Code_Aster Nonlinear Transient Dynamics Course

Code_Aster, Salome-Meca course material
GNU FDL licence (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

Non-linear transient dynamics analysis
DYNA_NON_LINE
2 - Code_Aster and Salome-Meca course material GNU FDL Licence
Introduction to non-linear transient computing
for structural dynamics
Different kind of nonlinearities
Constitutive laws, large displacements, contact
Spatial description
Direct (physical DoF) or modal projection
Nonlinear direct dynamics in Code_Aster
Syntax of the DYNA_NON_LINE operator
Differences between STAT_NON_LINE and DYNA_NON_LINE
Damping representation
Some advices for a proper use of DYNA_NON_LINE
Numerical applications
Different sort of non-linearities (1)
Contact-friction
Single DoF oscillator with perfect plasticity constitutive relation
Shock oscillator
Large transformations: pendulum
k
F < Fs
M
M x F sign x k x F
ext s
. && ( ) * min( . , ) =
Fext
+
= gap x k x k F x M
c ext
. . & &
Fext
I M g M g .
&&
. . sin . . (
!
. .. )

= +
3 5
6 5

Nonlinear constitutive relations
Plasticity (steel)
Viscoplasticity (steel)
Norton
Hoff - Rabotnov - Lematre
Damage (concrete)
Rabotnov - Kachanov
Chaboche
d d d
e p
= +
d d
f
p

=
( ) T V G
F
i p p
, , or
= =
& &
( ) ( )
i ext
V D F f D D E E , , with 1
~
= =
&
Nonlinear behavior for Civil Engineering dynamics computations
Global law for reinforced concrete shell elements: GLRC (R7.01.32)
Parameters identification: DEFI_GLRC (U4.42.06)
Compatible with excentered reinforcements finite-elements
Beams and columns: PMF (multifiber beam elements) with suitable constitutive relations
(MAZARS, LABORD_1D)
( ) T V G
F
i p p
, , or
= =
& &
Large transformations
Large displacements: Green-Lagrange strain tensor (when > few %)
Several formulations (unlike small perturbations)
Lagrangian, based on the Green-Lagrange strain tensor ans the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor
Eulerian, based on the Almansi (strain) and the Cauchy (stress) tensors
Updated lagrangian formulation (for fast transient dynamics): simple but can be inaccurate (curvature effects in
shells / membrane effects)
ij
i
j
j
i
k
i
k
j
u
x
u
x
u
x
u
x
= + +
|
\
|
|
1
2
.
From linear to non-linear analysis
Governing FE equations, at each time step:
Tangent stiffness operator K
T
(constitutive relations): nonlinear
Cut-off frequency can be difficult to define
Not only dependent of sollicitations and linear eigenmodes
Eigenfrequency are variables
Nonlinear modal analysis
ext
F x x x = + + . . .
T
K C M
& & &
Numerical methods for non-linear analysis
Direct transient response with DYNA_NON_LINE
Localized non-linearities: shocks, friction
Limited size of the discretized system (< 500,000 DoF)
Non-linear constitutive relations: plasticity, damage
Geometric nonlinearities: large displacements
Implicit time integrators: Newmark family, HHT, Krenk, -method
Explicit time integration schemes: central difference, Tchamwa-Wielgosz
Modal transient response with DYNA_VIBRA
Only localized nonlinearities (quasilinear system)
Low frequency responses
Modal reduction for fast computation
Explicit time schemes: Euler, De Vogelre, adaptive
Implicit time schemes: Newmark
Nonlinearities as internal forces:
full implicit representation
Nonlinearities in right hand terms of
equations: explicit representation
Numerical methods for nonlinear analysis (1)
Modal decomposition (RITZ)
Moderate and localized nonlinearities (most of the structure remains linear)
Low frequency phenomenon
Direct transient method (test-case sdld31a)
Implicit time schemes: often used
Global and strong nonlinearities
Medium to large size (available parallelized solvers) and medium frequency phenomenon
Explicit (fast transient dynamics): specific computations with Code_Aster
Global and strong nonlinearities, except some contact algorithm
Medium sized problems (suboptimal code optimization for explicit) and high frequency phenomenon (wave
propagations)
When implicit solving does not converge
Numerical methods for nonlinear analysis (2)
NEWMARK time integration family
Linear equilibrium equation
Displacement Speed Acceleration
=1/2
Unstable
zone
Conditional
stability
Unconditional
stability
=(+1/2)
2
/4
0
Average acc.
Linear acc.
Fox Goodwin
Central diff.
( )
+ =
|
\
|
+ + =
+ =
+ =
+ +
+ +
. U 1 t U U
, U
2
1
t U t U U
avec
, U t U U
, U t U U
n n n
p
n
2
n n n
p
1 n n
p
1 n
1 n
2
n
p
1 n
& & & &
& & &
& & & &
& &

+

+
+
+
. U
t
1
F B
,
t
t
U X
n
p
2
ext
1 n
2
2
1 n
M
K M
A

+

+
+
+
. U
t
1
U F B
,
t
t
U X
n
p
n
p ext
1 n
2
1 n
&
&
M K
K M
A
+
+
. U F B
, t
U X
n
p ext
1 n
2
1 n
K
K M A
& &
Numerical methods (3)
Implicit direct transient dynamics
HHT scheme (Hilber-Hughes-Taylor 1977)
Numerical dissipation in high frequency domain, second order accuracy
Based on a Newmark scheme: modified average acceleration (first order)
Modification of equilibrium equation: average between t
n
and t
n+1
:
Linear equilibrium solving:
Krenk scheme: similar to -method (order 1)
Parameter ~ 2 . (no dissipation for = 1, increasing with )
3 , 0 0
( )
4
1
2
+
=
+ =
2
1
( ) ( )
ext
n
ext
1 n
int
n
int
1 n 1 n
F F 1 F F 1 U + = + +
+ + +
& &
M
( )
( )
+ =
+
=
+ =
+
=
=
+
+
+
.
1
1
1
,
1
: with
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
n
ext
n n
p ext
n
n
p ext
n
n
U F U
t
F B
t
t
HHT
U
t
F B
t
t
Newmark
B U
K M
K M
A
M
K M
A
A


Numerical damping due to time integration scheme (test-case
sdld31a)
t
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Acc. moy. mod. (=0.05)
HHT (=0.1)
Acc. moy. (=0)
HHT (=0.05)
HHT (=0.01)
Solving with nested loops algorithm
Time loop (like linear case)
NEWTION iterations (like STAT_NON_LINE operator)
K
(X
i
t+dt
) +
K
(X
i
t+dt
). X =
R
X
i+l
t+dt
= X
i
t+dt
+ X
Itrations matrice constante Itrations matrice tangente
Non convergence des itrations Convergence des itrations
matrice constante matrice tangente
Equilibrium verified at each time step
Explicit scheme: the NEWTON loop disappears
Constitutive relation solving (local loops: at each Gauss point)
Repeat until convergence
K(X
i
t+dt
). X = R - K(X
i
t+dt
)
X
i+l
t+dt
= X
i
t+dt
+ X
Explicit direct transient dynamics
Time integration schemes and solving method
Central difference (from Newmark family with = 0 and = 1/2):
no dissipation
Conditional stability: critical time step (CFL condition)
Tchamwa-Wielgosz: HF dissipation (like HHT)
Parameter: = 1.05 (default value)
= 1 : no damping (but not equivalent to central difference)
Acceleration is the primal unknown for equilibrium resolution
Solving operator = mass matrix (lumped for numerical efficiency)
t
crit
= 2 /
max
with
max
: higher eigen pulsation of the discretized system
Other interpretation: t
crit
~ l
min EF
/ c with:
l
min FE
: smallest caracteristic length
c : wave celerity (traction : c
2
= E / )
DYNA_NON_LINE operator syntax
Like STAT_NON_LINE, DYNA_NON_LINE arguments are non-assembled matrices and vectors,
unlike linear dynamics operators (DYNA_LINE_TRAN or DYNA_TRAN_MODAL...)
Before DYNA_NON_LINE
Boundary conditions definition
Constitutive relation: COMP_INCR (/ COMP_ELAS)
Strain tensor: PETIT / PETIT_REAC / GROT_GDEP / SIMO_MIEHE /
GDEF_HYPO_ELAS / GREEN_REAC / GDEF_LOG
Initial conditions
Options for the Newton algorithm
Convergence criterion
Solver choice (direct or iterative / sequential or parallel)
Time integration scheme
(Eigenvalues calculation on tangent updated matrices)
Options for results storage
After DYNA_NON_LINE
Damping representation (1)
Rayleigh damping (for each material)
C = .K + .M (well suited for linear modal dynamics)
Defined with DEFI_MATERIAU and AMOR_ALPHA = , AMOR_BETA =
Relation with modal damping coefficient: 2 () = / + .
Choice for the stiffness matrix K:
AMOR_RAYL_RIGI = 'TANGENTE' (default) or 'ELASTIQUE'
ELASTIQUE: for elastic matrix: keeps constant Rayleigh damping (best choice for GLRC)
TANGENTE: for tangent matrix: Rayleigh damping decreases when nonlinearities appear, due to constitutive
relation
Modal damping:
with: a
i
= 2
i
/ (k
i
/
i
)
Syntax
AMOR_MODAL(
MODE_MECA = mode, (eigenmodes)
AMOR_REDUIT = l_amor, [l_R] (
i
list)
REAC_VITE = OUI, [DEFAUT] (update at each Newtons iteration, or not)
)
Remark: Modal analysis on the linear system needed before NL calculation
( )( )
C a K K i i
i
N
i
T
=
=

1
mod
Localized dampers: dashpots
Affected on discrete elements (POI1 or SEG2): in AFFE_MODELE
MODELISATION = DIS_T / DIS_TR
Damping values with AFFE_CARA_ELEM, keyword: DISCRET
CARA = A_T_D_N / A_TR_D_N / A_T_D_L
Remark
Those dashpots are taken into account in DNL only if AMOR_ALPHA is defined
(even if its value is 0), except in NEW11 release (11.2.7 version or above)
Absorbing boundaries (half-space media)
Defined on some boundaries, using AFFE_MODELE
MODELISATION = '3D_ABSO'
Numerical damping due to time integration scheme
Newmark: modified average acceleration (HHT and
MODI_EQUI='NON')
= (1)
2
/4 ; = 1/2
Parameter: (ALPHA = -0.3 as default value)
= 0: average acceleration (NEWMARK): undamped and 2
nd
order accuracy
Damping increases when decreases and only first order accuracy
Full HHT (HHT with MODI_EQUI='OUI')
Same parameter: (ALPHA = -0.3 as default value)
= 0: average acceleration (NEWMARK): undamped and second order
Damping increases when decreases and remains second order
Numerical damping due to time integration scheme (cont.)
-method or Krenk (THETA_METHODE or KRENK)
Parameters: ~ 2 . (undamped if = 1, damping increasing with )
Well suited for nonregular problems (first order accuracy)
Tchamwa-Wielgosz (explicit):
Parameter: (PHI = 1.05 as default): no dissipation if PHI = 1
Numerical damping due to time integration scheme (cont.)
Damping representation for a 1 DoF linear system
Idea: HF damping and no damping in LF range
Complementary to structural damping (Rayleigh)
t
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
HHT (=0.1)
Acc. moy. (=0)
HHT (=0.05)
HHT (=0.01)
Some advice for a proper use of
DYNA_NON_LINE
Read Reference documentations (at least R5.05.05)
Read documentation U2.06.13
If loadings are time dependent (for instance: accelerograms in
seismic analysis)
Sufficiently regular functions:
Sampling is correct (small time steps)
C
2
, or at least C
1
Avoid some quasi-static artifices like excessively stiff materials
(often used as simplified representation of reinforcements)
DYNA_NON_LINE (cont.)
Initial conditions
Non-regular loadings: artificial oscillations
Computing from an initial static pre-stressed state (effect of gravity)
First step: quasi-static calculation with STAT_NON_LINE
Time step value: very strong physical meaning
Criterion based on desired cut-off frequency
Criterion based on prescribed conditions
Criterion based on wave propagation: Courant condition
Stability condition for explicit time schemes
Damping/dissipation: in this order
Material (behavior) dissipation
Dissipation in links, joints and assemblies (friction)
Modal damping (values from experiments)
Rayleigh damping (often fitted on modal damping values)
HF damping from the time scheme (if needed)
Time integration scheme choice (test-case sdld31a)
Implicit: often the best choice in Code_Aster
Low to medium frequency problems
Tight respect of equilibrium (can leads to convergence problems)
Almost all the quasistatic methods are available (except continuation)
Different time schemes: Newmark family, Full HHT, Krenk, -method
Explicit: fast dynamics (wave propagations): CPU time consuming
High frequency problems
Stability conditions (named Courant or CFL): T ~ l
min EF
/ c
No convergence problem (if CFL is insured) but the numerical solution accuracy has to be checked
HF dissipation: HHT or Tchamwa-Wielgosz
Specificities of explicit computations
Stability condition (CFL): T ~ l
min EF
/ c
Solving using acceleration (unlike displacement used with implicit schemes)
Mass matrix inversion: lumping is recommended
Displacement boundary conditions (Dirichlet) are expressed in acceleration terms
Rayleigh damping
Only proportional to the mass matrix (stiffness proportional terms tends to lower the CFL condition value)
Computational efficiency is low with Code_Aster (compared to specialized codes like LS-
DYNA or EUROPLEXUS), except with modal reduction
No exact contact algorithm: only penalization method
Chaining operators
STAT_NON_LINE DYNA_NON_LINE: OK
DYNA_NON_LINE implicit explicit: OK
DYNA_NON_LINE explicit implicit: MACRO_BASCULE_SCHEMA (cf. sdnv100j) because
a specific balancing algorithm has to be used, in order to avoid artificial numerical
oscillations
Post-processing and results storage
Syntax: like STAT_NON_LINE (with the addition of velocity and acceleration fields)
Feature: large number of time steps: filtering of storage
Archiving: storage of full fields only for some time steps
Explicit time schemes: archiving time step / computation time step = 10 to 100
Implicit time scheme: archiving time step / computation time step = 1 to 10
Observation: storage of evolutions on some nodes of the model (at each time step)
Straight transient solution: Friction problem
Friction block with a spring (test-case SDND100)
F
t
=10, F
n
=1, U
0
=8.5E-4, Xloc=Z
k
m
U0
gap k g M F
n n
= =
F F
t n
=
M X K X F
T T
N
&&
+ =
Different NL transient studies (1)
Piping
Plasticity (on beam or pipe FE)
Raft uplift
Shocks with friction
Initial state computed with STAT_NON_LINE
Cables pinching
Shocks and large displacements
Initial state computed with STAT_NON_LINE
Concrete buildings or dams
Damage in concrete (ENDO_ISOT_BETON) and plasticity in steel
Global laws like GLRC (shell elements)
Soil-structure interaction
Deconvolution
Raft uplift
Fluid-structure interaction
Added masses
Sloshing effects
Nonlinear soil behavior
Large steel tanks: buckling with FSI using DYNA_NON_LINE
Steel plasticity + orthotropic carbon fiber reinforcements
Acoustic fluid (compressible and inviscid) with free surface
Large displacements and structural instability: buckling
R
nom.
=5,7 m
2 m
2 m
2 m
2 m
2,005 m
10,12 m
16 m
2,005 m
2,005 m
1,985 m
Max. water
level
=15,7 m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bolts for
fastening
Ring 1
Ring 2
Conical top
8
AMPLITUDE
67.
Buckling mode
(push-over method)
Large steel tanks: buckling with FSI using DYNA_NON_LINE
FSI coupled model (u,p,) formulation (Ohayon)
Pressure values on deformed shape (amplified) of fluid domain
T = 0,1 s T = 1 s T = 3 s
Temps
A
c
c
l
ra
tio
n
(g
)
EDF
Electricit
deFrance
Dpartement Analyses Mcaniques et Acoustique
Acclrogramme
agraf 09/02/2005 (c) EDF/DER1992-1999
Acclration
- 1.0
- 0.8
- 0.6
- 0.4
- 0.2
0. 0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Circular tunnel excavation
Soil constitutive relation: Drucker-Prager
Convergence is very difficult with an implicit method (STAT_NON_LINE or
DYNA_NON_LINE)
Explicit pseudo-dynamic method (increased mass terms)
Loading: deconfinement
2D mesh: from 1,500 to 60,000 nodes
R = 3m
57 m
57 m
X
Y
Keystone
Right foot
Circular tunnel excavation
Some results
Quasi-static method: convergence until 94-96 % of deconfinement
Explicit method: 99 % deconfinement reached
0,0E+00
1,0E+05
2,0E+05
3,0E+05
4,0E+05
5,0E+05
6,0E+05
7,0E+05
8,0E+05
9,0E+05
0,6 0,65 0,7 0,75 0,8 0,85 0,9 0,95 1
taux de dconfinement
t
e
m
p
s

C
P
U

c
o
n
s
o
m
m

(
s
)
M1 : HHT
M4 : HHT
M1 : STAT
M4 : STAT
M4 : DIFF_CENT en poursuite de STAT
M4 : DIFF_CENT en poursuite de HHT
M2c : DIFF_CENT en poursuite de STAT
M2c : STAT : M2c
Shear bands
CPU time comparison
Structure in large rotations
Pivot link in the up and left corner
Subject to gravity
No damping
2 schemes are compared
Central difference (explicit)
Average acc. (implicit)
Evolutions in Code_Aster
Computations control: energetic balance analysis
Damping enhancements
Rayleigh (other stiffness matrix choice: secant)
Dissipation control during transient computation
Time step adaptation
Event driven
CFL updating during computation
Distributed computations (at solver level with MUMPS, PETSc,
FETI, or with transient subdomain methods)
For more information
http://www.code-aster.org
Other Code_Aster training
Nonlinear methods (focused on constitutive relations, XFEM, contact)
Dynamics
Documentations: R5.05.05, U4.53.01, U2.06.13, U2.06.10,
R7.01.32 (GLRC)
Test-cases (names beginning with sdn of fdn)
Book
Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis - A Short course taught by T. J. R. HUGHES and T.
BELYTSCHKO - Zace Services Ltd - ICE Division
End of presentation
Is something missing or unclear in this document?
Or feeling happy to have read such a clear tutorial?
Please, we welcome any feedbacks about Code_Aster training materials.
Do not hesitate to share with us your comments on the Code_Aster forum
dedicated thread.

Code_Aster Nonlinear Transient Dynamics Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Code_Aster Nonlinear Transient Dynamics Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Code_Aster, Salome-Meca course material

GNU FDL licence (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

4 - Code_Aster and Salome-Meca course material GNU FDL Licence

12 - Code_Aster and Salome-Meca course material GNU FDL Licence

You might also like