laboratoire de techniques aéronautiques et spatiales (asma)
Post on 06-Jan-2016
49 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Laboratoire de Techniques Aéronautiques et Spatiales (ASMA)
Milieux Continus & Thermomécanique
Université de Liège Tel: +32-(0)4-366-91-26 Chemin des chevreuils 1 Fax: +32-(0)4-366-91-41 B-4000 Liège – Belgium Email : l.noels@ulg.ac.be
Contributions aux algorithmes d’intégration temporelle conservant l’énergie
en dynamique non-linéaire des structures.
Travail présenté par
Ludovic Noels(Ingénieur civil Electro-Mécanicien, Aspirant du F.N.R.S.)
Pour l’obtention du titre de
Docteur en Sciences Appliquées3 décembre 2004
Introduction Industrial problems
Industrial context:– Structures must be able to resist to crash situations– Numerical simulations is a key to design structures– Efficient time integration in the non-linear range is needed
Goal: – Numerical simulation of blade off and wind-
milling in a turboengine – Example from SNECMA
Introduction Original developments
Original developments in implicit time integration:– Energy-Momentum Conserving scheme for elasto-plastic model
(based on a hypo-elastic formalism)– Introduction of controlled numerical dissipation combined with
elasto-plasticity– 3D-generalization of the conserving contact formulation
Original developments in implicit/explicit combination:– Numerical stability during the shift
– Automatic shift criteria
Numerical validation:– On academic problems
– On semi-industrial problems
Scope of the presentation
1. Scientific motivations
2. Consistent scheme in the non-linear range
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithm
4. Complex numerical examples
5. Conclusions & perspectives
Scope of the presentation
1. Scientific motivations– Dynamics simulation
– Implicit algorithm: our opinion
– Conservation laws
– Explicit algorithms
– Implicit algorithms
– Numerical example: mass/spring-system
2. Consistent scheme in the non-linear range
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithm
4. Complex numerical examples
5. Conclusions & perspectives
1. Scientific motivationsDynamics simulations
Scientific context:– Solids mechanics
– Large displacements
– Large deformations
– Non-linear mechanics
extint FFxM
0
int0
V
T JdVDF
f
: Cauchy stress; F: deformation gradient; f = F-1;
: derivative of the shape function; J : Jacobian
0xD
Spatial discretization into finite elements:– Balance equation
– Internal forces formulation
1. Scientific motivationsDynamics simulations
Temporal integration of the balance equation 2 methods:
– Explicit method
– Implicit method
1,1deduction
1ionapproximat intext1
nxnxFFnx
nxnxnx
M
)1,,1,,(1
)1,,1,,(1iterations
1
1
1ionextrapolat
extint
nxnxnxnxnxfnxnxnxnxnxnxfnx
FFx
nxnxnx
nxnxnx
M
Very fast dynamics
Slower dynamics
• Non iterative• Limited needs in memory• Conditionally stable (small time step)
• Iterative• More needs in memory• Unconditionally stable (large time step)
1. Scientific motivationsImplicit algorithm: our opinion
If wave propagation effects are negligibleImplicit schemes are more suitable
– Sheet metal forming (springback, superplastic forming, …)– Crashworthiness simulations (car crash, blade loss, shock
absorber, …)
Nowadays, people choose explicit scheme mainly because of difficulties linked to implicit scheme:– Lack of smoothness (contact, elasto-plasticity, …)
convergence can be difficult– Lack of available methods (commercial codes)
Little room for improvement in explicit methods Complex problems can take advantage of combining explicit and implicit
algorithms
1. Scientific motivationsConservation laws
Conservation of linear momentum (Newton’s law)– Continuous dynamics
– Time discretization &
nodes
nnnodes nodes
nnnn Fxtxxxx ext2/12/111
MM
nodes
nnnnnnodes
nnnn xxFDWWxxxx ][2
1
2
11
ext2/1
intintint111
MM
nodes
nnodes
nn Ftxx ext2/11
MM
Wint: internal energy;
Wext: external energy;
Dint: dissipation (plasticity …)
extFt
x
M
extFxt
xx
M
intextint DWt
Wt
Kt
0int2/1
nodesnF
0int2/12/1
nodesnn Fx
nodes
nnnnn xxFDWW ][ 1int
2/1intintint
1
Conservation of angular momentum– Continuous dynamics
– Time discretization
&
Conservation of energy
– Continuous dynamics
– Time discretization &
1. Scientific motivations Explicit algorithms
Central difference (no numerical dissipation)
nMnnnM xFFMx 1 intext11
11 ² 2
1²
nnnnn xtxtxtxx
11 1 nnnn xtxtxx
int1
ext1
11
nnn FFMx
2/11 nnn xtxx
nnn xtxx 2/12/1
Hulbert & Chung (numerical dissipation) [CMAME, 1996]
Small time steps conservation conditions are approximated
Numerical oscillations may cause spurious plasticity
1. Scientific motivationsImplicit algorithms
-generalized family (Chung & Hulbert [JAM, 1993])
– Newmark relations:
nnnnn xtxtxx
tx ²
2
1
²
111
nnnnn xtxtxx
tx ²
2
1 1
11
01
1
1
1 extintext1
int11
nnF
Fnnn
F
Mn
F
M FFFFxMxM
– M = 0 and F = 0 (no numerical dissipation)• Linear range: consistency (i.e. physical results) demonstrated
• Non-linear range with small time steps: consistency verified
• Non-linear range with large time steps: total energy conserved but without consistency (e.g. plastic dissipation greater than the total energy, work of the normal contact forces > 0, …)
– M 0 and/or F 0 (numerical dissipation)• Numerical dissipation is proved to be positive only in the linear range
– Balance equation:
1. Scientific motivationsNumerical example: mass/spring-system
=10 m /s.
l =10 m0
²U l² =15 N /m/
m = 2 kg
x0
-20
-10
0
10
20
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (m)
Y (
m)
-20
-10
0
10
20
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (m)
Y (
m)
Example: Mass/spring system (2D) with an initial velocity perpendicular to the spring (Armero & Romero [CMAME, 1999])
– Newmark implicit scheme (no numerical damping)
– Chung-Hulbert implicit scheme (numerical damping)
t=1s t=1.5s t=1s t=1.5s
-20
-10
0
10
20
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (m)
Y (
m)
-20
-10
0
10
20
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (m)
Y (
m)
Explicit methodtcrit ~ 0.72s;
1 revolution ~ 4s
Scope of the presentation
1. Scientific motivations2. Consistent scheme in the non-linear range
– Principle– Dissipation property– The mass/spring system– Formulations in the literature: hyperelasticity– Formulations in the literature: contact– Developments for a hypoelastic model– Numerical example: Taylor bar– Numerical example: impact of two 2D-cylinders– Numerical example: impact of two 3D-cylinders
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithm4. Complex numerical examples5. Conclusions & perspectives
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range Principle
Consistent implicit algorithms in the non-linear range:
– The Energy Momentum Conserving Algorithm or EMCA
(Simo et al. [ZAMP 92], Gonzalez & Simo [CMAME 96]):
• Conservation of the linear momentum
• Conservation of the angular momentum
• Conservation of the energy (no numerical dissipation)
– The Energy Dissipative Momentum Conserving algorithm or
EDMC (Armero & Romero [CMAME, 2001]):
• Conservation of the linear momentum
• Conservation of the angular momentum
• Numerical dissipation of the energy is proved to be positive
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range Principle
0
02/1
02/1
02/1int
2/1V
nTnnn dVJDF
f ext
2/1nF
diss2/1nF
– EMCA:
• With and designed to verify
conserving equations• No dissipation forces and no dissipation velocities
t
xxxx nnnn
11
2
diss2/1
int2/1
ext2/1
1
2
nnnnn FFF
xxM
t
xxx
xx nnn
nn
1diss
11
2
– Balance equation
Based on the mid-point scheme (Simo et al. [ZAMP, 1992])
– Relations displacements/velocities/accelerations
diss1nx
– EDMC: • Same internal and external forces as in the EMCA
• With and designed to achieve positive numerical dissipation without spectral bifurcation
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range Dissipation property
Comparison of the spectral radius– Integration of a linear oscillator:
Low numerical dissipation High numerical dissipation
11
2
1 cosln
exp nnn ttt
x
: spectral radius;: pulsation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t
Sp
ectr
al r
adiu
s
CH implicitHHTNewmarkEDMC-1CH explicit
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t
Sp
ectr
al r
adiu
s
CH implicitHHTNewmarkEDMC-1CH explicit
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range The mass/spring system
-20
-10
0
10
20
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (m)
Y (
m)
Forces of the spring for any potential V
F n 1/ 2
int V (ln 1) V (ln )
ln 12 ln
2
x n 1
x n
– Without numerical dissipation (EMCA) (Gonzalez & Simo [CMAME, 1996])
– The consistency of the EMCA solution does not depend on t
– The Newmark solution does-not conserve the angular momentum
-250
-200
-150
-100
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
An
gu
lar
mo
me
ntu
m (
kg
m²/
s)
ConservingNewmark
EMCA, t=1s EMCA, t=1.5s
-20
-10
0
10
20
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (m)
Y (
m)
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range The mass/spring system
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
An
gu
lar
mo
men
tum
(kg
m²/
s)
EDMC
HHT
2
1
1
1diss1
nn
nn
nn
n
xx
xx
xxx
2
''1
1
21
diss2/1
1 nn
nn
llnlnl
n
xx
ll
VF
nn
– With numerical dissipation (EDMC 1st order ) with dissipation parameter 0< (Armero&Romero [CMAME, 2001]), here = 0.111
– Only EDMC solution preserves the driving motion:• The length tends towards the equilibrium length
• Conservation of the angular momentum is achieved
Length at rest
Equilibrium length
8
9
10
11
12
0 100 200 300 400 500Time (s)
Len
gth
(m
)
EDMC
HHT
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeFormulations in the literature: hyperelasticity
Hyperelastic material (stress derived from a potential V):– Saint Venant-Kirchhoff hyperelastic model (Simo et al. [ZAMP, 1992])
– General formulation for hyperelasticity (Gonzalez [CMAME, 2000]):
0xD
00),,(
2
100
2
100int
2/1
20
10
VdVD
O
pvmVf
nnV
nn
nF
nn
GLGL
GLGL
GL
FF
F: deformation gradient
GL: Green-Lagrange strain
V: potential
: shape functions
– Hyperelasticity with elasto-plastic behavior: energy dissipation of the algorithm corresponds to the internal dissipation of the material (Meng & Laursen [CMAME, 2001])
– Classical formulation:
00
int
VdVD
VF
GLF
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeFormulations in the literature: contact
Description of the contact interaction:n: normal
t: tangent
g: gap
Fcont: force
n
t
g<0
Fcont
Computation of the classical contact force:
– Penalty method
– Augmented Lagrangian method
– Lagrangian method
ngkF N
cont
ngknF Nk
)(cont
nF
cont
kN: penalty
: Lagrangian
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeFormulations in the literature: contact
– Computation of a dynamic gap for slave node x projected on master surface y(u)
)()( 2/12/1112/1dd
1 nnnnnnnnn uyuyxxngg
2/1dd
1
dd1cont
2/1
n
nn
nnn n
gg
gVgVF
Penalty contact formulation (normal force proportional to the penetration “gap”) (Armero & Petöcz [CMAME, 1998-1999]):
– Normal forces derived from a potential V
Augmented Lagrangian and Lagrangian consistent contact formulation (Chawla & Laursen [IJNME, 1997-1998]):– Computation of a gap rate
)()( 2/12/1112/1r
2/1 nnnnnnnn uyuyxxngt
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeDevelopments for a hypoelastic model
Hypoelastic model:– stress obtained incrementally from a hardening law– no possible definition of an internal potential!– Idea: the internal forces are
established to be consistent on a loading/unloading cycle
The EMCA or EDMC for hypoelastic constitutive model:– Valid for hypoelastic formulation of (visco) plasticity– Energy dissipation from the internal forces corresponds to the
plastic dissipation
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeDevelopments for a hypoelastic model
Incremental strain tensor:
E nn 1
1
2ln F
nn 1T
Fnn 1
E: natural strain tensor; F: deformation gradient
Elastic incremental stress:
nn 1 H : E n
n 1
: Cauchy stress; H: Hooke stress-strain tensor
Plastic stress corrections:(radial return mapping: Wilkins [MCP, 1964], Maenchen & Sack [MCP, 1964], Ponthot [IJP, 2002])
scnn 1
f ( vm, p )
sc: plastic corrections; vm: yield stress; p: equivalent plastic strain
Final Cauchy stresses: (final rotation scheme: Nagtegaal & Veldpaus [NAFP, 1984], Ponthot [IJP, 2002])
n 1 Rnn 1 n n
n 1 sc Rnn 1T
R: rotation tensor;
Classical forces formulation:
0
10
1int1 0V
Tnnn JdVDF
f
f = F-1; D derivative of the shape function; J : Jacobian
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeDevelopments for a hypoelastic model
00**1*1
4
1int2/1
110
10
VdVJDn
nJDnnnF nTnnnTnn
fCfIfCFI
111
10
int*
:
:/
n
nnn
nn
nplnn
nJDGL
GLGL
GLC
111
1110
int**
:
:/
n
nnn
nn
nplnn
nJDA
AA
AC
Dint: internal dissipation due to the plasticity; A: Almansi incremental strain tensor (A = Apl + Ael); GL: Green-Lagrange incremental strain (GL = GLpl + GLel)
EMCA (without numerical dissipation):
– New internal forces formulation:
– Correction terms C* and C**: (second order correction in
the plastic strain increment)
int2/1
ext2/1
1
2
nnnn FF
xxM
– Balance equation
F: deformation gradient; f: inverse of F; D derivative of the shape function; J : Jacobian = det F; : Cauchy stress
– Verification of the conservation laws
0int2/1
nodesnF
0int
2/12/1 nodes
nn Fx
cycle nodes
nnn xxFD ][ 1int
2/1int
&
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeDevelopments for a hypoelastic model
00
114
1diss2/1
10
**0
*
VdVDn
nDnnnF
TnTn fDfIfDFI
111
01el1el
*
:
::2
nnn
nnn
nnn
nn JH
GLGLGL
EED
111
10
1el1el**
:
::/2
nnn
nnn
nnn
nn JH
AAA
EED
EDMC (1st order accurate with numerical dissipation):
– New dissipation forces formulation:
– Dissipating terms D* and D**:
diss2/1
int2/1
ext2/1
1
2
nnnnn FFF
xxM
– Balance equation
– Verification of the conservation laws
0diss2/1
nodesnF
0diss
2/12/1 nodes
nn Fx
][][ 1diss
2/11diss
2/1num
nnnnodes
nnn xxxxxFD M
&
Dnum: numerical dissipation
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range Numerical example: Taylor bar
Impact of a cylinder :– Hypoelastic model
– Elasto-plastic hardening law
– Simulation during 80 µs
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeNumerical example: Taylor bar
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.1 1
Time step size (µs)
Inte
rnal
en
erg
y (J
)
Newmark
EMCA with corrections (C*, C**)
EMCA without corrections
0.1%
1.0%
10.0%
100.0%
1000.0%
0.1 1Time step size (µs)
Inte
rnal
en
erg
y er
ror
NewmarkEMCA with corrections (C*, C**)EMCA without correctionsSecond order
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.1 1
Time step size (µs)
New
ton
-Rap
hso
n i
tera
tio
ns
Newmark
EMCA with corrections (C*, C**)
EMCA without corrections
Simulation without numerical dissipation: final results
50
52
54
56
58
60
0.1 1Time step size (µs)
To
tal
ener
gy
(J)
NewmarkEMCA with corrections (C*, C**)EMCA without correctionsInitial energy
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeNumerical example: Taylor bar
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.1 1
Time step size (µs)
Inte
rnal
en
erg
y (J
)
NewmarkEDMC-1HHTCH
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Spectral radius at infinity pulsation
Inte
rnal
en
erg
y (J
)
NewmarkEDMC-1HHTCH
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Spectral radius at infinity pulsation
New
ton
-Rap
hso
n i
tera
tio
ns
NewmarkEDMC-1HHTCH
Simulations with numerical dissipation: final results
0.1%
1.0%
10.0%
100.0%
1000.0%
0.1 1
Time step size (µs)
Err
or
on
th
e in
tern
al e
ner
gy
Newmark EDMC-1HHT CHFirst order
– Constant spectral radius at infinity pulsation = 0.7
– Constant time step size = 0.5 µs
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range Numerical example: impact of two 2D-cylinders
Impact of 2 cylinders (Meng&Laursen) :– Left one has a initial velocity (initial kinetic energy 14J)
– Elasto perfectly plastic hypoelastic material
– Simulation during 4s
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeNumerical example: impact of two 2D-cylinders
Results comparison at the end of the simulationNewmark(t=1.875 ms)
Newmark(t=15 ms)
EMCA (with cor., t=1.875 ms)
EMCA (with cor., t=15 ms)
0 0.089 0.178 0.266 0.355Equivalent plastic strain Equivalent plastic strain
Equivalent plastic strain
0 0.090 0.180 0.269 0.359
0 0.305 0.609 0.914 1.22Equivalent plastic strain
0 0.094 0.187 0.281 0.374
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeNumerical example: impact of two 2D-cylinders
Results evolution comparison
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4Time (s)
En
erg
y p
last
ical
ly
dis
isp
ated
(J)
Newmark
EMCA
Meng & Laursen0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4Time (s)
En
erg
y p
last
ical
ly
dis
sip
ated
(J)
Newmark
EMCA
Meng & Laursen
-0.50
0.51
1.52
2.53
0 1 2 3 4Time (s)
Wo
rk o
f th
e co
nta
ct
forc
es (
J)Newmark
EMCA
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0 1 2 3 4Time (s)
Wo
rk o
f th
e c
on
tac
t f
orc
es
(J)
Newmark
EMCA
t=15 mst=1.875 ms
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear range Numerical example: impact of two 3D-cylinders
Impact of 2 hollow 3D-cylinders:– Right one has a initial
velocity (
)
– Elasto-plastic hypoelastic material (aluminum)
– Simulation during 5ms
– Use of numerical dissipation
– Frictional contact
xz
y
YX xx 00 10
2. Consistent scheme in the non linear rangeNumerical example: impact of two 3D-cylinders
– At the end of the simulation:
Results comparison with a reference (EMCA; t=0.5µs):– During the simulation:
25
50
75
100
0 0.0025 0.005
Time (s)
X-l
inea
r m
om
entu
m o
f ri
gh
t cy
lin
der
(kg
m/s
)
Reference
EDCM-1
HHT
0
50
100
150
200
0 0.0025 0.005
Time (s)
Z-a
ng
ula
r m
om
entu
m o
f ri
gh
t cy
lin
der
(kg
m²/
s)
Reference
EDCM-1
HHTx
zy x
zy
-5000
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
1 10Time step size (µs)
Wo
rk o
f fr
icti
on
al
con
tact
fo
rces
(J)
Reference
EDMC-1
HHT-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
1 10Time step size (µs)
En
erg
y n
um
eric
ally
d
issi
pat
ed (
%)
Reference
EDMC-1
HHT
Scope of the presentation
1. Scientific motivations
2. Consistent scheme in the non-linear range
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithm– Automatic shift– Initial implicit conditions– Numerical example: blade casing interaction
4. Complex numerical examples
5. Conclusions & perspectives
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithmAutomatic shift
Shift from an implicit algorithm to an explicit one:
– Evaluation of the ratio r*stepexplicit1
stepimplicit1*
CPU
CPUr
maxexpl
bt
5.21
intoldimpl
newimpl 2
Tol
e
t
t
expl
*
impltr
t
– Explicit time step size depends on the mesh
– Implicit time step size depends on the integration error (Géradin)
– Shift criterion
b: stability limit;
max: maximal eigen pulsation
eint: integration error; Tol: user tolerance
: user security
ref
2impl
3int e
xtxte
inodesi
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithmAutomatic shift
Shift from an explicit algorithm to an implicit one:
– Evaluation of the ratio r*
maxexpl
bt
expl*
impl trt
– Explicit time step size depends on the mesh
– Implicit time step size interpolated form a acceleration difference
– Shift criterion
b: stability limit;
max: maximal eigen pulsation
Tol: user tolerance
: user security
stepexplicit1
stepimplicit1*
CPU
CPUr
52
explrefimpl
2
x
teTolt
inodesi
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithmInitial implicit conditions
– Dissipation of the numerical modes: spectral radius at bifurcation equal to zero.
diss2/*
int2/*
ext2/*
*
2 rnrnrn
nrn FFFxx
M
Stabilization of the explicit solution:
– Consistent balance of the r* last explicit steps:
tn tn+r* tn+ r*+ 1
texp l
explic it im plic it
t im p l tim p l
tn -r*
d issipa tion balance
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithmNumerical example: blade casing interaction
Blade/casing interaction :– Rotation velocity
3333rpm
– Rotation center is moved during the first half revolution
– EDMC-1 algorithm
– Four revolutions simulation
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithmNumerical example: blade casing interaction
Final results comparison:
Explicit part of the combined method
0.0E+00
2.0E+05
4.0E+05
6.0E+05
8.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.2E+06
0 1 2 3 4Round
Co
nta
ct f
orc
e (N
)
Implicit (EDMC-1)
Combined
Explicit
050
100150200250300350400
CPU (min)
Implicit (EDMC-1) Combined
Explicit
Scope of the presentation
1. Scientific motivations
2. Consistent scheme in the non-linear range
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithm
4. Complex numerical examples– Blade off simulation
– Dynamic buckling of square aluminum tubes
5. Conclusions & perspectives
4. Complex numerical examplesBlade off simulation
Numerical simulation of a blade loss in an aero engine
casing
blades
disk
bearing
flexible shaft
Front view
Back view
0 680 1360
Von Mises stress (Mpa)
4. Complex numerical examplesBlade off simulation
Blade off :– Rotation velocity
5000rpm
– EDMC algorithm
– 29000 dof’s
– One revolution simulation
– 9000 time steps
– 50000 iterations (only 9000 with stiffness matrix updating)
4. Complex numerical examplesBlade off simulation
Final results comparison:
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Round
Fo
rce
on
bea
rin
g (
N)
Implicit (EDMC-1)
Combined
Explicit
CPU time comparison before and after code optimization:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CPU (days)
Implicit (EDMC-1)CombinedExplicit
Before optimization After optimization
0
1500000
3000000
4500000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Round
Fo
rce
on
cas
ing
(N
)
Implicit (EDMC-1)
Combined
Explicit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CPU (days)
Implicit (EDMC-1)CombinedExplicit
4. Complex numerical examplesDynamic buckling of square aluminum tubes
98.27 m/s 64.62 m/s 25.34 m/s 14.84 m/sImpact velocity :
Absorption of 600J with different impact velocities : – EDMC algorithm– 16000 dof’s / 2640 elements– Initial asymmetry– Comparison with the
experimental results of Yang, Jones and Karagiozova [IJIE, 2004]
4. Complex numerical examplesDynamic buckling of square aluminum tubes
Final results comparison:
Time evolution for the 14.84 m/s impact velocity:Explicit part of the combined method
-6000
-4500
-3000
-1500
0
0.0E+00 4.0E-03 8.0E-03 1.2E-02
Time (s)
Fo
rce
on
1/4
of
the
tub
e (N
)
Implicit (EDMC-1)
Combined
Explicit
1.0E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
0.0E+00 4.0E-03 8.0E-03 1.2E-02
Time (s)
Tim
e st
ep (
s)
Implicit (EDMC-1) Combined Explicit
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
14.84 25.34 64.62 98.27
Impact velocity (m/s)
CP
U (
day
s)
Implicit (EDMC-1)CombinedExplicit
0
20
40
60
80
14.84 25.34 64.62 98.27
Impact velocity (m/s)
Cru
shin
g d
ista
nce
(m
m)
Implicit (EDMC-1)CombinedExplicitExperimental (Yang)Jones et al (shells, explicit)
Scope of the presentation
1. Scientific motivations
2. Consistent scheme in the non-linear range
3. Combined implicit/explicit algorithm
4. Complex numerical examples
5. Conclusions & perspectives
– Improvements
– Advantages of new developments
– Drawbacks of new developments
– Futures works
Original developments in consistent implicit schemes:– New formulation of elasto-plastic internal forces
– Controlled numerical dissipation
– Ability to simulate complex problems (blade-off, buckling)
5. Conclusions & perspectivesImprovements
Original developments in implicit/explicit combination:– Stable and accurate shifts
– Automatic shift criteria
– Reduction of CPU cost for complex problems (blade-off, buckling)
Advantages of the consistent scheme:– Conservation laws and physical consistency are verified for each
time step size in the non-linear range
– Conservation of angular momentum even if numerical dissipation is introduced
Advantages of the implicit/explicit combined scheme:– Reduction of the CPU cost– Automatic algorithms– No lack of accuracy– Remains available after code optimizations
5. Conclusions & perspectivesAdvantages of new developments
Drawbacks of the consistent scheme:– Mathematical developments needed for each element, material…
– More complex to implement
5. Conclusions & perspectivesDrawbacks of new developments
Drawback of the implicit/explicit combined scheme:– Implicit and explicit elements must have the same formulation
5. Conclusions & perspectivesFuture works
Development of a second order accurate EDMC scheme Extension to a hyper-elastic model based on an
incremental potential Development of a thermo-mechanical consistent scheme Modelization of wind-milling in a turbo-engine ...
Laboratoire de Techniques Aéronautiques et Spatiales (ASMA)
Milieux Continus & Thermomécanique
Université de Liège Tel: +32-(0)4-366-91-26 Chemin des chevreuils 1 Fax: +32-(0)4-366-91-41 B-4000 Liège – Belgium Email : l.noels@ulg.ac.be
Merci de votre attention
top related