46) and (4.11.48), the incremental strain energy can be written
as
awf ( ij ) ij
cs s hcs s h
N n
ij
n
ij
n
ij
n
ij
ij
n 1 2G n n
1 LM F I c cs s hcs s h F cI cs s hs OP
c 2 3
2G
3
aNH K a ij
H aK
ij ij
Q
ij ij
(4.11-51)
ij ij
Visco-plastic work should also be subtracted from (4.11.51) if the Eyring dashpot is
used. The strain energy density can then be equated to a maximum user specified value
to determine if failure has occurred.
288
Constitutive Models
bF g K du u i K bF g
x i x i j x x x j (4.12-1)
dF i K dv v i K dF i
y i y i j y y y j (4.12-2)
where
u and v are the joint displacements in the local x and y directions,
Fx and Fy are the joint forces in the local x and y directions,
Kx and Ky are the spring stiffness in the local x and y directions,
x and y are the spring strains in the local x and y directions.
f k a'
(4.12-3)
where
289
Theory Manual Volume 1
Kx 0 Kx 0
0 Ky 0 Ky
K (4.12-4)
Kx 0 Kx 0
0 Ky 0 K y
Both f and k are transformed to the global Cartesian system before assembly. The mass
and damping matrices are formed in an identical manner to the stiffness matrix.
Alternatively, the complete stiffness, mass and damping matrices may be specified
directly, by using the MATRIX PROPERTY command
LM K 1 K2 K4 . OP
KM PP
K3 K5 .
MM K6 .
PQ
(4.12-5)
NSym. Km
where
The value of n is element dependent and specific values for each element are given in
the LUSAS Element Library.
Note. Connected nodes must be coincident to maintain equilibrium when rotational
degrees of freedom are present.
290
Constitutive Models
y x
QPM4 elements
Local Cartesian
Y system
Kx
Ky
Where
t
The current yield stress Fyld is defined by
t
Fyld 0 Fyld + t p (4.12-7)
291
Theory Manual Volume 1
where
0
Fyld is the initial yield stress
is the hardening parameter
is the plastic strain at the end of the previous increment
t p
t t
If FE t Fyld then yielding occurs and the force is returned to the yield surface by
plastic straining, i.e.
t+ t
F t Fyld + t+t p (4.12-8)
where
t+ t t+ t
p FE t F / t Fyld t F (4.12-9)
Fyld K
-Fyld
292
Constitutive Models
The joint element is initially assumed to be in a contact state, so that the force in any
t+t t+t
spring FE at time FEt + t is updated as
t+ t t+ t
FE Kc +g (4.12-10)
where
Fyld
1 g (4.12-11)
Kc
The force is then updated as
t+ t
F = Fyld K1 c t+ t
1 h (4.12-12)
Force Fx
K1
Liftoff
Fyld
Strain
g
Kc
293
Theory Manual Volume 1
Load
Sunken support
Initial gap
Contact
stiffness Kc
294
Constitutive Models
Fx
g
x
Kx
Fyld
Fx
xy xz
Fyld
Ky Kz
xy xz
-Fyld
295
Theory Manual Volume 1
t+ t E
f =k d t+ t
g i (4.12-13)
LM F OP L O LK OP LM OP
f MF P, MM PP, k MM 0
x x x 0 0 g
MNF PQ MN PQ MN 0
xy xy PP MM PP
Ky 0 and g 0
yz xz 0 Kz Q 0NQ
(4.12-14)
and
LM OP LM u OP LM u OP
x 2 1
MM PP = MMwv PP - MMwv PP
xy 2 1
N Q N Q N Q
xz 2 1 (4.12-15)
Two yield conditions are then assessed
Lift-off, which occurs if t+t x g > 0 in which case all joint forces and the
tangent stiffness matrix are set to zero.
Frictional sliding, which occurs if
t t
Fs t t Fyld 0 (4.12-16)
And
t t t t
Fyld Fx (4.12-18)
t t Fxy t t
Fyld t t Fxy
E
(4.12-19)
t t F t t
xz
Fs t t Fxz
E
296
Constitutive Models
aT kT ka Fs
k k where a (4.12-20)
T
a ka f
t t
F Fp Ka Ca v (4.12-21)
Where Fp is a preload force vector, K the stiffness matrix for the joint, a the
displacement vector, C the damping matrix, a the velocity vector and v a constant
typically taking a value between 0.1 and 1.0. The preload force is a result of the
pressure in the hydraulic fluid. The dampers are pressurised at the factory and not in-
situ so that the preload force does not exert a force on the structure but defines the force
that must be exceeded before piston movement takes place. For a viscous damper
device, the stiffness term defines the change in pressure due to the stroke of the piston.
The behaviour law can be expressed by introducing the concept of nominal force, Fn,
and nominal velocity, Vn, where for a one degree of freedom system
Fn
C (4.12-22)
Vn v
The value required for Fn depends on the location of the damper in the structure and the
applied loading. Vn depends on the results of the expected seismic reponse. Fn and Vn
define the setting point of the damper, in other words, the maximum force and velocity
expected during the seism.
297
Theory Manual Volume 1
As the components of a joint are uncoupled, the dynamic component of damper force
can be introduced by rearranging equation (4.12-21) to the following form
F Fp Ka C'a (4.12-23)
where
To incorporate the preload facility a high artificial stiffness has been introduced for net
displacements less than 0.0001. The second term in equation (4.12-23), Ka , is
evaluated in the usual manner. Note that Fp and K may be specified as zero (if the
structural stiffness permits) so that a pure viscous damper is defined.
A relatively general, four parameter solid model, which comprises three springs and a
dashpot as shown in (Figure 4.12-7), is implemented in LUSAS.
298
Constitutive Models
K3 Cd
dd
F K1 F
K2
d1 d-d1
FIG. 4.12-7 Four-parameter solid model for visco-elastic bearings
F k1d cd sgn d d (4.12-25)
where d = displacement
If k2 0 :
F k1d k3 d dd (4.12-27)
k3 d dd cd sgn dd dd
If k3 0 :
F k2 d dd k1dd cd sgn dd dd (4.12-28)
or
F
k1k2
k1 k2
k
d 2 cd sgn dd dd
k1 k2
(4.12-29)
299
Theory Manual Volume 1
k3 d1 dd cd sgn dd dd
F k2 1 k2 d k3dd k1k2d k1k3dd cd sgn dd dd
(4.12-31)
or
F
k1k2
k1 k2
k
k1 k2
d 2 cd sgn dd dd (4.12-32)
where
k2 k3
k2 , k3 (4.12-33)
k1 k2 k3 k1 k2 k3
When k2 >> k1, d1 d, (4.12-30) reduces to (4.12-27). When k3 >> k1, d1 dd, (4.12-
30) reduces to (4.12-28). When k2 >> k1 and k3 >> k1, (4.12-30) reduces to (4.12-25).
In the analysis, (4.12-25), (4.12-26), (4.12-27), (4.12-29) and (4.12-32) are used to
formulate the stiffness matrix and internal force vector; (4.12-26), (4.12-27), (4.12-
28) and (4.12-31) are used to update the state variable dd of the dash-pot.
300
Constitutive Models
Force
- post-yield
stiffness
Fyld
Lead Core
Rubber
Steel
Plate Displacement
K - elastic
Lead Rubber Bearing spring stiffness
F Ku 1 Fyz (4.12-34)
where F is the force, u the displacement, K the initial stiffness, Fy the yield strength,
the post-yield stiffness reduction and z an internal variable for the hysteretic behaviour.
In a two-dimensional formulation (3D problems), the forces in a LRB are given by
The evolution equations for hysteretic variables z are described in 4.12.6.3 below.
301
Theory Manual Volume 1
Force
Bearing Material
Spherical Sliding N
Surface
Displacement
For friction pendulum type isolators, the sliding frictional forces are supplemented by
restorative forces produced by the isolators geometry. The restorative forces are
dependent on the absolute displacement rather than the hysteretic variables. The forces
in the FPS, including the restorative forces, are given by:
N
F u s Nz (4.12-37)
R
for 1D, and
N N
Fx u Nz ,F u Nz (4.12-38)
R x s x y R y s y
for 2D. Where s is the coefficient of friction and N is the average normal force at the
bearing which is evaluated as follows
N = Kz w (4.12-39)
where Kz and w are stiffness and compressive deformation in the contact direction.
Prior to sliding we have a build up of elastic force which is recoverable when the
applied force is relaxed. Once the limiting force is surpassed sliding occurs with the
friction force reaching a limiting value which opposes the motion. The yielding
displacement used in the numerical implementation is defined as
N
uy (4.12-40)
KF
where KF is the stiffness of the contact bearings surface before sliding. Note that
(4.12-40) is similar to (4.12-36) if the yielding force in FPS is understood as F y = N.
302
Constitutive Models
The coefficients of sliding friction depend on both the bearing pressure and the velocity
of sliding. The relation of the sliding friction to the velocity is expressed by [R4]
where max is the maximum value of the coefficient of friction and min is the
minimum value, normally occurring at u 0 or near-zero velocity. max , min and
may be, in general, functions of bearing pressure and angle . The variation of
parameter max with pressure is given as:
max max0 max0 maxp tanh P (4.12-42)
u y z A z
s
sgn uz u (4.12-43)
where z 1 and
A Hysteretic control parameter (only applicable to the 1 st local freedom in 2D and the
1st and 2nd local freedoms in 3D)
s Hysteretic control parameter (see Sliding/Frictional Pendulum System with
Hysteretic Damping in the LUSAS Solver Manual for further details)
303
Theory Manual Volume 1
uxy zx Ax z2x sgn u xz x
-cpzx z y sgn u yz y u
x (4.12-44)
u yyz y -cpzx z y sgn u x zx
Ay z y sgn u yz y u y
2
(4.12-45)
(4.12-46)
(4.12-47)
304
Constitutive Models
Coupled model
A coupled model can be accommodated by always using the deformation in the normal
(local y for 2D, or z for 3D) direction for used in equations (4.12-46) and (4.12-47).
This model can be used in the analysis of soil-structure interaction.
Uncoupled model
f
N rkn
i N+1
i+1
i
2
1
rk1 1 2
305
Theory Manual Volume 1
linear hysteresis joint models can be above or below the zero force axis, and the origin
of the loop may have any displacement and force, not necessarily zero displacement
and force.
F
Fy+ rk0
Piecewise linear
k0
elastic spine
Fy-
rk0
FIG. 4.12-11 Force-deformation curve of a multilinear inelastic joint (no need to pass
through origin)
306
Constitutive Models
F
Fy+ rk0
ku
k0
ku dy dm d
rk0 Fy-
F
Fy+ rk0
k0
k0
Gap -
Gap + d
k0
k0
Fy-
rk0
307
Theory Manual Volume 1
F
Fy+
k0
dy d
Fy-
F
Fy+ rk0
k0
rk0 Fy-
308
Constitutive Models
F
A(F1,dm )
Fy+ rk0
Theoretical cubic
unloading-reversal ku
loading curve k0
C(F3,-d1 ) dm d
ks
B(0,d1 )
kl ku
Fy-
rk0 D(F2,-dm )
309
Theory Manual Volume 1
rk0
Fy+
Fi
k0 ku
ku
d
-Fi
rk0
Fy-
310
Constitutive Models
F dp
dp
rk0
Fy+
Previous yield ku
k0
ku dy dm d
F
1
3 2
4
(4)
d
-2 -3
-1
Loading 2 1 4 3 3 1
Unloading line 2 4 4
Reversal loading (new)
(+ and - refer to lines above/below the horizontal axis, or their unloading lines)
311
Theory Manual Volume 1
F
rk0
Fy+
k0
With opposite
yield Fcr+ ku
ku
k0 d
Fcr-
ku
k0
With no
opposite yield
Fy-
rk0
312
Constitutive Models
F
1
2
3
4
4
d
-2 -3
-1
Loading 2 1 4 3 3 1
Unloading line 2 4 4
Reversal loading (reversal)
313
Theory Manual Volume 1
F
rk0
Fy+
k0
ku
Trilinear spine
Fcr+
k0
ku
k0
dy dm d
k0
ku Fcr- After
k0 yield
Fy-
After cracking
rk0
314
Constitutive Models
F
rk0
Fy+
k0
Previous ku
yield Fcc
Fcr+
k0
dy dm d
ku
Fcr- No previous
k0 yield
Fy-
rk0
315
Theory Manual Volume 1
F
1 Y
4
P
2
5 3
7
-8 6 d
-3
-2 -7 -3
-4
-1
316
Constitutive Models
Table: Unloading/reversal loading rule for Sina degrading trilinear hysteresis after
yielding
Loading 2 1 5 3 6 4 87 3 1 or 4 1 7 1
4 (yielded)
Unloading 2 5 6 8 5 6 8
Reversal (new (new
loading reversal) reversal)
(P pinching point; Y yield point)
317
Theory Manual Volume 1
F
dmax
Fu+
PTri k0
rk0
Fy+
ku
Fi
k0
dmin dmax d
-Fi
ku Fy-
rk0
PTri k0 Fu-
dmin
F (dmax, fmax )
Fu+ (dun, fun )
r1k0
Fy+ kp
r2k0
k0
(die, fie )
runk0
dy
runk0
runk0 kd (d0, 0) d
Fos
kp k0 Positive or
Fy- negative
Fu-
(dmax, fmax )
(dun, fun )
318
Constitutive Models
Fy+
k0 runk0
(d0, 0)
F
Fu+
Fy+
(dNgap ,0 )
d
(dPgap,0 )
dNgap dPgap
319
Theory Manual Volume 1
where y and fy are the displacement and force at the initial yield point, 0 and f0 are the
deformation and force at the origin of the primary loading curve.
Scaled stiffness
The unloading stiffness is
where is a scaling factor. If = 1, the scaled stiffness reduces to the initial elastic
stiffness.
Emori-Schnobrich formula
The unloading stiffness by the Emori-Schnobrich rule [E3] is
320
Constitutive Models
where fu is the force at the unloading point. When = 0, the unloading stiffness also
reduces to the initial elastic stiffness.
321
Theory Manual Volume 1
z
Kk B k B dV
v
T
(4.13-1)
and, typically for heat conduction problems, k' is the thermal conductivity matrix in
the local Cartesian system, i.e.
k x 0 0
k x 0
for 2D k and for 3D k 0 k y 0 (4.13-3)
0 k y
0 0 k z
and T is the transformation matrix from the local to the global Cartesian system
defined as
T
for 2D T = ex' ey and for 3D T = ex' ey' ez (4.13-4)
322
Constitutive Models
and ex' ey' ez are the direction cosines of the x, y and z axes of the local Cartesian
system relative to the global Cartesian system.
For the 2-D case, the direction cosines are evaluated from an angle of rotation,
measured anticlockwise from the global axis. For the three dimensional case, the
cosines are formed directly from a Cartesian set.
For orthotropic materials, the flow rates are evaluated as
q TT k' T B (4.13-5)
Note that the specific heat coefficients should be multiplied by the density prior to
input.
Temperature dependent material properties are defined to be piecewise linear functions
of temperature. This is achieved by specifying a table of material properties with
corresponding temperatures. The current material properties at each Gauss point are
t
then interpolated from the table using the current temperature T. Furthermore, the
axes of orthotropy should be independent of the field variable.
K, hc, hr
hr o -dhr/dL
-dK/dL
Ko
-dhc/dL
hc o
Gap distance L
323
Theory Manual Volume 1
Where
The field link model 19 permits the variation of conductive, convective and radiative
heat transfer to be related to the gap opening distance in an arbitrary manner by
utilising a series of straight line segments to define the values of the properties for all
opening distances (fig.4.13-2).
K, hc, hr
K1
Kn
hc 1
hc n
hr 1
hr n
L1 L2 L3 Ln
Where
324
Constitutive Models
(4.14-2)
and are defined by their midsurface curvilinear plane such that
constant
(4.14-3)
and
k 0 (at the layer midsurface) (4.14-4)
325
Theory Manual Volume 1
z T
K B D' Bdv =
v zzz
1
1
1
1
1 T
1
B D' B J d d d
(4.14-5)
where b g
1 ,, 1 within an element.
For composite or layered shells it is convenient to separate the in-plane and through-
thickness integrals. Since the through-thickness stress distribution is generally a
discontinuous function of z it is necessary to evaluate the elemental stiffness by
integrating independently within the domain of each layer. The elemental stiffness
contribution at a typical Gauss point is therefore obtained as a summation of the
contribution from each of the constituent layers. The above volume integral may be
modified by replacing the elemental through-thickness local coordinate with an
equivalent layer coordinate which varies from -1 to +1 within the (k)th layer of the
element
z T
K B D' B dv =
v
LMN
n
k=1
zzz
1
1
1
1
1 T
B D'k Bk J
1 k
hk
t
OP
ddd k
Q
(4.14-6)
where:-
= -1
1 LM b g k
h k 1- k 2 h j
OP (4.14-7)
t N j=1 Q
and
b g
d = hk / t d k (4.14-8)
k 0
(4.14-9)
326
Constitutive Models
= -1
1 LM k
h k 2 h j
OP (4.14-10)
t N j=1 Q
or, in terms of the relative thickness (h') of each layer
LM
= -1 h'k 2 h'j
k OP (4.14-11)
N j=1 Q
Similarly, the mid-ordinate integration weights may be obtained in terms of the
absolute or relative thicknesses of each layer from the expressions
The internal elemental force contribution at a typical Gauss point may be obtained in a
similar manner from the summation of the contribution from each of the constituent
layers
z
K B s dv =
v
T
LMN
k=1
n
zzz
1
1
1
1
1 T
Bs J
1 k k
hk
t
OP
ddd k
Q
(4.14-13)
where:-
Note that the mid-ordinate integration utilised within each layer provides a constant
distribution of stress within each layer. Therefore, very thick lamina may require
subdivision into several layers.
327
Theory Manual Volume 1
n
p
2 p 3 p 3 k J 1
p 1 2
1 (4.15-1)
p1 p
2
C1 I1 3 C2 I2 3 k J 1
1
2
2
(4.15-2)
1
2
C0 I1 3 k J 1
2
(4.15-3)
G ln 1 ln 2 ln 3 G lnJ k
2 2 2 1 2
(4.15-4)
3
where is the strain energy function, p and p are the Ogden constants, C1 and
C2 are the Mooney-Rivlin constants,C0 is the Neo-Hookean constant, G is the
shear modulus, k is the bulk modulus and J = det F = 1 2 3 is the volume ratio.
For the Hencky material model, the bulk strain energy k is defined as
1
b g 1
b g
k k ln J . This is redefined as k k J 1 (i.e. the same as for the
2
2
2
2
other hyper-elastic material models) for the elements employing the mixed
displacement-pressure formulation, where such a definition of the bulk strain energy
ensures the symmetry of the tangent stiffness matrix.
The modified strain invariants and stretch quantities are defined as
I1 I1 I-1/3
3
(4.15-5)
I2 I2 I-2/3
3
(4.15-6)
Ii J-1/3 i (4.15-7)
with
I1 21 + 22 + 23 (4.15-8)
I3 21 22 23 (4.15-10)
328
Constitutive Models
Neo-Hookean n =1 1 = 2 1 = 2 C0
Mooney-Rivlin n = 2 1 = 2 1 = 2 C1
2 = -2 2 = -2 C2
Note that the strain energy functions expressed above include both the deviatoric and
volumetric parts and therefore are suitable to analyse rubber materials where some
degree of compressibility is allowed. To enforce strict incompressibility, J = 1, the bulk
modulus tends to infinity and the resulting strain energy function only represents the
deviatoric portion. This is particular useful when the material is applied in plane stress
problems where full incompressibility is assumed. However, such an assumption
cannot be used if plane strain or 3D analyses are involved because numerical
difficulties can occur if a very high bulk modulus is used. In these cases, a small
compressibility is mandatory but this should not cause concern since only `near-
incompressibility' needs to be ensured for most of the rubber-like materials. A different
way of tackling the near-incompressibility is provided by applying a mixed
displacement/pressure formulation, where the (large) bulk modulus is expressed in
terms of the volume change and the new pressure variable, which is finite and depends
on the applied traction.
The stress tensor for a given strain energy function can be written as
(4.15-11)
or, using the principal strains,
3
i Ti (4.15-12)
i=1 i
where is the strain tensor, i are the principal strains and i are the vectors of
principal directions, which either define the Lagrangian triad ( i Ni) for the
material setting of the problem or the Eulerian triad ( i ni ) for the spatial setting.
The second variation of the strain energy function with respect to the strain produces
the tangent modulus matrix used in the computation of the tangent stiffness matrix.
Hence,
329
Theory Manual Volume 1
2
D
2
(4.15-13)
1
1
1
S P (4.16-1)
0
0
0
1
1
11 22 33 1
(4.16-2)
3 0
0
0
where and are total stress and strain vectors, S and are deviatoric stress and
strain vectors and p is the pressure (positive in compression).
This material may behave volumetrically in a nonlinear elastic manner or may include
volumetric crushing in which unloading takes place along a straight line defined by the
unloading bulk modulus which is different to the loading curve. In both cases a tensile
stress cut-off value is employed to limit the amount of stress the material may sustain
in tension. The volumetric behaviour is defined by a pressure-logarithm of relative
volume curve (fig.4.16-1) where pressure is denoted by P and relative volume by
V / V0 . If there is no volumetric crushing, loading and unloading takes place along the
same nonlinear curve. There is a maximum (or cut-off) tensile stress Pcut that the
material is capable of bearing whilst still undergoing tensile straining. However, if
volumetric crushing is included then unloading takes place along a straight line,
330
Constitutive Models
defined by the unloading bulk modulus K , which is regarded to be the same as the
tensile bulk modulus, but in general different from the initial compressive bulk
modulus, which is equal to the initial slope of the curve.
compression
-ln(V/V0)
tension K
pcut
=
1
2
S l q L lSq ca a p a p h
T
0 1 2
2
(4.16-3)
lq
where S is the deviatoric stress vector, L is defined as
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
L (4.16-4)
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
ca , a p, a p h
0 1 2
2
is replaced by 1/ 3 y
2
in equation (4.12-3) it can be seen that this yield criterion is identical to the classical
von Mises yield criterion with uniaxial yield stress y .
331
Theory Manual Volume 1
For plane strain, axisymmetric and 3D stress states the elastic-plastic deviatoric stress
lq
vector S is defined by the expression
lSq lS q 2G L el 'q m rj
0
1 p
(4.16-5)
where G is the shear modulus, S0 is the deviatoric stress vector at the end of the
previous increment, l 'q is the incremental deviatoric strain vector and m r is the
p
m r L lSq
p
(4.16-6)
Here l is the plastic multiplier (zero if no yielding) and there is no hardening in this
material model. It should be noted that, due to the definition of the plastic strains in
equation (4.12-6), non-associative plasticity is assumed and a radial stress return
algorithm is utilised. The relative volumes computed for each formulation are defined
as follows.
Infinitesimal strains:
V
1 11 22 33 (4.16-7)
V0
Total Lagrangian formulation:
V
A1 A2 A3 (4.16-8)
V0
where
b gb gb g
A1 1 2 11 1 2 22 1 2 33
A b1 2 g b1 2 g b1 2 g
2 11
2
23 22
2
13 33
2
12
A3 2 12 1323
V Vp
A1 A2 A3 (4.16-9)
V0 V0
332
Constitutive Models
V
V0
b
1 2 3 exp 11 22 33 g (4.16-10)
1, 2 , 3 - principal stretches
The concept is illustrated in Fig. 4.17-1. It should be noted that max is uniquely
2G
defined by t and Gc as max c .
t
Strength
Initiation stress
Softening
Failure
333
Theory Manual Volume 1
If the strength exceeds the strength threshold value in either of the fracture modes, the
material properties are reduced linearly as defined by the material model and complete
failure is assumed to have occurred when the fracture energy is exceeded. Unloading
can be defined as either fully reversible or as taking place via a shortest route towards
the origin. Three fracture modes exist: opening, shearing, and orthogonal shearing
(tearing). The tearing mode exists only for 3D models. The number of fracture modes
corresponds to dimension of the model, (two in plane and three in space). Fig. 4.17-2
illustrates the three modes.
I D* E D
unc
(4.17-1)
and
D (4.17-2)
t
and
i 0,i max,i
D*ii (4.17-5)
i max,i 0,i
334
Constitutive Models
t,i
Dt,ii for 0,i i max,i (4.17-6)
max,i 0,i
In practice, a damage caused by the initiation of delamination in any mode will have an
immediate effect on all of the fracture modes. This phenomenon can be captured by the
introduction of a parameter of the extent of damage , which is defined as
T A 1 (4.17-8)
where
1
0 0
1 0,I
2
2 0
0,I
A
in 2D and A 0 in 3D (4.17-9)
1
0
1 0,II
2
0
0,II
2
1
0 0 2
0,III
The indices I, II and III denote the fracture modes: I - opening, II - shearing, III -
orthogonal shearing (tearing) in 3D. The linear coupled delamination damage model
follows as a generalisation of the earlier linear uncoupled model, whereby
I F* E D
mix
(4.17-10)
The diagonal matrices E and F* and the tangent modulus matrix D (coming from
t
D ) follow as
t
0:
Fii* 0 D D (4.17-11)
t mix
max,i
0 and 1 :
1 max,i 0,i
max,i F*ET A
Fii* D D (4.17-12)
1 max,i 0,i 1
t mix 2
335
Theory Manual Volume 1
max,i
0 and 1 :
1 max,i 0,i
Fii* 1 D 0 (4.17-13)
t
It should be noted that in the coupled delamination damage model, the tangent
constitutive matrix D is non-symmetric in the softening region. For that reason, the
t
solution procedure within LUSAS automatically uses the non-symmetric frontal solver
whenever a coupled delamination model is specified.
With this material model sharp snap-backs can often occur. In order to handle these
snap-backs as efficiently as possible, it is beneficial to choose a root during the arc-
length process, which is associated with the lowest residual norm [H13].
336
Load And Boundary Conditions
e1
z
Rs N (se ) T t ( e )ds
s
(5.1-1)
Pressure loading is element dependent [see the LUSAS Element Library] and may be
specified using one of the following
distributed loads, uniformly distributed loads or distributed internal element
loads,
face loads,
body force potentials or element body force potentials,
element loads
The equivalent nodal forces are formed either by
explicit evaluation (i.e. without recourse to numerical integration, for example,
explicitly integrated beam elements),
or by integrating over an element length, area or face area using Gauss
quadrature.
Numerical integration is generally performed using the same rule that is used to form
the element stiffness matrix, e.g. for a QPM8 element with 2*2 integration, a 2-point
337
Theory Manual Volume 1
rule is used to evaluate the face pressures. An exception to this are the solid elements,
and the integration rules for these elements are given in table 5.1-1.
Quadrilateral Triangular
Element Faces Faces
HX8 3*3 -
HX16 4*4 -
HX20 4*4 -
PN6 3*3 4-point
PN12 4*4 7-point
PN15 4*4 7-point
TH4 3*3 4-point
TH10 4*4 7-point
TABLE 5.1-1 INTEGRATION RULES UTILISED IN EVALUATING NODAL
FORCES DUE TO SURFACE LOADING FOR SOLID ELEMENTS
When the pressures are specified on a nodal basis, they are first interpolated to the
Gauss points using the element shape functions.
e1
z
Rb N ( e) T f ( e)dv
v
(5.1-2)
When the body forces are specified on a nodal basis they are first interpolated to the
Gauss points using the element shape functions.
338
Load And Boundary Conditions
z d i
Ro B( e )T (oe) D( e ) (oe) dv
e1
v
(5.1-3)
Initial stresses/strains in a structure may be due to the initial load conditions, i.e. the
application of initial stresses/strains without equilibrating forces results in deformation.
An example in which initial stresses would be utilised is the generation of initial
equilibrating loads and stresses in a soil excavation analysis.
Initial stresses/strains must be specified in the first load case and cannot be altered
throughout the analysis.
e j e j
(oe) boeg boeg
i t (5.1-4)
where (o )i are the initial strains specified at the start of the analysis, (o )t are the
( e) ( e)
thermal strains which may change at the beginning of each load increment. The
temperature strain vector is element dependent, and the specific form for each element
is given in section 7.
339
Theory Manual Volume 1
Notes
If an element face is not assigned an environmental temperature it will be
assumed to be perfectly insulated.
Convective/radiative flux boundary conditions influence the element stiffness
matrices (2.9-7). Therefore, insulated faces cannot be changed to
convective/radiative faces when multiple load cases are used (and vice versa).
x x 2x x
x
(5.1-5)
where
x is the acceleration of the particle with respect to x ,
x is the velocity of the particle with respect to x ,
is the angular velocity tensor of the rotating system defined as
LM 0 z y OP
M 0 x PP
MN
z
y x 0 Q (5.1-6)
and is the angular acceleration tensor of the rotating system defined as
340
Load And Boundary Conditions
LM 0 z y OP
M 0 x PP
MN
z
y x 0 Q
(5.1-7)
Using d'Alembert's principle, the inertia force may be included as part of the load
vector as (2.1-15)
z
Rb N T f x dv
v
d i (5.1-8)
z
Rbb f g N f dv
v
T
(5.1-10)
z
Rbba g N
x dv
v
T
(5.1-11)
z
Rbbcg N x dv
v
T
(5.1-12)
z
Rbbcog N 2x dv
v
T
(5.1-13)
z
Rbbaa g N x dv
v
T
(5.1-14)
Note. The effects of the Coriolis forces are neglected in all analysis procedures.
Both the centrifugal and angular acceleration force terms provide contribution to the
load stiffness matrix i.e.
341
Theory Manual Volume 1
z T
z T
K B DB dv N N dv N N dv
v v zv
T
(5.1-15)
The third term of (5.1-15) is neglected as it is non-symmetric and only affects problems
where angular acceleration is present.
Note. Centrifugal effects may only be modelled in nonlinear analyses.
The equivalent nodal loading due to each point load Pzi , positioned at point Xi , Yi , is
then evaluated by:
b g
n
Xi N j i , i e X ej
j 1
(5.1-16)
b g
n
Yi N j i , i eYje
j 1
(5.1-17)
for i and i the natural coordinates of the point of application of the load. If
1 i ,i 1 the point load lies within the element.
342
Load And Boundary Conditions
Patch Load
Load Applied
No Load Applied
343
Theory Manual Volume 1
heat of hydration of concrete when different mixture proportions, cement types, and
SCMs are used, is due to Schindler and Folliard [S18]. In LUSAS, this internal heat
generation is applied in a field analysis using the Q coefficient per unit volume
included in Table 5.1-2.
Hcem 500 pC3S 260 pC2 S 866 pC3 A 420 pC4 AF 1186 pFreeCaO
624 pSO3 850 pMgO
(5.1-19)
where,
Hcemtotal heat of hydration of the cement (J/g)
p weight ratio of i-th compound in terms of total cement content, see Table 5.1-3.
Cement Chemical composition
type
C3S C2S C3A C4AF FreeCaO SO3 MgO
HT Hu Cc (5.1-20)
where,
H total ultimate heat of hydration of the concrete (J/m )
C cementitious materials content (g/m )
H total heat of hydration of cementitious materials at 100% hydration (J/g) defined as:
344
Load And Boundary Conditions
Note that the heat of hydration of fly ash, hFA (J/g), is given by:
H (t )
(t ) (5.1-23)
HT
where
(te ) u exp
te
(5.1-24)
where
345
Theory Manual Volume 1
Freiesleben Hansen and Pedersen [F1] developed the equivalent age maturity function,
shown in equation (5.1-25), based on the Arrhenius rate theory for chemical reactions.
The equivalent age maturity function converts the chronologic curing age (t) of a
concrete cured at any concrete temperature (Tc) to an equivalent curing age (te) for a
specimen cured at a specific reference temperature (Tr).
t E 1 1
te (Tr ) exp t
0 R 273 Tr 273 Tc (5.1-25)
where
t (T )equivalent age at the reference curing temperature (hours)
t chronological time interval (hours)
T average concrete temperature during the time interval, t, (C)
T reference temperature (C)
activation energy (J/mol)
universal gas constant (8.3144 J/mol/K)
where to and tn are the times at the start and end of the time step respectively and
E 1 1
te exp t (5.1-27)
R 273 Tr 273 Tc
5.1.4.3 Ultimate Degree of Hydration
In equation (5.1-30), a parameter (u) has been introduced to characterise the ultimate
extent of the hydration reaction. In [S18], a general hydration model that took into
account the presence of SCMs was developed based on a multivariate regression
analysis. The best-fit multivariate regression model is shown in equations (5.1-28) to
(5.1-30).
346
Load And Boundary Conditions
(5.1-29)
1.031 w / cm
u 0.5 pFA 0.3 pslag 1.0
0.194 w / cm (5.1-30)
where
p weight ratio of C A in terms of the total cement content
p weight ratio of C S in terms of the total cement content
p weight ratio of SO in terms of the total cement content
p eight ratio of the CaO content of the fly ash, see Table 5.1-4.
w/cmthe water-cementitious materials ratio
Note that the influence of fly ash is mainly due to its CaO content; in [S18], Class C
and Class F fly ash were taken to contain the following values:
p
f E 1.0 1.05 pFA 1.0 FACaO 0.4 pslag (5.1-32)
0.4
347
Theory Manual Volume 1
I 350
II 310
III 480
IV No longer widely used
V 348
2
Table 5.1-5 Blaine value (m /kg) for various cement types
5.1.4.5 Modeling the Heat Generation and Temperature Associated with Hydration
The temperature development in a concrete specimen curing under adiabatic conditions
(where there is no heat transfer to the environment) can be determined via equation
(5.1-33):
dT QH dH 1
(5.1-33)
dt cp dt cp
where
temperature of the concrete ( C)
(5.1-34)
348
Load And Boundary Conditions
In a step by step transient analysis, use can be made of equation (5.1-27) so that the
incremental internal heat generation (J/hr/m3) over a time step can be expressed as:
QH (t ) t Hu Cc (te ) te
te te
(5.1-35)
1 1 C2V2 CV
CV i i .............CmVm Q (5.2-1)
where
Ca Q
(5.2-2)
where C and Q are a matrix and vector of constants respectively, and a is the nodal
displacement vector.
Lagrange's method of undetermined multipliers is used to evaluate the minimum of the
total potential energy , augmented with the constraint equations, i.e.
1
aT Ka aT R T Ca Q
2
d i (5.2-3)
349
Theory Manual Volume 1
1
2
T
d
aT Ka aT R Ca Q Ca Q id i (5.2-5)
lq l q n s
K 2 CT C a R 2 CT Q
(5.2-6)
Notes
Constraints cannot be used to eliminate mechanisms from an unconstrained
structure.
Prescribed values cannot be present in a constraint equation.
For eigenvalue extraction, Q must be zero.
The constraint equations must not be over-sufficient, e.g. if we require
a1 a2 a3 then two equations are sufficient i.e.
a1 a2 0
a2 a3 0
and three equations would be over-sufficient
a1 a2 0
a2 a3 0
a1 a3 0
The system parameter PENTLY is only required when CONSTRAINT
EQUATIONS are used to apply boundary conditions across two or more
SEPARATE bodies in STATIC or DYNAMIC analyses.
When using constraint equations, the diagonal elements of the coefficient
stiffness matrix corresponding to the Lagrange multipliers are zero. If the
constraint equations are processed as they occur (arbitrarily) in the structure,
this will result in a singular matrix and solution will not be possible. To
circumvent this problem, therefore, the constraint equations are always solved
subsequent to the structural elements attached to each constraint to ensure that
the total stiffness coefficient of each degree of freedom is present and the
350
Load And Boundary Conditions
u u' (5.3-1)
The element stiffness matrices and force vectors are formed in the global Cartesian
system, and then modified by applying transformations before element assembly
where K' and R' are the transformed stiffness matrix and force vector and
LMI 0 0 OP
T M0 0 PP
MN0 0 I Q (5.3-3)
After assembly and solution of the equations, the displacements for the local freedoms
are transformed to the global Cartesian system using (5.3-1) before stress evaluation.
351
Theory Manual Volume 1
Line of
Symmetry
y
x
x y
x y
352
Load And Boundary Conditions
5.4 Slidelines
Slidelines may be used to model the contact behaviour between two or more bodies.
They are an alternative to joint elements or constraint equations, and have advantages
in the following situations
Finite relative surface deformations with arbitrary contact and separation
No exact prior knowledge of the contact process
A large number of nodes are defined within the probable contact region
Highly localised element density in the region of high stress gradients
Their applications range from projectile impact, vehicle crash-worthiness, the
containment of failed components such as turbine blades, to interference fits, rock
joints and bolt/plate connections. Furthermore, the elimination of the requirement for
transition zones in mesh discretisations comprising different degrees of mesh
refinement is also possible.
In a number of finite element contact problems (such as metal forming processes) a
very stiff component comes into contact with a softer deformable body. In these
situations the stiff component remains virtually undeformed during contact. Under such
circumstances it is possible to model the stiff component as a completely rigid body.
Several slideline options are currently available
Null slideline
General sliding without friction
General sliding with friction
Tied sliding
Sliding only (without friction or lift off)
These slideline options are based numerically on the following methods:
Penalty method
Augmented Lagrangian method
Nodal constraint
The penalty method is currently utilised for all slideline types while the augmented
Lagrangian method is available for all slideline types in two dimensions and selected
slideline types in three dimensions. The nodal constraint method is used for tied
slidelines when used in conjunction with an explicit time integration scheme. Note that
the null slideline type is independent of the slideline method, and may be used to
prevent the effect of any slidelines defined in the data file to be included in the
solution.
The tied slideline option eliminates the requirement of a transition zone in mesh
discretisations comprising differing degrees of refinement and is extremely useful in
creating a highly localised mesh in the region of high stress gradients.
353
Theory Manual Volume 1
Slidelines will not model surfaces collapsing onto themselves at present without an
initial, accurate estimate as to where the contact is likely to occur.
Note that the slideline facility is inherently nonlinear and requires use of the
NONLINEAR CONTROL data command. The tied slideline option for both penalty
and nodal constraint methods, however, computes the contact location point once only
for each contact node since its relative position never changes and enables it to be used
in conjunction with a linear analysis.
The general slideline options may be utilised for modelling finite relative deformations
of colliding solids in two or three dimensions which involve sliding (with or without
friction) and constant or intermittent contact conditions. The sliding only option is
similar to the general sliding options but does not permit intermittent contact conditions
or friction.
The slideline facility may be used with the following elements (see SLIDELINE
MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS as well).
354
Load And Boundary Conditions
A three dimensional segment may, however, have three or four nodes depending on
which face of the element constitutes the contact surface.
Each master and slave surface is defined using an orderly definition of segments in the
region of the potential contact zone.
The distinction between master and slave surfaces is arbitrary for slidelines that use the
penalty and augmented Lagrangian methods since a two pass algorithm over both
surfaces is used. The nodal constraint slideline treatment, however, is more robust if
the mesh with the greatest contact node density is designated the slave surface.
The slideline facility requires the following data input
Slideline property definition
Slideline surface definition
Slideline assignments
355
Theory Manual Volume 1
This option is automatically written to a data file upon tabulation in LUSAS Modeller.
If, however, the slideline surface definitions are input manually to the data file without
the use of LUSAS Modeller, the following rules must be complied with:
Two-dimensional slidelines
With option 61 Without option 61
The slideline segment node ordering must The slideline segment node ordering
be given in a consistent (but not must be given in the same direction for
necessarily consecutive) direction for all all segments of all constituent slideline
segments of each slideline surfaces but surfaces (master and slave).
the segment directions for each slideline
surface (master and slave) must have The segment ordering must be given in
opposing segment directions. a consecutive sequence
356
Load And Boundary Conditions
specified. The surface data is saved to an .ASL file allowing its reuse if the problem is
resolved. Manually defined surfaces can be mixed with automatically defined surfaces.
In this case a node which has been assigned to a manual surface will only come in
contact with the opposing surface specified in the SLIDELINE ASSIGNMENTS
command.
Care should be taken when using this option for models containing shells. A node is
above the surface if it is found on the side defined by the positive outward normal of
the shell. It is, therefore, important that the normals are carefully checked to prevent
unexpected contacts with bodies which happen to be below the shell surface.
357
Theory Manual Volume 1
Note that, in order to increase the efficiency and maintainability of the software, the
definition of the slave surface definition is automatically reversed. This means that a
slideline originally defined in LUSAS Modeller (or by hand) with two surfaces defined
in the same direction will be viewed in the results processor as having the master
surface in the original direction but the slave surface will now be viewed in the
opposite sense.
If OPTION 61 is set then the slave reversal will NOT be performed as LUSAS will
assume that the surfaces have already been manipulated in this way. This reversal will
only be performed for two dimensional analyses.
The slideline type (e.g. tied, general sliding with friction) can be redefined at selected
stages throughout an analysis. This involves respecifying the SLIDELINE
ASSIGNMENT data chapter, however, only the slideline type and pre-contact
parameter can be changed and all other input data must remain constant. Previously
defined SLIDELINE PROPERTIES can also be redefined and additional data sets
introduced.
Temperature dependent SLIDELINE PROPERTIES can also be specified. In this case
the TABLE command must follow the SLIDELINE PROPERTIES command. Lines of
data listing the slideline properties at particular reference temperatures are then input.
A nonlinear friction law can be introduced by using the SLIDELINE PROPERTIES
USER command. This command allows a set of friction parameters to be defined
which may vary with the temperature, velocity and acceleration of the contacting
surfaces. These properties may also be specified as temperature dependent.
All slideline types (e.g. tied, general sliding with friction) can be used rigid surface
contact. Because the rigid surfaces are not allowed to contact each other, only one of
the master or slave surface can be rigid. When a slideline has a rigid surface, it is
possible to select between one or two pass contact algorithm. A one pass check is
faster, but the penetration of rigid surface into deformable surface is not corrected. The
penetration of the rigid surface into the deformable surface can be prevented either by
the default two pass algorithm or by using a finer mesh on the deformable surface.
358
Load And Boundary Conditions
Local segment The contact segment upon which the current node has, or is
likely to, come into contact.
Current node
Adjacent
node
Local node
Local Segment
359
Theory Manual Volume 1
Body 3
Body 2
Body 1
Overlap between the bounding boxes is checked as shown in figure 5.4-2. As there is
no overlap between the bounding boxes of Body 2 with that of Body 3, contact
between these bodies is immediately discounted. The bounding boxes are scaled by a
system variable BBOXF to allow for a margin of error.
At the next level the overlap of a bounding volume drawn around a node with the
bounding box surrounding a prospective contact body is checked as shown in figure
5.4-3. The nodal bounding volume is calculated by multiplying the zonal detection
parameter by the maximum dimension of the model in the x, y or z coordinate
direction. This is constant for every node. The default value of the zonal detection
parameter is 0.01 or 1% of the maximum model dimension.
Finally checking the overlap of the bounding boxes encapsulating the individual
segments on the contacted surface with the nodal volume of the contacting node yields
the candidate contact segments that require more detailed examination.
360
Load And Boundary Conditions
Body 2
361
Theory Manual Volume 1
projectile
(S)
Target plate
TOL
362
Load And Boundary Conditions
This is simply a geometric warning that the slideline surface definition may be
incorrect. The nodes on the slideline, however, will be continue to be processed and
will maintain their relative position throughout the analysis. Thus, any gaps will remain
as gaps throughout the analysis. This may cause an analysis to be over-stiff in the
contact area due to the rigid tying of nodes which are not part of the active contact
conditions. By defining such slidelines so that the slideline surface definitions extend
only as far as required will eliminate any artificial stiffening.
363
Theory Manual Volume 1
Initial Configuration
b2 (m)
(c)
b1 Final Configuration
length
contact node stiffness stiffness scale factor * bulk modulus *
2 * thickness
and for three dimensional analyses
area 2
contact node stiffness stiffness scale factor * bulk modulus *
volume
Since the values for the bulk modulus, length, area and volume have no meaning at a
point, they are computed for each contact node using an averaging process performed
over each of the adjacent segment contributions. See also section 5.4.4.4.
For three dimensional analyses, the following message may be generated
***WARNING*** A VERY SMALL VOLUME a HAS BEEN DETECTED WHILST PROCESSING CONTACT NODE b
This may be due to incorrect element topology, probably also giving an illegal Jacobian
determinant message. The units used in the analysis may also be causing machine
precision problem and the units should be changed to permit a larger number of
significant digits for the node coordinates, e.g. change from metres to millimetres.
364
Load And Boundary Conditions
The stiffness scale factor is input for the master and slave surfaces by the user via the
SLIDELINE PROPERTIES command. This factor controls the degree of inter-
penetration experienced in the contact zone. The default values are usually adequate,
but larger values will reduce the penetration further. Note, however, too large a value
may cause chattering at the interface or ill-conditioning.
It has been found that the influence of the stiffness scale factors do not have a
significant effect on the final stresses except in the case of tied slidelines in which a
factor as high as possible should be defined to ensure as rigid a connection as possible.
The penalty method may use typical values as follows
These are only a guide, and the default values should normally give a reasonable
estimate for the analysis type. For instance, the default values in explicit dynamics
analyses is 0.1, whilst for implicit dynamics or static analyses with tied slidelines the
default is 5.0. There are instances in which the default values would require increasing
such as analyses involving rigid wall contact, since the forces required to maintain low
relative penetrations would be necessarily higher than that for two deformable bodies.
Intractable solutions may occur if two materials of significantly differing properties are
utilised for the colliding bodies. In this instance a scaling procedure on the slideline
surface stiffnesses will be automatically invoked at the beginning of each analysis if the
ratio of the average stiffness values for each constituent slideline surface differ by a
factor greater than a default value of 100.
Note that the stiffness ratio at which the stiffness modification is invoked may be
modified by specifying an alternative magnitude through the SYSTEM command in the
LUSAS data file (SLSTFM parameter).
The stiffness modification procedure may be suppressed by using OPTION 185. The
nodal constraint method, used only for the tied slideline option in an explicit dynamics
analysis, does not use the stiffness scale factors.
365
Theory Manual Volume 1
The normal contact force scalar for any contact node is calculated as follows, (see
section 5.4.4 for further details of these calculations):
for the penalty method
normal force = contact node stiffness * normal penetration distance
for the augmented Lagrangian method
normal force = (contact node stiffness * normal penetration distance) +
normal Lagrangian multiplier
A certain amount of inter-penetration is essential to develop an interface force.
Often the assumption of a frictionless interface condition is unrealistic. For this case a
formulation based upon the Coulomb friction coefficient is used in which a tangential
force increment is generated to act on the current node. The sign is chosen such that the
frictional force resists relative motion between the current node and the local segment.
366
Load And Boundary Conditions
Minimise: (5.4-1)
where the minimisation of the total potential energy of the system, , is subject to the
inequality constraint (5.4-2). gN in (5.4-2) is the normal penetration of a node N. A
node is in contact if gN is negative and out of contact if gN is greater than or equal to
zero.
Both the penalty method and the augmented Lagrangian method deal with the problem
by incorporating the constraint into the function to be minimised, converting the
constrained minimisation into one which is unconstrained. This will then involve
modifications to the internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix when the normal
penetration is in the inadmissible region. The difference between the two methods is
the manner by which the constraint is incorporated and the way in which constraint
violations are reduced. We will restrict ourselves to normal contact only in order to
illustrate the basic aspects of the two methods.
With the penalty method the problem (5.4-1) and (5.4-2) is converted into
1
Minimise: P Ng2N (5.4-3)
2
With the augmented Lagrangian method the problem becomes
1
Minimise: A Ng2N gN (5.4-4)
2
where is the Lagrangian multiplier, which in this case is associated with the
normal direction. The two functions are then minimised using the Newton Raphson
method since they are non-linear in nature.
In order to derive the internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix contributions let
us define the contact contributions to the energy for an active contact node (the contact
node is also referred to as the current node in LUSAS), as
1
Penalty method: Pc Ng2N (5.4-5)
2
367
Theory Manual Volume 1
1
Augmented Lagrangian method: Ac g2 gN (5.4-6)
2 N N
The internal force vector contribution with both methods is obtained from a first
variation of the energy function in (5.4-5) or (5.4-6).
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is obtained from a first variation of the
internal force vector.
pT Ktc q ic (5.4-8)
If no changes are made at the force level then this is equivalent to the second variation
of the energy function.
With the penalty method the value of the penalty parameter determines the extent to
which the constraint (5.4-2) is violated. The higher the penalty parameter the lower the
constraint violations and hence the lower the penetrations. However, if the penalty
parameter is too high the problem will become ill-conditioned so that a careful choice
has to be made. The definition in section 5.4.4.4 later is designed to provide a
reasonable estimate of the penalty parameter to avoid problems of ill-conditioning and
yet return reasonable levels of penetration.
The augmented Lagrangian method is designed to avoid the sensitivity of the solution
to the penalty parameter by employing a Lagrangian multiplier term alongside the
penalty term in the energy function (5.4-4). If the solution does not produce an
acceptable level of constraint violation and hence penetration, the Lagrangian
multiplier is updated and the solution re-run. This procedure is continued until all
penetrations are within a specified tolerance of the surface. For normal contact the
update is carried out as follows.
c
kN1 min 0, kN NgN h (5.4-10)
The Lagrangian multiplier represents the contact force at the surface. As the
Lagrangian multipliers are updated the contact force should tend towards the exact
value at the surface. The updating of the Lagrangian multipliers, however, introduces
an additional computational loop outside of the Newton Raphson loop and can increase
computational time. The advantage if the method is that it returns acceptable
penetrations and in some problems, such as micro-mechanical contact, is vital since the
penalty method can cause ill-conditioning because of the high penalty parameter
required.
368
Load And Boundary Conditions
The augmented Lagrangian method can be used by specifying OPTION 271. The
surface tolerance for the use in the augmented Lagrangian method is currently set in
SLIDELINE PROPERTIES as the close contact detection parameter. The latter is a
factor that multiplies the current segment length before its use as the surface tolerance.
kN1 kN
FG g IJ <
k
if
Hg K (5.4-11)
N
k-1
N
kN1 kN
FG g IJ
k
if
Hg K (5.4-12)
N
k-1
N
To avoid the penalty update procedure resulting in ill-conditioning an upper limit is set
on the penalty parameter.
369
Theory Manual Volume 1
K
N (5.4-14)
max
Nt
where K is a characteristic stiffness of the element, N is the number of variables and t is
a number that represents the computer accuracy.
Slideline
Contact segment
Contact elements can then be used to define the contact between the two surfaces. The
contact element is made up of three nodes (see figure 5.4-6). Two of the nodes lie on
the contact surface and describe the contact or master segment (nodes 1 and 2) while
the remaining node is the contact or slave node (node s). The master segment will from
now on be referred to as the current segment and the contact or slave node will be
referred to as the current node. Contact occurs when the current node penetrates the
current segment.
370
Load And Boundary Conditions
e2
e1
2
ln
ln
gN
s
1
The contact element adopts a set of co-rotational axes that rotate with the element. The
contact relationships are then related to the local frame produced by the rotating and
translating contact element. The co-rotational framework also allows geometrically
non-linear problems to be covered, accounting for the change in geometry. The various
terms defining the contact element are shown in (Figure 5.4-6). The vectors e1 and e2
are the unit vectors tangential and normal to the current segment respectively.
b
gN xs x1 e2 xTs1e2 gT
(5.4-15)
where xs and x1 are position vectors of the nodes defined in (see figure above).
The tangential gap, gT , is defined as the distance moved tangentially along the
segment between the current nodes initial point of contact and its current position at
the segment level (Figure 5.4-6).
gT lo olo (5.4-16)
371
Theory Manual Volume 1
gT
s
so
olo
1 lo
lo
where in (5.4-16) is the non-dimensional position of the current node on the current
segment and l is the length of the current segment.
1 T
xs1 e1 (5.4-17)
ln
The subscript o on the length l refers to the undeformed configuration while n refers to
the current configuration. The tangential gap is therefore based on the undeformed
segment length. o is the value of when contact is first made in the current phase of
contact and is based on a converged equilibrium state. If a node makes contact, leaves
the surface and then comes back into contact, all at converged equilibrium states, the
value for o is re-computed to coincide with the current phase of contact.
If the current node moves from one segment to another segment, the tangential gap is
now based on a vector between the current position on the current segment (segment B
in Figure 5.4-8) at the segment level and the initial contact point on the initial segment
contacted (segment A in Figure 5.4-8). The unit vectors e BA1 and eBA2 are tangential
and normal to the vector x BA respectively.
eBA2
eBA1
xBA
A B
372
Load And Boundary Conditions
The definition in the normal direction is still the same as that in (5.4-15) which means
that the formulation associated with the normal direction will be unaffected by cross-
segment movement.
b g hb,g x
n
r , i i (5.4-19)
i=1
r is the position vector of a point on the contact segment defined by b,g , n are the
number of nodes defining the segment, hi is the isoparametric shape function at node i
on the segment and xi is the current position vector of node i. In relation to figure 5.4-
9 xs is the position vector of the contact node s.
3
2
1
s s
1 r
r
3
Figure 5.4-9: Three and four node contact segments in global three-dimensional space.
s is the contact node while r is the closest point to the node on the segment.
373
Theory Manual Volume 1
b
hT h1, h2 , h3, h4 g (5.4-20)
where h1 1
4 b1 gb1 g , h2 1
4 b1 gb1 g
h3 1
4 b1 gb1 g , h4 1
4 b1 gb1 g
For triangular segments the shape functions are
b
hT h1, h2 , h3 g (5.4-21)
where h1 , h2 , h3 1
The triangular contact segment is flat while the quadrilateral, because of its bilinear
interpolation, is in general a ruled non-flat surface (figure 5.4-10).
Bilinearly interpolated
(ruled) surface
Figure 5.4-10: A bilinearly interpolated (ruled) four noded contact segment in three
dimensions.
The derivations of this section will be based on the four noded quadrilateral contact
segment, unless specified otherwise. The modifications required to deal with triangular
segments are straightforward and mainly revolve around the form of the shape
functions and their derivatives.
374
Load And Boundary Conditions
Minimise: Acp 1
2 xTsr xsr with respect to b,g (5.4-22)
where x sr is the vector between the contact node and the closest point to the node on
the contact surface (see figure 5.4-11 which also shows the tangent vectors r and r ).
xsr xs r , b g (5.4-23)
The Newton Raphson method can be used to solve the minimisation in (5.4-22). This
requires a derivation of the first and second variations of Acp with respect to b,g .
Within the closest point computations the coordinates of each node are fixed which
means that the iterative displacements are zero, i.e. p 0 .
1
s
xsr
r
r
r
3
Figure 5.4-11: The three dimensional contact segment showing the contact node s and
the closest point to the node on the surface r.
where
A r r (5.4-25)
375
Theory Manual Volume 1
The vectors r and r are tangential to the surface at the point b,g . At the closest
point these will be orthogonal to the vector x sr , which means that the first variation of
Acp should be zero. Let us define a new vector a cp representing the first variation of
Acp such that
acp AT x sr (5.4-26)
At the closest point this vector should be zero. Carrying out a Taylor series expansion
of a we have
acp
d i
acp acp di
(5.4-27)
2 Acp T xTsr r
LM0 1OP A A T T
(5.4-28)
N1 0Q
The derivative of a with respect to is therefore
acp
AT A xTsr r
0 1
D
LM OP (5.4-29)
1 0 N Q
Substituting (5.4-29) into (5.4-27) and noting that d i
acp 0 (i.e. the new
estimate for should be such that a cp is zero)
0 AT xsr D (5.4-30)
D1 AT xsr (5.4-31)
k 1 k (5.4-32)
376
Load And Boundary Conditions
Starting with an initial estimate for the contact location point the Newton Raphson
procedure is able to locate the point on the surface that satisfies the minimum of
(5.4-22). The criteria to check whether the initial estimate and all subsequent estimates
from the closest point iterations are acceptable is the norm of the first derivative of
Acp
LM A OP
cp
108 , which is similar to acp,new < 108 (5.4-33)
MN PQ
If the estimate for does not satisfy this criteria another iteration is performed to
compute a new estimate. The iterative procedure is continued until the criteria in
(5.4-33) is satisfied.
The Newton Raphson procedure can be summarised as
1 1
n xsr xsr (5.4-35)
xsr gN
377
Theory Manual Volume 1
Note that special procedures are required to assign the correct sign to the normal
penetration and the unit normal vector.
For a four noded quadrilateral the displacement vector is defined as
c
pT dsT , d1T , dT2 , d3T , dT4 h (5.4-36)
c
pT dsT , d1T , dT2 , d3T h (5.4-37)
For the tangential gap we need to make a number of further definitions. We first of all
need to store the contact location point when contact is first made in the initial phase of
contact.
b
To o o g (5.4-38)
We also all require the orthogonal triad of vectors at this initial point of contact, Eo .
where
ro
e3o no , e1o , e2o e3o e1o (5.4-40)
ro
where the subscript o refers to the initial point of contact in the current phase of contact
and relates to a converged equilibrium state.
h b , g X
n
Xo i o o i (5.4-41)
i=1
Where X i are the position vectors of the segment nodes in the undeformed
configuration. We also define a vector that represents the current contact location point,
X , based on coordinates of the undeformed configuration.
h b,g X
n
X i i (5.4-42)
i=1
378
Load And Boundary Conditions
Using (5.4-41) and (5.4-42) we can then define the tangential gaps as
gT
RSg UV
T1 T
bX X g (5.4-43)
Tg W
T2
e1o , e2o o
Note that the tangential gaps are related to the undeformed configuration, with the only
variable being the current closest point location in the local b, g coordinate system.
1 N
N i1 i
(5.4-44)
ki Ai
i sfac,i (5.4-46)
Vi
s fac is the stiffness scale factor, k is the bulk modulus. For two dimensions l is a
characteristic length of the element and t is the thickness of the element. For three
dimensions A i and Vi are representatives areas and volumes respectively, taken as the
average of the areas and volumes of the surrounding elements. N is the number of
nodes defining the contact segment.
However, for a non-uniform mesh the stiffness of the adjacent elements will not be the
same in which case there will be a discontinuity in the penalty parameter across the
slideline. This may result in convergence problems and non-smooth movement as a
node moves across a segment. To remove this discontinuity LUSAS uses a variable
penalty parameter definition which varies linearly across a segment. For two
dimensions we have
b g
1 1 2 (5.4-47)
379
Theory Manual Volume 1
N
h
i=1
i i (5.4-48)
qicN t N a (5.4-49)
where tN is the normal contact force scalar which for the penalty method is
tN gN (5.4-50)
tN N gN (5.4-51)
The vector a is obtained from a first variation of the normal penetration and
represents the normal contact force interpolation for the contact element, i.e.
gN aT p (5.4-52)
bg
Ktc tN is the initial stress matrix and is associated with the second variation of the
normal penetration.
If a variable penalty parameter is being used (5.4-47) then the internal force vector is
modified to
380
Load And Boundary Conditions
F1
t a G
IJ
g2N
qicN
H2
N 21N
lo Kf (5.4-54)
where the vector f has arisen from a first variation of the variable penalty parameter
in (5.4-47) and 21N is the difference between the normal penalty parameters of the
adjacent contact segments. The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is now
Where Ktc1N represents all the additional terms that have arisen out of the use of a
variable penalty parameter in the normal direction and specifically those associated
with the first and second variations of .
Normal contact in 3D
The internal force vector for normal contact in three dimensions is
q icN t N FT n (5.4-56)
where t N is the normal contact force scalar, which for the penalty method is
tN gN (5.4-57)
tN N gN (5.4-58)
gN nT F p (5.4-59)
where
Where I 3 is a 3x3 unit matrix, N is the number of nodes defining the contact segment
and n is the unit normal vector.
381
Theory Manual Volume 1
Where b g
Ktc t N is the initial stress matrix and is associated with the second variation
of gN .
5.4.4.6 Friction: Sticking
Sticking friction occurs when a frictional slideline has been chosen but the tangential
force scalar has not violated the yield function (see section 5.4.4.7 for details of the
yield function). With sticking friction the contact contribution to the energy function
associated with the tangential gap is
1
PcT Tg2T in 2D (5.4-62)
2
1
PcT T gTT gT in 3D (5.4-63)
2
for the penalty method and
1 2
AcT g TgT in 2D (5.4-64)
2 T T
1
AcT T gTT gT TT gT in 3D (5.4-65)
2
for the augmented Lagrangian method.
Sticking friction in 2D
The internal force vector contribution for sticking friction is obtained from a first
variation of either (5.4-62) or (5.4-64) and is
qicT tT f (5.4-66)
Where tT is the tangential force scalar, which for the penalty method is given by
tT T gT (5.4-67)
tT T T gT (5.4-68)
382
Load And Boundary Conditions
The vector f in (5.4-66) is derived from a first variation of the tangential gap and in
this context represents the interpolation of the tangential contact force across the
contact element as a result of sticking friction.
gT f T p (5.4-69)
bg
Ktc tT is the initial stress matrix and is associated with the second variation of the
tangential gap.
If a variable penalty parameter is being used then the internal force vector contribution
is modified to
FG
qicT t T
1 g2
21T T f
IJ
H 2 lo K (5.4-71)
Where 21 is the difference between the tangential penalty parameters of the adjacent
contact segments. The tangent stiffness matrix contribution becomes
bg
K tcT T f f T Ktc tT Ktc1T (5.4-72)
Where Ktc1T represents all the additional terms that have arisen out of the use of a
variable penalty parameter in the tangential direction and specifically those associated
with the first and second variations of T .
If we combine both the normal and tangential components of the internal force vector
contribution we obtain
qic BT t (5.4-73)
where
B
RSf UV
T
and t
RSt UVT
(5.4-74)
Ta W
T
Tt W N
Similarly, combining the normal and tangential components of the tangent stiffness
matrix contribution gives
383
Theory Manual Volume 1
K tc BT CB Ktc t bg (5.4-75)
Where
C
LMT 0 OP and bg bg b g
K tc t K tc t T K tc t N (5.4-76)
N0 N Q
If we now consider the use of a variable penalty parameter, the combined internal force
vector is now given by
qic BT t
1 FGg2 g2
21 N 21T T f
IJ
2 H lo lo K (5.4-77)
where the vector f , although the same as in (5.4-66), now does not have a unique
definition but is more a result of the mathematical derivation.
The combined tangent stiffness matrix contribution is now
where
K tc1 K tc1N K tc1T (5.4-79)
With cross-segment movement the form of the internal force vector and tangent
stiffness matrix contributions is the same except that we now have
Rf U
B S V
T
csm
(5.4-80)
Ta W T
where f csm is now derived from a first variation of (5.4-18).The details, however, of
the initial stress matrix and terms arising from the use of a variable penalty parameter
are now different [A7]. The cross-segment movement formulation reduces to the single
segment movement formulation when movement is within the same contact segment.
If the augmented Lagrangian method is being used with sticking friction then the
tangential Lagrangian multiplier update is
The tangential Lagrangian multipliers are carried out for as long as the current node is
active in the normal direction. This also applies to the case where the normal
Lagrangian updates have resulted in the normal penetration satisfying the pre-set
384
Load And Boundary Conditions
tolerance, indicating that no more normal Lagrangian updates are required. The
tangential Lagrangian multiplier updates are carried out until the pre-set tolerance for
the tangential gap has been satisfied. The internal force vector and tangent stiffness
matrix contributions are the same in form as those for the penalty method except that
they are now based on the forces in (5.4-51) and (5.4-68).
Sticking friction in 3D
For three dimensional sticking friction the internal force vector contribution is given by
q icT YD1 AX t T
T
(5.4-82)
tT
LM g OP
T T1
(5.4-83)
N g Q
T T2
and where
YT AT F gN n bg AX e1o , e2o
T
X , X
(5.4-84)
Ln C OP
bng = M
T
(5.4-85)
MNn C PQ T
C 0, h1 I 3, h2 I 3, h3 I 3, h4 I 3 (5.4-86)
C 0, h1 I 3, h2 I 3, h3 I 3, h4 I 3 (5.4-87)
YD1 AX
T
The term is derived from a first variation of the tangential gap and in this
context represents the interpolation of the tangential contact forces across the contact
element as a result of sticking friction.
gT AX D1YT p (5.4-88)
385
Theory Manual Volume 1
where bg
Ktc tT is the initial stress matrix for sticking friction associated with the
second variation of the tangential gaps and the vector of tangential force scalars.
Combining the normal and tangential contributions to the internal force vector and
tangent stiffness matrix contribution we have
qic BT t (5.4-90)
K tc BT CB Ktc t bg (5.4-91)
where
bg
K tc t Ktc t N Ktc t T b g bg
LA D Y OP
B M
1 T
, C
LM I
T 2 0 OP , t
RSt UV
T
MN n F PQ MN 0 PQ Tt W
X
T T
N N
(5.4-92)
f sTtT sN t N (5.4-93)
f tT sNt N (5.4-94)
where
tT tN
sT , sN (5.4-95)
tT tN
and where is the coefficient of friction.
The forces at the elastic trial point are given by (5.4-50) and (5.4-67) in two
dimensions, and by the following equations in three dimensions.
386
Load And Boundary Conditions
t NB NgN (5.4-96)
t TB
RSt UV RS g UV
T1 T T1
(5.4-97)
Tt W T g W
T2 T T2
If the forces at the elastic trial point result in f < 0 the friction is sticking and the
formulation of section 5.4.4.6 is applied. If, however, these forces result in the yield
function in (5.4-93) exceeding zero the forces are in the slip region and need to be
returned to the yield surface to ensure that f 0 . In LUSAS a backward Euler return
procedure is used to give a simple return mapping.
The returned contact force is given by
e
t C t A C g g p j (5.4-98)
where the subscript C indicates the returned position and A indicates the status at the
end of the last increment. The matrix C is defined in (5.4-76). g are the
incremental gaps
g
RSg UVT
(5.4-99)
Tg W N
And gp is the plastic slip, used to return the forces to the yield surface. It is made up
g p b (5.4-100)
With friction a non-associative flow rule has to be used. Using an associative flow rule
would result in plastic slip in a direction normal to the contact surface which is
physically unrealistic. The plastic slip is therefore given by
g p
f s
T
RS UV b (5.4-101)
t T 0 TW
Substituting (5.4-101) into (5.4-93) and noting that
t B t A C g (5.4-102)
387
Theory Manual Volume 1
t C t B CbB (5.4-103)
can be found by substituting (5.4-103) into (5.4-93) for fC 0 . This gives the
individual returned forces as
t NC t NB (5.4-104)
t TC sTsN t NB (5.4-105)
qic BT t C (5.4-106)
where
tC
RSt TC UV in 2D (5.4-107)
Tt NC W
S
Rt TC UV in 3D (5.4-108)
tC
Tt NC W
The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained from a first variation of the internal force
vector contribution.
Since changes have been made at the force level using a non-associative flow rule, this
will result in a non-symmetric tangent stiffness matrix.
K tc BT Ct B Ktc t C bg (5.4-110)
where for 2D
Ct
LM0 sTsN N OP (5.4-111)
N0 N Q
and in 3D
388
Load And Boundary Conditions
LM s t LMI
N N NB t TB t TTB OP OP
MM s N t Q 0
M PP
t TB t TTB t TB
Ct
MN
N N
0 PP
t TB
TB
Q
(5.4-112)
The initial stress matrix is unchanged in form from that derived for sticking friction,
except that it is now based on the returned forces in (5.4-104) and (5.4-105).
If we are using a variable penalty parameter (2D only), the internal force vector
contribution is modified to
qic t NC a t TC f
1 FG g2 g2
21 N 21T T f
IJ
2 H lo lo K (5.4-113)
bg
K tc BT Ct B Ktc t C Ktcf1 (5.4-114)
where K tcf1 contains all those terms that have arisen out of the use of a variable penalty
parameter.
gN
K tcf1 Ktc1N Ktc1T sTsN N21 f fT (5.4-115)
lo
With cross-segment movement the form of the internal force vector contribution and
the tangent stiffness matrix contribution are the same except that the matrix B is now
defined in (5.4-80). The details of each contribution, are however, different. This
change applies to all of the frictional formulations to follow, both penalty and
augmented Lagrangian [A7].
Note that since the tangent stiffness matrix contribution is non-symmetric, frictional
slidelines require the use of OPTION 64 to specify the use of the non-symmetric
solver. This requirement applies to all non-symmetric slideline formulations that are to
follow. The option is set by default in LUSAS, except for explicit dynamics problems.
389
Theory Manual Volume 1
b
t NC t NB NgN N g B
(5.4-116)
b
t TC sTsN t NB sTsN NgN N g B
(5.4-117)
The internal force vector contribution and the tangent stiffness matrix contributions are
the same as those for the penalty method, for both fixed and varying penalty
parameters, except that they are now based on the returned forces in (5.4-116) and
(5.4-117). The Lagrangian multiplier updates for sliding Coulomb friction in the
tangential direction are different to those for sticking friction.
d
kT kT1 T gT gTp i (5.4-118)
kT t TC (5.4-119)
Other forms for the update can be found in [A7, L6, S14]
f sTtT sN N (5.4-120)
where
390
Load And Boundary Conditions
kN
sN k (5.4-121)
N
Following the procedure of section 5.4.4.7 (Augmented Lagrangian method) and using
the backward Euler procedure, the returned forces are given by
b
t NC t NB NgN N g
B
(5.4-122)
The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained, as usual, from a first variation of the internal
force contribution. However, the returned tangential force is now based on the normal
Lagrangian multiplier which is fixed within the Newton Raphson iterative loop. The
variation of t TC is therefore zero. This means that the source of non-symmetry in the
tangent stiffness matrix has now been removed.
t NC N aT p (5.4-125)
t TC 0 (5.4-126)
K tc BT Ct B Ktc t C bg (5.4-127)
where the initial stress matrix is based on the returned forces in (5.4-122) and (5.4-123)
. The matrix in (5.4-127) is now symmetric where Ct is now of the form
Ct
LM0 0 OP (5.4-128)
N0 QN
If the variable penalty parameter definition is being used then the internal force vector
contribution is now
qic t NC a t TC f
1FG g2 g2
21 N 21T T f
IJ
2 H lo lo K (5.4-129)
391
Theory Manual Volume 1
bg
K tc BT Ct B Ktc t Ktc1 (5.4-130)
Note that because of (5.4-126) the matrix that accounts for terms arising out of the use
of the variable penalty parameter is now K tc1 from (5.4-79) rather than K ftc1 from
(5.4-115) thus removing the effect of friction on the variable penalty parameter terms.
See section 5.4.4.7 for changes associated with cross-segment movement.
Although the symmetrised augmented Lagrangian method can increase the speed of the
solution it generally lags one augmentation behind the non-symmetric version. It
requires a reasonable value for the normal Lagrangian multiplier, N , for accurate
results, which may mean that the method will require at least one Lagrangian multiplier
update for an accurate solution to be obtained. The method can be used by specifying
OPTION 354.
Corner regions in 2D
In two dimensions LUSAS deals with corner regions by recognising the fact that the
contact problem is effectively node-on-node. With straight sided segments a new set of
unit vectors, esc1 and esc2 , is defined in the corner region that rotate with the current
node as it moves through the corner region. These are based on a vector that is defined
between the current node and corner node, which is the closest point on the contact
surface, i.e. the local node (see Figure 5.4-12). This vector, x sc , is then used in the
definition of the normal penetration and the internal force vector and tangent stiffness
matrix contributions. This definition ensures a truer reflection of the node-on-node
nature of the contact and will reduce chatter and consequent convergence problems.
Within this philosophy the normal penetration is defined as
The internal force vector contribution is derived from a first variation of the contact
contribution to the energy function of the system and is given by
392
Load And Boundary Conditions
where csc is derived from a first variation of the normal penetration in (4.2-49). The
tangent stiffness matrix contribution, derived from a first variation of the internal force
vector contribution, is
tN
K tc N csc cTsc asc aTsc (5.4-133)
gn
where asc is derived from a second variation of (5.4-131).With the variable penalty
parameter definition in (5.4-47) the formulation is not affected except for the value of
the penalty parameter that is being used. If segment B is the closest segment in Figure
then N 1 and if segment A is the closest segment then N 2 .
s - contact node
B
esc2
c
xsc
s Corner region
Figure 5.4-12: Corner regions and the definition of the associated vectors.
With the augmented Lagrangian method the normal contact force scalar is
t N Ng N N (5.4-134)
tN
K tc N csc cTsc asc aTsc (5.4-136)
gN
Alternative strategies that have not been adopted include assigning unit vectors from
the closest segment (the current segment) to the corner region (achieved within LUSAS
using internal slideline extensions) and redefining the unit vectors so that they are an
average of those from both adjacent segments (previously present within LUSAS when
no internal slideline extensions were specified). These, as well as a number of other
393
Theory Manual Volume 1
strategies, still have problems with chatter and the associated convergence difficulties
because of the definition of the unit vectors in the corner region. Some additionally
pose a problem with a viable consistent linearisation in the LUSAS slideline algorithm.
For frictional problems a redefinition of the unit vectors is not necessary. The
combination of the normal penetration and tangential gap vectors should ensure a
smooth movement across the corner region [A7].
Corner regions in 3D
The bi-linear definition of each contact segment means that geometric discontinuities
exist at the boundaries between segments for both concave and convex surfaces. In
three-dimensions LUSAS deals with corner regions by recognising the fact that the
contact problem is node-on-node or node-on-line. It then applies the appropriate force
and stiffness accordingly.
The corner region algorithm can be broken down as follows.
1. Determine whether a node lies within the region of the closest segment as defined
by the local axes.
2. If (1) is not true, determine whether the node is at the edge of a slideline or in a
corner region.
3. If the node is at the edge of a slideline determine whether the nodes closest point
is within the allowable slideline extension region.
i. If the node is outside the allowable slideline extension region, classify the
node as out of contact.
ii. If the node lies within the allowable slideline extension region, classify the
node as in contact and deal with it in the same manner as if the node was
within the segments boundaries, i.e. do not modify the position of the
closest point.
4. If the node is in a corner region, determine the closest point on the boundary of
the closest segment, whether this be a segment node or a segment edge.
i. Reset the closest point to be the closest node or the closest point on the
segment edge accordingly.
ii. Compute and apply an appropriate internal force vector and tangent stiffness
matrix contribution.
LUSAS deals with condition (4) as a node-on-node or node-on-line problem. The
closest point modifications also result in a modified unit normal vector.
The internal force vector contribution in such regions is now
394
Load And Boundary Conditions
and the tangent stiffness matrix contribution in the normal direction is modified to
The modification of the closest point in the corner region has to be such that the
following assumption (see section 5.4.4.3 regarding equation (5.4-26)) is always
maintained.
xsrT A 0 (5.4-139)
The closest point modification will, therefore, mean that at least one of the local
b, g variables will always be fixed. This will be reflected in the first and second
variations of the normal penetration, in that certain terms will be simplified or deleted
because derivatives and variations with respect to one or both of b, g will be zero.
The most obvious change will be that the form of the initial stress matrix for each
formulation will be different for each type of corner region.
The 3D LUSAS corner region formulation should, therefore, firstly ensure a realistic
modelling of contact in such regions and secondly ensure as smooth a movement as
possible through such regions.
395
Theory Manual Volume 1
contact node
curved contact surface
closest segment
closest adjacent segment
closest node
Figure 5.4-13: The 2D quadratic patch made up of two, two noded segments.
For a quadrilateral face in three dimensions, the curved contact geometry is defined
using nine nodes. In which case we consider a patch of four elements (the quadratic
patch) surrounding the closest point to the contact node on the contact surface. The set-
up is illustrated in figure 5.4-14.
contact node
Figure 5.4-14: The quadratic patch of four noded quadrilateral contact segments. The
shaded segment is the closest four noded segment to the contact node.
The same will also apply to triangular faces on the contact surface. The contact
geometry will be defined by a set of four, three noded triangles (the quadratic patch).
For the nodal contact force distribution, however, only the closest linear/bi-linear
segment will be considered with all quadratic patch configurations, since this will
provide the linear shape functions required to distribute the contact forces.
396
Load And Boundary Conditions
b g b g
qTicN p N gN h gN l
(5.4-140)
where bg g is the normal penetration defined using the lower order shape functions
N l
while bg g is the normal penetration based on the higher order shape functions.
N h
The change in (5.4-140) is designed to improve the accuracy of the force distribution
when using a higher order surface definition. Using the variation of bg g in (5.4-140)
N l
ensures that the force distribution is based on the lower order shape functions. Defining
the normal contact force scalar ( t N ) on bg g
N h ensures that curved contact geometry
is mapped out, based closely on the higher order shape functions.
bt g
N h b g
N gN h
(5.4-141)
The modified tangent stiffness matrix contribution is then derived from a first variation
of (5.4-140), so that we have
b gb g
pT KtcN p N gN l gN h
b g b g
N gN h 2 gN l (5.4-142)
The first observation of (5.4-142) is that the tangent stiffness matrix is non-symmetric.
The second is that the initial stress matrix, db g i
K tc t N h
, is unchanged from that based
on the lower order shape functions, except that it now uses the higher order normal
b g
contact force scalar, t N h .
pT K tc dbt g i bt g bg g
N h N h
2
N l (5.4-143)
The following sections will derive the specific internal force and tangent stiffness
contributions.
397
Theory Manual Volume 1
n
r t
2
1 3
Figure 5.4-15: The curved contact surface defined using the quadratic patch. s is the
contact node while r is the closest point to it on the curved surface.
The quadratic patch contact surface is described via conventional isoparametric shape
functions.
bg hbg x
n
r i i (5.4-144)
i=1
b
hl h1, h2 , h3 g (5.4-145)
where h1 b
12 1 g , h2 1 2c h , h3 1
2 b g
1
(5.4-146)
The displacement vector for the quadratic patch is
d
pTh dsT , d1T , dT2 , d3T i (5.4-147)
where l q
dTi ui , vi , and where u and v are the displacements in the
coordinate directions x and y respectively. The numbering in (5.4-147) refers to
figure 5.4-15.
398
Load And Boundary Conditions
The displacement vector associated with the linear lower order segment is
d
pTl dsT , d1T , dT2 i (5.4-148)
where pl is the lower order displacement vector in its lower order format (5.4-148) (a
6x1 vector) while plh is the lower order displacement vector assembled such that it
corresponds to the higher order dimensioning (becoming an 8x1 vector). The
transformation matrix Tlh is used to assemble lower order terms into higher order
vectors and matrices.
The three dimensional quadratic patch
In three dimensions the quadratic patch is made up of four contact segments, with each
contact segment defined in figure 5.4-9. For example, the quadrilateral segment in
figure 5.4-9 with nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4 would correspond to either of the linear sub-
elements defined in Figure 5.4-16, such as the element defined by nodes 1, 5, 9 and 8.
3
2
s
5 1 s
6
6
5
9 r
1
8
r
3
7 4
399
Theory Manual Volume 1
The preceding figure shows the local axes and the patch definition nodes. s is the contact
node while r is the closest point to the contact node on the quadratic patch. Note that each
patch contains four corresponding contact segments of the type shown in figure 5.4-9.
The quadratic patch contact surface in three dimensions is also described via
conventional isoparametric shape functions.
b g hb,g x
n
r , i i (5.4-150)
i=1
r is the position vector of a point on the quadratic patch, b,g are the non-
dimensional coordinates used in the definition of the quadratic patch, hi are the
quadratic shape functions and xi is the current position vector of node i.
The integer n in (5.4-150) is the number of nodes defining the element configuration
under consideration. For the lower order definition there are four nodes defining the
quadrilateral contact segment, n 4 , and three nodes defining the triangular contact
segment, n 3 , while for the higher order definition there are nine nodes defining the
quadrilateral quadratic patch, n 9 , and six nodes defining the triangular quadratic
patch, n 6 . See figure 5.4-9 and figure 5.4-16 for each configuration.
For the lower order quadrilateral contact segment the shape functions can be found in
(5.4-20) while for the lower order triangular contact segment they can be found in
(5.4-21).
Considering the quadratic patch, the shape functions for a quadratic quadrilateral patch
are
b
hh h1, h2 , h3, h4 , h5, h6 , h7 , h8 , h9 g (5.4-151)
where
bgb g
h1 14 1 1 b gb g
14 1 1 ,
, h2
bgb g
h3 14 1 1 , b gb g
h4 14 1 1 ,
h5 c1 hb1 g
1
2
2
, h6 12 b1 gc1 h
2
h7 c1 hb1 g
1
2
2
, h8 12 b1 gc1 h
2
,
h9 c1 hc1 h
2 2
b
hh h1, h2 , h3, h4 , h5, h6 g (5.4-152)
400
Load And Boundary Conditions
where
b
h1 1 1 2 2 gb g ,
b
h2 2 1 g ,
b
h3 2 1 , g b
h4 4 1 g ,
h5 4 ,
h6 4b1 g
The displacement vector is defined as
n
pT d1T , dT2 , ..., dTn s (5.4-153)
where l q l
dTi ui , vi in 2D and dTi ui , vi , wi in 3D, and where u , q
v and w are the displacements in the coordinate directions x, y and z
respectively.
Minimise : Acp 1
2 xsrT xsr with respect to (2D) (5.4-154)
Minimise : Acp 1
2 xsrT xsr with respect to (3D) (5.4-155)
The Newton Raphson method can be used to solve these minimisations. The solution to
such a minimisation problem has already been derived for 3D bi-linear segments and
can be found in section 5.4.4.3, and the reader is referred to that section for full details.
In this section only those differences that are specific to quadratic patches in both two
and three dimensions will be highlighted.
Two dimensions
401
Theory Manual Volume 1
n
h i
where r x
i=1
i (5.4-158)
The vector r is tangential to the surface at the point . At the closest point this vector
will be orthogonal to the vector x sr , which means that at this point the first variation
of Acp should be zero.
Let us define a new term, a cp , representing the first variation of Acp such that
At the closest point this vector should be zero. Carrying out a Taylor series expansion
of a we have
acp
b g
acp acp bg
(5.4-162)
d i
acp rT xsr (5.4-163)
0 rT xsr D (5.4-165)
402
Load And Boundary Conditions
1 T
r xsr (5.4-166)
D
The contact location point is then updated via
k 1 k (5.4-167)
Starting with an initial estimate for the contact location point, the Newton Raphson
procedure is able to locate the point on the surface that satisfies the minimum of
(5.4-154). The criteria to check whether the initial estimate and all subsequent
estimates from the closest point iterations are acceptable is the norm of the first
derivative of Acp .
Acp
108 , which is similar to acp,new 108 (5.4-168)
If the estimate for does not satisfy this criteria another iteration is performed to
compute a new estimate. The iterative procedure is continued until the criteria in
(5.4-168) is satisfied.
The Newton Raphson procedure can be summarised as
This iterative procedure is used to compute the closest point to the higher order contact
patch *h . Since the closest point iterations have been consistently linearised they
should be quadratically convergent.
Three dimensions
In three dimensions, the main difference with the solution in section 5.4.4.3 is that the
second order partial derivatives with respect to and are no longer zero. This
means that the matrix D (c.f. (5.4-29) is now
403
Theory Manual Volume 1
D E AT A (5.4-169)
where
Lx r
M
T
sr xsrT r OP
E
MNx rT
sr xsrT r PQ (5.4-170)
The remainder of the solution and the procedure in locating the closest point is the
same as that in section 5.4.4.3. Note, however, that for the lower order function, r
and r are zero, which means that the diagonal terms in E (5.4-170) will also be
zero.
where xs is the position vector of the contact node. The unit vector normal to curved
contact surface is defined as
1 1
n xsr xsr (5.4-172)
xsr gN
However, the definition in (5.4-172) is susceptible to small number problems. In such
cases a better definition for the unit normal vector is
R| r U|
n e3 S| r
V| in two dimensions (5.4-173)
T W
R| r
n S
U| R| r U|V
and
|T r
V| S|T r
Both r and r are tangential to the curved contact surface while e3 is the unit vector
out of the page (according to the right hand rule). The advantage of the definitions in
404
Load And Boundary Conditions
(5.4-173) and (5.4-174) is that they also define the correct direction for n out of the
contact surface.
To assign the correct sign to the normal penetration we therefore have
gN xsrT n (5.4-175)
r
t in two dimensions (5.4-176)
r
r
e1 , e2 n e1 in three dimensions (5.4-177)
r
gN nT F ph
h
(5.4-178)
b g
gN l di
aTl p
l
(5.4-179)
In three dimensions the variation of the lower order normal penetration is evaluated in
the same way as for the higher order penetration, except that only lower order terms are
used. The variation can be found in (5.4-59) and is repeated here for convenience.
b g
gN l
nTl Fl p (5.4-181)
405
Theory Manual Volume 1
The internal force vector contribution is designed to reproduce a constant pressure field
as accurately as possible, as demanded by the contact patch test. For the geometry we
use the higher order functions to define the normal penetration while for the nodal force
distribution we use the lower order function. In two dimensions, substituting for g Nl
from (5.4-179) into (5.4-140) we have
q icN N (g N ) h a lh t Nh a lh (5.4-182)
b g
qicN N gN h FTl nl bt g F n
N h
T
l l (5.4-183)
The lower and higher order definitions use a different number of nodes to define the
relevant contact segment/patch. The lower order terms are therefore assembled at those
points in the patch configuration that relate to the closest lower order segment.
406
Load And Boundary Conditions
In this section we cover the extensions to the quadratic patch curved contact
formulation that are required to encompass Coulomb friction. All formulations will be
derived for the penalty method.
Preliminary definitions
Modelling friction requires an estimation of the slip between the current and initial
points of contact. For curved surfaces this involves an integration across the surface to
compute the tangential gap. However, because of the complexities in computing this
integral and the fact that the first and possibly second variations of this integral may be
required, it has been decided, for the time being at least, to define the slip using a linear
approximation between the current and initial points of contact.
Preliminary definitions in two dimensions
Two tangential gap definitions are required, based on the lower and higher order
functions. The lower order definition, g Tl , can be found in equation (5.4-16) in section
5.4.4.2 .
To define the higher order tangential gap we need to make a number of definitions (see
figure 5.4-17). We firstly need to store the initial contact location point, o . We also
require the unit normal and tangential vectors at this point, no and to respectively,
where
ro
to , no e3 to (5.4-186)
ro
no
to r()
r(o) 2
1 o, Xo , X 3
Figure 5.4-17: The curved contact surface defined using the quadratic patch. s is the
contact node while r is the closest point to it on the curved surface.
n
Xo hi bo gXi (5.4-187)
i=1
407
Theory Manual Volume 1
where Xi are the position vectors of the segment nodes in the undeformed
bg
configuration and h are the shape functions for the quadratic patch. We also define
a vector that represents the current contact location point, X , based on coordinates, Xi
, of the undeformed configuration.
n
Xo hi bo gXi (5.4-188)
i=1
Using (5.4-187) and (5.4-188) we can then define the higher order tangential gap as
d
gTh X Xo to h
T
(5.4-189)
The tangential gap in (5.4-189) is therefore related to the undeformed configuration.
The only variable is the current closest point location on the surface of the body in the
local coordinate.
cT 1 g2
2 T T
(5.4-190)
The internal force vector contribution is usually derived from a first variation of
(5.4-190). With the proposed curved contact formulation, however, the internal force
vector is modified so that we now have
Like the frictionless case, using lower order shape functions in the first variation of the
tangential gap results in a force distribution that is also based on the lower order shape
functions.
Following the work in [A7, C16] (see also section 5.4.4.6, the first variation of the
lower order tangential gap is
408
Load And Boundary Conditions
gTl f Tl p (5.4-192)
l
q t Th f lh (5.4-194)
icT
where
f lh TT f l (5.4-195)
lh
where T is a transformation matrix that reassembles the lower order vectors and
lh
matrices into the higher order configuration.
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is derived from a first variation of the
modified internal force vector in (5.4-191).
The first observation of (5.4-196) is that the tangent stiffness matrix is non-symmetric,
as is the case with frictionless contact. The second is that the initial stress matrix,
K e j , is unchanged from that based on the lower order shape functions (see
t
tc Th
section 5.4.4.6), except that it now uses the higher order contact force scalar, t Th .
pT K t
tc The jt Th gTl
2
(5.4-197)
To compute (5.4-196) we require the first variation of the higher order tangential gap
is the variation of the closest point location in its local coordinate. This is more
general that that in the closest point computations since we now account for the
iterative displacements.
1 T
Y p (5.4-199)
D h
where
409
Theory Manual Volume 1
YT gNh n rT F bg (5.4-200)
bg
n nT C nT 0, h1 I, ..., hn I
(5.4-201)
D xTsr r rT r (5.4-203)
gNh is the higher order normal penetration and F can be found in (5.4-60).
1 T
gTh t X YTp (5.4-204)
D o h
Using (5.4-192) and (5.4-204) in (5.4-196) gives the tangent stiffness matrix
contribution as
T h T
K
tcT
f t X YT K
D l o
t
tcl Th e j (5.4-205)
Combining the normal and tangential contributions to the internal force vector and
tangent stiffness matrix contribution we have
q
ic ej
B th
T
l
(5.4-206)
and
K
tc ej ej
B CB
T
l h
K
tcl
dt h h (5.4-207)
where
K
tcl
dt h K et j K et j
h tcl Nh tcl Th (5.4-208)
LMef j OP
h T LMt X Y OP
T
L
T
OP RS UV
M , C M
MNea j PPQ
l 0 t
, B 0 T
, t T (5.4-209)
B
l h T
l
h MN n F PQ
T
N0 N Q T W
tN
Sticking friction in 3D
Using the penalty method, the contact contribution to the energy of the system resulting
from the tangential gap vector in three dimensions is
410
Load And Boundary Conditions
cT 1 gT g
2 T T T (5.4-210)
As in two dimensions, the internal force vector contribution with the proposed curved
contact formulation is derived by modifying the first variation of (5.4-210), so that we
have
qT p T g
icT e j eg j
T h T l
(5.4-211)
Where g e j are the tangential gaps defined using the lower order shape functions while
T l
eg j
T h
are the tangential gaps based on the higher order shape functions. Using the
variation g
T l
in (5.4-211) ensures that the force distribution is based on the lower
The vector of tangential contact force scalars for the higher order contact definitions is
dt hT h T g e j
T h
(5.4-212)
Following the work in [C16] (see also section 5.4.4.6) the internal force vector
contribution from (5.4-211) therefore becomes
F
YD1 A
T Id h
q
icT H t
K
X l T h
(5.4-213)
It is important to take care with the subscripts l and h in (5.4-213) since they define
the contact surface definition to which each term relates.
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is then derived from a first variation of the
modified internal force vector in (5.4-211), so that we have
pT K
tcT
d h e j
p tT g
T
l T h
d h e j
t T 2 g
h T l
(5.4-214)
As has been observed earlier with the two dimensional case, the tangent stiffness
matrix is non-symmetric. The initial stress matrix, K tT , is unchanged from that
tc ed h j
h
based on the lower order shape functions (see section 5.4.4.6), except that it now uses
the higher order contact force scalars (5.4-212).
pT K
tc edt h j dt h eg j
T h T h
2
T l
(5.4-215)
411
Theory Manual Volume 1
T YD1 A F T I eA D1 YT j edt h j
K
tcT H X l K X h
K
tcl T h (5.4-216)
Combining the normal and tangential contributions to the internal force vector and
tangent stiffness matrix contribution we have
q
ic ej
B th
T
l
(5.4-217)
and
K
tc ej ej
B CB
T
l h
K
tcl
dt h
h (5.4-218)
where
K dt h K ebt g j K edt h j
tcl h tcl N h tcl T h (5.4-219)
LA D Y OP L I 0 OP
1 T
RSt UV
B M , C M
T 2
MN n F PQ MN 0 PQ , t (5.4-220)
X T
T T
N Tt W
N
bt g g
NB h N Nh (5.4-221)
2D: bt g g
TB h T Th (5.4-222)
RtT1U RTgT1UV
3D: dtTB hh S V S (5.4-223)
TtT2 Wh TTgT2 Wh
412
Load And Boundary Conditions
If the forces at the elastic trial point violate the yield function in (5.4-93) or (5.4-94),
the forces have to be returned to the yield surface. In this case we use a backward Euler
return procedure with a non-associative flow rule (see section 5.4.4.7, as well as [A7,
C16, M7] for further details), giving
b t g bt g
NC h NB h (5.4-224)
2D: bt g bs s t g
TC h T N NB h (5.4-225)
L bs t g OP
3D: dt h MM dt h
MN dt h PPQ
N NB h
TC h TB h (5.4-226)
TB h
q BT t C
ic l
d h h
(5.4-227)
where in 2D
dt h
RSt UV
TC
(5.4-228)
C h
Tt WNC h
while in 3D
dt h
RSt UV
TC
(5.4-229)
C h
Tt WNC h
The first variation of the internal force vector leads to the tangent stiffness matrix
contribution as
K
tc ej ej
B C B
T
l t h
K
tcl edt h j
C h (5.4-230)
where in 2D
0 NsTsN h
C (5.4-231)
t
0 N h
while in 3D
413
Theory Manual Volume 1
s t t tT
N N NB I TB TB 0
tTB tTTB tTB
C (5.4-232)
t sNN
t 0
tTB TB
There are now two sources of non-symmetry, one from the use of mixed higher-lower
order functions in the contact definitions and the second is the friction moving from a
stick to a slip state requiring a modification of the tangential forces.
R|d U|
RS UV LMt , h t O |d |
s
h t , ,
PS V
T T T
gT
g s 1 s n s 1
(5.4-233)
gN T W Nn T
h n , ,
T
h n Q| |
T
s 1 s n s
|Td |W
n
g At p (5.4-234)
where ns and ts are the unit vector normal and tangential to the contact surface
respectively.
For the lower order function we have
g h At h ph (5.4-236)
Based on the curved contact philosophy outlined earlier, the internal force vector
contribution is
qicN N At ed i jh T
l
gh N Ated i j A
h T
l th
ph (5.4-237)
414
Load And Boundary Conditions
KtcN N At ed i j A
h T
l th
(5.4-238)
Once K tcN has been evaluated, the internal force vector contribution in the
subsequent passes of a non-linear problem are evaluated as follows
The tangent stiffness matrix is only evaluated once, while the internal force vector is
continually updated as the displacements change.
Three dimensions
The curved contact formulation can also be applied to three dimensional tied slidelines.
To do this we will take the displacement normal to the contact surface, g N , and the
vector of displacements tangential to the contact surface, gT , and again incorporate
both definitions into a single vector.
R|d U|
s
Rg U Le , h e O| |
d
h1 eTt , h2 eTt , ,
1
g S V M PSd V
T T
n t
Tg W Nn
T t
h1 nT , h2 nT , , h n Q| |
T T 2
||d ||
N n
T Wn
(5.4-240)
g
LM e F OPp
T
(5.4-241)
MNn FPQ
t
T
where n is the unit vector normal to the contact surface and e t is a matrix containing
the two unit tangent vectors e1 and e2 .
et e1, e2 (5.4-242)
415
Theory Manual Volume 1
n
pT d1T , dT2 , ..., dTm ..., dTn s (5.4-243)
qicN N
R|SF e U|V g
T
N
R|SF e U|V R|Se FU|V p
T T
KtcN N
R|SF e U|V R|Se F U|V
T T
Once K tcN has been evaluated, the internal force vector contribution in the
subsequent passes of a non-linear problem are evaluated as follows
As in two dimensions, the tangent stiffness matrix is only evaluated once, while the
internal force vector is continually updated as the displacements change.
Corner regions
With the quadratic patch curved contact algorithms the issue of corner regions (regions
at the junction between segments that are not covered by the definition of any adjacent
segments/patches) has not been eliminated completely. This is because the definition
of the curved geometry can cause the location of a closest point to lie outside the region
of the closest segment or the closest quadratic patch. In such instances the contact
problem is now node-on-node since the closest point is a node rather than a segment or
a patch.
Both two and three dimensional quadratic patches therefore use corner region
formulations developed earlier that deal with the node on node nature of such
problems. These formulation are independent of the geometric definition of the
adjacent segments/patches and have been successful in dealing with corner regions
with linear/bi-linear surfaces.
416
Load And Boundary Conditions
Both curved contact algorithms use the normal slideline extension philosophy to deal
with nodes that are on or close to slideline edges.
s
2
4 1
r
5
8
7
6
3
b
hh h1, h2 , h3, h4 , h5, h6 , h7 , h8 g (5.4-247)
where
h1 b gb g
1 1 , h2 14 1 1
1
4 b gb g
b
h3 14 1 1 , gb g
h4 12 1 2 1 c hb g ,
417
Theory Manual Volume 1
b gc h
h5 12 1 1 2 , c
h6 12 1 2 1 hb g ,
h7 12 b1 gc1 h 2
r
3
6
4
b
hh h1, h2 , h3, h4 , h5, h6 g (5.4-248)
where
b gb g
h1 14 1 1 , b
h2 14 1 1 gb g ,
b gb g
h3 14 1 1 , b
h4 14 1 1 , gb g
h5 1
2 c1 hb1 g
2
, h6 1
2 c1 hb1 g
2
418
Load And Boundary Conditions
performed subsequent to the acceleration and velocity update but prior to the
displacement evaluation at each time step. The procedure is as follows
The interaction of the two surfaces is monitored in the same manner as described for
the penalty method. At every time step the nodal force and mass of each slave node in
contact is distributed to the local master nodes. After the summation over all slave
nodes is complete, the acceleration and velocity of each master node is computed using
the standard solution procedure. The values for the slave nodes are then interpolated
from the local master segment.
The coordinates are subsequently updated normally.
The method they propose uses an exponential function to define c . The function
reduces the stiffness gradually as one moves away from the contact surface. In this way
the discontinuity between in and out of contact states is removed. At the limits the
function takes the form of the penalty and barrier methods.
419
Theory Manual Volume 1
The contact contribution, c , depends upon whether the node is above or below the
surface. When the node is above the surface, the contact contribution is
c
d t i expR|S
N
2
U|
V| if gN 0 (5.4-249)
|T t
N
gN
N N W
while if it is below the surface the contribution
1
c Ng2N t N gN
d t i N
2
if gN 0 (5.4-250)
2 N
where tN is an estimate of the normal contact force while N is the linear penalty
parameter chosen to give an acceptable level of penetration below the surface.
The internal force vector contribution is derived from a first variation of the energy
contribution and is given by
The normal contact force scalar tN for a node above the contact surface is given by
RS
t N s N t N exp N gN
UV (5.4-253)
T
s N t N W
where
t N
s N (5.4-254)
t N
t N t N NgN (5.4-255)
420
Load And Boundary Conditions
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is derived from a second variation of the
energy and is given by
2D: K N aa K t N
T
(5.4-256)
tc tc
3D: K N F nn F K
tc
T T
tc
tN (5.4-257)
Where K
tc
tN is the initial stress matrix. Details of the initial stress matrices can be
found earlier in section 5.4.4. For a node above the surface the penalty parameters
contribution to the tangent stiffness matrix contribution in (5.4-256) and (5.4-257) is
given by
N N exp
RS N UV (5.4-258)
T s N t N
gN
W
while for a contact node below the surface the contribution is given by
N N (5.4-259)
These changes affect all penalty formulations in section (5.4.4), such as the corner
region formulations, in a similar way.
Estimating tN
The contact cushioning formulation relies upon an estimate for tN . This is only
computed at converged equilibrium states by making it equal to the total normal
contact force scalar at the end of the last converged equilibrium state, i.e.
tNi1 t iN (5.4-260)
where i in this case represents the increment number. This effectively means that the
contact cushioning formulation does not begin to operate until after the first converged
equilibrium state has been reached. For nodes in contact the estimate before the first
converged equilibrium state is based on the penalty method
tN NgN (5.4-261)
while for a node above the surface the estimate is based on the barrier method
1
tN (5.4-262)
Ng2N
421
Theory Manual Volume 1
The estimate for tN can be improved via an augmentation procedure similar to that
adopted by the augmented Lagrangian method. The update for tN is
where k is the augmentation number. The convergence criteria for the augmentation
procedure is
cg k 1
N h
gkN TOL (5.4-264)
Some points concerning the choice of tN should be borne in mind. If tN is less than
the exact value of the contact force then a certain amount of penetration will take place.
However, the solution obtained will be better than what would be obtained if the
penalty method were used. If tN is larger than the exact value then there will be a
certain amount of gap opening and the solution obtained will be better than what would
be obtained if the barrier method were used.
where tNi is the value at the last converged equilibrium state, and (3) factor the force
estimate from the previous increment when the following condition applies at the
beginning of an increment when a node is above the surface.
Apart from initial estimates, the factoring by SLFNCS only takes place at the
beginning of the iterative loop and should not affect the iterative performance of the
formulation.
422
Load And Boundary Conditions
50
penetration
0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-50
-100
-150
energy modification
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
Figure 5.4-20: Typical graph showing the variation of the contact contribution to the
energy function of a system between in contact and out of contact states.
423
Theory Manual Volume 1
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
Figure 5.4-21: Typical graph showing the variation of the normal contact force scalar
between in contact and out of contact states.
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
penetration
Figure 5.4-22: Typical graph showing the variation of the penalty parameter between
in contact and out of contact states.
424
Load And Boundary Conditions
In the first loop the material non-linearity is kept constant so that the only sources of
non-linearity are contact and geometric. For most non-linear material models this is
achieved by computing a tangent modulus matrix, D p , that is fixed and by computing
the stresses using an elastic relationship. With the rubber and crushable foam material
models the philosophy is slightly different but is still aimed at removing the non-linear
nature of the material model in the first loop.
t t 1 D (5.4-267)
p
where t1 , are the stresses at the last converged solution, D the modulus matrix
p
computed using t1 , and the incremental total strains.
425
Theory Manual Volume 1
In the context of a separate iterative loop for contact it is important to note that unlike
most other material models, rubber does not have a simple linear material model
component. The existing Hencky material model can, however, be regarded as a
generalisation of the linear material model for large strain problems. Indeed the tangent
modulus matrix relating the strain rates to the Jaumann rate of Kirchoff stress for this
material model reduces to the standard linear modulus matrix for all terms related to the
direct stress-strain rates. The shear term is close to the shear modulus, provided the
stretches are reasonably close to each other, so that the tangent modulus matrix relating
the strain rates to the Jaumann rate of Kirchoff stress may be given as
e j FGH
Dijkl ik jl il jk K
2
3
IJ
K
ijkl (5.4-268)
In the first loop of the separate iterative loops a tangent modulus matrix definition is
required that approximates the state of the material within the current increment in a
linear fashion, thus removing the non-linear nature of the material. For this reason the
Hencky material model definition is used in the first loop since it provides a reasonable
linear estimate of the general Ogden material models tangent modulus matrix.
To achieve this approximation the parameters of the general Ogden model are
converted into an equivalent set of Hencky model parameters. The bulk modulus is
already defined for the Ogden model so that only a computation of the shear modulus,
G is required. This is computed as follows
pp
1
G (5.4-269)
2 p
These parameters set up the equivalent Hencky model for the first loop. In the second
loop the analysis reverts back to the original Ogden material model definition.
Crushable Foam
The stress calculations for the crushable foam material model are based on a
relationship between pressure and relative volume, which means that it is not possible
to simplify the model into a linear relationship of the form in (5.4-267). However, in
order to achieve the same objective of linearising the calculations in the first loop, it is
possible to construct an equivalent linear relationship between the volumetric pressure
and the volumetric strain. The relationship is as follows.
and
sn sn1 (5.4-271)
where:
p is the volumetric pressure;
426
Load And Boundary Conditions
R|1U|
||11||
d S V (5.4-272)
||0||
v
||T00||W
The deviatoric stresses are then calculated using the shear modulus, G , and the
deviatoric strains.
d 2Gd (5.4-273)
R|1U|
||11||
d p S V (5.4-274)
||0||
n
||T00||W
This formulation should give a reasonable linearised formulation for the first loop of
the separate iterative loops. In the second loop LUSAS reverts back to using the
standard crushable foam formulation.
427
Theory Manual Volume 1
Stabilise problems that suffer from nodes moving into and out of contact by
small amounts
Define surfaces in contact initially and avoiding rigid body motions without the
use of tied slidelines to establish contact.
The close contact algorithm works in the following way.
For a contact node that lies above the surface but within the surface tolerance,
the normal penetration, g N , is set to zero. When passed through the slideline
algorithm this has the effect of applying a stiffness at the surface, but no force.
It is this application of stiffness without force that helps stabilise problems suffering
from chatter and avoids rigid body motions when contact is initially being established.
In most cases only a factored stiffness is applied in the close contact region and not the
full stiffness. The stiffness is factored in the following ways.
The use of close contact can have an effect on the convergence performance of a
problem, slowing the rate of convergence. This can be overcome by decreasing
428
Load And Boundary Conditions
the system parameter SLSTCC so that the applied stiffness is small. Reducing it
to as low as 1e-6, say, will have removed much of the effect of close contact on
the convergence performance.
If chatter is still a problem after using close contact then use contact cushioning
instead. If this is not feasible then one can try to alleviate the problem by
increasing the close contact detection parameter and decreasing SLSTCC to a
small number, say 1e-6. This increases the surface tolerance to capture nodes
that are suffering from larger oscillations between in and out of contact states,
but then applies a small stiffness to ensure that the rate of convergence does not
deteriorate too much.
The close contact detection facility is not available for explicit dynamics.
The constraint (5.4.276) effectively means that there should be no gap between the
contact node and the opposite surface. This means that the contact node will always be
pushed towards the opposite surface regardless of whether the node lies above the
surface or below it. The two surfaces of a slideline specified as being in pre-contact
will, therefore, be pulled together such that no gap exists between the surfaces at any
point along the slideline.
The effect of this will be that two bodies that are apart initially will be pulled into
contact, by the application of force and stiffness coming form the equality constrained
definition, and the externally applied load. The direction in which the free body moves,
however, is dependent the support conditions on the free body as well as these forces.
After the bodies have been pulled together by the pre-contact procedure in the first
iteration, the standard slideline algorithm is then used to proceed with the rest of the
problem. Pre-contact is also only applicable to static analyses and is required when an
initial gap exists between slideline surfaces that should be in contact and a loading type
other than PDSP or TPDSP is applied.
429
Theory Manual Volume 1
The internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix contributions, in form, will be the
same as those derived in section 5.4, the only difference being that this force and
stiffness will always be applied. The penalty parameter that is used can be factored
using the system parameter SLSTPC. The default value of SLSTPC is 1.0.
There are a number of issues to note, however, with the use of the pre-contact facility.
Incorrect use of this procedure can lead to initial straining in the bodies or to an
undesired starting configuration. This can occur if the pre-contact facility is
used indiscriminately, since this will force all slideline surfaces together. If a
reasonable estimation can be made of where initial contact will occur, it is
recommended that pre-contact is used selectively on only the relevant slidelines,
minimising initial straining and giving more control over the direction of the
rigid body movement can be exercised.
If an estimation of possible contact regions is not possible then more, if not all,
of the slidelines can be specified as pre-contact. The system parameter SLSTPC
should then be decreased to a small number, such as 1e-6, to minimise initial
straining. However, since pre-contact is only applied in the first iteration, the
effects of the initial straining, if it does occur, should disappear after the
iterations of the first increment lead to convergence. The initial applied loading
should also be small enough to prevent unrestrained rigid body motion since the
contact forces may be relatively small depending upon the initial configuration.
This approach tends to be less stable and is therefore not recommended.
In practice a combination of the two approaches may be necessary. In order to satisfy
oneself that the correct starting configuration has been attained, warning messages are
printed to the output file for each iteration of the first increment if the surface of any
slideline defined as being in pre-contact are not in contact.
***WARNING*** THE SURFACES OF SOME SLIDELINES WHICH HAVE BEEN DEFINED FOR PRE-CONTACT
ARE NOT IN CONTACT:
NO CONTACT HAS BEEN DETECTED FOR SLIDELINE NUMBER a
NO CONTACT HAS BEEN DETECTED FOR SLIDELINE NUMBER b, etc.
This information can be used to re-asses which slidelines to include for pre-contact, or
even carry out a redefinition of the slidelines themselves, if convergence difficulties are
experienced in the first increment.
430
Load And Boundary Conditions
431
Theory Manual Volume 1
The surface scale factors and friction coefficient are not utilised in explicit tied
slideline analyses
The nodal constraint slideline (explicit tied slideline) treatment is more robust if
the mesh with the greatest contact node density is designated the slave surface.
The slideline facility is inherently nonlinear and requires use of the
NONLINEAR CONTROL data chapter, except for tied slidelines used in an
implicit dynamic or static analysis where the solution may be linear.
The segment ordering (as defined in the SLIDELINE_SURFACE data section)
should be checked before a full analysis is undertaken if defined without the use
of LUSAS Modeller. Note that the slideline initialisation procedure is performed
during a pre-analysis data check (OPTION 51).
The use of tied slidelines to eliminate transition meshes is recommended for
areas removed from the point of interest in the structure.
The use of an additional element to join separate meshes together is not
necessary, unless, of course, it actually forms part of the physical structure.
The use of a larger value of Young's modulus to simulate a rigid surface in a
dynamic contact analysis is not advisable since this will increase the wave speed
in that part of the model and give rise to a reduced time step. This practice
significantly increases the computing time required.
Do not converge on residual norm with PDSP loading. This norm uses external
forces to normalise which do not exist with PDSP loading
Slidelines may be used with automatic solution procedures (constant load level
and arc-length methods). The line search and the step reduction algorithms are
also applicable to analyses that contain slidelines.
Slidelines may be utilised with higher order elements (quadratic variation of
displacements) but it is necessary to constrain the displacements of the slideline
nodes so that they behave in a linear manner (LUSAS Modeller will do this
automatically). The deformation of the slideline surface will therefore be
compatible with the slideline algorithm. This is generally not advised since it
may lead to a slightly stiffer solution.
432
Load And Boundary Conditions
433
Theory Manual Volume 1
These are used to assemble a conductance matrix that fully describes the diffuse
radiative exchange between all the element faces including re-radiation from any
element faces.
One of the key concerns in the formulations is that of numerical efficiency. The update
of the conduction/convection links and radiation conductance must be performed
speedily and with reasonable accuracy since during coupled problems they may need to
be updated iteratively as well as incrementally.
c
q hc A t j t i h (5.5-1)
A j Ai j i
q hc
2
t t c h (5.5-2)
q q i Ai q j A j (5.5-3)
The nodal areas are calculated by considering a uniform flux applied to the segment
surface. The nodal load of node i produced by the uniform flux is calculated by
integrating
i
z
qi q N i dA
Area
(5.5-4)
where N is the shape function associated with node i. For a unit flux (5.5-4) may be
interpreted as nodal area which is multiplied by a constant flux to calculate the nodal
loads
z
AIi N i dA
Area
(5.5-5)
434
Load And Boundary Conditions
The capital superscript I has been introduced to denote the segment to which the nodal
area relates, this is shown in figure 5.5-2. More than one nodal area may relate to one
node.
ti
tj
qi Aj+Ai
2
qj
q q
Ai Aj
435
Theory Manual Volume 1
node i
nodal area AIi
Segment I
In order to set up the links the nodal area from each segment is projected onto the
opposing surface along the normal to the surface. To account for the double counting of
projecting two facing surfaces onto each other, the conductivity of the gap is taken to
be one half of that specified in the gap properties.
Further considerations that are required for the conductive and convective links are
described in the following sections.
436
Load And Boundary Conditions
In LUSAS, the conductivity of the gas and the spots will be summed to provide a gap
conductivity. On contact the length of the links, , will be negative since contact is
calculated using a penalty algorithm (for penalty algorithms the two surfaces must
overlap to a degree defined by the surface stiffness parameters). The contact surface
area is, therefore, defined to be the sum of those nodal areas connected to the contact
node i which has a negative . An unscaled common normal of the areas is then
defined to be the average of the normals of each of the contributing nodal areas. The
contact force vector F is projected onto the common normal vector to produce the
applied normal force Fn in the direction of the contacted surfaces:
navg
Fn F. (5.5-7)
navg
The surface pressure is then found by dividing the normal force by the contact surface
area
Fn
P n
(5.5-8)
A
M 1
Mi
r Ii xi v nIi (5.5-9)
where v is defined to be a vector one quarter size of the vector connecting node i to
the segment centroid (see figure 5.5-3). The intersection of this normal with a segment
from either the same surface or an adjacent surface is then sought. The intersection of
the ray direction (5.5-9), with the segment surface yields the local coordinates of the
point of contact and in addition to , the distance between the node and the
surface.
The conductivity across the gap between the elements can be extracted as a function of
the separation of the surfaces . If the gap is too large, no flow is permitted between
the surfaces and heat flux will flow directly to an environmental node or to the
environment.
437
Theory Manual Volume 1
Heat fluxes from unassociated areas given by q Iie are assigned to environmental
nodes or allowed to convect to the environment via
c
q Iie AIi hc t e t j h (5.5-10)
e
where t is either the temperature of an environmental node or the environmental
temperature.
nIi
i
v
j xIi
q KAN T Nt (5.5-11)
where K is the link conductivity, A is its nodal area, and N and t are defined as
c b g b gh
N 1,W1 ,W2
tT bt , t , t g
i 1 2
438
Load And Boundary Conditions
The link conductivity is calculated according the appropriate gap width, contact
pressure (5.5-2) or environmental loading. Differentiating with respect to temperature
leads to a non-symmetric coefficient matrix
dq dK
KAN T N AN T NtN (5.5-12)
dt d
Two options are available in LUSAS to solve equation (5.5-12). Firstly, the non-
symmetric component of the matrix is symmetricised and secondly, the non-symmetric
solver may be used with the full matrix.
Similar equations can be formulated for three dimensional elements where N is now a
function of the surface coordinates b,g .
nc .r 0 (5.5-13)
A second test then checks for the intersection of the ray with a sphere bounding the
element surface (see figure 5.5-4)
E. E r. E r 2
2
(5.5-14)
where E is the vector connecting the point of emission of the ray r with the centroid
of the element surface; r is the radius of the bounding sphere. If this test is positive
then intersection with the element is almost assured and the equations may be solved
for the intersection location. If the links have already been calculated, an update of
geometry may cause only slight modifications in their point of intersection with the
opposing surface with new links forming with adjacent elements to the initial
439
Theory Manual Volume 1
intersection. In order to improve the efficiency of the search these segments are
checked in order of increasing distance from the position of the last link.
r.E
r
E r
E.E
Lij
Distance between points i and j
440
Load And Boundary Conditions
j
dAj
dAi
From figure (5.5-5) the general equation for a view factor between two surfaces is
given by the double integral over the two surface areas
Fij
1
zz bg bg
cos i cos i dAi dAj
(5.5-15)
Ai Ai Aj r *r
where
441
Theory Manual Volume 1
Fij 10.
j 1
S
j 1
ij Ai
and
for a plane surface or 3D convex surface the self view factor Fii 00
.
for a concave surface the self view factor Fii 0.0
all view factors, irrespective of the geometry, must lie in the range
0.0 Fij 10.
summation of direct-interchange areas. Consider two surfaces 1 and 2: if surface
1 is split into two parts A and B then the direct-interchange area from surface 1
to 2 is equal to the sum of the direct-interchange areas from the sub-surfaces of
surface 1 to all of surface 2
S12 = SA2 + SB2
If surface 2 were split into two parts C and D then
S12 = SAC + SAD + SBC + SBD
442
Load And Boundary Conditions
443
Theory Manual Volume 1
of the other segments then again it can be cancelled because the view between the
nodes is blocked by some third surface. Having tested all the connecting lines if all
lines have been cancelled it is then assumed the sub-segments cannot see each other at
all. If some lines remain then the view factor between the sub-segments is calculated
assuming the sub-segments have a full view of each other and this view factor is then
factored by the ratio of connecting lines remaining to the initial number of connecting
lines. This is of course only an approximation to the view factor and the accuracy will
increase as the number of sub-segments is increased.
444
Load And Boundary Conditions
The total flux leaving surface i is the grey body emissive power ( ei Ei ) plus the part of
the incident flux that is reflected
Ji Ai ei Ei pi Gi (Watts)
rearranging gives
Ji pi Gi Ai ei Ei (Watts)
KJJ A e E (Watts)
1
J KJ A e E (Watts) (5.5-17)
445
Theory Manual Volume 1
1
Q KF KJ A e E (Watts)
The black body emissive power of surface i, Ei SB Ti4 (Watts/unit area), from which
a matrix connecting surface temperatures and radiation fluxes may be obtained.
Q KF KJ
1
A e SB T
4
(Watts) (5.5-19)
Q CT4 (Watts)
where
1
C KF KJ
A e SB (Watts per Kelvin4)
For the non-linear finite element solution Newton-Raphson iteration is used so the
derivative with respect to temperature of the vector (Q) is required
The above equations are general and allow for the variation of emissivity with
temperature, in which case the derivative term d[C]/dT is non-zero.
It should be noted that this matrix is non-symmetric and in the general case will have a
bandwidth equal to the size of the matrix, that is the number of nodes defining all the
segments in the radiation surface.
446
Load And Boundary Conditions
symmetric so that only 1/8 of the model (1 -> C -> 2) needs to be used. Three lines of
symmetry would be defined 1->C, 2->C, 3->C. Mirroring the model in line 1->C would
generate 1/4 of the model, mirroring the model in line 2->C would generate 1/2 of the
model and mirroring the model in the line 3-C would complete the model.
Commands in LUSAS enable the user to define lines of symmetry (or planes of
symmetry in 3D geometry) which can then be assigned to the radiation surface so that
radiation can be correctly modelled in problems involving symmetry.
c
whole model
1 2
3 -> c
2 -> c
c
>
1-
447
Theory Manual Volume 1
448
Post-Processing Facilities
6 Post-Processing
Facilities
6.1 Nodal Extrapolation
In elements formulated using numerical integration, the stresses are obtained by
integrating the constitutive relationship at the element Gauss points. Nodal stresses are
then obtained by extrapolation from the Gauss points. This is achieved by
1. Defining a fictitious element with nodes at the element Gauss points
2. Extrapolating the stress or strain to the nodal points of the real element using the
shape functions of the fictitious element, i.e.
N
i i , i
I1
NI i , i I (6.1-1)
N
i i , i
I 1
NI i , i I (6.1-2)
where N is the number of Gauss points, and subscripts i and I denote nodal and Gauss
point values respectively. The averaged nodal stresses are then obtained by evaluating
the mean of the extrapolated nodal values.
Notes
For shell elements, the local Gauss point stresses and strains are transformed to
global stresses and strains before extrapolation to the nodes. The mean global
stresses are then transformed to the local shell system at the nodal point before
evaluation of the nodal stress resultants.
For elements with a single Gauss point, the stresses and strains are assumed to
be constant over the element.
Stress extrapolation cannot be utilized with the 13-point and 14-point
integration rules of the solid elements (HX16,HX20).
449
Theory Manual Volume 1
failure cracks
t
Ax
Ay
Nxy
Nxy x
y Nx
Ny
h
n
If the tension design stress at the ultimate limit state of the reinforcement is f and the
reinforcement areas are Ax and Ay , the reinforcement forces are:
450
Post-Processing Facilities
For a failure of the slab by yield, associated with the opening of cracks, at a certain
direction n (given by the angle , see (fig.6.2-1)), the resistive force may be expressed
as:
For equilibrium the resistive and applied forces must be the same, i.e.,
N*n Nn (6.2-5)
N*
x
Nx N*y Ny N2xy (6.2-6)
Nxy
N*y Ny (6.2-8)
k
where k tan . In principle, any value for k can be chosen and an infinite number of
possible combinations of N*x and N*y capable of resisting a particular set of applied
forces exists. For design purposes, however, if the values for Nx , Ny and Nxy are
known a value of (or k) may be established by making N*x N*y a minimum, hence
minimising the steel requirement. The minimum k factor for orthogonal reinforcement
is 1 or = 45. For skew reinforcement, the minimum k factor depends upon the
direction of the reinforcement. From the obtained k, the minimum required resistive
forces can be computed.
Note that all the above calculations can be reproduced for a slab subjected to a general
set of bending and twisting moments ( M x , My and Mxy ). In addition to the forces
obtained above, an extra expression for the concrete force acting parallel to the failure
cracks is computed from the equilibrium in the z-direction and is derived via the
451
Theory Manual Volume 1
minimised values of N*x and N*y . This value can be used to predict failure in the
concrete.
Mx Nxdb
Nxt (6.2-10)
d
Note that similar equations will be obtained for the other applied forces.
ct Nxt
dt Mx
d Nx
db
cb Nxb
452
Post-Processing Facilities
y
b
4
a
3
3
x
1
1
The calculation of equivalent moments for the grillage shown in (fig.6.2-3) is given
below:
Consider the grillage moments acting on node A:
The contribution of the elements 1 and 3 have to be transformed into the global x-y
directions, hence:
453
Theory Manual Volume 1
and
The equivalent plate moments used for the Wood-Armer calculations are computed as
below:
1 M2 M4
My x x (6.2-19)
2 W2 W4
1 My My
1 3
Mx (6.2-20)
2 W1 W3
It should be noted that the above transformation is only a valid approximation for a
small mesh skew angle. In the current implementation, however, the approach adopted
is that if the skew angle of the grillage is less or equal to 45 degrees, the moments are
transformed into the x direction; otherwise, the moments are transformed into the y
direction. If two elements are placed in such a way that both form angles smaller than
45 degrees or both form angles greater than 45 degrees (see fig.6.2-4a), the results
obtained for the Wood-Armer moments will be incorrect. An improved solution will be
obtained if the grillage elements are rotated to avoid this situation (see fig.6.2-4b). In
general, if a grillage analysis is carried out with skew angles of this magnitude the
Wood-Armer computations will be very inaccurate.
454
Post-Processing Facilities
y y
45o
45o
x x
(a) (b)
6.2.4 Assessment
There are two options available for assessing the load capacity of a structure that has
already been constructed. For the first assessment option, the k factor is not minimised
but is defined as an input parameter. This allows a particular slab with the position and
areas of reinforcement already established to be assessed to verify its ability to carry a
set of applied loads. In other words, although the amount of reinforcement in one
direction may be less than the minimum computed by the Wood-Armer equations, the
total reinforcement may still be enough to support the loads. For this approach to be
successful there must be some spare capacity in one of the reinforcement directions.
An alternative way of assessing the reinforcement is to use and input the actual
resistive forces, that would be known (for sub-sections of the slab), and to compute a
utility factor. This utility factor can also be used to assess the capability of the slab
to withstand a particular set of applied loads. The utility factor calculated in LUSAS is
based on the minimisation of the difference of the resistive force and the applied force
and is simply given as:
N
(6.2-22)
N*
Where N* and N are the resistive force and the applied force calculated at the angle
() where N* N is a minimum.
455
Theory Manual Volume 1
only be computed using the total applied load and cannot be applied to live loads in
isolation.
D 0 0 (6.3-2)
VT dv
1
U (6.3-3)
2
where
and are the total strains and stresses
D
is the modulus matrix
0 0
and are the initial strains and stresses.
For nonlinear materials the strain energy for the first increment is computed as for
elastic linear materials above. For subsequent increments the incremental strain energy
is given by
VTe c pr dv
1
U (6.3-4)
2
Similarly the incremental plastic work is given by
VTp c pr dv
1
PW (6.3-5)
2
where
e are the incremental elastic strains
456
Post-Processing Facilities
12 12 22 12
f () 2 (6.4-1)
X X Y S
It is assumed that the material strengths are equal in tension and compression.
where:
1 1 1 1 1 1
F1 , F2 , F6 ,
X X ' Y Y ' S S'
(6.4-3)
1 1 1
F11 , F22 and F66
X .X ' Y .Y ' S.S'
The uniaxial strength data is insufficient to determine the interaction coefficient F 12.
For its determination biaxial tests may be required, however, there are alternatives. For
generalised von Mises criteria (default setting in Modeller):
F11F22
F12 (6.4-4)
2
or Cowin proposed an interaction coefficient which includes shear terms derived as:
1
F12 F11 F22 (6.4-5)
2S2
457
Theory Manual Volume 1
where the coefficients F1, F2, F11, F22, and F66 are given by the Tasi-Wu definitions in
equation 6.4-3 and B12* is given by:
1
*
B12 (6.4-7)
2X.X'
These failure criteria predict failure when the function of the in-plane stress state f( )
exceeds a value of one. Though failure is predicted, it is not possible to differentiate
between the different failure mechanisms possible within composite laminates.
2
f x
2xy 2xz (6.4-8)
X S2
y z
f ( )
2
2xy 2xz 2yz y z (6.4-10)
2 S2
Y
f () Y 1
2 y z 2xy 2xz 2yz yz y z
2
2S Y
(6.4-11)
S2 4S2
458