Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Structural Optimization 18, 173-182 @ Springer-Verlag 1999

Efficient sensitivity analysis and optimization of shell structures by the ABAQUS code

W.H. Zhang and M. Domaszewski

Laboratory of Modelling in Mechanics, Polytechnic Institute of Sevenans, F-90010 Belfort, France

Abstract In this paper, a new efficient sensitivity analysis procedure is presented for the optimization of shell structures without access to the finite element source code. It is devised as a general interface tool to extend existing finite element systems from pure structural analysis to design capability. The implemen- tation is performed based on the ABAQUS code. Kirchhoff flat shell elements are taken into account in the study with the el- ement thickness as design variables. To ensure the performance and the validity of the proposed procedure, satisfactory sensitivity and optimization results are illustrated for numerical examples.

1

Introduction

Historically, structural optimization systems are organised by integrating sequentially three basic parts into one mod- ule: finite element analysis, sensitivity analysis and optimiza- tion algorithms. This scheme is not applicable for program users to extend commercial finite element systems such as ABAQUS from pure analysis capability to design optimiza- tion due to the lack of the source code. From this point of view, an alternative approach discussed here is to adopt the open and modular architecture with the separation of the three parts above. Data flows will be transferred be- tween corresponding databases. This separation can make full use of advanced analysis capabilities of existing finite ele- ment systems. We do not need to know about computational methods used inside or intermediate steps. The FE system can be considered as a black box. Our concern lies in whether finite element analysis results in the database are complete and how they can be suitably employed for sensitivity com- putations. As is known, shells are widely applied in the construction of aerospace, automotive and civil engineering structures such as an arc dam, a cooling tower, a barrel vault and so on. they belong to a particular form of a three-dimensional solid. The thickness of such structures is very small as compared with other dimensions so that complete three-dimensional compu- tations are not needed. Flat shell elements considered here are defined as a combination of membrane and thin Kirch- hoff plate elements. Geometrically, nodes of each element are coplanar. Due to the assumption that sections normal to the middle plane remain plane during the deformation, shear effects are neglected so that the resulting in-plane and bend- ing deformations are independent and a plane stress state is retained.

Despite the discretization error, numerical experience re- ported by Zienkiewicz and Taylor (1991) shows that satis- factory results can indeed be obtained and that convergence could occur as continuously curved shell structures are ade- quately discretized as an assembly of flat shell elements and the subdivision of finite element mesh is refined. In addi- tion, it is necessary to mention that shell elements are very representative in type. Bar, membrane, beam and plate ele- ments can be considered as the degeneration or simplification of shell elements in the limiting cases of dimensions and/or loading. Therefore, the formulations presented below can also be extended to other types of elements.

The sizing optimum design of plate and shell structures is one of the important problems. Haftka and Prasad (1981) surveyed previous work. Yu et al. (1991) proposed a stepped reduction method in the study of thin cylindrical shells with arbitrary axisymetrical boundary conditions and distributed loads. This method permits us to establish the closed re- lations between the deflection and shell thickness design variables for compliance minimization and the rain max of deflection designs. Leal and Mota Soares (1989) as well as Yamazaki and Vanderplaats (1993) adopted the inside- implementation approach for sensitivity analysis of eight- node isoparametric plate and shell elements based on the Reissner-Mindlin theory. Vanderplaats and Thomas (1993) presented a high-quality approximation for stress in plate structures based on the intermediate approximation of ele- ment forces. Recently, Bendsee and Diaz (1993) discussed the minimum compliance design of Mindlin plate of fixed thick- ness and variable material in the context of topology opti- mization. In dynamic design, Grandhi and Bharatram (1992) proposed a generalized compound scaling algorithm with el- ement thickness design variables for the weight minimization involving multiple frequency constraints. Barthelemy et al. (1988) studied the accuracy problems associated with semian- alytical (SA) derivatives of static response. It was found that the inaccuracy of the SA design sensitivities depends on both the number of elements and the step size. The accuracy of the pseudo-load vector computing is strongly influenced by the rigid body motion of the individual elements. The previous work of Santos and Choi (1988) was oriented to build up the continuous sensitivity analysis approach based on the contin- uum equations of elasticity. It was coupled with the ANSYS system but with the need of shape functions for the compu- tation of adjoint loads. Barthelemy and Hall (1995) studied the use of automatic differentiation for a given finite element

174

analysis program. This method proceeds by identifying firstly dependent and independent variables and then implementing the chain rule of differentiation into the program. Obviously, the finite element analysis program should be available. Sen- sitivity analysis was interfaced with ABAQUS code for bar and plane stress elements by Zhang and Domaszewski (1998). In this paper, an extension is made to sensitivity analysis and optimization of thin shell structures.

2 Sensitivity analysis of shell elements

For linear static problems, recall that the discrete finite ele- ment equation system corresponds to

KU

=

F,

(1)

where K is the global stiffness matrix; U is the

vector of

nodal displacements to be calculated and F is the vector of external loads. Sensitivity analysis can be directly carried out using the direct differentiation method (DDM) to obtain the sensitivity of the displacement vector

3U

_

with

Fp, i

-

K-

cgF

cgti

1 (OF ~/

OK

cgti U.

~Ku~ ~/

./ = K-1Fp,i,

(2)

The intermediate term Fp, i is called the pseudo-load vec-

tor; t i denotes the thickness of the flat shell element i.

comparison between (2) and (1) shows that the sensitivity of displacement vector is in fact the displacement caused by the pseudo-ioad. The first term ~ can often he omitted if the exterior force, e.g. the surface pressure, is invariant with respect to the thickness of the element. The derivative of the global stiffness matrix in the second term of the pseudo-load expression can be reduced as the derivative of the stiffness matrix of the element i, so that

The

s

,i

=

-

OK

ot

u

=

0ki U.

-

,.

(3)

Due to the assumption of independent deformations of the in-plane membrane and the thin bending plate, the stiffness matrix of the flat shell element is diagonal and composed of in-plane stiffness and bending stiffness, which can be written as the multiplication of constant matrices by element thick- ness of the first and third-order, respectively,

kb(t~)

=

0

ta~b

.

(4)

Suppose that the element plane is situated parallel to the xy plane of the global system. This means that the bending force is oriented in the z direction. According to (3) and (4), we now have

Fp'i

=

-

[<0Q-

0

kb

3T[

lgi =

with

(5)

~c

~

Note that r _ (r162162

=

.~

T

4,m

m

=(r162162

rn

m

are

internal node force and moment vectors of the element i. From (5), it can be concluded that the pseudo-load vector can be easily computed by scaling internal node force and mo- ment vectors. The element stiffness matrix as well as shape functions are not required. Because shell elements are subject generally to both bend- ing and in-plane stresses, the maximum values of the lat- ter take place in the upper and lower layer of the element

Therefore, stress sensitivity analysis can be

limited only in these two extremity layers. Detailed compu- tations are described in the Appendix.

z

=

~

ti/2.

3

Numerical

examples

Two shell panels are studied for sizing optimization. The op- timization algorithm GMMA (Generalized Method of Mov- ing Asymptotes) is used for numerical solutions of problems. This is a first-order convex approximation method. The input data of the objective function and constraint values come di- rectly from ABAQUS analysis results. Sensitivities are com- puted by the procedure proposed above.

3.1

Square

plane

panel

The problem is shown in Fig. 1. The panel is subject to

a concentrated load F at the central point Q. Symmetric

fixation conditions will be imposed along the edges of the panel. For this reason, only a quarter of the structure will be studied. The mesh is composed of 5 * 5 four-node SdR shell elements of the ABAQUS library. The thickness of each element is considered as one design variable. Initial data are

in, initial thickness: t O = 1 in,

psi,

v =

4* 104 lb, stress limit: O-vm <_ 25000 psi,

lower bound: t_ = 0.1 in; physical properties: E = 107

as follows: AB

=

BC

=

20

0.3; loads: F

=

displacement limit: lUzl < 1 in. Solutions are firstly carried by the following formulation:

min FTu,

V<_V

~ ,

t i<t i, i=1,25.

The minimization of the compliance aims at ensuring the rigidity of the design. It is equivalent to the minimization of the amplitude of the vertical displacement of the point Q in our problem. The volume is limited by its initial value. Four fixation conditions are studied for the panel ABCD.

1. Two edges AB

and CD

are clamped.

2. Same fixations but with the presence of holes on the ele-

ment ll

and symmetric positions.

Q

5

10

15

20

4

9

14

19

3

8

13

18

2

7

12

17

1

6

1l

16

25

24

23

22

21

C

B

Fig.

1. Plane shell panel problem

 

3.

Four edges AB,

BC,

CD and AD

are clamped.

4.

Four corners A, B, C and D are simply supported.

The results of the design variables are given in Table 1 and plotted in Figs. 2 to 5. The first case gives rise to a beam- like solution or a stiffened panel of minimum thickness. The hole is bypassed in the second cases, stiffeners are obtained along the shortest symmetric lines in the third one. In the last case, materials are distributed along the diagonal line. It can be concluded that materials are concentrated along the shortest path from the loading point to the foundation due to the volume limitation. To validate stress sensitivity computations, suppose an additional distributing traction load Fz = 600 lb/in is si- multaneously applied along the edge BC and AD together with F at the point Q. The edges AB and CD are clamped. As a result, von Mises stresses and the sensitivities are no longer equal for the same point on the upper and lower lay- ers. As indicated in Table 2, sensitivity results by the cur- rent method and those computed by finite difference method demonstrate good agreement when tests are made with re- spect to the thickness of the first element by varying the step size. Furthermore, if the weight mimization is made subject to the constraints to the vertical displacement of point Q as well as to the von Mises stresses at Gauss points of all ele- ments, the final solution leads to the thickness distribution shown in Fig. 6.

3.2 Weight minimization design of a curved shell panel

175

Fig. 2. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 1)

Fig. 3. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 2)

Fig. 4. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 3)

of 38

a

Due

set

design

variables

is defined,

each

of which

and

CD

3 * 10-3

consists

are clamped.

1,

it

of

is

of 9 elements.

to the

fact that

Two

the ratio to/R

edges AB

=

<<

The problem is shown in Fig. 7. Optimization will be carried

reasonable to use elements based on thin shell theory in this

out to minimize the weight of the panel subject to von Mises

application.

Initial data

are as follows.

Radius:

R

=

300 in,

stress constraints for all elements on the upper and lower

length:

AB

=

CD

=

600 in, open

angle:

0

=

80~, initial

layers. A quarter of the whole panel is considered due to

thickness:

t O

=

1

in,

lower

bound:

t

=

0.01

in,

physical

symmetry. The finite element mesh is defined by 18 * 18

properties:

E

=

107 psi,

u

=

0.3, stress limit:

Crvm < 25000

S4R shell elements of the ABAQUS library. A total number

psi, loads:

F0 = 45.35 ib/in,

Fz = 63.33 lb/in.

176

Table 1. Results of the design variables and the objective function

Element no.

Final thickness (in)

Final thickness (in)

Final thickness (in)

Final thickness (in)

i

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

two edges clamped

four edges clamped

simply supported

hole presence

i

5.9596

4.7100

2.8595

4.7830

2

4.4063

2.9130

1.9924

0.4035

3

3.1403

1.9282

0.i000

0.i000

4

4.1574

1.6941

0.i000

0.i000

5

5.3364

2.7686

0.i000

0.i000

6

0.i000

2.9130

1.9924

3.6223

7

0.i000

0.18211

2.8896

1.4842

8

0.1000

0.1000

1.6625

0.1000

9

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

10

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

11

0.1000

1.9282

0.1000

--

12

0.i000

0.i000

1.6625

3.3816

13

0.i000

0.I000

2.5752

0.i000

14

0.i000

0.i000

1.3890

0.I000

15

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

16

0.1000

1.6941

0.1000

0.1000

17

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

4.2851

18

0.1000

0.1000

1.3890

0.1000

19

0.1000

0.1000

2.0579

0.1000

20

0.1000

0.1000

1.0185

0.1000

21

0.1000

2.7686

0.1000

0.1000

22

0.i000

0.i000

0.I000

5.3400

23

0.i000

0.i000

0.1000

0.I000

24

0.i000

0.i000

1.0185

0.1000

25

0.1000

0.i000

1.2927

0.1000

Obj. function (FTu) Initial value (lb. in) 1398.4

1060.7

6926

1473

Final value (lb. in) 73.242

122.01

2410

107.74

i

!

Fig. 5. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 4)

Three loading cases are taken into account.

1. A distributed pressure load

Fz

middle line between AB

and CD.

along the

symmetrical

Fig. 6. Final design of weight minimization subject to both in- plane and bending forces

2. Simultaneous pressure loads of Fz and F O.

Results of design variables are plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 together with the final distributions of the yon Mises stresses.

177

Table 2. Validation of sensitivities of von Mises stresses at the Gauss point

Element no.

O~

(proposed method)

~1 A~i

(finite difference method)

 

Or1

 

i

to

=

lin

At 1 =

10-3

in

At 1

=5.10

-3

in

At 1=

10-2

in

1

-43577.50 (upper layer)

-43579.36

-43522.16

 

-43522.03

-44064.10 (lower layer)

-44064.55

-44035.92

-44004.33

2

-5244.81

-5272.65

-5014.01

-4753.92

-6442.08

-6471.06

-6215.50

-5958.31

3

-7541.96

-7537.93

-7464.24

-7389.52

 

-7412.49

-7408.91

-7337.78

-7265.67

4

-8918.36

-8921.38

 

-883.53

-8845.00

-8861.29

-8864.30

-8826.63

-8788.29

5

-8965.57

-8965.91

-8923.14

-8879.66

 

-8919.58

-8919.94

 

-8877.28

-8833.92

In the first case, the final weight W* is reduced to 39.92%

4

Conclusions

as

along the clamped and loading edges. In the second case, the weight W* is reduced to 42.53% of W 0. Materials are mainly distributed along clamped and two loading edges. It can be seen from Figs. 8 and 9 that yon Mises stress constraints are satisfied without constraint violation in both cases and they become active in some regions.

compared with the initial W 0. Materials are concentrated

A

The paper describes the calculation of sensitivity derivatives for shell structures using the ABAQUS program without ac- cess to the source code. Numerical examples show that sizing optimization with stress, displacement and weight considera- tions become practicable by this approach and the precision of sensitivity analysis is ensured. Applications can be also ex- tended to axisymetrical shell structures. In addition, it can be seen that the work of program developing and implemen- tation is very small for users. It takes about one man-month to establish the interface. However, it should be noted that the method depends on separating linear and cubic terms in the thickness, and is therefore limited to problems without membrane-bending coupling. It does not seem to be directly applicable to thick shell elements and composite shells. This issue will be further investigated.

B References

Fig. 7. Curved shell panel problem

Besides, it is necessary to indicate that because the opti- mization algorithm is based on the duality, the final solution is ensured to verify the Kuhn-Tucker optimality condition af- ter the convergence. Figure 10 shows the iteration histories related to the two loading cases.

Finally, to show the efficiency of the developed sensitiv- ity analysis method, the CPU time consumption is compared here versus the finite difference cost for the first case of the curved panel problem. It can be observed that the time sav- ing is about 30% (see Table 3).

Barthelemy, J.-F.M; Hall, L.E. 1995: Automatic differentiation as

a tool in engineering design. Struct.

Barthelemy, B.; Chon, C.T.; Haftka, R.T. 1988: Accuracy prob- lems associated with semi-analyticalderivatives of static response. Finite Elements in Analysis gJ Design 4, 249-265

BendsCe, M.P.; Diaz, A.R. 1993: Optimization of material prop- erties for Mindlin plate design. Struct. Optirn. 6, 268-270

Grandhi, R.V.; Bharatram, G. 1992: Optimum design of plate structures with multiple frequency constraints. Struct. Optim. 5,

Optirn. 9, 76-82

100-107

Haftka, R.T.; Prasad, B. 1981: Optimal structural design with plate bending elements - A survey. AIAA J. 19, 517-522

Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. 1997: Abaqus/Standard user's manuel, version 5.7

178

Table

3. Comparison of computing cost

Developed method

(sec)

Finite difference (sec)

One main FE analysis

1.92

1.92

38 design variables

25.81"

38

x

1.92

Total CPU time (sec)

27.73

74.88

* FE solution of the pseudo load problem

SECTION POINT i MISES VAL~ ,~~ w*/w 39.92% = :"~:~:
SECTION POINT i
MISES
VAL~
,~~
w*/w
39.92%
=
:"~:~:

Fig. 8. Final thickness and von Mises stress distributions (Case 1)

SECTION POINT i +3.O6E+01 +4.19E+03 I +8.35E+03 +1.25E+04 +1.67E+04 +2.08E+04 Y +2.50E+04 w*/w ~= 16%
SECTION POINT i
+3.O6E+01
+4.19E+03
I
+8.35E+03
+1.25E+04
+1.67E+04
+2.08E+04
Y
+2.50E+04
w*/w ~=
16%

Fig. 9. Final thickness and von Mises stress distributions (Case 2)

Leal, R.P.; Mota Soares, C.A. 1989: Mixed elements in the optimal

design of plates.

Santos, J.L.T.; Choi, K.K. 1988: Sizing design sensitivity analysis of non-linear structural systems. Part II: Numerical method. Int.

J. Nurner. Meth. Engng. 26, 2097-2114

Vanderplaats, G.N; Thomas, H.L. 1993: An improved approxima- tion for stress constraints in plate structures. Struct. Optirn. 6,

Struet.

Optim. 1, 127-136

1-6

Yamazaki, K.; Vanderplaats,

with isoparametric shell elements. Struct.

Yu, H.R.; Liang, B.; Li, L. 1991: Optimal design of cylindrical

N. 1993: Design sensitivity analysis

Optirn. 5, 152-158

shells. Struct. Optirn. 3, 252-256

Zhang, W.H.; Domaszewski, M.; Bassir, H. 1998: Developments of sizing sensitivity analysis with ABAQUS code. Struct. Optim. (to appear)

Zieukiewicz, O.C.; Taylor, R.L. 1991:

4-th Edition. McGraw-Hill

The finite element method,

Appendix

A.1 Computation of pseudo-load vector through system trans-

179

SECTIONPOINTi %., MISES ~%LUE ~-+1.35E+02 ~I +4.28E+03 N +8.42E+03 ~+1.26E+04 i- +i'67E+04 i~ ~I+2'~176
SECTIONPOINTi
%.,
MISES
~%LUE
~-+1.35E+02
~I +4.28E+03
N +8.42E+03
~+1.26E+04
i-
+i'67E+04 i~
~I+2'~176
~-+2.50E+04
w*/w ~= 42.53%

Fig. 10. Convergence curves of panel design optimization

formation

When the element plane is not parallel to the xy plane of the global coordinate system as shown in Fig. 11, the internal

scaled in the

force-moment vector

local coordinate system of the element for the computation of the pseudo-load vector,

4i

=

[r162

must

be

"s

L~

~x

N

<

Fig.

elements

11. Local and global coordinate systems for the flat shell

The ABAQUS user's manual (1997) shows that internal node force-moment vector is reported in the global system. This needs the transformation to the local system. To de- termine the normal direction zI of each element, we can first build up two axes x I and yl in the plane by using node posi-

tions,

x,

=

with

g12 =

and

=

with

g13 =

--

g12

Y21

z21

=

1{.2-.,}

--

g12

Y2 -- Yl

Zl

z2 _

~/x221 + y221+ z21,

1

--

g13

~x21

Y31

z31

=

1{.3-.,}

--

g13

Y3 -- Yl

Zl

z3 _

+

Y21 -I-z21 .

By properties of the cross-product the normal direction zI is then

z/

-

x /

Jl x'

x

yl

y'

II

,

,

(A1)

(A2)

of two above vectors,

(A3)

Consider now r

=

[r

q~n] consisting of three force and

moment components at each node. As shown in Fig. 11, the

force subvector r

which is the projection of Cf on the local

direction zp and the in-plane force subvector qS/f,y~, which is

bendingforcer

itself can be divided into two parts:

the

the projection on the x/y / element plane. Their expressions

are

Then by scaling in the local system, the corresponding pseudo-load force vector F f 9related to the force subvector

q~f can be obtained through

pfiz ~

180

so that the pseudo-load force vector Ff,i_ expressed in the global system is the resultant of above terms

Similarly,

+

the

: -[4

pseudo-load

+, (4

moment

vector

global system can be obtained

rmp,~= Fmp,iz'+ r ~p,iz,y, = -

[3r

-

2 (0?"

;)

Fpm,,i in

the

z'] /ti. (A7)

Finally, to check the validity of the above transforma- tion, one can consider the case where the local direction zI coincides with direction z of the global system. That is zr = (0, 0, 1)T. Consequently, (A6) and (A7) will be simpli- fied to give rise to the known solutions produced in (5),

F

f

,i

=_ F p,iz f

ft

ft

and

Fpm,i = F p,iz m I §

F p,iz~y~ f =

F p,ixlyl rn =

A.2 Stress sensitivity

analysis of shell elements

The plane stress state of the element is supposed as a com- bination of membrane and plate effects

TXY

by+~

V~y § 7~xy

,(A10)

in which (o"b, Crby,rby) denote pure bending stress components

and (4, 4, rxPy)denote membrane in-plane stress compo-

nents. Based on ttooke's law and strain-displacement rela- tions, stresses components can be expressed in terms of the displacements

{~rP}=

Tx~y

T~y

=

D

Wyy

2Wzy

Vy Uy -I- vx

,

(All)

where D is the usual elasticity matrix in the function of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio; (u, v, w) is the displace- ment vector at the corresponding point of middle plane. It can be seen that along the thickness direction z of the element, the membrane stresses are constant and the bending

stresses components vary linearly. Suppose (o'z-b, Cryb, r~b)

and Qr+b ~+b 7.+yb) denote the point-wise bending stresses of lower and upper layers respectively, e.g. at the Gauss point of the element. The following relation then holds with respect to the middle plane according to (All):

-~D

Wyy

2Wxy

Txy

.

Hence, we have from (A10)

"r~yb

(A12)

(A13)

with {r and {~-} the resultant stresses at the upper and lower layer, respectively. Considering now the sensitivity of stress resultants in the finite element j with respect to the thickness design variable t i of the element i. By differentiating (A13), we will obtain the general expressions as

j

=

+t

Tj,

(A14)

where sensitivity of bending stress components is computed, in virtue of (A12), as

f oo-+b )

~D

=

OW2gx

C~Wyy

Ot i

20Wxy

at i

~t i

o~+b

yJ

0o-+b xy,j

ati

=

-

D

wyy

Wxy

-

0,+bI

(AI5)

with the notation of the second part in the above relation

=-7

D

20wzy

Oti

(A16)

Similarly, in view of (A11), sensitivity of membrane stress components is evaluated as

 

=

OVy

 

Oti

J

ati

=

D

~

.

 

C%~Pyj

COUy

CgVx

(alr)

By comparing (A16) and (A17) with (All), we can find

that {

stress responses caused directly by the displacement sensi-

it

3~ } and { Ot~ can be physically interpreted as the

tivity

Oti '-~i

aw~

(Ou~ Oji~) but

Oti'

9

vectors

~

~ Oti'

Ow~ )

and

should be kept in mind that { O~i } is not the true sensi- tivity of bending stresses. By noting the following combination:

j:

+t

77j'

(A18)

we can write the sensitivity of stress resultants (A14) at the upper layer

{0~?

}

namely

[

}=

j,

10tj

f05+b I

i

g.

Oo"p

(a19)

(AGO)

If the yon Mises stress of element j is concerned in design optimization, its calculation corresponds to

~+

vrno

=

q(~rz+j)2 +

(Cryj)

+

2

-

(

~+~r +

xj

yj) ~ 3(xyj)

r+

2

)"

(A21)

181

The sensitivity is easily obtained by

vmo _

~+

-05

Oti

mJ t

Oti

y3 |

"-0--~-i )

+

(A22)

In the same way, we can also obtain stress sensitivity for the lower layer. From (A20), it can be concluded that the sensitivity of stress resultants in the element j must be com- puted in two ways: if the sensitivity of the element is made with respect to its own thickness variable (i = j), then the scaled bending stress component must be added to adjust stress sensitivity term (A18) directly resulting from the ac- tion of the pseudo-load. Otherwise, the sensitivity results from the solution of the pseudo-load system can be directly used as the sensitivity of true stress resultants if the deriva- tive is made with respect to the thickness of other elements (i # j). Unfortunately, because bending stress components in (A20) belong to intermediate values which are not often stored in the database, only stress resultants (~, ~y, r~-y) and (r + r + rx+y) are available in practice when finite ele- ment analysis, i.e. ABAQUS, is executed for shell structures. To overcome this difficulty, we propose here a stress ex- traction procedure. Due to the symmetry of the bending stress with respect to the middle plane, we can obtain the following relations by means of (A12),

{r

-

~y

{~+}+{er-} 1{ ~++4- }

2

-

2

~-

+ cr~

rx'v + r~y

.

(A23)

This simple algebraic manipulation permits us to efficiently obtain the stress components needed in (A20) and (A22). From this demonstration, it can be observed that unlike bar and membrane elements studied in our previous work (Zhang et al. 1998), particular attention must be paid to stress sen- sitivity computations of shell elements. Secondly, it can be seen that this interface tool is very general to be coupled with other finite element analysis sys- tems because internal node forces and stress results are often available in the database. Finally, the numerical sensitivity analysis procedure is summarized below.

Step 1.

Do

an

FE

analysis of the

considered problem by

ABAQUS to generate results database (I).

Step 2.

Read internal force result of each element from the above database (I) and then scale according to (At) and (A7) to compute the pseudo-load vector.

182

Step 3. Generate displacement sensitivity results database (II) under the action of the pseudo-load vector by performing a restart procedure of ABAQUS linear analysis.

Step 4. Read the stress resultant

lower layer of each element from the database (I)

tensor at the upper and

Received June 8, 1998

Revised manuscript

received October 9, 1998

and then apply extraction procedure (A23) to obtain bending and membrane components.

Step 5. Compute the stress sensitivity by means of (A20) with stress tensors related to the pseudo-load from database (II) and bending stress components from Step 4.