Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Supervisors:
H. R. Javani Joni, MSc
dr. ir. R.H.J. Peerlings
Contents
1
Introduction
2 Element formulations
2.1
Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1
Full integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2
Reduced integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3
Constant dilatation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Herrmann Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1
U-P-B formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Constraint ratio
12
3.1
Displacement formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.2
Herrmann formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.3
13
3.4
14
3.5
15
2.3
4 Numerical tests
4.1
17
Cooks membrane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
19
Conclusion
22
A Strain distributions
23
23
23
24
24
24
Chapter 1
Introduction
During the forming of metals, plasticity occurs. For almost all metals, there is no volume change
due to plastic deformation. In simulations of metal forming, the finite element method is often
used. Using the standard finite element method to describe incompressible material behavior
may cause numerical problems and/or lead to erroneous solutions due to locking, see for example
[1, 5]. Locking may be caused by the fact that there are too many incompressibility constraints
imposed on the discretized solution, relative to the number of degrees of freedom in this solution.
While the underlying goal of this project is incompressible plastic deformation in forming, we
limit ourselves to incompressible or slightly compressible elastic materials in this report. Furthermore this report will focus on two dimensional problems, however, the extension to three dimensions can easily be made. The goal of this project is to investigate whether the ratio between
the number of degrees of freedom and the number of incompressibility constraints imposed on
the solution is predictive for the performance of elements in the incompressible limit.
First, several solutions to locking, as proposed in the literature [7, 2], are described. Since not all
of these methods can be used for fully incompressible material, this project mainly focuses on
slightly compressible material. However, for the relevant methods, also the fully incompressible
case is considered. In all methods, both quadrilateral and triangular elements are considered.
Next, for each of these methods the constraint ratio, i.e. the ratio between number of degrees of
freedom and incompressibility constraints, is calculated. This is done first for an idealised mesh
and finally for some numerical examples. In these examples the value of the constraint ratio
is compared with the accuracy of the solution obtained with the corresponding element. These
numerical tests are performed using the finite element package MSC Marc.
Chapter 2
Element formulations
2.1 Governing equations
The equation which governs the deformation of the linear elastic material that is considered in
this study, as well as other types of material, is the equilibrium equation
~ = ~0
(2.1)
where is the second order stress tensor and body forces and the dependence on the coordinate
~x have been omitted for clarity.
The constitutive equation that relates stress and strain for linear elastic material may be written
as
= 4C :
(2.2)
where 4C is a fourth order elasticity tensor and is the strain tensor given by
1 ~
~ u)T )
= (~
u + (~
2
(2.3)
(2.4)
where is the bulk modulus, and G is the shear modulus of the material. From equations (2.2)
and (2.4) we have
= tr()I + 2Gd
(2.5)
It can be observed from equation (2.5) that if this form of the stress-strain relation were to be
used to describe fully incompressible material behavior, i.e. for = , the hydrostatic pressure, p = tr(), cannot be determined from the strain field anymore. This is because the
4
hydrostatic pressure is, in that case, not coupled to the volumetric deformation anymore. The
Herrmann formulation, which is described in section 2.3, provides a solution for this case. For
nearly incompressible material behavior however, the displacement formulation can be used. In
this case is large, but finite. Because a material physically cannot sustain very high stresses,
tr() must become very small for the stresses to be limited. Using the relation
~ ~u
tr() =
(2.6)
it can be concluded that nearly incompressible material behavior imposes the following constraint
on the solution:
~ ~u 0
(2.7)
The strong form of the elasticity problem, together with the boundary conditions, reads
~ = ~0
on Su
= ~t
on St
~u =
~t = ~n
in V
~u
where is given by equation (2.5). The weak form of this problem is obtained by taking the scalar
~ followed by integration on the domain V . Integration by
product with a vector test function ,
parts and some reordering leads to the weak form
Z
~ T : 4C : ~
~ )
~ u dV =
(
~ ~t dS
(2.8)
Using the discrete domain V h and the discrete boundary S h as a replacement for the problem
domain V and the boundary S respectively, the weak form can be discretized. To this end the
displacement field ~u is replaced by a approximate field ~uh of the form
~uh = N T ~u
(2.9)
e e
where ~u is a column containing nodal displacement values, and N is a column containing shape
e
e
~ is similarly discretized as
functions. The test function
~h = N T
~
(2.10)
e e
~ 4C N
~ T dV ~u =
N
e
K =
~t =
N ~t dS
Sh
N ~t dS
Sh
~ 4C N
~ T dV
N
VZh
(2.11)
(2.12)
To solve this system of equations, the matrix K and the column ~t should be known. Because
analytically evaluating the integrals in the expressions for K and ~teis generally not possible, nue
merical integration is used. Besides the commonly used full integration
scheme, there are several
integration schemes that can be used to evaluate the integrals. In the next sections some integration schemes are briefly described, namely full integration, reduced integration and constant
dilatation.
C = 4C v + 4C d
(2.13)
C v = II
(2.14)
1
C d = 2G( 4I S II)
3
(2.15)
K = Kv + Kd =
~ 4C v N
~ T dV +
N
Vh
~ 4C d N
~ T dV
N
(2.16)
Vh
(2.17)
where the tensor 4C d is given by equation (2.15) and p is the hydrostatic pressure. The pressure
must be determined as part of the solution to the boundary-value problem and thus represents an
additional unknown. Therefore an additional equation is necessary to have a well-posed system
of equations. This equation is the kinematic condition of incompressibility
~ ~u = 0
(2.18)
Now, equations (2.17) and (2.18) combined with the boundary conditions describe the fully incompressible case.
Since in this study also compressible and slightly compressible materials are considered, an extension of the above incompressible formulation should be used. To this end the constraint
equation is rewritten in a form that can be used for compressible, slightly compressible, and
incompressible materials as follows
~ ~u + p = 0
(2.19)
In the fully incompressible case ( = ), equation (2.19) becomes the incompressibility condition (2.18) and p is the independent hydrostatic pressure. If the material is (slightly) compressible,
7
p may be eliminated from equation (2.17) by way of (2.19) to obtain the constitutive equation of
the compressible case, equation (2.5).
Combining the above constitutive equations with boundary conditions leads to the strong form
of the boundary-value problem, where the body forces have been omitted for simplicity.
~
~ ~u + p
~u
~t = ~n
= ~0
in V
=0
in V
= ~u on Su
= ~t on St
The weak form of this problem is obtained by taking the scalar product of the equilibrium equa~ followed by integration on the domain V . An additional test
tion with a vector test function
function is introduced to impose condition (2.19). The weak form can be found, after application of the divergence theorem and some reordering, to be
Z
~ T : 4C d : ~
~ )
~ udV
(
~
~ )pdV
(
~ ~u + p )dV =
(
~ ~t dS
(2.20)
Using the discrete domain V h and the discrete boundary S h as a replacement for the problem
domain V and the boundary S respectively, the weak form can be discretized. To this end the
displacement field ~u, and the pressure field p are replaced by the approximate fields ~uh and ph
respectively. These approximate fields are of the form
~uh = N Tu ~u
e e
ph = N Tp p
e e
As can be seen from these equations, the displacement and pressure field both have their own set
of shape functions. The discretizations of both fields need not be of the same order. An important
property that can be observed from equation (2.20), is that the discretized pressure does not need
to be continuous. This is because there are no derivatives of the pressure, or the pressure test
function , in the weak form of the problem.
The test functions are discretized in a similar way to the displacement and pressure fields:
~h = N T
~
e e
e e
h = N Tp
~ and , the weak form
Using these discretizations and the fact that the result must hold for all
e
e
can be rewritten as
Z
V
~ u 4C d (N
~ u )T dV ~u
N
e
Vh
Z
V
~ u )T dV ~u
N p (N
e
~ u N T dV p =
N
p
Z
Vh
e e
N u~t dS
Sh
1
N p N T dV p = 0
e ep
e e
(2.21)
(2.22)
As was done for the displacement formulation in section (2.2), the following notation is introduced to allow the system to be written in a more compact form:
Z
~ u 4C d (N
~ u )T dV
N
K uu =
VhZ
~ up =
K
Vh
K pp =
ZV
~t =
~ u N Tp dV
N
e e
1
N p N T dV
e ep
N u~t dS
Sh
(2.23)
~ Tup ~u + K pp p = 0
K
(2.24)
This system can be solved either simultaneously for both unknowns, or by eliminating one of
the unknowns. If a discontinuous pressure interpolation is used for the analysis of compressible
materials, the pressure degrees of freedom can be eliminated at the element level. Therefore, only
operations on small matrices are involved in the elimination and the computational cost may be
reduced significantly.
While the Herrmann formulation can be used in the fully incompressible case, locking may still
occur in this formulation. The choice of the interpolations for the displacement and pressure
play a crucial role in avoiding locking. Arbitrary combinations of displacement and pressure
interpolations may prove to be ineffective in the incompressible case [2]. One way to possibly
prevent locking in the Herrmann formulation, is to add an interior displacement node to the
element, also known as a bubble function [7]. This bubble will be described in the next section.
(2.25)
e e
where N b is the column containing the bubble shape functions and ~ub is the column containing
e
e
the nodal
values of the bubble displacement. The subscript u denotes
the shape functions, displacement field, and test functions of the standard element formulation. The test function is
similarly written
~
~ h = N T ~ + N T
(2.26)
b b
u
e eu
e e
These discretizations can now be substituted in the weak form (2.20), to obtain
Z
~ T : 4C d : ~
~ )
~ udV =
(
Vh
T~
T~
T 4 d ~
T
~
((N
uu + N Tb ~ub ))dV
u u + N b b )) : C : (N u ~
e e
e e
e e
e e
(2.27)
Z
V
Z
V
~
~ )pdV
(
=
T
~u + N T
~
~ (N Tu
(
b b ))N p pdV
e e
Vh
~ ~u + p )dV =
(
Z
V
~
N Tp (
~ ~t dS =
e e
Z
e e
(N Tu ~uu
e e
(2.28)
e e
N Tb ~ub )
e e
N Tp p
+ e e )dV
~u + N T
~ ~
(N Tu
b b ) t dS
e e
Sh
(2.29)
(2.30)
e e
By using orthogonality of spaces, and the fact that the bubble vanishes on the element edges, the
following equations hold
Z
Vh
~ T 4 d ~ T ub dV =
~ T
(N
u u ) : C : N b ~
e e
e e
~ T 4 d ~ T uu dV =
~ T
(N
b b ) : C : N u ~
e e
e e
Vh
Z
Sh
~ b ~t dS = 0
N Tb
e e
(2.31)
~u,
~b,
Realising that the result should hold for all test functions, thus for all possible columns
e
e
e
and seperating equations with different test functions, the system can be written as
Z
Vh
~ u 4C d (N
~ u )T dV ~uu
N
Z
V
e e
Vh
~ b 4C d (N
~ b )T dV ~ub
N
e
~ u )T dV ~uu
N p (N
e
~ u N Tp dV p =
N
N u~t dS
Sh
~ b N Tp dV p = ~0
N
e e
~ b )T dV ~ub
N p (N
e
Z
V
1
N p N T dV p = 0
e ep
e e
(2.32)
(2.33)
(2.34)
In addition to the notation that was introduced in section 2.3, the following definitions are introduced to write the equations in a more compact form
Z
K bb =
~ bp =
K
VZh
Vh
~ b 4C d (N
~ b )T dV
N
e
~ b N Tp dV
N
e e
(2.35)
~ bp p = ~0
K bb ~ub K
(2.36)
~ T ~uu K
~ T ~ub + K pp p = 0
K
up
bp
e
(2.37)
The bubble displacement can be eliminated from the system by way of equation (2.36) to obtain
~
~ub = K 1
bb K bp p
e
(2.38)
Because this elimination can be performed elementwise, the bubble does not add significantly to
the computational cost of the system. It does, however, require a higher order of integration.
10
(a) Q1FI
(b) Q1RI
(c) Q2FI
(d) Q2RI
(a) T1
(b) T2
(c) T1P1B0
(d) Legend
11
(e) Q1P0
Chapter 3
Constraint ratio
In discretizing the solution ~uh , ph , a finite number of degrees of freedom is introduced instead of
the continuous fields ~u and p. For an incompressible material, also a number of incompressibility
constraints are imposed on the solution. What happens in locking is that the finite element
method is not able anymore to give a reasonable approximation to the solution of the problem
while also meeting the incompressibility condition. Too many constraints are imposed on the
solution, compared to the number of degrees of freedom of this solution. Therefore, the ratio
between number of degrees of freedom in the solution and the number of constraints imposed
on it is an indicator for the element performance. However, it should be noted that this method
is not a precise mathematical method for assessing elements but rather a quick and simple tool
for obtaining an indication of element performance.
The constraint ratio r is defined by
ndof
(3.1)
nc
where ndof is the number of degrees of freedom, and nc is the number of incompressibility
constraints. Ideally r should equal the value obtained for the continuum problem. For a 2D continuum problem, ndof = 2 and the incompressibility constraint (2.18) gives rise to one constraint,
i.e. nc = 1. This means that in two dimensions the optimum value of r should be 2. A value of
r much greater than 2 indicates that not enough incompressibility conditions are present, so the
incompressibility condition may be poorly approximated. A value of r less than 2 indicates a tendency to lock. For values of r 1 there are more constraints than there are degrees of freedom;
in this case, severe locking is expected.
r
An important limitation of the constraint ratio arises for elements with the same interpolation
for the pressure as for the displacement. Although these elements often have a constraint ratio of
2, the ideal value, they show spuriour pressure modes and are generally a poor choice for (nearly)
incompressible analysis.
The method to calculate the number of volumetric constraints is different for the Herrmann
formulation and for the displacement formulation. In the next sections it will be explained how
to calculate the constraint ratio for both element formulations. It should be mentioned that
the maximum number of volumetric constraints is given by the total number of independent
volumetric strain distributions in the entire mesh, because if all volumetric strain distributions
are constrained to be zero, incompressibility is attained. Adding more constraint equations does
not increase the number of actual volumetric constraints, because the extra constraints will be
12
linearly dependent.
13
constraint in the fourth element is automatically satisfied. This property was found and proven
by Nagtegaal et al. [4]. It also holds for quadratic triangular elements.
(3.2)
so there is one independent volumetric strain term available in ~uh . There is one integration point
in the element, in which the constraint is applied. Thus, there is one constraint per element.
From figure 3.2 it can be seen that each displacement node is shared by six elements, meaning
that each element has a total of 3 times 1/6 displacement nodes. Since each displacement node
represents two degrees of freedom, the element has one degree of freedom. The constraint ratio,
therefore, is 1 / 1 = 1.
For the Herrmann formulation, the bilinear displacement, constant pressure element is used
as an example. A part of the idealised mesh for this element is pictured in figure 3.3. For this
element, we know that (see appendix A.1):
~ ~uh = 1x + 2y + 3x y + 3y x
(3.3)
so there are three independent volumetric strain terms available in ~uh . There is, however, only
one pressure node in the element, thus only one incompressibility constraint arises from the
14
weak form of the incompressibility condition. Furthermore, it can be determined that each element has two degrees of freedom, thus the constraint ratio is 2 / 1 = 2.
Element
Q1FI
ndof
2
Strain distributions
3
Integration points
4
Pressure nodes
Constraint ratio
2/3
Q1RI
Q1CD
Q1P0
Q2FI
Q2RI
3/2
T1
T2
4/3
T1P1B0
1/2
Table 3.1: Constraint ratios for idealised mesh. Values on a per element basis
of elements.
For the Q1FI, Q2FI, T1, and T2 elements, the number of independent volumetric strain distributions determines the number of constraints per element. This means that in the calculation
of the number of constraints, special arrangements of elements, as mentioned in section 3.3, are
taken into account.
16
Chapter 4
Numerical tests
To examine the relation between the constraint ratio and the locking behavior, two numerical
testcases have been considered. In these tests, the constraint ratio was calculated as described in
section 3.5 for all element formulations listed in section 2.4. The error in the results of the finite
element code was also calculated, and the absolute value of the relative error was plotted. This
error is defined as
|ur u|
(4.1)
e=
|u|
where u is a displacement characteristic of the exact solution, or the solution obtained with a very
fine mesh for problems for which no analytical solution exists, and ur is the solution obtained
with the finite element method. To study the convergence upon mesh refinement, the meshes
that are used in the tests are refined in each subsequent simulation. This refinement is done
by keeping the structure of the mesh the same, whilst subdividing each element into more elements. The number of displacement degrees of freedom in the mesh is calulated by multiplying
the number of displacement nodes by the number of space dimensions. The total number of
degrees of freedom also takes into account the number of pressure degrees of freedom. For the
Q1P0 element, each element has one pressure degree of freedom. For the T1P1B0 element, each
displacement node is also a pressure node, except for the bubble node. For this element, the bubble node is condensed out of the element matrix before the assembly of the global matrix, so the
bubble node does not add to the number of degrees of freedom. All simulations were performed
using the finite element package MSC Marc with MSC Mentat as graphic front-end. In the next
two sections, the two tests are explained in more detail.
dilatation elements). Examples of the meshes that were used for quadrilateral and triangular
elements are shown in figures 4.1(b) and 4.1(c) respectively. It should be noted that the structure
of these meshes is the same for the finer and coarser meshes that were used in the simulations.
10
8
Q1FI
Q1P0
Q1RI
Q2FI
Q2RI
6
1
10
Constraint ratio
Q1FI
Q1P0
Q1RI
Q1 const dil
Q2FI
Q2RI
10
10
10
4
3
2
1
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
0
0
10
10
(a) Results
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
10
10
8
T1
T1P1B0
T2
6
1
10
Constraint ratio
5
4
3
10
T1
T1P1B0
T2
10
10
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
0
0
10
10
(a) Results
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
10
19
r from the axis of the cylinder is given by (see, for example [6]):
1 + ri2 re2
1
r
u(r) = pi
+ (1 2) 2
E re2 ri2 r
re
(4.2)
where ri , re are the internal and external radius of the cylinder respectively, pi is the internal
pressure, is the Poissons ratio, and E is the Youngs modulus. For the cylinder considered
here, E = 100, = 0.4999 and thus the ratio /G = 5 103 . The structure of the meshes
that were used for quadrilateral and triangular elements is shown in figures 4.4(b) and 4.4(c)
respectively. It may be noted that the triangular elements form exactly the special arrangement
discussed in section 3.3.
10
10
Q1FI
Q1P0
Q1RI
Q2FI
Q2RI
4
Constraint ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
0
1
10
10
(a) Results
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
10
10
T1
T1P1B0
T2
10
4
Constraint ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
0
1
10
10
(a) Results
10
10
10
Number of degrees of freedom
10
21
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The results presented in the previous chapter show that the constraint ratio is a good indicator
for an elements sensitivity to volumetric locking. Locking can be expected for elements having a
constraint ratio lower than 1. Also elements with a constraint ratio of 1 tend to perform poorly,
however, the Q2FI element performed quite well in the pressurized cylinder test. This means that
one should be careful in using these elements. Furthermore, the constraint ratio is no indicator
for the presence of spurious pressure modes, as have been observed for the T1 element. The
presence of spurious pressure modes is, however, a significant limitation of some elements.
To be able to come to a more precise relation between constraint ratio and volumetric locking
behavior, it would be useful to perform more tests. What might especially be useful, is to redo
the same tests with a more random mesh. For the tests that have been performed, the structure
of the mesh may have been of a significant influence on the results. In real simulations often
automatically generated meshes are used, and these meshes in general are not as structured as
the meshes that were used here.
Finally, if a choice for one element would have to be made, the Q1 constant dilatation element
would be a good choice. This element performed well in both tests, and does not have the problem
of hourglassing. It is, however, less flexible regarding automatic meshing, in which triangular
elements are in favoured. The triangular element that would be a good choice is the T2 element.
This element performs quite well in both tests and does not show spurious pressure modes.
22
Appendix A
Strain distributions
In this section, it is shown how the number of volumetric strain distributions is calculated for the
square mesh. This calculation is done for all the elements that were used in the examples.
uh =
e
uhx
uhy
0x + 1x x + 2x y + 3x xy
0y + 1y x + 2y y + 3y xy
where ij are parameters which depend on the nodal values of ~uh and the lengths of the element
edges. It follows that
~ ~uh = (1x + 2y )1 + 3x y + 3y x
u =
e
uhx
uhy
0x + 1x x + 2x y + 3x xy + 4x x2 + 5x y 2 + 6x xy 2 + 7x x2 y
0y + 1y x + 2y y + 3y xy + 4y x2 + 5y y 2 + 6y xy 2 + 7y x2 y
It follows that
~ ~uh = (1x + 2y )1 + (24x + 3y )x + (3x + 25y )y + 2(6y + 7x )xy + 6x y 2 + 7y x2
23
uh =
e
It follows that
uhx
uhy
0x + 1x x + 2x y
0y + 1y x + 2y y
~ ~uh = (1x + 2y )1
uh =
e
It follows that
uhx
uhy
0x + 1x x + 2x y + 3x x2 + 4x y 2 + 5x xy
0y + 1y x + 2y y + 3y x2 + 4y y 2 + 5y xy
(A.1)
uh =
e
uhx
uhy
0x + 1x x + 2x y + 3x (xy + x2 y + xy 2 )
0y + 1y x + 2y y + 3y (xy + x2 y + xy 2 )
It follows that
~ ~uh = (1x + 2y )1 + 3x (y + 2xy + y 2 ) + 3y (x + 2xy + x2 )
24
Bibliography
[1] Bell, R.W., Houlsby, G.T., Burd, H.J., 1993. Suitability of three-dimensional finite elements for
modelling material incompressibility using exact integration. Communications in Numerical
Methods in Engineering 9(4), 313-329.
[2] Hughes, T.J.R., 1987. The Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall
[3] Malkus, D.S., Hughes, T.J.R., 1978. Mixed finite element methods - reduced and selective
integration techniques: a unification of concepts. Computer methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering 15(1), 63-81.
[4] Nagtegaal, J.C., Parks, D.M., Rice, J.R., 1974. On numerically accurate finite element solutions in the fully plastic range. Computer methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
4(2), 153-177.
[5] Oate, E., Rojek, J., Taylor, R.L., Zienkiewicz, O.C., 2004. Finite calculus formulation for incompressible solids using linear triangles and tetrahedra. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 59(11), 1473-1500.
[6] Schreurs, P.J.G., 2007. Applied Elasticity in Engineering. Lecture notes.
[7] Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L., 2000. The Finite Element Method. 5th ed. Vol 1; ButterworthHeinemann.
25