RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials PDF

HyperWorks 13.
0
RADIOSS Tutorials
HyperWorks is a division of Altair
altairhyperworks.com
Altair Engineering Support Contact Information

Web site
www.altairhyperworks.com
Location
Telephone
e-mail
Australia
64.9.413.7981
anzsupport@altair.com
Brazil
55.11.3884.0414
br_support@altair.com
Canada
416.447.6463
support@altairengineering.ca
China
86.400.619.6186
support@altair.com.cn
France
33.1.4133.0992
francesupport@altair.com
Germany
49.7031.6208.22
hwsupport@altair.de
India
91.80. 6629.4500
1.800.425.0234 (toll free)
support@india.altair.com
Italy
39.800.905.595
support@altairengineering.it
Japan
81.3.5396.2881
support@altairjp.co.jp
Korea
82.70.4050.9200
support@altair.co.kr
Mexico
55.56.58.68.08
mx-support@altair.com
New Zealand
64.9.413.7981
anzsupport@altair.com
North America
248.614.2425
hwsupport@altair.com
Scandinavia
46.46.460.2828
support@altair.se
United Kingdom
01926.468.600
support@uk.altair.com
In addition, the following countries have resellers for Altair Engineering: Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Israel, Russia,
Netherlands, Turkey, Poland, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia
Official offices with resellers: Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Taiwan, United
Kingdom, USA
Copyright Altair Engineering Inc. All Rights Reserved for:
HyperMesh 1990-2014; HyperCrash 2001-2014; OptiStruct 1996-2014; RADIOSS1986-2014; HyperView1999-2014;
HyperView Player 2001-2014; HyperStudy 1999-2014; HyperGraph1995-2014; MotionView 1993-2014; MotionSolve 20022014; HyperForm 1998-2014; HyperXtrude 1999-2014; Process Manager 2003-2014; Templex 1990-2014; TextView
1996-2014; MediaView 1999-2014; TableView 2013-2014; BatchMesher 2003-2014; HyperMath 2007-2014;
Manufacturing Solutions 2005-2014; HyperWeld 2009-2014; HyperMold 2009-2014; solidThinking 1993-2014; solidThinking
Inspire 2009-2014; solidThinking Evolve 1993-2014; Durability Director 2009-2014; Suspension Director 2009-2014;
AcuSolve 1997-2014; AcuConsole 2006-2014; SimLab2004-2014 and Virtual Wind Tunnel 2012-2014.
In addition to HyperWorks trademarks noted above, Display Manager, Simulation Manager, Compute Manager, PBS,
PBSWorks, PBS GridWorks, PBS Professional, PBS Analytics, PBS Desktop, PBS Portal, PBS Application Services,
e-BioChem, e-Compute and e-Render are trademarks of ALTAIR ENGINEERING INC.
Altair trademarks are protected under U.S. and international laws and treaties. Copyright 1994-2014. Additionally, Altair software
is protected under patent #6,859,792 and other patents pending. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.
ALTAIR ENGINEERING INC. Proprietary and Confidential. Contains Trade Secret Information. Not for use or disclosure outside of
ALTAIR and its licensed clients. Information contained inHyperWorks shall not be decompiled, disassembled, or unlocked,
reverse translated, reverse engineered, or publicly displayed or publicly performed in any manner. Usage of the software is only as
explicitly permitted in the end user software license agreement.
Copyright notice does not imply publication
RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials
...........................................................................................................................................
1
RADIOSS Tutorials
and Examples
Tutorials ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Introductory...................................................................................................................................
Tutorials
3
RD-0010: Running
RADIOSS from HyperMesh
...................................................................................................................................
4
RD-0020: Running
RADIOSS at the Command Line
...................................................................................................................................
6
Large Displacement
Finite Element Analysis
...................................................................................................................................
7
HyperCrash................................................................................................................................... 8
RD-3000: Tensile
Test Setup using HyperCrash
...................................................................................................................................
9
RD-3030: ...................................................................................................................................
Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh
18
RD-3050: ...................................................................................................................................
Simplified Car Pole Impact in HyperCrash
29
RD-3060: ...................................................................................................................................
Three Point Bending with HyperCrash
42
RD-3160: ...................................................................................................................................
Setting up Multidomain Analysis using HyperCrash
61
HyperMesh................................................................................................................................... 68
RD-3500: ...................................................................................................................................
Tensile Test Setup using HyperMesh
69
RD-3510: ...................................................................................................................................
Cantilever Beam with Bolt Pretension
80
RD-3520: ...................................................................................................................................
Pre-Processing for Pipes Impact using RADIOSS
92
RD-3530:...................................................................................................................................
Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh
102
RD-3540:...................................................................................................................................
Front Impact Bumper Model using HyperMesh
116
RD-3550:...................................................................................................................................
Simplified Car Pole Impact
128
RD-3560:...................................................................................................................................
Bottle Drop
140
RD-3580:...................................................................................................................................
Boat Ditching
151
RD-3590:...................................................................................................................................
Fluid Flow through a Rubber Clapper Valve
173
RD-3595:...................................................................................................................................
Three Point Bending with HyperMesh
183
RD-3597:...................................................................................................................................
Cell Phone Drop Test using HyperMesh
199
RD-3599:...................................................................................................................................
Gasket with HyperMesh
215
Examples
............................................................................................................................................... 226
List of Examples
................................................................................................................................... 227
Example 1
- Twisted Beam
...................................................................................................................................
234
Example 2
- Snap-through Roof
...................................................................................................................................
240
Example 3
S-beam
Crash
................................................................................................................................... 254
Example 4
- Airbag
...................................................................................................................................
268
Example 5
Beam
Frame
................................................................................................................................... 278
Example 6
- Fuel Tank
...................................................................................................................................
285
Example 7
- Pendulums
...................................................................................................................................
303
Example 8
- Hopkinson Bar
...................................................................................................................................
320
Example 9
- Billiards (pool)
...................................................................................................................................
337
Example 10
- Bending
...................................................................................................................................
358
i

Proprietary Information of Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering
Example 11
- Tensile Test
...................................................................................................................................
367
Example 12
- Jumping Bicycle
...................................................................................................................................
399
Example 13
- Shock Tube
...................................................................................................................................
417
Example 14
- Truck with Flexible Body
...................................................................................................................................
436
Example 15
- Gears
...................................................................................................................................
459
Example 16
Dummy
Positioning
................................................................................................................................... 467
Example 17
- Box Beam
...................................................................................................................................
493
Example 18
Square
Plate
................................................................................................................................... 559
Example 19
- Wave Propagation
...................................................................................................................................
587
Example 20
- Cube
...................................................................................................................................
598
Example 21
- Cam
...................................................................................................................................
604
Example 22
- Ditching
...................................................................................................................................
618
Example 23
- Brake
...................................................................................................................................
632
Example 24
- Laminating
...................................................................................................................................
639
Example 25
- Spring-back
...................................................................................................................................
649
Example 26
Ruptured
Plate
................................................................................................................................... 664
Example 27
- Football (Soccer) Shots
...................................................................................................................................
674
Example 37
Analytical
Beam
................................................................................................................................... 680
Example 39
- Biomedical Valve
...................................................................................................................................
690
Example 40
- Lap Joint
...................................................................................................................................
699
Example 41
- Follower Force for Implicit Analysis
...................................................................................................................................
707
Example 42
- Rubber Ring: Crush and Slide
...................................................................................................................................
715
Example 43
- Perfect Gas Modeling with Polynomial EOS
...................................................................................................................................
724
Example 44
- Blow Molding with AMS
...................................................................................................................................
742
Example 45
- Multi-Domain
...................................................................................................................................
749
Example 46
TNT
Cylinder
Expansion
Test
................................................................................................................................... 758
Example 47
- Concrete Validation
...................................................................................................................................
779
Example 48
Solid
Spotweld
................................................................................................................................... 801
Example 49
- Bird Strike on Windshield
...................................................................................................................................
809
Altair Engineering

ii
RADIOSS Tutorials and Examples

RADIOSS Tutorials
RADIOSS Examples

Altair Engineering
Tutorials
File
Location
Most tutorials use files that are located in the tutorials/ directory of the
software installation. In the tutorials, file paths are referenced as
<install_directory>/../. In order to locate the files needed, you will need to
determine the path of the installation directory <install_directory>. This
path is dependent on the installation that was performed at your site. To
determine what this path is, follow these instructions:
1. Launch the application.
2. From the Help menu, select Updates.
3. The HyperWorks Update Information dialog opens. The installation directory
path appears after Altair Home:.
The RADIOSS tutorial model files are located in <install_directory>/
tutorials/hwsolvers/radioss.
Altair Engineering

Introductory Tutorials

Altair Engineering
RD-0010: Running RADIOSS from HyperMesh

This tutorial demonstrates how to launch a RADIOSS job from within HyperMesh. A
HyperMesh database containing a fully defined RADIOSS finite element model is retrieved
and a RADIOSS job is launched from the RADIOSS panel in HyperMesh.
Exercise
Step 1: Load the User Profile
1. Launch HyperMesh. The User Profiles dialog appears upon start-up by default.
2. If the User Profiles dialog is not visible, select Preferences from the toolbar and choose
User Profiles.
3. Under Application:, select RADIOSS.
4. Click OK. This loads the appropriate User Profile. It includes the appropriate template,
macro menu, and import reader. It simplifies the menu systems to give access to only the
functionality of HyperMesh that is necessary.
Step 2: Retrieve the HyperMesh database

1. From the File menu on the toolbar, select Open. An Open file browser window opens.
2. Select the plate.hm file, located in the HyperWorks installation directory under
<install_directory>/tutorials/hwsolvers/radioss/.
3. Click Open. The plate.hm database is loaded into the current HyperMesh session,
replacing any existing data.
Step 3: Launch the RADIOSS job

1. From the Analysis page, select the RADIOSS panel.
2. Click save as. A Save file browser window opens.
3. Select the directory where you would like to write the model file and enter the file name,
plate.fem, in the File name: field. The .fem file name extension is the suggested
extension for RADIOSS input decks.
4. Click Save. The name and location of the plate.fem file now displays in the input file:
field.
5. Set the memory toggle, located in the center of the panel, to memory default.
6. Set the run options toggle, located on the left side of the panel, to analysis.
7. Set the export options: toggle, underneath the run options switch, to all.
8. Click RADIOSS.
This exports the input file and launches the job. If the job is successful, new results files
Altair Engineering

can be seen in the directory where the model file was written. The plate.out file is a
good place to look for error messages that will help to debug the input deck if any errors
are present.
The default files written to your directory are:
plate.html
HTML report of the analysis, giving a summary of the problem

formulation and the analysis results.
plate.out
ASCII output file containing specific information on the file set

up, the set up of your optimization problem, estimate for the
amount of RAM and disk space required for the run, information
for each optimization iteration, and compute time information.
Review this file for warnings and errors.
plate.res
HyperMesh binary results file.
plate.stat
Summary of analysis process, providing CPU information for

each step during analysis process.
plate.h3d
HyperView binary result file.
Step 4: Post-process the RADIOSS job

While still in HyperMesh, you can launch HyperView after the job has finished from the
RADIOSS panel by clicking HyperView. HyperView will open and automatically load the H3D
file from the RADIOSS job for post-processing.

Altair Engineering
RD-0020: Running RADIOSS at the Command Line

The tutorial Running RADIOSS from HyperMesh demonstrates how RADIOSS could be
launched from within HyperMesh. RADIOSS also can be run at the command line (UNIX or
MSDOS). This tutorial assumes you already have the running file, plate.fem, in either your
UNIX or MSDOS directory. This tutorial also assumes you know the location of the solver
script.
In this tutorial, $HWSDIR describes the directory containing the RADIOSS executable. On
UNIX machines, the script is normally located in the HyperWorks installation directory under
<install_directory>/scripts/. On Windows, it is normally located in the HyperWorks
installation directory under <install_directory>/hwsolvers/scripts/.
Running RADIOSS from the Command Line (UNIX or MSDOS).
To run RADIOSS from the command prompt, enter:
$HWSDIR/<solver_name> plate.fem
To check the current version of RADIOSS at the command prompt, enter:

$HWSDIR/<solver_name> -version
To execute a check run to validate your input deck and determine how much RAM
and disk space is necessary for the run, at the command prompt, enter:
$HWSDIR/<solver_name> plate.fem -check
Information regarding memory requirements is written to the file plate.out.
Refer to the Running RADIOSS section of the RADIOSS User's Guide for more detailed
information.
Altair Engineering

Large Displacement Finite Element Analysis

The HyperCrash and HyperMesh tutorials are available for RADIOSS.
HyperCrash
HyperMesh

Altair Engineering
HyperCrash
Altair Engineering

RD-3000: Tensile Test Setup using HyperCrash

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a uniaxial tensile test using a quarter size mesh
with symmetric boundary conditions.
The model is reduced to one-quarter of the total mesh with symmetric boundary conditions to
simulate the presence of the rest of the part.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time D01 [0 10.]
Boundary Conditions:
o The 3 upper right nodes (TX, RY, and RZ)
o A symmetry boundary condition on all bottom nodes (TY, RX, and RZ)
At the left side is applied a constant velocity = 1 mm/ms on -X direction.
Tensile test specimen dimensions = 11 x 100 with a uniform thickness = 1.7 mm
Johnson-Cook Elastic Plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (Aluminum 6063 T7)
[Rho_I] Initial density = 2.7e-6 Kg/mm3
[E] Youngs modulus = 60.4 GPa
[nu] Poissons ratio = 0.33
[a] Yield stress = 0.09026 GPa
[b] Hardening parameter = 0.22313 GPa
[n] Hardening exponent = 0.374618
[SIG_max] Maximum stress = 0.175 GPa
[EPS_max] Failure plastic strain = 0.75
Input file for this tutorial: tensile_0000.rad

Altair Engineering
Exercise
Step 1: Import the mesh
1. Open HyperCrash and select the Output format: RADIOSS_V13 and the Unit System:
kN_mm_ms_kg.
2. Click Run.
3. From the menu bar, select File > Import > RADIOSS.
4. In the Browser window, select tensile.rad.
5. Click OK.
Setting up the Problem in HyperCrash

Step 2: Create and assign a material
1. From the menu bar, select Model > Material.
2. Right-click in the material list and select Create New > Elasto-plastic Johnson-Cook
(2).
3. For Title, enter Aluminum. Enter all the material data listed above.
4. In the bottom of the material window select the Include picked parts icon
5. Select the part in the graphics area.

6. Click Yes in the lower right corner.
7. Click Save > Close.
Step 3: Create and assign a property

1. From the menu bar, select Model > Property.
2. Right-click in the property list and select Create New > Surface > Shell (1).
3. For Title, enter Pshell.
4. For Shell Thickness, enter 1.7.
5. Select the Include picked parts icon
6. Select the part in the graphics area.

Altair Engineering

10
Step 4: Define boundary conditions representing symmetry

1. From the menu bar, select LoadCase > Boundary Condition. Right-click in the display
list area and select Create New.
2. For Name, enter constraint1 and click Ok. Expand the Translation, Rotation, and
Support (Advanced Selector) sections.
3. Use the Add/Remove nodes by picking selection icon
Graphic Window, as shown in the figure below:
to select the nodes in the
4. Click Yes in the Dialog menu bar to validate your selection.

5. To constrain the nodes, toggle Tx, Ry and Rz and click Save.
6. Repeat the same operations to create constraint2, as shown in the figure below:
7. Toggle Tx, Ty, Tz, Rx, Ry and Rz, and click Save.
8. Repeat the same operations to create constraint3, as shown in the figure below:
9. Toggle Ty, Rx, and Rz.

Step 5: Define the imposed velocity

1. From the menu bar, select LoadCase > Imposed Velocity. Right-click in the display list
area and select Create New.
2. Set the Title to imposed_velocity.
3. Right-click in the entry box for Time Function and select Define Function. A Function
Window opens up.
4. For Function name, enter FUNC_VEL.
11

Altair Engineering
5. Enter the first point (0,1) and click Validate.

6. Enter the second point (1e30,1) and click Validate.
7. Click Save in the dialog.
8. Using the Box Selection icon
figure below:
select the nodes in the graphic window, as shown in the
9. Go to the Properties tab and enter a Y-Scale factor = -1.

10. Ensure Direction of the imposed velocity is set to X (translation).
Step 6: Select a node for time history output

1. From the menu bar, select Data History > Time History. In the list display area, rightclick and select Create New > TH of nodes.
2. Enter the name Node_79 and click Ok.
3. Click Add Row
to add a new row. With that row selected, scroll down to the input
section and enter NODid as 79 and press ENTER.
As an alternative, use the Pick button to select a node in the graphic window.
Step 7: Create Control Cards, Export the Starter and Engine files
1. From the menu bar, select Model > Control Card (see below):
Altair Engineering

12
2. Enter the values for the Control Cards, as shown in the images below, saving after every
step:
13

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

14
3. Click File > Export > RADIOSS to export the solver file.
4. In the Write Block Format 130 RADIOSS File window that opens, navigate to your
desired run directory and create a new folder named TENSIILE_TEST.
15

Altair Engineering
5. For filename, enter TENSILE and click OK.

6. Leave the Header window empty and click on Save Model. The file TENSILE_0000.rad is
written.
The model is now ready to run through the Starter and the Engine. It will produce the result
files TENSILEA* for animation in HyperView and TENSILET01 for time history plotting in
HyperGraph.
RADIOSS Computing
Step 8: Run RADIOSS Starter and RADIOSS Engine
1. Launch RADIOSS from the Start menu. A HyperWorks Solver Run Manager window
appears.
2. In the Input file field, select TENSILE_0000.rad. from the folder you created.
3. Click Run.
The HyperWorks Solver View window is opened. The RADIOSS Starter will run and on
completion the RADIOSS Engine will automatically run.
Step 9: Review the listing files for this run and verify the results
1. See if there is are any warning or errors in the .out files.
2. Using HyperView, plot the displacement and strain contour.
Altair Engineering

16
Exercise Expected Results
Total Displacement Contour (mm)
Plastic Strain Contour
17

Altair Engineering
RD-3030: Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh

Simulate buckling of a tube using half tube mesh with symmetric boundary conditions.
The figure illustrates the structural model used for this tutorial: a half tube with a rectangular
section (38.1 x 25.4 mm) and length of 203 mm.
Model
Model Description
Simulation time: Engine [0 10 ms]
The tube thickness is 0.914 mm.
An imposed velocity of 13.3 mm/ms (~30 MPH) is applied to the right end of the tube
Elasto plastic material using Johnson-Cook law /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (STEEL).
[Rho_Initial] Initial density = 7.85e-6 Kg/mm3
[E] Youngs modulus = 210 GPa
[nu] Poisson coefficient = 0.33
[a] Yield Stress = 0.206 GPa
[b] Hardening Parameter = 0.450 GPa
[n] Hardening Exponent = 0.5
File needed to complete this exercise: boxtube_0000.rad
Altair Engineering

18
Exercise
Step 1: Import the mesh
1. Open HyperCrash and set the User profile: to RADIOSS V13 and the Unit system: to
kN mm ms kg.
2. Set User interface style as New.
3. Set the working directory to <install_directory>/tutorials/hwsolvers/radioss/.
4. Click Run.
5. Click File > Import > RADIOSS.
6. In the input window, select boxtube_0000.rad.
7. Click OK.

1. Click Model > Material.
2. In the window, right-click and choose Create New > Elasto-plastic > Johnson-Cook
(2).
3. For Title, enter Steel.

Enter all the material data, as shown in the following figure.
19

Altair Engineering
4. Click Include picked parts
and select boxtube in the graphics area.


1. Click Model > Property.
2. In the window, right-click and select Create New > Surface > Shell (1).
3. For Title, enter Pshell.

4. For Shell thickness, enter 0.914.
Altair Engineering

20
and select boxtube in the graphics area.

Step 4: Define Rigid Body

1. Click Mesh Editing > Rigid Body. Right-click in the display list area and select Create
New.
2. In the Rigid body field, enter the name Rigid Body.
3. Use the Add nodes by box selection icon
as shown below:
21
to select the nodes in the graphic window,

Altair Engineering
4. Click Save.
Note: For the remainder of the tutorial, you need to have the
ID of the master node of the rigid body.
5. Click Show Node Info icon
in the toolbar, and select the rigid body master node in
the graphic window. The Node ID appears in the message window (node ID: 803).
6. Click Cancel in the lower right corner.
7. Click Close.
Step 5: Define boundary condition applied on rigid body

1. Click LoadCase > Boundary Condition. Right-click in the display list area and select
Create New.
2. In the Boundary condition field, enter the name Rigid_BC.
3. In the Node by Id field, enter 803, then click Ok.
4. To constrain the nodes, toggle the buttons in Tx, Ty, Rx, Ry and Rz.
5. Click Save.
Step 6: Define boundary condition representing symmetry

1. In the Boundary condition display list area, select Create New. Name the new
constraint set symmetry.
2. Use the Add nodes by box selection icon
as shown below:
Altair Engineering
to select the nodes in the graphic window,

22
3. Toggle the buttons Tx, Ry and Rz.

Step 7: Define the imposed velocity

1. Click LoadCase > Imposed Velocity. Right-click in the display list area and select
Create New.
2. For Title, enter VELOCITY.
3. Right-click in the Time function parameter entry box and select Define New. A
Function Window opens.
4. For the function name, enter FUNC_VEL.
5. Enter the first point (0, 13.3) and click Validate.
6. Enter the second point (1e30, 13.3) and click Validate.
7. Click Save in the Function Window to accept the function.
8. In the Node by Id field, enter 803 and click Ok, (or toggle Add RB master nodes).
9. Go to the Properties tab and enter a Y-Scale factor = -1.
10. Set the direction of the imposed velocity to Z (translation).
Step 8: Define a Rigid Wall

1. Click LoadCase > Rigid Wall > Create.
2. For the Select RWALL, select Infinite Plane.
3. For Title, enter RIGID WALL.
23

Altair Engineering
4. Enter the following values: M0: X= 0, Y= 38.1, Z= -204. M1: X= 0, Y= 38.1, Z= 1.

5. In the Distance to search slave nodes field, enter 20.
6. Toggle See option.
7. Click See to visualize it in the graphic window.
8. Go to the Properties tab, and switch the Friction Parameter: Sliding to Friction.
9. For Friction, enter 0.200.
Step 9: Create a self contact for the tube

1. Click LoadCase > Contact Interface.
2. Right-click in the Contact Interface list and select Create New > Multi usage (Type
7).
3. Toggle Self impact.
4. Click the Include picked parts icon
and select the part in the graphic window.
5. Click Yes in the lower right corner of the main window.

6. For Title, enter the name Contact.
7. In the Coulomb friction field, enter 0.200.
8. In the Scale factor for stiffness field, enter 1.
9. In the Min. gap for impact activ. field, enter 0.900.
Altair Engineering

24
Step 10: Export the model

1. Under the Model menu, select Control Card.
2. Check Control Card to activate it.
Note: Make sure to save it before moving to the next Control
Card.
25

Altair Engineering
3. Click File > Export > RADIOSS.

4. In the Write Block Format 130 RADIOSS File window that opens up, enter the name
BOXTUBE and click OK.
5. Leave the Header of RADIOSS File window empty and click Save Model.
The Starter file BOXTUBE_0000.rad is written.
The model is now ready to run through the Starter and the Engine.
Altair Engineering

26
Step 11: Open RADIOSS from Windows Start menu
Step 12: Select the Starter file BOXTUBE_0000.rad as Input file and
Run the model with the option: both
Step 13: Review the listing files for this run and verify on the results
1. Using HyperView, plot the displacement and strain contour at 8 ms.
27

Altair Engineering
Plastic Strain, Mid Layer and Average
Altair Engineering

28
RD-3050: Simplified Car Pole Impact in HyperCrash

To simulate frontal pole test with a simplified full car.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time:
Engine file (_0001.rad) [0 0.06 ms]
An initial velocity of 15600 mm/s is applied on the car model to impact a rigid pole of
radius 250 mm.
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (WINDSHIELD)
[Rho_Initial] Initial Density = 2.5x10-9 ton/mm3
[E] Young's Modulus = 76000 MPa
[nu] Poissons Ratio = 0.3
[ 0] Yield Stress = 192 MPa
[K] Hardening Parameter = 220 MPa
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (STEEL)
[Rho_Initial] Initial Density = 7.9x10-9 ton/mm3
[ 0] Yield Stress = 200 MPa
[K] Hardening Parameter = 450 MPa
[SIG_max] Maximum Stress = 425 MPa
29

Altair Engineering
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (RUBBER)

[Rho_Initial] Initial Density = 2x10-9 ton/mm3
[ 0] Yield Stress = 1e30 MPa
[n] Hardening Exponent = 1
Exercise
Step 1: Retrieve the HyperMesh file
1. Open HyperCrash and set the User profile: to RADIOSS V13 and the Unit system: to
kN mm ms. kg.
2. Set User Interface style as New.
3. Set the working directory to <install_directory>/tutorials/hwsolvers/radioss.
4. Click Run.
5. Click File > Import > Nastran for Crash.
6. In the input window, select full_car.nas.
7. Click OK.
Step 2: Create WINDSHIELD material and assign to car windows

2. In the Material list, right-click and select Create New > Elasto-Plastic > JohnsonCook (2).
3. For Title, enter WINDSHIELD.
4. Enter all the material data, as shown in the image below.
Altair Engineering

30
5. Click the Tree tab and select PSHELL3 and PSHELL16 in the tree.
6. Click
to show only these parts.
7. Click the Material tab.

8. Click Selected Parts of Tree
. This icon allows adding the part selected in the tree to
the selection. The selected parts will be highlighted in the graphic area.
9. Click Save.
Step 3: Create RUBBER material and assign to car tires

2. For Title, enter RUBBER. Enter all the material data, as shown in the image below.
31

Altair Engineering
3. Click the Tree tab and select PSHELL20 to PSHELL23 in the tree.
4. Click

area.
. The selected parts will be highlighted in the graphic
7. Click Save.
Step 4: Create STEEL material and assign to all other parts

2. For Title, enter STEEL.
3. Enter all the material data, as shown in the image below.
Altair Engineering

32
4. Click the Tree tab and select PSHELL3, PSHELL16 and PSHELL20 to PSHELL23 in the
tree.
5. Click
33
to invert the tree selection.

Altair Engineering
6. Click
to show all the parts except the ones made with glass and rubber.

area.
. The selected parts will be highlighted in the graphic
Step 5: Create a rigid wall to represent the ground

1. Click LoadCase > Rigid Wall > Create.
2. Under Rigid wall name > Select RWALL type, select Infinite Plane.
3. Enter the rigid wall name, Ground.
4. Enter the following values for M0 and M1:
Altair Engineering

34
5. In the Selection tab, set the Distance to search for slave nodes to 300.
6. Click See at the bottom of the panel to display the rigid wall.
7. Click Save.
Step 6: Create Pole Rigid Walls

1. Under Rigid wall name > Select RWALL type, select Cylinder.
2. Enter the rigid wall name, Pole.
3. Enter the following values for M0 and M1:
4. Set the Diameter to 500.

5. Set the Distance to search for slave nodes to 1500.
35

Altair Engineering
6. Click See at the bottom of the panel to display the rigid cylinder.
7. Click Save.
8. Click Close to close the Rigid Walls panel.
Step 7: Define interface with the whole car

2. In the window right-click and select Create New > Multi usage (Type 7).
3. Select the Self Impact box.
4. In the Title field, enter CAR_CAR.
5. Set [Istf] Stiffness definition to 2: (K=(Km+Ks)/2.
6. For [Gapmin] Min. gap for impact activ., enter 0.7.
7. For [Fric] Coulomb friction, enter 0.2.
8. Set [Iform] Friction penalty formulation to 2: (Stiffness).
9. In the Model Display toolbar, click Display All
to display the entire model.
10. Click in the [Mast_id] Master field. Move the cursor to the graphical window and rightclick. The menu shown in the image below should appear. Choose the option Add
selected parts by box
the graphic window.
and use the mouse to drag a box to select the entire car in
11. Click Save.
Altair Engineering

36
Step 8: Create an interface between engine and radiator

1. Right-click in the Contact list and select Create New > Multi usage (Type 7).
2. Check Create symmetric interface at saving box.
3. In the Title field, enter ENGINE_RADIATOR.
4. For [Istf] Stiffness definition, set to 2: (K=(Km+Ks)/2.
5. For [Gapmin] Min. gap for impact activ., enter 0.7.
6. For [Fric] Coulomb friction, enter 0.2.
7. For [Iform] Friction penalty formulation, set to 2: (Stiffness).
8. In the Tree tab, highlight the part PSHELL28 (Radiator) and PSHELL30 (Engine) and
Isolate them.
9. In the Contact Interface tab, click in the [Slav_id] Slave nodes field, move the cursor
to the graphic window, right-click and select Include picked Part. Select the Radiator
(PSHELL28).
10. In the Contact Interface tab, click in the [Mast_id] Master Surface field, move the
cursor to the graphic window, right-click and select Include picked Part. Select the
Engine (PSHELL30).
11. Click Save.
12. Click Close to close the Contact tab.
An additional symmetric interface is created.
Step 9: Define Initial Velocities

1. Click LoadCase > Initial Velocity.
2. In the Velocity list, right-click and select Create New.
3. In the Title field, enter 35MPH.
4. In the Tree window, highlight FULL_CAR.
5. In the [Vx] field, enter 15600.
6. In the Initial Velocity tab and click in the [Gnod_id] Support field. Move the cursor to
the graphic window, right-click and select Add selected parts of tree
Step 10: Define Time History Nodes

1. Click Data History > Time History.
2. In the Time History list, right-click and select Create New > TH of nodes.
3. For Title, enter RAIL.
4. In the Tree tab, select PSHELL19.
37

Altair Engineering
5. Click Isolate Tree Selections
6. Go back to the Time History panel and click Add/Remove nodes by picking
selection
in the second table.
7. Select six nodes on the rails, for example as shown in the following image:
7. Click Yes in the lower right corner or right-click in the graphic window to exit the
selection.

1. Create the Engine file: From the menu bar, select Model > Control Card.
2. Check the Control Cards, as shown in the images below.
Note: Make sure to save all control card before editing the
next.
Altair Engineering

38
39

Altair Engineering
3. Under the Quality menu, click Model Checker to check the quality, then check All
Solver Contact interfaces, remove all the initial penetrations in the model.
4. Under Mesh Editing menu, click Clean, then clean the model before exporting.
5. Click File > Export > RADIOSS, enter FULLCAR and click OK.
6. Leave the Header of RADIOSS File window empty and click Save Model. The Starter file
FULLCAR_0000.rad is written.
Step 12: Open RADIOSS from Windows Start menu
Altair Engineering

40
Step 13: Select the Starter file FULLCAR_0000.rad as Input file and
Run the model
Final deformation and energy balance plot
41

Altair Engineering
RD-3060: Three Point Bending with HyperCrash

This tutorial demonstrates how to set up a 3-point bending model with symmetric boundary
conditions in Y direction (across the XZ plane).
Model Description
Simulation time: in _0001.rad [0 7.0E-2s]
Only one half of the model is modeled because it is symmetric.
The supports are totally fixed. An imposed velocity of 1000 mm/s is applied on the
Impactor in the (Z) direction
Model size = 370mm x 46.5mm x 159mm
Honeycomb Material /MAT/LAW28: HONEYCOMB
[Rho_I] Initial density = 3.0e-10 ton/mm3
[E11], [E22] and [E33] Youngs modulus (Eij) = 200 MPa
[G11], [G22] and [G33] Shear modulus (Gij) = 150 MPa
Elasto-Plastic Material /MAT/LAW36: Inner, Outer and Flat
[Rho_I] Initial density = 7.85-9 ton/mm3
[E] Youngs modulus = 210000 MPa
[nu] Poisson's ratio = 0.29
Altair Engineering

42
Strain Curve:
0
STRAI
N
STRES
S8E-
300
0.010 0.013 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
400
Elastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS: Impactor

[Rho_I] Initial density = 8e-9 ton/mm3
Step 1: Import the RADIOSS mesh

1. Open HyperCrash 13.0.
2. For User profile:, select RADIOSS V13.
3. For Unit system:, select N mm s T.
4. Select User interface style as New.
5. Click Run.
6. Click File > Import > RADIOSS.
7. In the input window, navigate to the correct directory and select BENDING_0000.rad.
8. Click OK.

2. In the Window, right-click and select Create New > Elastic > Linear elastic (1) as
shown below:
3. For Title, enter Rigid Material.
43

Altair Engineering
4. Enter all the material data, as shown in the following image.

graphics area.
and select the parts Impactor and Support in the

7. Click Save.
Step 3: Create and assign a material for Inner, Outer, and Flat parts
1. In the Window, right-click and select Create New > Elasto-plastic > Piecewise linear
(36).
2. For Title, enter Shell Material.
3. Enter all the material data, as shown in the following image:
Altair Engineering

44
4. Set [N_funct] Number of functions to 1 and press ENTER.

5. Set the [Fscale] Y Scale factor for yield factor function to- 1 field. Click on the arrow
next to Yield stress, right-click to select Define Function.
6. Click Import curve
to select a curve already present in the model.
7. In the Function file window, select the function with an ID of 2 to import the curve, as
shown in the following image.
45

Altair Engineering
8. Click Save.
9. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Inner, Outer, and Flat on the tree.
10. Click
to isolate this part.

and select the parts Inner, Outer and Flat in the
graphics area as shown in the following image.

14. Click Save.
Step 4: Create and assign a new material for HCFoam

1. In the Window, right-click and select Create New > Other > Honeycomb orthotropic
(28).
2. For Title, enter Foam.
3. Enter all the material data, as shown in the following image:
Altair Engineering

46
4. Right-click on the Yield stress function 11 field and click Select in Model to select a
curve already present in the model.
5. In the Function file window, select the function with ID of 5, then select OK.
6. Repeat this process for the Yield functions, as shown in the following image.
7. Click the Tree tab and select the part HCFoam (7) on the tree.
8. Click
47
to show only this part.

Altair Engineering

and select the part HCFoam in the graphics area as


1. Click Model > Property.
2. In the Window, right-click and select Create New > Surface > Shell (1), as shown
below.
3. For Title, enter Shell Property.
Altair Engineering

48
4. Enter Shell thickness and Shell element formulation values, as shown in the following
image.
5. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Inner, Outer and Flat on the tree.
6. Click
7. Click the Property tab.

and select the parts Inner, Outer and Flat in the
graphics area to assign Shell property.
10. Click Save.
Step 6: Create and assign a property for Impactor and Support

1. For Title, enter Rigid Property.
2. Enter the Shell thickness value as .9119, as shown in the following image.
49

Altair Engineering
3. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Impactor and Support in the tree.
4. Click
5. Click the Property tab.

and select the parts Impactor and Support in the
graphics area to assign Rigid property.
8. Click Save.
Step 7: Create and assign a property for HCFoam

1. In the Window, right-click and select Create New > Volume > General solid (14).
2. For Title, enter Foam.
3. Click the Tree tab and select the part HCfoam on the tree.
4. Click
to show only this part.
5. Go back to the Property tab.

6. In the Flag for solid elements formulation, select HEPH.
Altair Engineering

50

property.
and select HCfoam in the graphics area to assign Foam

Step 8: Create rigid body for Impactor

1. From the menu bar, click Mesh Editing > Rigid Body.
2. In the window, right-click to select Create New, enter the name Impactor.
3. Click the Tree tab and select the BENDING assembly on the tree.
4. Click
to show all parts.
5. Click the Rigid Body tab.

6. Use the Include picked parts
option to select Impactor on graphic screen, as
7. Click Yes > Save.
51

Altair Engineering
Step 9: Create rigid body for Support

1. In the Title field, enter the name Support.
2. Use the Include picked parts
option to select Support in the graphic area.
3. Click Yes to complete the selection.

4. Click Save. The rigid body for Support should look like the following image.
5. Click Close.
Step 10: Define boundary conditions for the model

1. Click LoadCase > Boundary Condition.
2. In the window, right-click to select Create New.
3. Press F6 to show the rigid bodies.
4. In the Boundary Condition creation field, enter BC for the Title and click Save.
5. Click the node selection icon
following image.
to select master node of Impactor, as shown in the
6. Constrain all DOF except translation in Z as shown in the following image. To constrain
the nodes, check VX, VY, RX, RY and RZ.
Altair Engineering

52
7. Click Save.
8. Repeat the same process to create Support Fix and Symmetry BC's, as shown below.
9. Click node selection icon
following image.
to select master node of Support, as shown in the
10. Constrain all DOF by selecting VX, VY, VZ, RX, RY and RZ, as shown in the following
image.
11. Click Save.

12. In the Boundary condition creation field, enter Symmetry.
13. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Inner, Outer, HCfoam and Flat on the tree.
14. Click
53

Altair Engineering
15. Press the p key to change the perspective visualization.

16. Click the Boundary Condition tab.
17. From the Visualization toolbar, select the YZ View, as shown below.
18. Click
to activate the window selection tool.
19. Select nodes, as shown in the following image.
20. To constrain the nodes, select VY, RX and RZ.
Altair Engineering

54
Step 11: Define Impactor Velocity

1. Click LoadCase > Imposed Velocity.
2. In the window, right-click to select Create New.
3. For Title, enter IMPOSED VELOCITY.
4. For Time function, use the predefined curve in the model Funct 1.
5. For Direction, select Z (translation) and -1000 for Y-Scale factor.
6. Press the F6 key to show the rigid bodies.
7. Click
and select the master node of Impactor.
8. Click Yes in the lower-right corner.
Step 12: Define contacts for the model

2. In the window, right-click and select Create New > Multi usage (Type 7).
3. For Title, enter Support.
4. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Flat and Support on the tree.
5. Click
6. Click the Contact Interface tab.

7. Using
select Flat component as Slave and Support as Master, as shown in the
following image.
55

Altair Engineering
8. Set Coulomb friction to 0.1.

9. Set Min gap for impact active to 0.2.
10. Click Save.
11. Repeat the same process to create contact between Outer and Impactor.
12. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Outer and Impactor on the tree.
13. Click

15. Using
select Outer Part as Slave and Impactor as Master, as shown in the
following image.
16. In the Title, enter Imp_Outer.

17. Set Coulomb friction to 0.1.
18. Set Min gap for impact active to 0.2.
19. Click Save.
20. Repeat the same process for self impact for Outer, Inner and Flat, as self impact.
21. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Outer, Inner and Flat on the tree.
22. Click

24. Select Self-Impact.
25. Using
select components Outer, Inner and Flat, as shown in the following image.
Altair Engineering

56
26. Enter Self for the Title.

27. Set the Coulomb friction to 0.1.
28. Set the Min gap for impact active to 0.7.
29. Click Save.
Step 13: Clean the model

1. Click Mesh Editing > Clean.
2. Select All.
3. Click Clean > Close.
Step 14: Export the model, write the Starter (_0000.rad) and Engine
(_0001.rad) files
1. Click Model > Control Card and select the control cards in the images below.
Note: Make sure to save each control card before editing the
next.
57

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

58
2. Click File > Export > RADIOSS.

3. In the Output window that opens, enter the name 3PBENDING and click OK.
4. Leave the Header of RADIOSS File window empty and click Save Model.
The Starter file 3PBENDING_0000.rad is written.
Step 15: Open RADIOSS Manager from windows Start menu
Step 16: Run the model 3PBENDING_0000.rad using RADIOSS

Manager in the class_exercise folder
59

Altair Engineering
von Mises Stress Contour (MPa)
Contact Force for Impactor Interface
Altair Engineering

60
RD-3160: Setting up Multidomain Analysis using

HyperCrash
The objective of this tutorial is to show how to use the multidomain technique. For more
information on this technique, refer to Multidomain.
The model used is a low speed pole impact on a bumper system. Note that the model is
finely meshed (average mesh size = 2mm) in the region of the pole impact and coarsely
meshed (average mesh size = 10mm) elsewhere.
In order to run this analysis using multidomain technique, we have to split this model into
two domains, one containing the finely meshed region and the other containing the rest. A
node to node link (/LINK/TYPE4) is then specified at the boundary between the two domains.
These domains will be created using a pre-processor (using HyperCrash in this tutorial) and
the options specific to multidomain analysis will be added to the input decks through a texteditor. A Multidomain master input file will also be created using a text editor.
For a list of multidomain options, refer to Multidomain Input.
For information on how to create links or connections between domains, refer to Multidomain
in the User's Guide.
For more information on Multidomain Master Input, refer to Multidomain Master Input File.
Exercise
Step 1: Import Full Model
1. Open HyperCrash 13.0.
2. Set User profile: to RADIOSS V13 and Unit system: to kN mm ms kg.
3. Click Run.
4. Click File > Import > RADIOSS to import the model monodomain_0000.rad.
61

Altair Engineering
Step 2: Create Input Files for the Two Domains

1. Click Model > Control Card to set the Control Cards, as shown in the following images:
Altair Engineering

62
2. In the Tree, select the subsets of the fine-meshed region (subsets BB_fine1 (21),
BB_fine2 (24), and fine_mesh (69)), then right-click, then click Export Selection.
3. In the Export Selection window, select the option to Add models control card not
linked to any part, toggle Export geometry and select ALL POSSIBLE RELATED
ENTITIES.
63

Altair Engineering
4. Click Ok.
5. Save the file as fine_mesh. This will write the file fine_mesh_0000.rad.
6. Click Model > Control Card and enter the following Control Cards:
7. In the Tree, select the subsets/spotwelds of the coarse-meshed region, then rightclick Export Selection.
Altair Engineering

64
8. In the Export Selection window, select the option to Add models control card not
linked to any part, toggle Export geometry and select ALL POSSIBLE RELATED
ENTITIES.
9. Click Ok.
10. Save the file as coarse_mesh. This will write the file coarse_mesh_0000.rad.
Step 3: Define Link between the Two Domains

1. In the original single model, the fine meshed region is connected to the coarse meshed
region at both ends. When this model is split into two domains, we have to create a set of
nodes in both the domains and link these node sets through the starter option (/EXTERN/
LINK). This option has to be added to the two Starter input files using a text editor.
65

Altair Engineering
2. Open the Starter file coarse_mesh_0000.rad and add the option /EXTERN/LINK, as shown
below:
Note: Two external links through node sets 1001 and 1002
have been added to this domain. These node sets
were already defined in monodomain_0000.rad and
exported to the two domains in Step 2.
3. Open the Starter file fine_mesh_0000.rad and add the same options.
4. Create a RAD2RAD input file input.dat defining the two domains and specifying the
connections between them.
Altair Engineering

66
5. The input files are now ready to be run using the multidomain technique. For information
on how to launch a multidomain computation, refer to Multidomain.
67

Altair Engineering
HyperMesh
Altair Engineering

68
RD-3500: Tensile Test Setup using HyperMesh

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a uniaxial tensile test using a quarter size mesh
with symmetric boundary conditions.
The model is reduced to one-quarter of the total mesh with symmetric boundary conditions to
simulate the presence of the rest of the part.
Model Description
Simulation time D01 [0 10.]
Boundary Conditions:
o The 3 upper right nodes (TX, RY, and RZ)
o The center node on left is totally fixed (TX, TY, Rx, RY, and RZ)
o A symmetry boundary condition on all bottom nodes (TY, Rx, and RZ)
At the left side is applied a constant velocity = 1 mm/ms on -X direction.
Tensile test specimen dimensions = 11 x 100 with a uniform thickness = 1.7 mm
69

Altair Engineering
Johnson-Cook elastic plastic material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (Aluminum 6063 T7)

[E] Youngs modulus = 60.4 GPa
[SIG_max] Maximum Stress = 0.175 GPa
[EPS_max] Failure Plastic Strain = 0.75
Input file for this tutorial: TENSILE_000.rad
Exercise
Step 1: Load the RADIOSS (Block) User Profile
1. Launch HyperMesh Desktop.
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or from the toolbar, click the
icon.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
Step 2: Load the solver deck

1. Click File > Import > Solver Deck or click
2. Click the Select File icon

, navigate to <installation_directory>\tutorials
\hwsolvers\radioss and open the TENSILE_0000.rad file.
3. Click Open.
4. Click Import.
5. Click Close to close the window.
Step 3: Define material for the tensile test specimen

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material.
A Material with name material1 of card image M1_Elastic appears in the Entity Editor
(EE) in the bottom pane of the Model browser.
2. In the Entity Editor (EE), for Name, enter Mat_1 in the Value field.
3. Set Card Image to M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL.
4. Click Yes on the pop-up that warns of a card image change.
Altair Engineering

70
5. Input the values, as shown in the following image in the EE.
Step 4: Define property for the tensile test specimen

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property.
A Property with name property1 of card image P1_SHELL appears in the Entity Editor
(EE) in the bottom pane of the Model browser.
2. For Name, enter sheet_1.7.
3. For Thick, enter 1.7. in the Value field corresponding to sheet thickness.
4. For AShear, enter 0.8333.
71

Altair Engineering
Step 5: Assign materialand property to the test specimen

1. In the Model browser, select the SHELL_1 component. The Entity Editor opens for the
component.
2. For Name, enter Tensile_coupon.
3. Click Prop_Id, to activate the option.
4. Click Unspecified > Property.
5. In the Select Property dialog, select sheet_1.7 from the list and click OK.
6. Repeat steps 3 - 5 for Mat_Id and select Mat_1.
Altair Engineering

72
Step 6: Create boundary conditions

1. From the Utility browser, start the BCs Manager from the pull-down menu, select Tools
> BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter constraint1, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set GRNOD
to Nodes.
3. Click on Nodes. A nodes selection appears. Select the three nodes, as shown in the
figure below and click proceed.
4. Fix degrees of freedom Tx, Ry and Rz.

5. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table, and
handles appear in the graphics area.
73

Altair Engineering
to Nodes.
7. Select the node, as shown in the image below.
8. Fix degrees of freedom Tx, Ty, Rx, Ry and Rz.
9. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table, and a
handle appears in the graphics area.
to Nodes.
11. Select the nodes, as shown in the image below.
12. Fix degrees of freedom Ty, Rx and Rz.

13. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table, also
handles appear in graphics.
Step 7: Create Imposed Velocity

1. For Name, enter velocity, set Select type as Imposed Velocity and set GRNOD to
Nodes.
2. Select the nodes, as shown in the image below.
3. Set the direction as X and Y scale as -1.0.
Altair Engineering

74
4. Click Create/Select curve ID for Curve ID. An XY curve editor appears.

5. Click New to create a new curve.
6. For Name, enter Load and click proceed.
7. Enter the values, as shown in table below.
8. Click Update to update the curve with the new values.

9. Click Close to close the Curve editor, the created curve is assigned to this constraint.
10. Click Create to create the velocity boundary condition.
11. Click Close to close the BCs Manager.
Step 8: Create output requests and control cards

All the output requests are mapped to control cards in HyperMesh. These cards can be
accessed from the Control Cards panel.
1. Right-click in the Solver browser general area to and select Create to create the cards,
shown below with the given values for each parameter enter into the Entity Editor:
Keyword Type
75
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS TITLE_ENGINE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS TITLE_ENGINE
TITLE
Tensile Test
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Tstop
10
ENGINE KEYWORDS PARITH
Status
[Checked]
Keyword2
ON
ENGINE KEYWORDS PRINT
Status
[Checked]
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS TFILE
Status
[Checked]
Time Frequency
0.01
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/ELEM Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/ELEM VONM
[Checked]

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/ELEM EPSP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
TStart
Tfreq
0.500
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/VECT DISP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/VECT VEL
[Checked]
Step 9: Export the model as TENSILE_0000.rad

1. From the File menu, click Export > Solver Deck or click the Export Solver Deck icon
.
2. For File:, click the folder icon
to export to.
and navigate to the destination directory where you want
3. Enter the name TENSILE and click Save.

4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export the Engine and Starter file as one file.
Altair Engineering

76
6. Click Export > Close.
Step 10: Open RADIOSS Manager from Start menu

Step 11: Run the model TENSILE_0000.rad using RADIOSS Manager
1. Select the Tensile_0000.rad for the Input file.
2. Set Options as singlefile.
3. Click Run.
77

Altair Engineering
Step 12: Review the listing files for this run and verify the results
1. See if there is any warning or errors on .out files.
Altair Engineering

78
79

Altair Engineering
RD-3510: Cantilever Beam with Bolt Pretension

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a simple cantilever problem with a concentrated
load at the free end, using Dynamic Relaxation (/DYREL) method to obtain a static solution.
Model Description
Simulation time:
o CANTILEVER_0000.rad [0 25.1 ms]
Steps to setup this model:
o Fix the Cantilever Beam to the support with a 10 kN pre-tension. The bolt attains 10
kN in 10 ms and remains constant thereafter.
o After pre-tension, a concentrated load of 0.2 kN is gradually applied at the free end
of the beam from 10 ms to 25 ms and it remains constant thereafter.
Material used:
Elasto-plastic material /MAT/LAW2.
[c] Strain rate coefficient = 0.014 GPa
[EPS_0] Reference strain rate = 1
Input file for this tutorial: CANTILEVER_0000.rad
Altair Engineering

80
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or from the toolbar, click the
icon.


\hwsolvers\radioss and open the CANTILEVER_0000.rad file.
3. Click Open.
4. Click Import.
Step 3: Create a rigid body connecting spring ends to Bolt Support

component
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Component.
A component is created and is shown in the Entity Editor (EE), below the Model
browser.
2. Using the Entity Editor (EE), change the Name to Rigids.
3. Set the Card Image as None.
4. In the Model browser, hide the component 1.
5. Click the Mask icon
in the toolbar.
6. In the graphics area, select one element from the bolt.
81

Altair Engineering
7. Click on elems >> by attached to select the whole bolt.

8. Click mask to hide them and click return.
9. From the 1D page, select the rigids panel.
10. Click the selector arrow nodes 2-n: and change it to multiple nodes.
11. In the rigids panel, for primary node, select the node at the end of spring, as shown in
Fig 1 below, and for nodes 2-n, select the nodes, as shown in Fig 2.
Note: Be sure to set the selector to multiple nodes.
Fig 1
Altair Engineering

82
Fig 2
12. With all the DOFs checked, click create to create the rigid body.
13. Click the Mask icon
the bolt.
in the toolbar and click reverse to show remaining elements of
14. Click return to exit the panel.

15. In the Model browser, rght-click the 3 components and click Show to display onscreen, as
shown below.
16. Use Steps 3.10 through 3.12 to create a rigid body with the nodes shown in the following
image with the other ends of the springs as the primary node and the nodes on the bolts
as slave nodes.
Step 4: Create and assign material, property to Plate and Support

bolts
1. In the Model browser, click the component 1. The component appears in the Entity Editor.
83

Altair Engineering
2. Change the name of the component to Plate.

3. Set Card Image to Part.
5. For Name, enter Steel and set the Card Image to M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL and click
Yes to confirm.
6. Enter the values, as shown below.

8. For Name, enter Plate, and set the Card Image to P14_SOLID and click Yes to
confirm.
9. In the Model browser, click the component 2, the EE for the component opens.
10. For Name, enter Bolt_Support.
11. Set the Card Image to Part.
12. For Prop_Id, click Unspecified > Property and select the property, Plate and click OK.
13. For Mat_Id , click Unspecified > Material and select the material, Steel and click OK.
Step 5: Create and update properties for Pre-tensioner Spring

1. In the Model browser, select the component 3, which opens the Entity Editor.
2. For Name, enter Spring.
Altair Engineering

84
3. Set the Card Image to Part.

4. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property. A new property is
created and a dialog opens with the new property.
5. Change the Name to Spring.
6. Set the Card Image to P32_SPR_PRE and click Yes to confirm.
7. Fill in the other values, as shown below:
8. In the Model browser, click on the property Spring to open the Entity Editor.
9. Right-click on IFUN2 and select Create to create and attach a curve. A Create Curve
dialog opens.
10. Change the Name of the curve to Stiffness.
11. Click Close to exit the dialog.
12. In the Model browser, select the curve Stiffness, right-click and select Edit from context
menu.
13. The XY curve editor appears. Fill in the values, as shown below.
14. Click Update > Close. The created curve is assigned to the property.
85

Altair Engineering
Step 6: Defining Boundary Conditions to fix bottom of the

BOLT_SUPPORT
1. From the Tools menu, start the BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter FIXED, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set GRNOD to
Nodes.
3. Click on the nodes, the nodes selection appears; by window option, select the bottom
layer of the bolt support, as shown below and the selection should appear as shown below
in the XY Plane view:
4. Fix all translational degrees of freedom.
5. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table and a
handle appears in graphics area.
Altair Engineering

86
Step 7: Defining the load (CLOAD) of the edge of the beam

1. For Name, enter LOAD, set Select type to Concentrated Load and set GRNOD to
Nodes.
2. Select the nodes on the edge of the beam, as shown in the image below by window
option.
3. For Direction, select X.

4. Set Scale X, to -1.0 to apply load in negative X direction.
5. Click the Create/Select curve tab. A GUI to enter curve appears.
6. Create a curve with Name LOAD and enter the values, as shown below using the same
procedure explained in Step 5.
x = {0, 10, 25, 250}
y = {0, 0, 0.02, 0.02}
7. Click Update and Close in the XY curve editor GUI, the created curve is assigned to the
BC.
8. Click Create to finish the creation of the load at the selected nodes.
Step 8: Define a contact interface between Plate and Support_Bolt

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Contact. A contact is created and
the Entity Edit opens.
2. Set Name as SELF.
3. Set Card Image to TYPE7 and click Yes to confirm.
87

Altair Engineering
4. Click on Grnod_id (S) in the EE and set the selector to Components.

5. Pick the components Plate and Support_Bolt using the list selection dialog.
6. Click on Surf_id (M) in the EE and set the selector to Components.
7. Pick the components Plate and Support_Bolt using the list selection dialog.
8. Set Igap to 0.
9. For FRIC, enter 0.1 and for GAPmin, enter 0.04.
Step 9: Create time history to obtain displacement at free end

1. From the Analysis page, select the output block panel.
2. For name, enter Deflection and select the nodes on the free end of the cantilever, as
shown in the following image:
3. Click create.
4. Click edit and enter the variable name DEF.
Altair Engineering

88
5. Click return twice to exit the panel.
Step 10: Create output request and control cards

All the output requests are mapped to control cards in HyperMesh.
1. Right-click in the Solver browser general area to and select Create to create the cards
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TITLE_ENGINE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TITLE_ENGINE
TITLE
Cantilever Beam
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
25.1
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Keyword2
ON
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Time Frequency
0.05
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM EPSP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA
SET
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA
Tmin
0.0008
Step 11: Run the model checker

1. Click Tools > Model Checker > RadiossBlock to open the Model Checker tab.
2. The Model Checker will display a list of perceived errors within the model.
For most of these issues, the Model Checker is equipped to auto-correct many issues,
decreasing the possibility of a solver error.
89

Altair Engineering
3. Click the Apply Auto Correction icon

issues within the model.
and click the Run icon
to auto-correct

1. Click File > Export or click the Export icon
want to export to.
and navigate to the destination directory where you
3. For Name, enter CANTILEVER and click Save.

5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export both the Starter and Engine file in one
file.
6. Click Export to export the file.
Step 13: Run the model in the solver

1. Go to Start > Programs > Altair HyperWorks 13.0 > RADIOSS.
2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file CANTILEVER_0000.rad.
3. Set -singlefile in the Options and click Run.

4. Post-process the results with HyperView.
5. Using HyperGraph, open the T01 file and plot the deflection at the free end of the
cantilever.
Altair Engineering

90
91

Altair Engineering
RD-3520: Pre-Processing for Pipes Impact using RADIOSS

For this tutorial it is recommended to complete the introductory tutorial, HM-1000: Getting
Started with HyperMesh. Working knowledge of the creation and editing of collectors and
card images are a definite pre-requisite. Familiarity with the Interfaces panel, and the
creation of boundary conditions are useful, although not required.
Objective
In this tutorial you will learn how to set up a RADIOSS input file in HyperMesh for analyzing
the impact response between two pipes. The modeling steps that are covered are:
Creating materials, sections, and parts for the model.
Defining the contact between the two pipes using /INTER/TYPE7.
Applying a translational initial velocity to a pipe using the /INIVEL card.
Applying local constraints to the other pipe using the /BCS card.
Model Description
The units used in this tutorial are milliseconds, millimeters and kilograms (ms, mm, kg), and
the tutorial is based on RADIOSS 110.
Pipe model
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the
icon on the toolbar.
Altair Engineering

92
Step 2: Import the solver deck


and navigate to <installation_directory>\tutorials
\hwsolvers\radioss and open the pipesd00.rad file.
3. Click Import. The model loads into the graphics area.
Note: On import of a RADIOSS deck, any HyperMesh warning and error
messages are written to a file named radiossblk.msg. This file is
created in the folder from which HyperMesh is started. The content
of the file is also displayed in a pop-up window.
On import, any RADIOSS cards not supported by HyperMesh are
written to the control card unsupp_cards. This card is accessed from
the control cards panel on the BCs page and is a pop-up text editor.
The unsupported cards are exported with the rest of the model.
Care should be taken if an unsupported card points to an entity in
HyperMesh. An example of this is an unsupported material
referenced by a /PART card. HyperMesh stores unsupported cards as
text and does not consider pointers.
On import, HyperMesh renumbers entities having the same ID as
other entities. In HyperMesh, for example, all elements must have a
unique ID. The message file radiossblk.msg provides a list of
renumbered elements and their original and new IDs.
Step 3: Understand the relationships between the /PART, /SHELL, /

MAT and /PROP cards in HyperMesh
A /PART shares attributes such as section properties (/PROP) and a material (/MAT). A group
of shells (/SHELL) sharing common attributes generally share a common part ID (PID).
The figure below shows how these keywords are mapped to HyperMesh entities:
/SHELL
elem_ID
/PART
part_ID
/PROP
prop_ID
Property collector with a

property card image
/MAT
mat_ID
Material collector with a

material card image
93
part_ID
prop_ID
Organized into component

collectors
mat_ID
Component collector with a

component card image

Altair Engineering
Map to HyperMesh Entities

Component, property and material collectors are created and edited from the Collectors
panel.
For the RADIOSS keyword interface, there is only one component card image and it is
named Part. There are several property card images, such as P1_SHELL, P2_TRUSS, and
P14_SOLID. There are many material card images, such as M1_ELAST and
M48_HONEYCOMB.
The complete list of card images is available from the Collectors panel, as you assign card
images to the various types of collectors.
A HyperMesh card image allows you to view the image of keywords and data lines for defined
RADIOSS entities as interpreted by the loaded template. The keywords and data lines
appear in the exported RADIOSS input file as you see them in the card images. Additionally,
for some card images, you can define and edit various parameters and data items for the
corresponding RADIOSS.
Use the Entity Editor or card (card editor) panel from the permanent menu to review and edit
card images. Also, for many entities, their card image can be viewed and edited from the
panels in which they are created.
Step 4: Create a /MAT card

In HyperMesh, a /MAT card is associated to a material collector. To relate it to a /PART card,
the material needs to be assigned to a component.
You can assign the material to the component collector as you create the component using
the Create subpanel of the Collectors panel or from component create options in the pulldowns or from the Model browser using the Entity Editor (EE). In situations where the
material was not assigned to the component at the time of creation (and in this case, a
dummy material is created with the same name as the component collector), update the
component collector's definition by assigning the material in the Update subpanel of the
Collectors panel or from the Assign option in Model browser or using the Entity Editor (EE) of
the component.
In this step, create a material with the M1_ELAST card image using the Model browser. This
material will be assigned to both pipes.
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. A material is created and
displayed in the Entity Editor (EE) below the Model browser.
2. For Name, enter elast1.
3. Set Card Image to M1_ELAST.
4. In the Entity Editor (EE), click to activate the field.
Rho_Initial (density), enter 7.8E-6
E (Young's modulus), enter 208
nu (Poisson's ratio), enter 0.30
Altair Engineering

94
Note: If you have difficulties completing any task with the

creation, update or editing of materials in this
tutorial, refer to the on-line help for the materials by
clicking Help from the menu.
Hint: Any material that was mistakenly created with wrong
values can be edited using the card image option.
In this step, the material created will be used for the analysis. The next step is to define the /
PROP card that will be used to define the properties of the elements in the model.
Step 5: Create a /PROP card

In HyperMesh, the /PROP card is assigned to a property. To generate this card, create a
property collector using either the Property icon
in the toolbar or click Properties >
Create from the pull-down or from the Model browser, click Create > Property.
The model consists of two pipes modeled with shell elements. Create a property with a /
PROP/SHELL card that will be used for all the elements.
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property. A property is created
and displayed in the Entity Editor (EE).
2. For Name, enter prop shell.
3. Set Card Image to P1_SHELL.
4. For shell thickness Thick, enter 2.5.
95

Altair Engineering
Step 6: Assign the /PART, /MAT and /PROP cards to the elements
Assign the /PART card to the component for the coarse pipe and specify the /PROP/SHELL
card ID in it.
1. In the Model browser, select the components Pipe1 and Pipe2. A combined Entity Editor
(EE) appears for both the selected components.
2. Set Card Image to PART.
3. For Prop_Id, click Unspecified > Property and select the property, prop shell and
click OK.
4. For Mat_Id, click Unspecified > Material and select the material, elast1 and click OK.
Step 7: Create Interface/Contact cards

RADIOSS contacts are created in the Interfaces panel from the Analysis page or from the
menu, select BCs > Create > Interfaces or from the Model browser, click Create >
Contact.
A RADIOSS contact is a HyperMesh group. When you want to manipulate an /INTER card,
such as delete it, renumber it, or turn it off, you need to work with HyperMesh group entities.
In this step, create a contact between the two pipes using /INTER/TYPE7. The pipe with the
Altair Engineering

96
coarser mesh (2) will be the master surface while the one with finer mesh (1) will be the
slave surface. RADIOSS has multiple ways to define master and slave entity types from which
to choose; in this example define the master and slave entities as components, by doing this,
the master will be exported as /SURF/PART and the slave as a /GRNOD/PART.
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Contact. A contact is created and
the Entity Editor (EE) opens.
2. For Name field, enter contact.
4. For Surf_id(M) that corresponds to the master selection, click on the drop-down arrow
and select Components.
5. Click Components and select component 2 in the selection or on the graphics window
and click OK.
6. For Grnod_id(S) that corresponds to the slave selection, click on the drop-down arrow
and select Components.
7. Click Components and select component 1 in the selection or on the graphics window
and click OK.
8. For static coefficient [FRIC], enter 0.10.
In this step, you defined the contact between the two pipes as /INTER/TYPE7.
97

Altair Engineering
Step 8: Create boundary conditions

Boundary conditions for RADIOSS can be efficiently created using the BCs Manager available
on the Utility browser. The BCs Manager can be accessed from the Tools menu. RADIOSS
boundary conditions are mapped to load collector in HyperMesh.
In this step, you will apply a translational initial velocity along Z direction to the coarse pipe
using BCs Manager.
1. In the BCs Manager, enter Name as tran_vel and set Select type as Initial Velocity
under the Create header.
2. Click Parts, select component 2 from the GUI, and click proceed. This creates the entity
set of type GRNOD, which is referred to in the /INIVEL card.
3. In the BCs Manager, enter the initial velocity components as 0, 0 and -30 for Vx, Vy
and Vz fields.
There is an option for creating/referring the initial velocity card to a local coordinate
Altair Engineering

98
system. However, if nothing is specified, the global coordinate system is selected by

default.
4. Click Create. Cross check in the Model browser for your reference that a load collector
and an entity set are created.
This completes the creation of an initial velocity for the pipe in the negative global Z
direction.
Step 9: Create a /BCS and constrain the finer mesh pipe

In this step, you will fully constrain the end nodes of the bottom pipe by using the Boundary
Conditions Manager.
1. In the BCs Manager, enter Name as SPC and set Select type as Boundary Condition.
2. Now specify the node set of type as GRNOD for the BCS card, switch the entity from
Parts to Nodes and select the end nodes of the bottom pipe, which are to be
constrained.
3. Under the Boundary condition components subheading (as illustrated below) activate
all the translational and rotational check boxes. Click Create.
A load collector with a BCS card is created and applied the nodes as selected in the above
steps. A corresponding node set is created.
Step 10: Create output definitions and control cards

All the output requests are mapped to control cards in HyperMesh.
1. Right-click in the Solver browser general area to and select Create to create the cards
Keyword Type
99
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TITLE_ENGINE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TITLE_ENGINE
TITLE
PIPE IMPACT
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
7.01
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Keyword2
ON
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-100
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Time Frequency
0.01
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM EPSP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM ENERGY
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM HOURG
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/DT
Tfreq
0.500
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/VECT CON
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/VECT DISP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/VECT FOPT
[Checked]

want to export to.
and then navigate to the destination directory where you
3. For Name, enter pipe and click Save.

5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export both the Starter and Engine file in one
file.
Altair Engineering

100
6. Click Export to export the solver deck.

This concludes this tutorial. You may discard this HyperMesh model or save it for your own
reference.
In this tutorial some of the concepts that govern the HyperMesh interface to RADIOSS are
introduced. You also used numerous panels that allowed you to do basic modeling in terms
of RADIOSS, such as defining contacts or boundary conditions.
Final deformation and energy balance plot
101

Altair Engineering
RD-3530: Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh

This exercise simulates buckling of a tube using half tube mesh with symmetric boundary
conditions.
The figure illustrates the structural model used for this tutorial: a half tube with a rectangular
section (38.1 x 25.4 mm) and length of 203 mm.
Model Description
Simulation time: Engine [0 10 ms]
The tube thickness is 0.914 mm.
An imposed velocity of 13.3 mm/ms (~30 MPH) is applied to the right end of the tube
Elasto-plastic material using Johnson-Cook law /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (STEEL).
[Rho_Initial] Initial density = 7.85e-6 Kg/mm3
[nu] Poisson coefficient = 0.33
File needed to complete this tutorial: tube_box.hm
Altair Engineering

102
Exercise
Step 1: Load the RADIOSS User Profile
icon on the toolbar.
Step 2: Load the model

1. From the toolbar, click the Open Model icon
and navigate to
<installation_directory>\tutorials\hwsolvers\radioss and open the tube_box.hm
file.
2. Click Open. The model loads into the graphics area.
Step 3: Create Material for the tube

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. The Entity Editor is
displayed below the Model browser.
2. For Name, enter Steel.
3. Set Card Image to M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL and click Yes to confirm.
4. Set Type as PLAS_JOHNS.
5. Input the values, as shown below:
103

Altair Engineering
6. Click anywhere in the Model browser to exit the Entity Editor.
Step 4: Create Property for the tube

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property. The Entity Editor is
2. For Name, enter Pshell.
3. Set Card Image to P1_SHELL.
Altair Engineering

104
Step 5: Assign material and property to the component

1. Select the component Tube_box in the Model browser.
2. In the Entity Editor, for Prop_Id, click Unspecified > Property
3. In the Select Property dialog, select Pshell and click OK.
4. In the Entity Editor, for Mat_Id, click Unspecified > Material.
5. In the Select Material dialog, select Steel and click OK.
105

Altair Engineering
Step 6: Create Rigid Body

1. Create a component collector RBODY. Set Card Image to None in the Entity Editor.
2. In the 1D page, select rigids.
3. Set nodes 2-n to multiple nodes.
4. Set primary node tab to calculate node.
5. Select the nodes of one edge to tie all the degrees of freedom, as shown in the image
below:
6. Click create.
Altair Engineering

106
Step 7: Create Symmetry Boundary Conditions

1. Click Tools > BCs Manager to start the BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter Symmetry, set Select type as Boundary Condition and set GRNOD to
Nodes.
3. Click on the nodes, nodes selection appears; by window option, select the top layer of
the channel as shown below and the selection should appear as below:
4. Fix the degrees of freedom for symmetry condition, as shown below:
5. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table, and a
handle appears in graphics area.
107

Altair Engineering
Step 8: Create Imposed Velocity

1. For Name, enter Velocity, set Select type as Imposed Velocity and set GRNOD to
Nodes.
2. Select the master node of the RBODY on which the boundary condition needs to be
applied.
3. Set the Direction as Z.

4. Click Create/Select curve to create imposed velocity loading curve. A new GUI opens.
5. Click New to enter Load as the name of the curve.
6. Click proceed.
7. Enter the X values as 0, 1000.
8. Enter corresponding Y values as 13.3, 13.3.
Altair Engineering

108
9. Click the Create tab to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table
and a handle appears in graphics area.
Step 9: Create boundary condition on the rigid body

1. Enter Name as RBODY_constraint, set Select type as Boundary Condition and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
2. Select the master node of the RBODY on which the boundary condition need to be
applied.
3. Set the degrees of freedom to not allow movement in X and Y direction and no rotation
about Y-axis and Z-axis, as shown below.
4. Click the Create tab to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table
and a handle appears in graphics area.
109

Altair Engineering
Step 10: Create a Rigid Wall

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Rigid Wall.
2. Set the Geometry Type as Infinite plane.
3. Click on the Base node option and select extreme node opposite to rigid body edge.
4. Set the normal vector using the N1, N2, N3 option, as shown below. Ensure that N3 is
not active. Click Proceed.
Note: Keep N3 inactive.

5. Set d (distance) value to 20 and set variable fric value to 0.20 for friction.
Altair Engineering

110
6. Go to Analysis > rigid walls panel.

7. Move to the Geometry page. Click on the Edit tab besides base node and change the Z
value to 10.0 to be away from the channel along the Z-axis.
8. Click update.
Step 11: Creating a Self Contact to avoid self penetration during

impact
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Contact. The Entity Editor will
open.
2. Enter the Name as Self_Interface and set the Card Image as TYPE7 and click Yes to
confirm.
3. Toggle the option to Components for Grnod_id (S) (slave entity), select Tube_box and
click OK.
111

Altair Engineering
4. Toggle the option to Components for Surf_id (M) (master entity), select Tube_box and
click OK.
5. Set STFAC = 1, FRIC = 0.20 and GAPmin = 0.90.
6. Click anywhere in the Model browser to exit the Entity Editor.
Altair Engineering

112
7. You may want to review the created interface. For this go to the Analysis > Interface
panel.
8. Go to the update subpanel, select created interface and click review. It will show
master and slave surface as blue and red.

1. Launch the HyperMesh Solver browser from View > Browsers > HyperMesh > Solver.
2. Right-click in the Solver browser general area to create the cards, shown below with the
given values for each parameter:
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Box_Tube
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
10.01
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-100
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
EPSP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
ENERGY
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
HOURG
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
VEL
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
FOPT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
CONT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Tfreq
113

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/NODA
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/NODA
DMAS
[Checked]

to export to.
3. Enter the name boxtube and click Save.

5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export the engine file with the model file.
6. Click Export to export the file.
Step 14: Run the solver using RADIOSS Manager

2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file boxtube_0000.rad.
Altair Engineering

114
Step 15: Results analysis in HyperView

EXERCISE EXPECTED RESULTS
115

Altair Engineering
RD-3540: Front Impact Bumper Model using HyperMesh

For this tutorial it is recommended to complete the introductory tutorial HM-1000: Getting
Started with HyperMesh, as well as RD-3520: Pre-Processing for Pipes Impact Using
RADIOSS Block for the basic concepts on the HyperMesh RADIOSS interface.
In this tutorial you will learn how to use HyperMesh to set up a RADIOSS input deck for
analysis of the impact of a bumper against a barrier behind rigid wall. The modeling steps
that are covered are:
Associating /PART, with /MAT and /PROP.
Converting node-to-node connections (/RBODY) into a mesh-less welding formulation (/
INTER/TYPE2 with /SPRING) using HyperMesh connectors.
Defining the contact for the elements in the bumper with an /INTER/TYPE7 card.
Defining the interaction between bumper and barrier with an /INTER/TYPE7 card.
Defining the interaction between barrier and rigid wall with the /RWALL/PLANE and /
BOX cards.
Specify the output of resultant forces for a plane on the left interior and exterior crash
boxes with /SECT.
Creating a /TH/NODE card to output time history for nodes.
The units used in the model are millisecond, millimeter and kilogram (ms, mm, kg), and the
tutorial is based on RADIOSS Block 12.0.
Exercise
The model used consists of a simplified bumper model (see image below):
Bumper model

icon in toolbar.

Altair Engineering

116
Step 2: Load the bumper.hm file

1. Click the Open Model icon
\hwsolvers\radioss and open the bumper.hm file.
2. Click Open.
The model loads into the graphics area.
Step 3: Define vehicle mass component to partially take into account

the inertia properties and mass of the missing parts of the vehicle
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Component. The Entity Editor (EE)
will open.
2. For Name, enter Vehicle mass.
3. Set Card Image to None and click Yes to confirm.
4. Click Geometry > Create > Nodes > XYZ to open the Nodes panel.
5. In the X field, enter 700.
6. In the Y field, enter 0.
7. In the Z field, enter 170.
8. Click create to create the node.
9. Go to the 1D page, and click rigids.
10. Click the selector arrow nodes 2-n: and select sets.
11. For primary node, select the node created in the steps above.
12. Click sets and select the Constrain Vehicle set.
13. With all the DOFs checked, click create to create the rigid body.
Note: A spider will be drawn connecting the created node to
the edge nodes of the structure modeled.
14. Click Card Edit
body created.
in the toolbar, set the selector to elements and select the rigid
15. Click edit.

16. Fill the mass and inertia information in the card image, as shown in the table below:
Mass
JXX
JXY
JXZ
JYY
JYZ
JZZ
800
1.5E+07
-5.0E+03
-8.0E+06
5.0E+07
-900
6.0E+07
17. Set ICOG as 4 and set Ispher as 0.

117

Altair Engineering
Step 4: Create a GRNOD/BOX that contains all nodes but the barrier
nodes
1. Activate the Solver browser if it is not active on your screen. Use View > Browsers >
HyperMesh > Solver to enable the tab.
2. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > GRNOD > BOX. The Entity Editor
opens.
3. For Name, enter box velocity.
4. Optionally, select a Color.
5. Enter Max and Min X, Y, and Z coordinates, as shown below.
Step 5: Create initial velocity on bumper but the barrier

1. Click Tools > BCs Manager.
2. In the BCs Manager, enter Name as trans_vel.
3. Select the Select type as Initial Velocity under the Create header.
4. Set the entity selector to GRNOD(Box).
5. Click on it and select box velocity.
6. Enter -10, 0, 0 for Vx, Vy and Vz fields, respectively.
Altair Engineering

118
7. Click the Create > Close.
Step 6: Define master surface for contact

1. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > SURF_EXT > PART. The Entity
Editor opens.
2. For Name, enter barrier_surface.
3. For Entity IDs, click on Components.
4. In the Select Components dialog, select barrier and click OK.
5. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > SURF > PART. The Entity Editor
opens.
6. For Name, enter bumper_surface.
7. For Entity IDs, click on Components.
8. In the Select Components dialog, select bumper, exterior crashbox left, exterior
crashbox right, interior crashbox left, and interior crashbox right and click OK.
9. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > SURF > SURF. The Entity Editor
opens.
10. For Name, enter barrier_bumper_surface.
11. For Entity IDs, select Sets.
12. Click on Sets and select barrier_surface and bumper_surface and click OK.
119

Altair Engineering
Step 7: Create self impact contact between parts of the bumper

1. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > INTER > TYPE7. The Entity Editor
opens.
2. For Name, enter impact.
3. For Grnod_id (S) (slave entity), set the selector to Components.
4. Click Components, select bumper, interior crashbox (left and right) and exterior
crashbox (left and right) and click OK.
5. For Surf_id (M) (master entity), set the selector to Set.
6. Click Set, select barrier_bumper_surface and click OK.
7. Set Igap to 2.
8. For the static coefficient FRIC, enter 0.15.
Altair Engineering

120
Step 8: Create a system that specifies the location and the cross
section plane normal
1. Click the numbering icon
on the toolbar.
2. Click the nodes selector and select by id.

3. For the IDs enter 6224, 6227, and 5993.
4. Check the display check box on.
5. Click on.
Note: Node numbers will appear next to the node for
selection in further steps.
6. From the Analysis page, click systems.
7. Go to the create by node reference page.
8. Select Node ID 6224 for origin node.
9. Select Node ID 6227 for z- axis.
10. Select Node ID 5993 for yz plane.
121

Altair Engineering
11. Click create to create a system.

12. Click the Card Edit icon
on the toolbar.
13. Set the entity selector to systs.

14. Select the system and click edit.
15. Change the option from Skew to Frame.
16. Click return.
Step 9: Create a set of elements that will contribute to the crosssectional force results
1. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > GRSHEL > SHEL. The Entity Editor
opens.
2. For Name, enter XsectionPlane-elements.
3. For Entity IDs, toggle to Elements selector active, select two rows of element on either
side of the system, as shown in figure below.
Step 10: Define a section

1. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > SECT. The Entity Editor opens.
2. For Name, enter Xsection_Plane.
3. Go to Analysis > rigid walls.
4. Move to geom subpanel.
5. For Name, select Xsection_Plane.
6. Click the normal vector drop-down and select systemid.
7. Select the system defined in the previous step by clicking on the screen.
8. Click update to update the plane geometry.
Altair Engineering

122
9. Click the add subpanel.

10. Change the entity selector to sets and click XsectionPlane-elements.
11. Click update to update the SET.
Step 11: Select the section for time history output

1. From the Analysis page, click output block.
2. For Name, enter Section_force.
3. For Entity IDs, toggle groups and select Xsection_Plane.
Step 12: Create a GRNOD/BOX containing the nodes making up the

barrier and bumpers left side
These nodes will be slave to the rigid wall.
1. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > GRNOD > BOX. The Entity Editor
opens.
2. For Name, enter half model.
3. Optionally, select a Color.
4. Enter Max and Min X, Y and Z coordinates, as shown below:
Step 13: Define a rigid wall

1. Press the F8 key to enter the create nodes panel.
2. Select the XYZ (
) subpanel.
3. For x=, y= and z=, enter the values 600, -750 and 90, respectively.
4. Click create.
5. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > RWALL > PLANE. The Entity
Editor opens.
123

Altair Engineering
6. For Name, enter wall.

7. Set Geometry type as Infinite Plane.
8. With the Base node selector active, select the node that was created in step 4.
9. Set Normal to 1,0,0.
10. For grnod_id1 (S), toggle Rad_box.
11. For Grnod1Box, click Block and select box half model.
12. For fric, specify 1.0 for the friction coefficient.

Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter
Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Bumper_Impact
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Altair Engineering

124
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter
Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Tstop
20
Status
[Checked]
Keyword2
ON
Status
[Checked]
N_Print
-1000
Status
[Checked]
Time Frequency
0.1
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
EPSP
[Checked]
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/BRICK/TENS
Status
[Checked]
STRESS
[Checked]
STRAIN
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/SHELL/TENS/STRESS
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/SHELL/TENS/STRESS
MEMB
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/SHELL/TENS/STRAIN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/SHELL/TENS/STRAIN
MEMB
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
DISP
[Checked]
VEL
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
TStart
Tfreq
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT/NODA
Status
[Checked]
125

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Parameter
Keyword
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT/NODA
CST 0 Tmin
Parameter
Value
3.6e-4

want to export to.
3. Enter the name bumper_impact and click Save.

5. Toggle Merge starter and engine file to export the engine file with the model file.
6. Click Export to export both model and engine file.

2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file
bumper_impact_0000.rad.
Step 17 (Optional): View the results in HyperView

The exercise is complete. Save your work to a HyperMesh file.
Altair Engineering

126
127

Altair Engineering
RD-3550: Simplified Car Pole Impact

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate frontal pole test with a simplified full car.
Model Description
Simulation time: Engine file (_0001.rad) [0 0.0601 ms]
An initial velocity of 15600 mm/s is applied on the car model to impact a rigid pole of
radius 250 mm.
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/LAW2 (Windshield)
[Rho_I] Initial Density = 2.5x10-9 ton/mm3
[a] Yield Stress = 192 MPa
[b] Hardening Parameter = 200 MPa
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/LAW2 (Rubber)
[Rho_I] Initial Density = 2x10-9 ton/mm3
[a] Yield Stress = 1e30 MPa
[n] Hardening Exponent = 1
Altair Engineering

128
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/LAW2 (Steel)

[Rho_I] Initial Density = 7.9x10-9 ton/mm3
[a] Yield Stress = 200 MPa
[b] Hardening Parameter = 450 MPa
[SIG_max] Maximum Stress = 425 MPa
Exercise
icon on toolbar.


\hwsolvers\radioss and open the FULL_CAR_0000.rad file.
3. Click Open, then click Import.
Step 3: Create and assign the material for the windshield

components
2. For Name, enter windshield.
3. Set Card Image as M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL and click Yes to confirm.
129

Altair Engineering
5. In the Model browser, select components PSHELL_3 and PSHELL_16.

6. For Mat_Id, select the material windshield and click OK to update the selected
components with the created material.
Step 4: Create and assign the material for the rubber components
displayed.
2. For Name, enter rubber.
3. Set Card Image to M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL and click Yes to confirm.
Altair Engineering

130
5. In the Model browser, select components PSHELL_20 through PSHELL_23.

6. For Mat_Id, select the material rubber and click OK to update the selected components
with the created material.
Step 5: Create Steel material and assign to all other parts

displayed.
2. For Name, enter steel.
3. Set Card Image to M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL.
Rho_Initial = 7.9e-9
E = 210000.0
nu = .3
a = 200.0
b = 450.0
n = 0.5
5. In the Model browser select all components labeled with PSHELL and PROD, except
PSHELL_3, PSHELL_16 and PSHELL_20 to PSHELL_23.
131

Altair Engineering
6. For Mat_Id, select the material steel and click OK to assign the material to the selected
components.
Step 6: Create a Rigid Wall

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Rigid Wall. The Entity Editor is
displayed.
2. For Name, enter Ground.
3. Set Geometry type as Infinite plane.
4. Click Base node and select 'any node' from the model.
5. Define the normal vector Z = -1.
6. Set distance d = 300.
7. Go to the Analysis > rigid walls panel.

8. Move to the geom page.
9. Click name and select Ground from the list.
10. Click the edit tab besides base node and change values of the coordinates as indicated
Altair Engineering

132
below.
X = -2300, Y = 1200, and Z = -1.
11. Click update > return.
Step 7: Create a Cylindrical Rigid Wall to represent pole

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Rigid Wall. The Entity Editor will
display.
2. For Name, enter Pole.
3. Set the Geometry type as Cylinder.
4. Click Base node and select any node from the model.
5. Define the normal vector Z= 1.
6. For Radius node, do not select anything. Leave it as <Unspecified>.
7. Set distance d= 1500.
8. Go to Analysis > Rigid Walls panel.

9. Move to the geom page.
10. Click name and select Pole from the list.
11. Click the edit tab besides base node and change values of the coordinates as indicated
below.
X = -320, Y = 1250, and Z = 0.
12. Set Radius = 250.
13. Click update > return.
133

Altair Engineering
Step 8: Defining Contact using TYPE 7 interface (Self Contact)

1. Hide all the 1D (TRUSSES) and 3D (SOLID) parts in the model by going to the Solver
browser PROP > SHELL, Isolate only. Return to the Model browser.
display.
3. For Name, enter CAR_CAR.
5. For Surf_id (M) (master entity), set the option to Components and select displayed
components and click OK.
6. Input other parameters as shown below.
Altair Engineering

134
Step 9: Defining Contact using TYPE 7 interface between Engine and

Radiator
1. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > SURF_EXT > PART.
2. For Name, enter engine.
3. Click on Components and select PSOLID_24.
display.
5. For Name, enter ENGINE_RADIATOR and set the Card Image as TYPE7 and click Yes to
confirm.
6. For Grnod_id (S) (slave entity), set the selector switch to Components and click
Components, select PSOLID_2.
7. For Surf_id (M) (master entity), set the selector switch to Set and click Set, select
Engine.
135

Altair Engineering
Step 10: Defining initial velocity

1. Click Tools > BCs Manager to start the BCS Manager.
2. For Name, enter 35MPH, set Select type as Initial Velocity and set GRNOD to Parts.
3. Click comps and select all of the parts in the model.
4. Set the Vx as 15600.
5. Click Create to create the boundary condition and boundary condition appears in the
table.
Step 11: Create Time History Nodes

1. In the Model browser, isolate PSHELL_19.
2. Click Tools > Create Cards > TH > NODE.
3. For Name, enter RAIL and select nodes on the Rail, as shown below.
Altair Engineering

136
4. Right-click on RAIL and click Card Edit.

5. In the Var: field, enter DEF.
6. Click return to return to the main menu.

2. Right-click in the Solver browser general area to create the cards shown below with the
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Car_Analysis
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Run Number
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
0.0601
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Time Frequency
9e-5
137

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
EPSP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
HOURG
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
VEL
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
CONT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
FOPT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Tfreq
0.003

2. Enter a filename in the destination directory where you want to export to.
3. Enter the name FULLCAR and click Save.
5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export the engine file with the model in one file.
6. Click Export to export both model and engine file.

2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file FULLCAR_0000.rad.
Altair Engineering

138

139

Altair Engineering
RD-3560: Bottle Drop

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a Bottle Drop Test containing water and air. The
objective is to evaluate the diffusivity of water and air in the bottle on drop.
Exercise
icon in toolbar.
Step 2: Load the bottle.hm file

and navigate to
<installation_directory>\tutorials\hwsolvers\radioss and open the bottle.hm
file.
Altair Engineering

140
Step 3: Define Materials for Air and Water

2. For Name, enter Air.
3. For Card Image, select M37_BIPHAS and click Yes to confirm.
4. Input the values, as shown below. Remember to select ALE under ALE CFD
Formulation.
5. Similarly create a material with the name Water using Steps 3.1 to 3.4.
6. Input the values, as shown below.
141

Altair Engineering
Step 4: Load stress-strain curve from a file

To create the material for bottle (plastic) you need a stress strain curve that is available in a
file from test.
1. Click XYPlots > Create > Plots.
2. Enter the plot= name as stress-strain and click create plot > return.
3. Click XYPlots > Edit > Curves.
4. Toggle the create radio button.
5. Click the load button to load the stressstrain_curve.txt file.
6. With the x radio button selected, click the green + to the right of comp= and set it to x.
7. Select the y radio button, click the green + to the right of comp= and set it to y.
8. Click create > return.
9. In the Model browser, click on curve.

10. In the Entity Editor, rename it as stress_strain. The data in the file is loaded as a
curve in HyperMesh.
Altair Engineering

142
Step 5: Define Material for Bottle

2. For Name, enter Bottle.
3. For Card Image, select M36_PLAS_TAB and click Yes to confirm.
Select the stress-strain curve created for fct_ID1.
Step 6: Define property and assign material for Air

2. For Name, enter Air.
3. For Card Image, select P14_SOLID and click Yes to confirm.
4. Enter parameters, as shown below.
143

Altair Engineering
5. In the Model browser, click on the air component.

6. Select material and property created for Air in the Entity Editor.
Step 7: Define property and assign material for Water

2. For Name, enter Water.
Altair Engineering

144
5. In the Model browser, click on the water component.

6. Select material and property created for Water in the Entity Editor.
Step 8: Define property and assign material for Bottle

3. For Card Image, select P1_SHELL.
N=5
Thick = 0.3
5. In the Model browser, click on the bottle component.
6. Select material and property created for Bottle in the Entity Editor.
Step 9: Define an Interface between Bottle and Water

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Set.
2. For Name, enter ALE_Surf.
3. Set Card Image to SURF_EXT and click Yes to confirm.
145

Altair Engineering
4. For Entity IDs, set the entity selector to Components.

5. Click Components and select water and air.
6. Click OK to complete the selection.
7. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Contact.

8. For Name, enter Bottle_Water, and for Card Image, select TYPE1.
9. For ls2(S) (slave entity), set the selector to Set.
10.In the Select Set dialog, select ALE_surf and click OK.
11.For ls1(M) (master entity), set the selector to Components.
12.In the Select Components dialog, select Bottle and click OK.
Step 10: Create Initial Velocity for Bottle

2. Set the Select type to Initial Velocity.
Altair Engineering

146
4. Click Parts and bottle.

5. Set the Vz velocity to -5468.200 (Negative direction indicating opposite to Global Z-axis).
6. Click Create to create the imposed velocity boundary condition.
Step 11: Create Initial Velocity for Water and Air

1. Set the Select type to Initial Velocity.
2. For Name, enter Liquid.
3. Click Parts and select water and air.
4. Set the Vz velocity to -5468.200 (Negative direction indicating opposite to Global Z-axis).
5. Click Create to create the imposed velocity boundary condition.
6. Select the Liquid initial velocity in the table, right-click and select Card Edit.
7. Change the Type to T+G and click return to complete the definition.
147

Altair Engineering
Step 12: Create Rigid Wall

1. In the graphics area, press the F8 key, and create the node at the coordinates: X= 0, Y=
0, Z= -50 and create node.
3. For Name, enter GROUND with Geometry type as Infinite plane.
4. Select node created in Step 12.1 as base node and make sure the normal vector is in
the z-direction, as shown below.
5. Set the d to 250.0.

Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Bottle_drop
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
NMOTS
40000
CONTROL CARDS
SPMD
Status
[Checked]
Altair Engineering

148
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
IOFLAG
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
ANALY
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
ALE_Grid_Velocity
[Checked ]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
1.5e-2
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Keyword2
OFF
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Time Frequency
0.00015
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/ELEM
PRES
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM > ANIM/DT
Tfreq
1.5e-3
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT > DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT > DT
Tscale
0.5
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT > DT
Tmin
0.0

1. Click File > Export Solver Deck or click the Export Solver Deck icon
want to export to.
149

Altair Engineering
3. For Name, enter bottle and click Save.

5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export all the data in one file.
6. Click Export to export solver deck.

2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file bottle_0000.rad.

Altair Engineering

150
RD-3580: Boat Ditching
151

Altair Engineering
Boat Ditching with Boundary Elements

The objective of this tutorial is to simulate Boat Ditching with Boundary Elements to
represent continuous water using bi-phase material law (Law 37). In this model, the top
chamber is air, lower chamber is water surrounded by boundary elements. Law 37 is used
for air, water and boundary. Boundary conditions are applied on each surface of boundary in
the normal direction. An interface between fluid and boat (CEL) is defined to manage the
contact.
Exercise
icon
in toolbar.
Step 2: Load the boat_ditching_1.hm file

and navigate to
<installation_directory>\tutorials\hwsolvers\radioss and open the
boat_ditching_1.hm file.
Step 3: Define and assign Material, Property to component AIR

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. The new material shows
up in the Entity Editor (EE).
2. For Name, enter air.
3. For Card Image, select M37_BIPHAS.
Remember to select ALE under ALE CFD Formulation.
Altair Engineering

152
5. Create a new property named Air with a Card Image of P14_SOLID by right-clicking in
the Model browser.
6. Click on the component Air and assign Air as the Prop_Id and air as the Mat_Id in the
Entity Editor.
Step 4: Define and assign Material, Property to component WATER

2. For Name, enter water.
153

Altair Engineering

5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Water with a Card Image of
P14_SOLID.
6. Click on the component Water and assign Water as the Prop_Id and Water as the
Mat_Id in the Entity Editor.
Step 5: Define and assign Material, Property to component BOAT

2. For Name, enter boat.
3. For Card Image, select M1_ELASTIC.
Altair Engineering

154
5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Boat with a Card Image of
P1_SHELL and assign the new property with the values shown below:
6. Click on the component Boat and assign Boat as the Prop_Id and Boat as the Mat_Id
in the Entity Editor.
Step 6: Define and assign Material, Property to component Air-BC

up in the Entity Editor.
2. For Name, enter air-bc.
155

Altair Engineering

5. Click on the component Air-BC and assign Air as the Prop_Id and air-bc as the
Step 7: Define and assign Material, Property to component Water-BC

2. For Name, enter water-bc.
Altair Engineering

156
5. Click on the component Water-BC and assign Water as the Prop_Id and water-bc as
the Mat_Id in the Entity Editor.
Step 8: Define an Interface between Boat and Fluid

1. Click Tools > Create Cards > ALE-SPH-CFD > INTER_TYPE18. The new interface
opens in the Entity Editor.
2. Enter the parameter values, as shown below for Istf, STFAC, and GAP.
157

Altair Engineering
3. Set the Surf_id (M) for master selection to Components and select the boat
component.
4. Set the Grnod_id (S) for slave selection to Components and select all the components,
except boat.
Step 9: Create RBODY for the Boat and assign mass to the Master
Node
1. Isolate the boat part using the Model browser.
2. From the pull-down menu, select Tools > Rbody Manager.
3. For Title:, enter boat-rigid, verify that Master node: is set to Calculate Node and set
Slave node(s): to Parts and select the Boat.
4. Click Create to create the RBODY. The created RBODY appears in the table.
5. Select the created RBODY in the table and right-click and select Edit card
the card image panel.
to open
6. Assign a mass of 23.04 kg to the boat.

7. Click return to return from the card image panel.
8. Click Close to close the RBODY Manager.
Step 10: Create Initial Velocity

2. For Name, enter Boat.
3. For Select type, select Initial Velocity.
4. Set GRNOD to Nodes.
Altair Engineering

158
5. Click the Node tab and select the master node of the RBODY created in the previous
step.
6. Set Z velocity (VZ) to -11.0 indicating velocity opposite to global Z-axis.
7. Click Create to create the initial velocity boundary condition.
Step 11: Create Boundary Conditions on outermost faces

1. In the Model browser, right-click on the Components sub-folder and select Show to
display all components.
2. Enter a new boundary condition in the BCs Manager named Constraint-x.
3. For Select type, select Boundary condition.
5. Click the Node tab and select a node on both faces normal to x-axis.
6. Then click the nodes yellow tab and select By face.
HyperMesh will automatically select nodes on the face, as shown in figure.
159

Altair Engineering
7. Check Tx box to constraint translation in X direction.

8. Click Create to create the constraint.
9. Follow the same procedure (step 1-8) but create constraint in Y direction on the sides
parallel to Y plane of global axis.
10. Follow the same procedure (step 1-8) but create constraint in Z direction on the sides
parallel to Z plane of global axis.
Step 12: Creating control cards and output requests

Keyword Type
CONTROL CARDS
Altair Engineering
Keyword
TITLE
Parameter
Status
Parameter
Value
[Checked]

160
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter
Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Boat-Ditch-1
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
NMOTS
40000
CONTROL CARDS
SPMD
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
IOFLAG
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
ANALY
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD ALE_Grid_Velocity [Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
RunName
Boat-Ditch-1
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Tstop
30.01
Status
[Checked]
Keyword2
OFF
Status
[Checked]
N_Print
-1000
Status
[Checked]
VONM
[Checked]
DENS
[Checked]
PRES
[Checked]
Status
[Checked]
VEL
[Checked]
CONT
[Checked]
Status
[Checked]
TStart
Tfreq
1.0
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT
Status
[Checked]
161

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter
Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT
Tscale
0.5
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT
Tmin
0.0

want to export to.
3. For name, enter boatditching_1 and click Save.

5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export one solver deck.

boatditching_1_0000.rad.

Altair Engineering

162
Boat Ditching without Boundary Elements

The objective of this tutorial is to simulate Boat Ditching without Boundary Elements. So
there is no boundary to represent continuous water. Basically, you are simulating BoatDitching in an enclosed volume. In this model, the top chamber is air (including its outer
layer) and the lower chamber is water (including its outer layer). Bi-Phase material Law 37
was used to model air and water. Boundary conditions are applied on each surface of
boundary in the normal direction. An interface between fluid and boat (CEL) is defined to
manage the contact.
Exercise
icon in toolbar.
Step 2: Load the boat_ditching_2.hm file

and navigate to
boat_ditching_2.hm file.
Step 3: Define and assign Material, Property to component AIR

3. For Card Image, select M37_BIPHAS and click Yes to confirm.
163

Altair Engineering

5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Air with a Card Image of
P14_SOLID.
6. Click on the component Air and assign as the Prop_Id and air as the Mat_Id in the
Entity Editor.
Step 4: Define and assign Material, Property to component WATER

2. For Name, enter water.
Altair Engineering

164

5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Water with a Card Image of
P14_SOLID.
6. Click on the component Water and assign Water as the Prop_Id and Water as the
Step 5: Define and assign Material, Property to component BOAT

2. For Name, enter boat.
3. For Card Image, select M1_ELAST.
4. Input the values, as below.
165

Altair Engineering
5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Boat with a Card Image of
P1_SHELL and assign the new property with the values shown below:
6. Click on the component Boat and assign Boat as the Prop_Id and Boat as the Mat_Id in
the Entity Editor.
Step 6: Define an Interface between Boat and Fluid

1. Click Tools > Create Cards > ALE-SPH-CFD > INTER_TYPE18. The new interface
opens in the Entity Editor.
2. Enter the parameter values, as shown below for Istf, STFAC and GAP.
Altair Engineering

166
3. Set the Surf_id (M) for the master selection to Components and select the boat
component.
4. Set the Grnod_id (S) for the slave selection to Components and select all the
components, except boat.
Step 7: Create RBODY for the Boat and assign mass to the Master
Node
1. In the Model browser, isolate the boat part.
2. From the pull-down menu, select Tools > Rbody Manager.
3. For Title, enter RIGID_BOAT. Verify that the Master node is set to Calculate Node and
set the Slave node(s) to Parts and select the Boat.
167

Altair Engineering
4. Click Create to create the RBODY. The created RBODY appears in the table.
5. Select the created RBODY in the table and click Edit Card
panel.
to open the Card Image
6. Assign a mass of 23.04 kg to the boat.

7. Click return to return from the Card Image panel.
8. Click Close to close the RBODY Manager.
Step 8: Create Initial Velocity

1. Click BCs Manager in the Utility panel or click Tools > BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter Boat.
3. For Select type, select Initial Velocity.
5. Click the Node tab and select the master node of the RBODY created in the previous
step (ID: 690501).
6. Set Z velocity (VZ) to -11.0, indicating velocity opposite to global Z-axis.
7. Click Create to create the initial velocity boundary condition.
Altair Engineering

168
Step 9: Create Boundary Conditions on outermost faces

1. In the Model browser, right-click on the Components subfolder and select Show to
display all components.
2. Enter a new boundary condition in the BCs Manager, named Constraint-x.
3. For Select type, select Boundary Condition.
5. Click the Node selector and select a node on both faces normal to x-axis.
6. Click the nodes selector and select by face. HyperMesh will automatically select nodes
on the face, as shown in figure.
169

Altair Engineering
7. Check Tx box to constraint translation in X direction.

9. Follow the same procedure (step 1-8) but create constraint in Y direction on the sides
parallel to Y plane of global axis.
10. Follow the same procedure (step 1-8) but create constraint in Z direction on the sides
parallel to Z plane of global axis.

Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Boat-Ditch-1
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
NMOTS
40000
CONTROL CARDS
SPMD
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
IOFLAG
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
ANALY
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
ALE_Grid_Velocity
[Checked]
Altair Engineering

170
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
RunName
Boat-Ditch-1
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Tstop
30.01
Status
[Checked]
Keyword2
OFF
Status
[Checked]
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
VONM
[Checked]
DENS
[Checked]
PRES
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS ANIM > ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
VEL
[Checked]
CONT
[Checked]
Status
[Checked]
TStart
Tfreq
1.0
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT > DT
Status
[Checked]
Tscale
0.5
Tmin
0.0

to export to.
3. For name, enter boatditching_2 and click Save.

5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export the one solver deck.
171

Altair Engineering

boatditching_2_0000.rad.

Altair Engineering

172
RD-3590: Fluid Flow through a Rubber Clapper Valve

The objective of this tutorial is to simulate the flow of water through a rubber valve using an
inlet option in multi-phase material law (Law 51). In this model the top chamber is air, the
lower chamber is water, and the bottom row of elements is the inlet. Law 51 is used for air,
water and inlet. Boundary conditions are applied on each surface of fluid in its normal
direction. An interface between fluid and rubber (CEL) is defined to manage the contact.
Exercise
icon in toolbar.
Step 2: Load the valve.hm file

and navigate to
<installation_directory>\tutorials\hwsolvers\radioss and open the valve.hm file.
Step 3: Creating curves for pressure_inlet

2. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > FUNCT. The Curve Editor dialog
box opens.
3. In the Curve editor window, click New.
4. For the Name, enter pressure_inlet and click proceed.
5. From the Curve editor window, select pressure_inlet from the curve list.
6. Enter the X and Y coordinates, as shown below.
7. Click Update.
173

Altair Engineering
8. Follow Steps 3.1 - 3.7 to create a curve named density, with the values shown below.
9. Click Close.
Step 4: Define and assign Material, Property to component inlet

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. The new material
appears in the Entity Editor.
2. For Name, enter inlet-water.
3. For Card Image, select MLAW51 and click Yes to confirm.
Altair Engineering

174
5. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property to create a new
property.
6. For Name, enter solids.
7. For Card Image, select P14_SOLID. Keep all the default settings.
8. Click Yes to confirm.
9. In the Model browser, click on the inlet component and assign solids as the Prop_Id
and inlet-water as the Mat_Id.
Step 5: Define and assign Material, Property to component Air

3. For Card Image, select MLAW51 and click Yes to confirm.
175

Altair Engineering
5. Click on the air component in the Model browser and assign solids as the Prop_Id and
air as the Mat_Id.
Step 6: Define and assign Material, Property to component Water

1. In the Model browser, right-click on the material Air and click Duplicate. Edit the
material parameters and table data with the following changes.
2. Change the Name to water.
3. Set C0(1) to 1.0e-04.
4. Change the value for Alpha(1) to 1.0 and Alpha(2) to 0.0.
5. Change Rho_Initial to 1.000e-06.
6. In the Model browser, right-click on the water component and select Assign. Assign
solids as the Prop_Id and water as the Mat_Id.
Altair Engineering

176
Step 7: Define and assign Material, Property to component Rubber

4. Enter the following properties:
Rho_Initial = 1e-6 kg/mm3
E = 0.7
nu = 0.4
7. For Card Image, select P14_SOLID.
8. Set Isolid to 12.
9. In the Model browser, right-click on the rubber component and select Assign. Assign
rubber as the Prop_Id and rubber as the Mat_Id.
Step 8: Define an Interface between Rubber and Fluid

1. Open the Solver browser and right-click to select Create > ALE-SPH-CFD >
INTER_TYPE18.
2. For Name, enter rubber-fluid, and for Card Image, select TYPE18.
177

Altair Engineering
3. To set the Surf_id (M), change the selector to Components and select the rubber
component.
4. To set the Grnod_id (S), change the selector to Components and select all the comps,
except rubber.
Step 9: Create Boundary Conditions on outermost faces of solid

comps
2. For Name, enter constraint-X, set Select type as Boundary Condition and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
3. Click Nodes and select a node for each outer face parallel to x-axis.
4. Click Nodes in the panel and select by face.
HyperMesh will automatically select all nodes in the face.
5. Click Create.
6. Repeat Steps 9.1 to 9.5 to create Boundary conditions on Y and Z faces (see image below
for reference).
Altair Engineering

178
7. Check the box Ty in order to constrain the translational d.o.f in Y-direction, as shown
below:
Boundary conditions for Y-axis
8. Check the box next to Tz in order to constrain the translational d.o.f in Z-direction, as
shown below:
Boundary conditions for Z-axis
Step 10: Create Boundary Condition to fix one end of the rubber
1. For Name, enter Fix-rubber, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
2. Select all the nodes on the edge of the clapper, as shown below.
179

Altair Engineering
3. Constraint all the translational degrees of freedom.
Step 11: Create output requests an control cards

Keyword Type
CONTROL CARDS
Altair Engineering
Keyword
TITLE
Parameter
Status
Parameter Value
[Checked]

180
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
CLAPPER
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
NMOTS
40000
CONTROL CARDS
SPMD
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
IOFLAG
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
ANALY
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD ALE_Grid_Velocity
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD GridVel_Gamma
100.00
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD GridVel_Cwx
1.00
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD GridVel_Cwy
1.00
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
RunName
CLAPPER
ENGINE KEYWORDS RUN
Tstop
50.100
Status
[Checked]
Keyword2
OFF
Status
[Checked]
N_Print
-1000
Status
[Checked]
VONM
[Checked]
DENS
[Checked]
PRES
[Checked]
Status
[Checked]
CONT
[Checked]
181

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
Status
[Checked]
TStart
Tfreq
0.5
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT
Tscale
0.5
ENGINE KEYWORDS DT
Tmin
0.0

2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you want to
export to.
3. For Name, enter clapper and click Save.
5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export solver deck as one file.
6. Click on Export to export solver deck.

1. Launch Start > Programs > Altair HyperWorks 13.0 > RADIOSS.
2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file clapper_0000.rad.
Altair Engineering

182
RD-3595: Three Point Bending with HyperMesh

This tutorial demonstrates how to set up 3-point bending model with symmetric boundary
conditions in Y direction.
Model Description
Simulation time: in Engine file [0 6.601e-002 s]
Only one half of the model is modeled because it is symmetric.
The supports are totally fixed. An imposed velocity of 1000 mm/s is applied on the
Impactor in the (Z) direction
Model size = 370mm x 46.5mm x 159mm
Honeycomb Material /MAT/LAW28: HONEYCOMB
[Rho_I] Initial density = 3.0e-10 ton/mm3
[E11], [E22] and [E33] Youngs modulus (Eij) = 200 MPa
[G11], [G22] and [G33] Shear modulus (Gij) = 150 MPa
Elasto-Plastic Material /MAT/LAW36: Inner, Outer and Flat
[Rho_I] Initial density = 7.85-9 ton/mm3
Strain Curve:
0
183
STRAI
N
STRES
S
325
0.01200 0.01400 0.01800 0.02200 0.02600 0.03000

2
3
3
2
3
6
335.968
343783
7
0.032
0.03300 0.03352
5
3
349.245 358.649 372.309 383.925 388.109 389.292

389.506
Altair Engineering
Elastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS: Impactor

[Rho_I] Initial density = 8e-9 ton/mm3
Exercise
icon in toolbar.
Step 2: Retrieve the RADIOSS file


\hwsolvers\radioss and open the BENDING_0000.rad file.
3. Click Import.
Step 3: Create and Assign material and property for HCFOAM

2. For Name, enter Foam.
3. For Card Image, select M28_HONEYCOMB and click Yes to confirm.
4. Input values, as shown below:
Altair Engineering

184
5. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property to create a new property.
6. For Name, enter Foam and set the new property Card Image as P14_SOLID. Leave all
the settings as default, except for Isolid which should be set to 24.
7. In the Model browser, right-click on the component HCFoam and select Assign. Assign
Foam as the Prop_Id and Foam as the Mat_Id.
8. Click Apply.
Step 4: Create and Assign material and property for the component
Inner
2. For Name, enter Inner.
185

Altair Engineering
3. For Card Image, select M36_PLAS_TAB and click Yes to confirm.

6. For Name, enter Inner and set Card Image as P1_SHELL. Leave all the settings as
default, except for Ishell which should be set to 4 and Thick which should be set to
9.119e-01.
7. In the Model browser, right-click on the component Inner and select Assign. Assign
Inner as the Prop_Id and Inner as the Mat_Id.
Outer
1. In the Model browser, right-click on the material Inner and select Duplicate. Name the
new material Outer. This creates a new material that is identical to the source material.
Altair Engineering

186
2. In the Model browser, right-click on the property Inner and select Duplicate. Name the
new property Outer. This creates a new property that is identical to the source property.
3. In the Model browser, right-click on the component Outer and select Assign. Assign
Outer as the Prop_Id and Outer as the Mat_Id.
Flat
Follow the procedure described in Step 5 with Outer replaced by Flat.
Step 7: Create and assign material and property for Impactor

2. For Name, enter Impactor.
5. In the Model browser, right-click on the property Inner and select Duplicate. Name the
new property Impactor. This creates a new property that is identical to the source
property.
6. In the Model browser, right-click on the component Impactor and select Assign. Assign
Impactor as the Prop_Id and Impactor as the Mat_Id.
Step 8: Create and assign material and property for Support

Follow the same procedures as in Step 5. Create a copy of Impactor property and material
with name support and assign it to component support.
187

Altair Engineering
Step 9: Create a rigid body to make Impactor and Support Rigid

2. For Name, enter Impact rigid.
3. Select any color for easy visualization.
4. Set Card Image to None.
5. Go to the 1D page, select the rigids panel.
6. Verify that you are in the create subpanel.
7. For dependent switch to comps.
8. For primary node switch to calculate node.
9. Click comps.
10. Select Impactor, then click select.
11. Click create.
13. Similarly, create rigid body for Support component in a collector with the name Support
rigid using Steps 9.1 to 9.12.
Step 10: Define imposed velocity and boundary condition for the
impactor
1. From the Utility page, start the BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter IMPOSED_VELOCITY, set Select type to Imposed Velocity and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
3. Click nodes and select the master node of the rigid body of the Impactor, as shown in the
following image.
Altair Engineering

188
4. Set the Direction as Z.

5. Set Scale Y to -1000.0 as the direction of velocity is opposite to the global Z-axis.
6. Set the Curve ID to Select curve.
7. Select the predefined curve to Func1.
8. Click create to create the imposed velocity.
9. For Name, enter Impactor_constraints, set Select type to Boundary Condition and
set the GRNOD to Nodes.
10. Click nodes and select the master node of the rigid body.
11. Check all the degrees of freedom to constrain, except Tz.
12. Click create to create the boundary condition.
189

Altair Engineering
Step 11: Define fixed boundary condition for the support

2. For Name, enter support_fixed, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
3. Select the master node of the rigid body created on Supporter, as shown in the following
image.
4. Check all the degrees of freedom.
Step 12: Define symmetry boundary condition for the foam, inner,
outer and flat
2. For Name, enter SYMMETRY_XZ, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
3. Select the nodes of the foam, inner, outer and flat, as shown in the following image.
4. Check the degrees of translational degrees of freedom Y and rotational degrees of
freedom X and Z to constraint.
Altair Engineering

190
6. Click close to exit the BC Manager.
Step 13: Define contacts between the beam and the support
2. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > INTER > TYPE7.
3. Enter the values, as shown below:
191

Altair Engineering
4. Set the Surf_id (M) for the master selection to Components and select the Support
component.
5. Set the Grnod_id (S) for the slave selection to Components and select the Flat
component.
Altair Engineering

192
Step 14: Define the self contact between the beam components
1. Using the directions in Step 13, create a new Type 7 interface named Self with the
components Outer, Inner, and Flat as Master and the same components Outer, Inner,
and Flat as Slave. This will make the components self-contact instead of self-penetrate.
Ensure the interface has a FRIC of 0.1 and GAPmin of 0.2.
193

Altair Engineering
Step 15: Create Interface time history

1. Go to Analysis > output block panel.
2. For name=, enter IMPACTOR.
3. Switch the entity selector to groups.
4. Click groups and select the interfaces Impactor and Support from the list.
5. Click select > create > edit.
6. For VAR field, enter DEF.
Altair Engineering

194
7. Click return twice to exit the panel.

Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
3PBENDING
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
RunName
3PBENDING
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
RunNumber
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
7.01e-2
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
TFILE
Time_frequency
0.0001
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-100
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
EPSP
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
VEL
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
CONT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Tfreq
2.5e-3
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Tscale
0.0
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Tmin
0.0
195

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA
CST_0
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA/CST_0
Tscale
0.9
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA/CST_0
Tmin
7e-7
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA
DEL
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA/DEL
Tscale
0.9
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT/NODA/DEL
Tmin
3.5e-8
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RBODY_ENGINE
RBODY/ON
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RBODY_ENGINE
NUM_rbnodes
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RBODY_ENGINE
Data: Nodes
29664
29665

2. For File:, navigate to the destination directory where you want to export to.
3. For name, enter bending and click Save.
Step 18: Open RADIOSS Manager

2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file 3PBENDING_0000.rad.
Altair Engineering

196
1. See if there are any warnings or errors in .out files.
2. Using HyperView, plot the displacement, strain contour and vectors.
von Mises Stress Contour (MPa)
197

Altair Engineering
Contact Force for Impactor Interface
Altair Engineering

198
RD-3597: Cell Phone Drop Test using HyperMesh

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a free fall of a cell phone due to gravity from a
height of 1001mm using 2nd order tetra elements.
Model Description
Simulation time: in Engine [0 3.3e-3]
This is a very simple cell phone model used to demonstrate how to set up a drop test.
The model is an assembly of two solid parts meshed with Tetra 10 elements, connected
with spring elements, and contact defined between them.
To reduce the simulation time, the cell phone is dropped 1 mm from the ground with an
initial velocity of -4429.4469 mm/s representing the velocity that it would have
attained from a free fall of 1000 mm.
Boundary Conditions: Gravity load + initial velocity of -4429.4469 mm/s on the cell
phone.
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/LAW36 (Plastic)
[Rho_I] Initial density = 1.16E-9 ton/mm3
[E] Young's modulus = 1000 MPa
199
STRAIN
16
STRESS
17

Altair Engineering
Exercise
icon in toolbar.
Step 2: Load the cellphone.hm file

and navigate to
cellphone.hm file.
Step 3: Creating the material curve

1. Click XYPlots > Curve Editor.
3. For the curve name, enter stress_strain_curve.
4. Click proceed.
5. From the Curve editor window, select stress_strain_curve from the Curve List.
6. Enter the X and Y coordinates, as shown below.
Altair Engineering

200
7. Click Update > Close.
Step 4: Create material and properties for the cell phone parts
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material to create a new material.
2. For Name, enter cell_phone.
3. For Card Image, select M36_PLAS_TAB and click Yes in the confirmation window.
201

Altair Engineering
5. Select N_func and set to 1.

6. Click fct_ID1 and select stress_strain_curve (the function curve previously created).
7. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property to create a property.
8. For Name, enter cell_phone.
10. Set the variable I_rot to a value of 1.
Altair Engineering

202
11. In the Model browser, expand the Components folder and highlight the components
Cellphone_bottom and Cellphone_top and right-click to Assign the newly created
property and material.
Step 5: Create property for the spring links

2. For Name, enter spring.
3. Set Card Image to P13_SPR_BEAM and click Yes to confirm.
4. Enter the following values:
Mass (MASS): 2e-6 ton
Inertia (Inertia): 2e-4 mm4
Translation stiffness (K_Tensn, K_ShrY, and K_ShrZ): 50
Rotation stiffness (K_Tor, K_FlxY, and K_FlxZ): 1000N
203

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

204
5. Click return to return to component panel.

6. In the Model browser, select the component Connection_spring and right-click Assign
to assign the newly created property to the spring component.
Step 6: Define the Interface between cell phone parts

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Contact Surface.
2. For Name, enter self.
3. Click on Elements.
4. Switch from add shell elements to add solid faces.
5. Select elements by collector and select Cellphone_bottom and click return.
6. For face nodes, select nodes by collector and select cellphone bottom and click
select > add > return.
205

Altair Engineering
7. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Contact.

8. For Name, enter Self.
10. For Grnod_id (S), select nodes > by collector and select Cellphone_top and click
return.
11. For Surf_id (M), switch to Contactsurf, click on Contactsurf and select self.
12. Click OK.
13. Set FRIC to 0.1.
14. Set GAPmin to 0.3.
Altair Engineering

206
Step 7: Create a rigid wall

2. For Name, enter GROUND.
3. Set the Geometry type to Infinite plane.
4. Click in the graphics area and press the F8 key on the keyboard. Enter the node
coordinates: X=0, Y=0, and Z=19.
5. Click create.
7. In Geometry subpanel, select the created node as Base node.
8. Make sure the normal vector is set to z-axis, as shown in the following image.
207

Altair Engineering
9. For d enter 50.

10. To review, go to the Analysis page, select rigid walls, toggle add and click review.
11. Click return to exit from the panel.
Altair Engineering

208
Step 8: Define gravity load

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Set.
2. For Name, enter Gravity, set Card Image as GRNOD and click Yes to confirm.
3. Select Nodes of all three parts.
4. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Load Collector.
5. For Name, enter loadcol1, set Card Image as GRAV_Collector and click Yes to
confirm.
6. Set Direction to Z.
7. For Grnod_id, select Gravity from the Select Set dialog and click OK.
8. Set scale_y to -9810.0 indicating gravity in opposite Z direction.
9. From the XYPlots pull-down, click Curve Editor.

11. For Name =, enter gravity.
12. Click proceed.
13. In the Curve editor window, select gravity from the Curve List.
14. Enter X and Y, as shown in the following image:
209

Altair Engineering
15. Click Update > Close to close the Curve editor window.
16. Back in Gravity load collector, update Ifunc to the curve just created.
Step 9: Apply an initial velocity to the Cell Phone

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Load Collector.
2. For Name, enter Initial_velocity, set Card Image to INIVEL_Collector.
3. For Grnod_id, select the same set (Gravity) previously used.
4. For Vz =, enter the value -4429.4469.
Altair Engineering

210
Step 10: Creating output request and control cards

Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
Cellphone_drop
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
NMOTS
40000 No needed
CONTROL CARDS
SPMD
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
IOFLAG
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
ANALY
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
ALE_Grid_Velocity
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD
GridVel_Gamma
100.00
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
[Checked]
211

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
3e-3
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Keyword2
ON
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
DENS
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
PRES
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
CONT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Tfreq
2e-4
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Tscale
0.0
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Tmin
0.0

1. Click File > Export or click the Export Solver Deck icon
3. For Name, enter Cellphone and click Save.
Altair Engineering

212

2. For Input file(s), browse to the exercise folder and select the file cellphone_0000.rad.
2. Using HyperView plot the strain and stress contour.
Von Mises Stress Contour (MPa)
213

Altair Engineering
Plastic Strain (mm/mm)
Altair Engineering

214
RD-3599: Gasket with HyperMesh

This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a rubber gasket in sequential loading, given the
following load sequence:
Translation Transverse (10 mm)
Translation Longitudinal (5 mm)
Torsion (20 Degrees)
Model Description
Simulation time:
o Engine [0 1.501] in steps of 0.5 ms for each load case
The outer circumference area is fixed on all degrees of freedom (VX, VY, VZ) and the
center node is fixed on X direction and the X and Y rotation (VX, WX, Wy)
The gasket dimensions are: Thickness = 100 mm, External Diameter = 200 mm and
Internal Diameter = 50 mm.
Hyper-Elastic Material /MAT/LAW42 (Rubber)
[Rho_I] Initial density = 6.0-6 Kg/mm3
[mue1] ( 1) = 0.6
[alfa1] ( 1) = 2
(alfa2] ( 2) = -2
215

Altair Engineering
Exercise
icon in toolbar.
Step 2: Load the gasket.hm file

and navigate to
<installation_directory>\tutorials\hwsolvers\radioss and open the gasket.hm
file.
Step 3: Define and assign material, property to Rubber

1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material to create material.
3. For Card Image, select M42_OGDEN and click Yes in the confirmation window.
Altair Engineering

216
5. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property to create property.
6. For Name, enter gasket.
217

Altair Engineering
8. In the Model browser, expand the Component folder and select GASKET. Right-click and
Assign the newly created property and material.
Step 4: Create a component for the rigid body at center of Gasket

2. For Name, enter center and switch Card Image to None and click Yes to confirm.
3. Select any color for easy visualization.
Step 5: Create a rigid body at center of Gasket

1. From the 1D page, select the rigids panel.
2. For primary node, switch to calculate node.
3. For nodes 2-n, switch to multiple nodes.
4. Click the nodes and select a node in the inner face.
5. Click nodes and select by face. HyperMesh will select all nodes on the inner face.
6. Click create.
Altair Engineering

218
Step 6: Create gasket inner fixed boundary conditions

2. For Name, enter Inner_BC, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the GRNOD
to Nodes.
3. Select the master node of rigid body created in Step 5 and click proceed.
4. Check the Tx translational and Rx, Ry rotational degrees of freedom.
5. Click Create to create the inner fixed boundary condition.
Step 7: Create gasket inner Y displacement boundary conditions

2. For Name, enter DISP_Y, set Select type to Imposed Displacement and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
3. Select the master node of rigid body created in Step 5.
4. Set Direction as Y.
5. Click Create/Select curve to go to the XY curve editor.
6. Click New and enter Name as DISP_Y. Click proceed.
219

Altair Engineering
7. Enter the following values for X and Y:

X = {0, 0.5, 1.0}
Y = {0, 10, 10}
8. Click Update and Close the XY curve editor GUI.
9. Click Create to create the boundary condition.
Step 8: Create gasket inner Z displacement boundary conditions

2. For Name, enter DISP_Z, set Select type to Imposed Displacement and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
4. Set Direction as Z.
6. Click New and enter Name as DISP_Z. Click proceed.
7. Enter the following vales for X and Y:
X = {0, 0.5, 1, 1.5}
Y = {0, 0, 5, 5}
Altair Engineering

220
Step 9: Create gasket inner Z rotation boundary conditions

2. For Name, enter ROT20DEG_Z, set Select type to Imposed Displacement and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
4. Set Direction as ZZ.
6. Click New and enter Name as ROT20DEG_Z. Click proceed.
7. Enter the following vales for X and Y:
X = {0, 1, 1.5, 2}
Y = {0, 0, 0.349, 0.349}
221

Altair Engineering
Step 10: Create gasket outer boundary conditions

2. For Name, enter OUTER_BC, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the GRNOD
to Nodes.
3. Click Nodes and select a node on the outer surface.
4. Click Nodes on the panel and then select by face to select all nodes on the outer surface.
5. Check all the translational and rotational degrees of freedom.
6. Click Create to create the outer fixed boundary condition.
Altair Engineering

222
Step 11: Create output request and control cards

Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
TITLE
TITLE
GASKET
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
MEMORY
NMOTS
40000 Not needed
CONTROL CARDS
SPMD
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
IOFLAG
Status
[Checked]
CONTROL CARDS
ANALY
Status
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD ALE_Grid_Velocity
[Checked]
ALE-CFD-SPH
ALE_CFD_SPH_CARD GridVel_Gamma
100.00
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Status
GASKET
ENGINE KEYWORDS
RUN
Tstop
1.51
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PARITH
Keyword2
ON
223

Altair Engineering
Keyword Type
Keyword
Parameter
Parameter Value
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
PRINT
N_Print
-1000
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
VONM
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
DENS
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/ELEM
PRES
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/VECT
CONT
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
TStart
ENGINE KEYWORDS
ANIM/DT
Tfreq
0.05
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Status
[Checked]
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Tscale
0.0
ENGINE KEYWORDS
DT
Tmin
0.0
ENGINE KEYWORDS
/TFILE
Tfreq
1.5e-3

3. For name, enter GASKET and click Save.

2. For Input file, browse to the exercise folder and select the file GASKET_0000.rad.
Altair Engineering

224
2. Using HyperView plot the displacement and strain contour and vectors.
Displacement Contour for the 3 load steps (mm)
Von Mises Stress Contour at the end of the simulation
225

Altair Engineering
Examples
This manual illustrates examples solved using the RADIOSS software with regard to common
problem types.
The main purpose of this manual is:
First, to illustrate examples for validation using uncommon models for carrying out
various RADIOSS functionalities. Whenever possible, the results provided by RADIOSS
are compared with experimental data or analytical solutions. Furthermore, when the
computation time is significant, different types of formulations are compared in order to
provide users with an overall idea of the cost for a given option or formulation.
Second, as a guide for new RADIOSS users or for users interested in a type of problem
with which they are not familiar. The data is provided to enable a detailed
understanding of the options used for modeling. The reader can load data files or
process the results obtained at a later stage. The techniques for modeling can be
applied to similar problems.
Third, to explain about the additional functions included in the RADIOSS data files, thus
providing helpful options when using the RADIOSS data input manuals.
Altair Engineering

226
List of Examples
1 Twisted Beam
Torsion - bending coupling
Sensitivity study on mesh and
element formulations.
2 Snap-through Roof
Snap-through problem solved
by explicit and implicit
solvers.
Results are compared with
experiments.
3 S-beam Crash
Sensitivity study on element
formulations, plasticity
treatment and boundary
conditions for impact.
4 Airbag
Airbag deployment using
monitored volumes with
communications.
Perfect gas modeling.
5 Beam Frame
Transient dynamic analysis
using beam elements.
6 Fuel Tank
Fluid-structure coupling and
fluid flow are studied using
ALE formulation.
Two analyses are performed:
sloshing and fuel tank
overturning.
227

Altair Engineering
7 Pendulums
Momentum transmission,
contact modeling, bi- and tridimensional analysis.
8 Hopkinson Bar
Study of the stress wave
propagation and the strain
rate effect on the Hopkinson
bar.
9 Billiards (Pool)
Impact between balls,
trajectory study and
treatment with several
interfaces (Penalty /
Lagrangian method).
10 Bending
Pure bending test.
3- and 4-nodes shell.
11 Tensile Test (Material
Characterization)
Correlations between
simulations and experimental
results. Treatment of the
necking point and the failure.
12 Jumping Bicycle
A sequence of events
managed using "sensors".
13 Shock Tube
Analysis with SPH, Lagrangian
and Eulerian formulations.
Correlation with theory.
Perfect gas modeling.
Altair Engineering

228
14 Truck with Flexible

Body
Creating an overall flexible
body.
Quasi-static treatment
(gravity).
Eigen analysis (flexible body
inputs)
Dynamic analysis (bump).
15 Gears
Contact modeling for
quadratic surface with
interfaces 16 and 17.
16 Dummy Positioning
Quasi-static analysis by
explicit solver with different
convergence options.
Static analysis by implicit
solver (linear and nonlinear
problem).
17 Box Beam
Crash test.
18 Square Plate
Torsion and tensioncompression tests.
19 Wave Propagation
Bi-dimensional wave
propagation.
Lagrangian and ALE
formulations.
Infinite domain modeling.
229

Altair Engineering
20 Cube
Demonstrative problem.
Contact modeling.
Co-rotational formulation
elements.
21 Cam
Contact modeling.
Linear and quadratic surface.
Comparison of fine and coarse
meshes.
22 Ditching
Fluid simulation using the
Smooth Hydrodynamic
Particles formulation.
Comparison with experimental
data.
23 Brake
Frictional contact modeling.
Lagrangian formulation.
24 Laminating
Study of the number of
elements with regard to
thickness, the large/small
strain formulation, plastic
strain formulation and
temperature dependency.
25 Spring-back
Explicit stamping simulation
followed by an implicit/explicit
spring-back simulation. Final
shape of the sheet metal is
compared with experiments.
26 Ruptured Plate
Perforation of a thick plate by
a rigid sphere. Different
failure models integrated in
material law (2 and 27) or
Altair Engineering

230
independent (/FAIL options)

are used.
27 Football (Soccer)
Shots
Simulations of football
(soccer) shooting impacts on
a round or a square bar. The
airbag modeling is used.
37 - Analytical Beam
A cantilever beam submitted
to shear-bending is
considered by linear and
nonlinear solvers.
39 - Biomedical Valve
A Fluid-Structure-Interaction
(FSI) problem is studied.
40 - Lap Joint
A lap joint is fixed at one end
and pulled at the other to
shear the joint.
41 - Follower Force
Evaluate the response of four
cantilever beams.
42 - Rubber Ring
Crush and Slide
43 - Perfect Gas
Polynomial EOS is used to
model Perfect Gas.
231

Altair Engineering
44 - Blow Molding with

AMS
Blow molding with Advanced
Mass Scaling (AMS).
45 - Multi-Domain
Separate the whole model
into master domain and subdomain.
46 - TNT Cylinder
Expansion Test
An experimental test used to
characterize the adiabatic
expansion of detonation
products.
47 - Concrete Validation
Three kinds of tests are
performed in order to
evaluate the simulation/
experiment correlation.
48 - Solid Spotweld
Solid spotweld connects two
metal sheets with tied
contact.
Altair Engineering

232
49 - Bird Strike on
Windshield
Introduce how to simulate a
bird strike on the windshield.
233

Altair Engineering
Example 1 - Twisted Beam
Summary
This example deals with a clamped beam subjected to a coupled torsion-bending loading.
This simple test being particularly severe for shell elements, a sensitivity study is performed
on the mesh and element formulation. An analytical solution validates the accuracy of
results. The problem under analysis consists of a concentrated load being applied to the
extremity of the beam with the static approach requiring a convergence method to enable
fast convergence towards equilibrium. The dynamic relaxation option allows for an efficient
quasi-static response to be obtained.
The results are compared using two separate views:
Shell element formulations (BATOZ, QEPH, DKT18 and BT hourglass type 3).
Influence of the mesh (Triangular and quadrilateral meshes are compared using three
different element densities: 4x24, 2x12 and 1x3).
Several results can be extracted:
X-displacement of the loaded point
Y-displacement of the loaded point
Z-displacement of the loaded point
Error on energy
CPU time
Comparisons are made between theoretical displacements and those by simulations.
Results show that QEPH and BATOZ element formulations provide the most accurate results
and the more the mesh is fine, the more accurate the results will be. To pass this test, a good
curvature representation of element formulation is needed; the BT hourglass type 4
formulation does not satisfy this condition. QEPH offers a good ratio in terms of precisioncost, and is useful for quasi-static analysis. DKT18 is a costly element formulation.
Altair Engineering

234
Title
Twisted beam
Number
1.1
Brief Description
Bending test on a twisted beam modeled with triangular and quadrilateral meshes and
different element formulations (QEPH, BT hourglass type 4, BATOZ, DKT).
Keywords
Shells Q4, T3
QEPH, BT (Hourglass type 4), BATOZ and DKT
Density mesh, elasticity, and dynamic relaxation
Linear problem
RADIOSS Options
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Dynamic relaxation (/DYREL)
Compared to / Validation Method
Analytical solution
Input File
QEPH: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/QEPH/
TWISBEAM*
BATOZ: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/BATOZ/
TWISBEAM*
BT-TYPE4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/BTtype4/TWISBEAM*
DKT18: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/DKT18/
TWISBEAM*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Technical / Theoretical Level
Medium
235

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to compare element formulations concerning mesh density
with regard to a coupled torsion-bending problem.
Physical Problem Description
A twisted beam is clamped at one end, and subjected to a concentrated load at the other
end.
The material used follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and has the following geometrical
characteristics with no specific measurement unit:
Initial density: 7.34x10-4
Thickness: 0.32
Youngs modulus: 2.9x107
Length: 12
Poisson ratio: 0.22
Width: 1.1
Load case: Fx = 0
Fy = 1.0
Fz = 0
Fig 1: Initial mesh (4x24).
This simple test is particularly severe for shell element behaviors, due to the torsion-bending
coupling. It enables readers to appreciate the qualities/restrictions of the shell element
formulations in RADIOSS.
The following points are to be noted:
Displacements are very low. Thus, we are faced with a linear problem.
Another load case, using Fy = 0 and Fz = 1, is considered in the document but does not
give concern to additional conclusions.
Altair Engineering

236
Analysis, Assumptions and Modeling Description

Modeling Methodology
The beam is modeled with different kinds of mesh, Q4 and T3.
The following are tested for each model:
Four shell formulations:
- QEPH formulation (Ishell = 24)
- BT (Hourglass type 4) formulation (Ishell = 4)
- QBATOZ formulation (Ishell = 12)
- DKT18 formulation (triangular element, Ishell = 12)
Three mesh densities:
- Mesh A: 4 x 24 elements
- Mesh B: 2 x 12 elements
- Mesh C: 1 x 3 elements
Q4 Mesh
T3 Mesh
RADIOSS Options Used

One concentrated load is applied at the extremity, on central node M. For mesh A, two
concentrated loads must be applied to the corner points of the beam end.
A static solution provides the steady state part of the transient response. In this example,
dynamic relaxation is used to obtain a static result. Static loading is considered a dynamic
resolution method. Using /DYREL in the D02 file, the dynamic loading is damped by
introducing a diagonal damping matrix.
Relaxation factor = 1; period to be damped = 0.0025
The displacement of node M is stabilized at the static response: t = 0.035.
For further details, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
237

Altair Engineering
Simulation Results and Conclusions

Curves and Animations
The displacement components regarding X, Y and Z of node M are compared to the beam
theory in order to understand the performance of the various elements when several mesh
densities are used.
Reference results [Batoz & Dhatt, "Structural Modeling Finite Elements", Vol. 3, Herms,
Paris, 1992]:
X-displacement:
UM = 0
Y-displacement:
VM = 0.00175
Z-displacement:
WM = -0.00179
The chart below shows the displacement oscillations of point M until reaching stabilization in
the direction of the static solution.
Fig 2: Time history plots of point M displacements (Mesh A / QEPH)
Energy margin error at t = 0.05:
Energy
margin error
QEPH
BT (type 4)
BATOZ
DKT18
0.1%
-14.7%
0%
0%
CPU (normalized):
QEPH
CPU
Altair Engineering
BT (type 4)
1.1
BATOZ
DKT18
1.04
1.79

238
Nodal displacements of node M:
Ratio (Displacement by simulation/ Displacement by theory):
Conclusion
QBAT and QEPH provide good results (precision).
Good results provided by DKT18 when the mesh is fine, though no better than QBAT
and QEPH.
BT (Hourglass type 4) does not pass this test (due to the flat facet approach).
QEPH: the best element formulation for quasi-static analysis. Very good precision-cost
ratio.
QBAT: good curvature representation. For quasi-static analysis, the cost is 4% higher
compared to using the QEPH formulation.
DKT18 represents the highest cost for this test.
239

Altair Engineering
Example 2 - Snap-through Roof
Summary
A snap-through problem is studied on a shallow cylindrical roof upon which an imposed
velocity is applied at its mid-point. The characteristic curve, caused by the limit load and
achieved by simulation is compared to a reference. This example is considered a static
problem.
Only one-quarter of the structure is taken into consideration and adequate boundary
conditions are applied on the model sides.
The problem is solved using two different approaches:
An analysis by an explicit solver
An analysis by an implicit solver
The implicit strategy uses the arc-length method with a time step limitation. The RADIOSS
implicit options are defined in the modeling description.
The simulations using explicit and implicit methods provide accurate results with a good
evaluation of the limit load experimentally observed. A time step control with a low value is
required in order to describe the nonlinear path of the load displacement curve. Both
computations converge toward a single solution.
Altair Engineering

240
2.1 - Snap Roof: Explicit
Title
Snap Roof - Explicit
Number
2.1
Brief Description
An imposed velocity is applied onto a shallow cylindrical roof at its midpoint. The analysis
uses an explicit approach.
Keywords
Explicit solver
T3 Shell
Elasticity and quasi-static analysis
Stability, snap-through problem, and limit load
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Experimental results
Input File
Explicit solver: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/02_Snap-through/
Explicit_solver/SNAP_EXP*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Beginner
241

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to study a snap-through problem with a single instability.
Thus, a structure that will bend when under a load is used. The results are compared to the
references contained in: Finite Element Instability Analysis of Free Formed Shells. Report 77
.
This static analysis is performed with an explicit approach.
A shallow cylindrical roof, pinned along its straight edges upon which an imposed velocity is
applied at its mid-point.
Units: mm, ms, g, N, MPa
Geometrical data are provided in Fig 1, with the following dimensions:
l = 254 mm
R = 2540 mm
Shell thickness: t = 12.7 mm
= 0.1 rad
Fig 1: Geometrical data of the problem
The material used follows a linear elastic law and has the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.85x10-3 g/mm3
Young modulus: 3102.75 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Altair Engineering

242

The structure is considered perfect, having no defects. To take account of the symmetries,
only a quarter of the shell is modeled (surface ABCD).
A regular mesh with a total of 72 3-node shells (Fig 2)
Fig 2: T3 mesh
The shells have the following properties:

Thickness 12.7 mm
BT Elasto-plastic Hourglass formulation (Ishell = 3).
Node time histories do not indicate the pressure output. In order to obtain such output at
point C, a rigid body must be created at this point. Point C has a constant imposed velocity of
-0.01 ms-1 in the Z direction. Its displacement is linked proportionally to time.
Boundary conditions are:
Edge BC is fixed in an X translation, and in Y and Z rotations (symmetry conditions).
Edge CD is fixed in a Y translation, and in X and Z rotations (Idem).
Edge DA is fixed in X, Y, Z translations, and in X and Z rotations.
Point C is fixed in X, Y translations, and in X, Y, Z rotations.
Fig 3: Boundary conditions
243

Altair Engineering

Only a quarter of the total load is applied due to the symmetry. Therefore, force Fz of the
rigid body, as indicated in the Time History, must be multiplied by 4 in order to obtain force,
P.
Figure 4 represents a characteristic load displacement curve for a snap-through. This
diagram plots the reaction at point C of the shell as a function of its vertical displacement.
Fig 4: Load P versus displacement of point C: snap-through instability.
The displacement of point C is indicated in its absolute value. The curve illustrates the
characteristic behavior of a snap-through instability. Beyond the limit load, an infinite
increase in load Fz will cause a considerable increase in displacement q due to the
collapsing of the shell.
The first extreme defines the limit load =2208.5 N (displacement of point C = 10.5 mm).
The increase in the curve slope after the snap-through shows that the deformed configuration
becomes more rigid.
Altair Engineering

244
Fig 5: Comparison between a reference curve and a curve obtained using RADIOSS
The difference between the two curves is approximately 10% for reduced displacements (up
to 5 mm) and slightly more (15%) for the higher nonlinear part of the curve (between 5 and
20 mm). For displacements exceeding 20 mm, the curves are shown much closer together.
The accuracy of the RADIOSS results in comparison to those obtained from the reference is
ideal for this explicit approach.
245

Altair Engineering
Deformed Mesh (profile view) Displacement Norm
Initial configuration
Start of snap-through
Large motion phase
Stable configuration
Loading with a new structural rigidity
Altair Engineering

246
2.2 - Snap Roof: Implicit
Title
Snap Roof - Implicit
Number
2.2
Brief Description
A shallow cylindrical roof upon which an imposed velocity is applied at its mid-point.
Analysis uses an implicit approach.
Keywords
Implicit solver, time step control by arc-length method
Static nonlinear analysis
Stability, snap-through, and limit load
T3 Shell
RADIOSS Options
Implicit options (/IMPL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Implicit solver: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/02_Snap-through/
Implicit_solver/SNAP_IMP*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Advanced
247

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to study a snap-through problem with a single instability.
Thus, a structure that will bend when under a load will be used. The results are compared to
a reference solution [1]. This analysis is performed using an implicit approach. It illustrates
an implicit strategy using an arc-length method.
A shallow cylindrical roof, pinned along its straight edges, upon which an imposed velocity is
applied at its mid-point.
Geometrical data are indicated in Fig 6, with the following dimensions:
l = 254 mm
R = 2540 mm
Shell thickness: t = 12.7 mm
= 0.1 rad
Fig 6: Geometrical data of the problem
The material used follows a linear elastic law and has the following characteristics:
Young modulus: 3102.75 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Altair Engineering

248

The modeling problem described in the explicit study remains unchanged.
The implicit computation requires specific implicit parameters that must be defined in the
Engine file D01 using the options beginning with /IMPL.
Fig 7: Description of the problem (one quarter of the shell is modeled)
The imposed velocity is considered using the implicit method. Thus, the constant input curve
is converted into an imposed displacement according to the computation time.
Fig 8: Imposed velocity curve
249

Altair Engineering

The limit point causes major nonlinearities. Therefore, a static nonlinear analysis is
performed using the arc-length displacement strategy. The time step is determined by a
displacement norm control. In order to exceed the limit point characterized by a null tangent
on the load displacement curve and to describe the increasing and decreasing parts of the
nonlinear path, a small time step is required, which is ensured by setting a maximum value.
The nonlinear implicit parameters used are:
Implicit type:
Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver:
Modified Newton
Tolerance:
2x10-4
Update of stiffness matrix:
5 iterations maximum
Time step control method:
Arc-length
Initial time step:
10 ms
Minimum time step:
1 ms
Maximum time step:
10 ms
Desired convergence iteration number:
Maximum convergence iteration number:
20
Decreasing time step factor:
0.8
Maximum increasing time step scale factor: 1.1

Arc-length:
Automatic computation
Spring-back option:
no
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. It is

defined in /IMPL/SOLVER. The linear implicit options used are:
Linear solver:
Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient
Precondition methods:
Factored approximate Inverse
Maximum iterations number:
System dimension (NDOF)
Stop criteria:
Relative residual in force
Tolerance for stop criteria:
Machine precision
The input implicit options set in D01 are:
Altair Engineering

250
/IMPL/PRINT/
NONL/-1
/IMPL/SOLVER/1
5 0 3 0.0
/IMPL/NONLIN
5 2 0.20e-3
/IMPL/DTINI
10
/IMPL/DT/STOP
1 10
/IMPL/DT/2
6 .0 20 0.8 1.1
Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for more details about implicit options.

Only a quarter of the total load is applied due to the symmetry. Thus, force Fz of the rigid
body as indicated in the Time History must be multiplied by 4 in order to obtain force, P.
Figure 9 represents the characteristic load displacement curve for a snap-through. This
diagram plots the reaction at point C of the shell as the function of its vertical displacement.
The implicit results are compared with the experimental data.
Fig 9: Load P versus displacement of point C.
251

Altair Engineering
For a time step equal to or less than 10 ms (maximum value set in the implicit /IMPL/DT/
STOP option), agreement with RADIOSS is achieved, with good results obtained using the
reference. Accuracy is improved by decreasing the maximum time step, even though the CPU
time is increased.
Fig 10: Deformed configurations during the snap-through.
Comparison Between Implicit and Explicit Results

The load displacement curves achieved through implicit computations (time step limit set to
10 ms) and explicit computations are very close. A maximum time step of 100 ms does not
allow the nonlinear path of the load displacement curve to be described accurately. However,
the final static solution is correct.
Fig 11: Load displacement curve obtained by implicit and explicit solvers.
Comparison of the computation time between the explicit and implicit (maximum time step
set to 10 ms) approaches is shown in the table below:
Altair Engineering

252
Implicit solver
Explicit solver
Normalized CPU
2.45
Cycles
(normalized)
237
In comparison with the implicit computation, which uses a maximum time step of 10 ms, the
saved CPU time using a maximum time step fixed at 100 ms, approximately corresponds to
factor 4.
Reference
Institute Of Technology, Trondheim, HORRIGMOE G.
253

Altair Engineering
Example 3 - S-beam Crash
Summary
A sensitive study is performed on a crushed S-beam. The modeling includes a material law
using the elasto-plastic model of Johnson-Cook and an auto-impacting interface based on the
Penalty method in order to model the buckling of the beam. An initial velocity is applied on
the left section via a kinematic condition: either a rigid body or a rigid link. The impacting
condition is sliding and is secured by specific boundary conditions in the right section. Half of
the structure is modeled.
The results are compared according to three different views:
Shell element formulations (BATOZ, QEPH and BT hourglass type 3)
Plasticity options (global and progressive plasticity)
Influence of the initial velocity (5 and 10 ms-1)
Several criteria are used to compare the results:
Deformation configuration
Crushing force versus displacement (via momentum integration)
Energy assessment
Displacement of the left section
Hourglass energy
Kinetic energy
Internal energy
Maximum force
Maximum plastic strain
BATOZ and QEPH element formulations provide accurate results. The BT hourglass type 3
formulation is a low-cost method and the QEPH formulation provides a good precision/cost
ratio (the cost is three times lower than the BATOZ formulation). BATOZ and QEPH are
element formulations which do not have hourglass energy.
The results show an over-estimation of the plastic strain in the case of the global plasticity
use.
Altair Engineering

254
Title
S-Beam
Number
3.1
Brief Description
An S-beam is crushed against a rigid wall with initial velocity.
Keywords
Shell, type 3 Q4 Hourglass, QEPH, and BATOZ
Type 7 interface, auto-impacting, plasticity, and /MAT/LAW2
MODIF files
RADIOSS Options
Initial velocities (/INIVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Rigid link (/RLINK)
Input File
QEPH: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/QEPH/
Global_plasticity/QEPH*
BATOZ: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/BATOZ/
Global_plasticity/BATOZ*
BT_type3_NiP0: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/BT-type3/
Global_plasticity/Q4_NIP0*
BT_type3_NiP5: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/BT-type3/
NiP5/Q4_NIP5*
RADIOSS Version
44q
Beginner
255

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to study the behavior of a crashed S-beam using various shell
formulations and a number of different integration points. This test also compares the initial
velocity influence on results. A MODIF file is used to introduce an auto-impacting interface.
An Sbeam is crushed at an initial rate of 5 ms-1 against a rigid wall. The section is an
empty square-shaped tube (each side measuring 80 mm). The thickness is 1.5 mm. The
tube is made of steel, and plasticity is taken into account, but not failure. Using symmetry,
half of the cross-section is modeled.
Fig 1: Problem description and beam cross-section.

The material used follows an isotropic elasto-plastic Johnson-Cook law.
Material properties:
Youngs modulus: 199355 MPa
Poissons ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.9x10-3 g/mm3
Yield stress: 185.4 MPa
Hardening parameter: 540 MPa
Hardening exponent: 0.32
Maximum stress: 336.6 MPa
All other properties are set to the default values.
Altair Engineering

256

The mesh is a regular shell mesh. Each shell measures approximately 10 mm x 10 mm.
A sensitive study is performed on:
Shell element formulations: BATOZ, QEPH and Belytschko hourglass type 3
Plasticity options: global and progressive plasticity model
Influence of the initial velocity: 5 and 10 ms-1
Fig 2: Structures overall mesh
The rigid wall is modeled with boundary conditions on the right section of the beam (X, Z
translations and all rotations fixed).
The left section undergoes the following conditions:
Fixed in the Z direction.
Initial velocity of 5 m/s in the X direction.
All nodes are rigidly connected in X, Y and Z directions.
A 500 Kg mass is added on the left end.
Block format input specifications:
Hierarchy organization: there is only one subset made up of three parts, one for each
side of the beam, and one for the top. The materials and properties are identical for
each part.
Node groups: there are three node groups, one for each end of the beam, and one for
the symmetry plane. The boundary conditions are set on the left end.
TH selection: DX is saved for node 1 (the node used to display displacement at the left
end).
Taking account of symmetry, half of the structure is modeled. The symmetry plane covers
the y axis = 0 mm. Boundary conditions are also set at the right end to simulate a rigid wall
(slide).
257

Altair Engineering
Two equivalent possibilities are available for generating kinematic conditions attached to the
left extremity of the beam. The first consists of creating a rigid body to connect all of the left
section nodes to the gravity center of the beam cross-section, with a mass being introduced
on a master node. The second type of modeling retained uses the rigid link option, which
rigidly connects the left section nodes in the X, Y and Z directions. A 500 kg mass is added
to the master node.
Both models provide identical results; the rigid link will be used for this example.
An initial velocity of 5 ms-1 is used for the master node of the rigid link or for the rigid
body.
MODIF file:
A MODIF file enables to add option(s) during a run. The MODIF files carry the name
Runnamednn. For example, to run a MODIF files after the first run (restart file
Runnamer01), the run number for the MODIF file must be 02: Runnamed02.
MODIF files use the same input format as the RADIOSS deck. In RADIOSS V44, the
header lines are defined as the first line of the RADIOSS deck:
(1)
(2)
#RADIOSS
Starter
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Invers Runnam Runnum

e
Except for the header line, blocks may be input in any order.
Altair Engineering

258
After 20 ms, an auto-impacting interface is required to deal with the buckling of the beam.
This is added using a MODIF file where the interface is defined and saved for the TH. This
type of interface corresponds to 7; all values are set to "default". To define the master side,
a surface is defined using three parts of the model (/SURF/PART). The safest and easiest
method for defining the slave side of an auto-impacting interface consists of defining a node
group with the master surface (/GRNOD/SURF).
The MODIF file is CRA2D02.
The next Engine file is CRA2D03 (final time = 30 ms).
Fig 3: Contact force at the start of auto-impacting.
The MODIF file options used in Engine file D02 are:

#RADIOSS Starter
44
QEPH
2
#--1---|---2---|---3---|---4---|---5---|---6---|---7---|---8---|---9---|-10---|
/SURF/PART/1/master surface of interface
1
2
3
/GRNOD/SURF/10/slave nodes of interface
1
/INTER/TYPE7/1/auto-impacting
10
1
/TH/INTER/10/auto-impacting
FN
1
/IOFLAG
0 0 0
/END
259

Altair Engineering

Fig 4: Deformed mesh for Belytschko hourglass type 3 formulation (V=5 m.s-1)
The crushing force is obtained by time derivation of the X-momentum. The maximum
displacement over a 20 ms long computation corresponds to 96.4 mm.
Altair Engineering

260
Fig 5: Crushing force (X-direction) versus displacement for different element formulations (V=5 m.s-1)
Fig 6: Energy assessment for Belytschko hourglass type 3 (V=5 m.s-1).
Note that the structure does not absorb a lot of energy and that you should check the
hourglass energy, which may be relatively high compared with the total energy.
The following table shows the results obtained using different element formulations and
plasticity options:
261

Altair Engineering
Global plastification (NiP = 0)
NiP = 5
BATOZ
QEPH
Q4 Hourglass
type 3
Q4 Hourglass
type 3
Initial energy
(mJ)
6.25012x106
6.25012x106
6.25012x106
6.25012x106
Kinetic energy
(mJ)
t = 30 ms
5.48166x106
(0.877)
5.47964x106
(0.875)
5.55602x106
(0.889)
5.5487x106
(0.888)
Internal
energy (mJ)
t = 30 ms
768124
(0.123)
798529
(0.125)
684098
(0.109)
688984
(0.110)
Hourglass
energy (mJ)
t = 30 ms
10017.7
(0.0016)
12220.2
(0.002)
Displacement
(mm)
t = 30 ms
143.46
143.55
144.6
144.28
CPU
(Normalized)
4.88
1.58
1.38
Error on
energy (%)
t = 30 ms
0%
0%
-1.46%
-1.77%
Maximum force
(N)
42459.4
42688.5
35949.4
35387.2
Maximum
plastic strain
0.462
0.448
0.414
0.323
Initial velocity = 5 ms-1 (Values in brackets are the energy percentages compared with the initial energy)
Altair Engineering

262
Plastic Strain - Time = 10.00 ms

Global plastification
Progressive plastification (Nip = 5)
263

Altair Engineering

Global plastification
Progressive plastification (Nip = 5)
Altair Engineering

264
Initial Velocity Influence

The following table indicates the influence of the crushing velocity (5 ms-1 and 10 ms-1).
Initial energy (mJ)
Initial Velocity = 5
ms-1
Initial Velocity = 10
ms-1
6.25012x106
2.5 x107
Kinetic energy (mJ)

X displacement = 70
5.79897x106
mm:
X displacement = 140 5.57192x106
mm:
(0.928) 2.44581x107 (0.978)

(0.891) 2.41546 x107 (0.966)
Internal energy (mJ)

X displacement = 70
mm:
X displacement = 140
mm:
444848 (0.0711)
666704 (0.107)
538142
840622
(0.0215)
(0.0336)
X displacement = 70
mm:
X displacement = 140
mm:
4879.87 (0.0009)
9530.27 (0.002)
5969.83
12702.4
(0.0005)
(0.0004)
Maximum force (N)
35949.4
41704.3
Error on energy (%)
-1.09%
-1.11%
Hourglass energy
(mJ)
(Values in brackets refer to the energy percentages compared with the initial energy)
BT hourglass type 3 formulation is used in this section.

The amount of internal energy stored in the beam during a crash is relatively higher when
the initial velocity is set to 10 ms-1, instead of 5 ms-1. The hourglass energy is quite low with
either initial velocity.
265

Altair Engineering
Fig 7: Crushing force versus displacement for the different initial velocities
Fig 8: Kinetic energy normalized for the different initial velocities
Altair Engineering

266
First auto-contact:
Initial velocity = 5 ms-1: displacement = 120 mm;
Initial velocity = 10 ms-1: displacement = 94.15 mm.
267

Altair Engineering
Example 4 - Airbag
Summary
This example deals with the deployment of a chambered airbag modeled by monitored
volumes using communications. The airbag is initially folded along four fold lines. The fabric
is meshed with shell elements which undergo an elastic orthotropic behavioral test. Perfect
gas is injected into a central chamber via an inflator with the air flow through the connected
chambers being simulated. The chambers inflate while the airbag is deploying.
In the auto-impacting interface definition, the action of the Inacti flag to deactivate stiffness
in the case of initial penetration is studied in order to significantly increase the time step. An
adequate gap enables to pass from a kinematic interface time step to a higher element time
step.
Altair Engineering

268
Title
Airbag
Number
4.1
Brief Description
A chambered airbag folded along four fold lines is deployed.
Keywords
Orthotropic shell
Monitored volumes and communicating airbags
Material law 0 and type 7 interface
Hierarchy organization
RADIOSS Options
Monitored volume with communications (/MONVOL/COMMU)
Interface (/INTER/ with Inacti flag)
Input File
Inactiv_0_Gap0.1: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/04_Airbag/
Inacti0_Gap01/AIRFIX*
Inacti5_Gap03/AIRBAG*
Inacti5_Gap15/AIRBAG2*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Beginner
269

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to deal with monitored volumes using communications on a
simple airbag model. Methods for increasing the time step are considered.
A 30-liter airbag is folded along the four fold lines. The following examples illustrate the
airbag folded and deployed.
Fig 1: Folded airbag
Fig 2: Deployed airbag
The fabric thickness is 0.33 mm and is modeled using an elastic orthotropic material law (/
MAT/LAW19) with the following properties:
Youngs Modulus: 500 MPa in both directions
Shear Modulus: 10 MPa
Reduction factor: 0.001
The property set is /PROP/SH_ORTH (shell orthotropic, type 9), using one integration point.
Altair Engineering

270

Fig 3: Overall mesh of the structure (folded and deployed).
The model is divided into two subsets: the fabric layers and the communication surfaces.
The fabric surface is then divided into 9 subsets, one for each monitored volume. Each
"monitored volume" is further divided into two parts. All the parts of the layer of fabric have
the same Type and MID.
The same properties apply for the communication surfaces.
Fig 4: Folder airbag with communications.
The airbag is modeled using 9 communicating volumes in order to simulate the air flow
through the folds and the behavioral differences within the airbag when unfolding. The
communicating surfaces between the volumes are simulated using dummy membranes. The
dummy membranes are modeled using shells with fictitious material (/MAT/LAW0).
Monitored volumes:
A monitored volume is defined as a surface area having one or more shell property sets and
where the surface must be closed. The monitored volume used is a COMMU type for airbags
using communications (chambered, with communications, of the folder airbag type). For
further details about monitored volumes, see the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
The main properties for this type are:
Volumetric damping factor: 0.001 g.mm-1ms-1 .
External pressure: 0.1 MPa
Constant perfect gas: 1.4
271

Altair Engineering
Specific heat at constant pressure: 926 mJ/g (This is the specific heat coefficient
related to mass)
Temperature: 780 K.
Communication area: total (Acom =1 and Scom =0)
Time to deflate vent hole: 1030 ms
Specific input for the central chamber one (inflator):
Vent hole membrane surface area is 1000 mm2 (Avent =0) and is immediately
activated.
Relative vent deflation pressure: 0.0002
Number of injectors: 1 (Njet =1; Ijet =0)
Final injected mass is 46 g injected into the central chamber (Fscalemas and FscaleT
=1). Two functions define the mass and temperature of the injected gas compared
with time (function identifiers: fct_IDmas and fct_IDT).
Time (ms)
11
12
15
19
28
30 106
Mass (g)
11
14
17
22
29
31
36
41
45
46
46
Injected mass function.
Time (ms)
106
Temperature (K)
780
780
Temperature of injected gas function.
Interface
Taking into account the fabric is self-impacting with itself, an auto-impacting interface must
be used. The interfaces Block Format definition is made: defining the master surface (/
SURF/PART), then defining the slave nodes for all nodes on this surface (/GRNOD/SURF).
The distance between the fabric layers before unfolding is very small. In order to avoid initial
penetration, the gap required is approximately 0.1 mm, thus enabling the time step to
considerably decrease when such a gap is chosen.
By using Inacti =5, a 0.3 mm gap is chosen. Any initial penetration below 0.2 mm (twothirds of the input gap) is ignored (it is strongly recommended to verify that no initial
penetration is above this value).

In order to demonstrate the interest of the Inacti flag, the same model was run with Inacti at
a value of 0, with a gap of 0.1 mm (no initial penetration).
Altair Engineering

272
Fig 5: Comparison between option Inacti = 5 and Inacti = 0
Using Inacti = 5, the minimum time step is around 10-3 ms. When not using this option, the
minimum time step is around 2x10-5 ms. For the full model, the number of cycles may be
divided up into 10 or more. Furthermore, the model is numerically less sensitive.
The time step is monitored by the interface time step (kinematic) for up to 40 ms despite the
unfolding and the fact that there is no energy contact from 8 ms. In order to transfer into
the element time step and to reduce computation time, it is advisable to increase the gap so
that the kinematic step becomes higher than the element step.
Time-stepkinetic < 0.9 x GAP / Nodal_velocityrelative (using scale factor = 0.9)
The time step is only low during the unfolding phase (before 10 ms) with a gap equal to 1.5
mm.
Inacti flag = 5
Inacti flag = 0
GAP = 0.3 mm
GAP = 1.5 mm
GAP = 0.1 mm
Error on energy
-18%
-20.2%
-10.5%
CPU
(normalized)
2.68
27.9
273

Altair Engineering
Fig 6: Time step obtained with GAP = 0.3 mm and GAP = 1.5 mm (Inacti = 5).
Fig 7: Contact energy with GAP = 0.3 mm and GAP = 1.5 mm (Inacti = 5).
It is obvious that a gap of 1.5 mm generates an increase in the contact force. However, the
additional error on energy remains quite low and is acceptable.
Altair Engineering

274
Fig 8: Time history of pressure.
Fig 9: Time history of volume.
275

Altair Engineering
Animations
Fig 10: Central chamber is inflating.
Fig 11: All chambers are inflating.
Altair Engineering

276
Fig 12: Airbag is unfolded (no more contact).
Fig 13: Airbag is deployed
277

Altair Engineering
Example 5 - Beam Frame
Summary
A beam frame with clamped extremities receives an impact at its mid-point from a pointed
mass having initial velocity. The material is subjected to the elasto-plastic law of JohnsonCook. The model is meshed with beam elements. An infinite rigid wall with only one slave
node, including the impacted node, is subjected to the initial velocity. This example is
considered a dynamic problem and the explicit solver is used.
The explicit approach leads to finding a quasi-static equilibrium of the structure after impact.
Altair Engineering

278
Title
Beam-frame
Number
5.1
Brief Description
A beam frame receives an impact from a mass having initial velocity.
Keywords
Beam
Rigid wall
Plasticity and Johnson-Cook material (/MAT/LAW2)
RADIOSS Options
Beam element (/PROP/BEAM)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Input File
Beam_frame: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/05_Beam-frame/FRAME*
RADIOSS Version
44q
Beginner
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to perform a static analysis using beam elements.
A pointed mass (3 kg) makes an impact at point O of a beam frame (see Fig 1 for the
geometry) using a speed of 10 ms-1 in the Z direction. The beams are made of steel and
each beam section is square-shaped (each side being 6 mm long).
279

Altair Engineering
Fig 1: Geometry of the frame.
Dimensions are: AB = BC = CD = BE = BF = EC = CF = 90 mm.

Points A, D, E, F, E, and F are fixed.
The beams have the following properties:
Cross section: 36 mm2
Moments of inertia in Y and Z: 108 mm4
Moments of inertia in X : 216 mm4
The material used is steel having the following properties:
Density: 0.0078 g/mm3
Youngs modulus: 200 000 MPa
Poissons ratio: 0.3
Yield stress: 320 MPa
Hardening parameter: 134.65 MPa
All other coefficients are set to default values. Plasticity is taken into account using Law 2
without failure.
Altair Engineering

280

The mesh is a regular beam mesh, each beam being 9 mm long (total = 70 beams).
Fig 2: Mesh of the frame showing the position of the nodes.

The impacting mass is simulated using a sliding rigid plane wall (/RWALL) having an initial
velocity of 10 ms-1 and a mass of 3000 g. Only one slave node exists: the node O to
simulate a point impact.
Points A, F, F', D, E and E' are fully fixed.
281
Fig 4: Rigid wall type infinite plane

Altair Engineering

The main results shown refer to the time history of points B and O with regard to
displacements and velocities.
Fig 5: Displacements of points B and O.
Altair Engineering

282
Fig 6: Velocity of points B and O (stabilization).
Fig 7: Normal and shear force on beam element 15 (near to point O).
Fig 8: Energy assessment (stability reached at in 6 ms).
283

Altair Engineering
Fig 9: Node displacement (max. = 31.95 mm).
Fig 10: Plastic strain (max. = 20.1%).
Altair Engineering

284
Example 6 - Fuel Tank
Summary
The fluid-structure interaction and the fluid flow are studied in cases of a fuel tank sloshing
and overturning. A bi-phase liquid-gas material with an ALE formulation is used to define the
interaction between water and air in the fuel tank.
In the case of sloshing, the fuel tank is subjected to a horizontal deceleration. The fuel tank
container is modeled with a Lagrangian formulation and undergoes an elasto-plastic material
law. Fluid structure coupling is taken into account.
The overturning of the fuel tank is studied by applying a variable deceleration. The tank
container is not modeled as the boundary nodes are fixed. The Eulerian formulation is used.
285

Altair Engineering
6.1 - Fluid Structure Coupling
Title
Fuel tank - Fluid
Structure Coupling
Number
6.1
Brief Description
Sloshing inside a fuel tank by simulating the fluid structure coupling. The tank deformation
is achieved by applying an imposed velocity on the left corners. Water and air inside the
tank are modeled with the ALE formulation. The tank container is described using a
Lagrangian formulation.
Keywords
Fluid structure coupling simulation, and ALE formulation
Shell and brick elements
Hydrodynamic and bi-phase liquid gas material (/MAT/LAW37)
RADIOSS Options
ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS)
J. Donea Grid Formulation (/ALE/DONEA)
Gravity (/GRAV)
ALE material formulation (/ALE/MAT)
Input File
Fluid_structure_coupling: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/06_Fuel_tank/1-Tank_sloshing/Fluid_structure_coupling/TANK*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
Altair Engineering

286
Overview
Aim of the Problem
A numerical simulation of fluid-structure coupling is performed on sloshing inside a
deformable fuel tank. This example uses the ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) formulation
and the hydrodynamic bi-material law (/MAT/LAW37) to model interaction between water, air
and the tank container.
A rectangular tank made of steel is partially filled with water, the remainder being
supplemented by air. The initial distribution pressure is known and supposed homogeneous.
The tank container dimensions are 460 mm x 300 mm x 10 mm, with thickness being at 2
mm.
Deformation of the tank container is generated by an impulse made on the left corners of the
tank for analyzing the fluid-structure coupling.
Fig 1: Problem description.
The steel container is modeled using the elasto-plastic model of Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/
LAW2) with the following parameters:
Poissons ratio: 0.29
The material air-water bi-phase is described in the hydrodynamic bi-material liquid-gas law
(/MAT/LAW37) available in ALE RADIOSS document. Material law 37 is specifically designed
to model bi-material liquid gas.
287

Altair Engineering
The equations used to describe the state of viscosity and pressure are:
Viscosity:
Liquid EOS:
Pi = C i
where, = ( / 0) - 1
Gas EOS:
The equilibrium is defined by: Pl = Pg

Where, Sij is the deviatoric stress tensor and eij is the deviatoric strain tensor.
Material parameters are:
for liquid:
i
Initial density: 10-3 g/mm3
Reference density used in the equation of state (E.O.S): 10-3 g/mm3

Liquid reference density: 0.001 g/mm3
Cl
l
Liquid bulk modulus: 2089 N/mm2

Initial massic liquid proportion: 100%
Shear kinematic viscosity (=
): 0.001 mm2/ms
for gas:
i

Gas reference density: 0.001 g/mm3
Cl
Liquid bulk modulus: 2089 N/mm2
ag
Initial massic liquid proportion: 0%
Shear kinematic viscosity (=
): 0.00143 mm2/ms
Constant perfect gas: 1.4

P0
Initial pressure reference gas: 0.1 N/mm2
The main solid type 14 properties for air/water parts are:

Quadratic bulk viscosity/linear bulk viscosity: 10-20
Hourglass bulk coefficient: 10-5
Altair Engineering

288

Air and water are modeled using the ALE formulation and the bi-material law (/MAT/LAW37).
The tank container uses a Lagrangian formulation and an elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/
LAW2).
Fig 2: Air and water mesh (ALE brick elements).
Fig 3: Tank container mesh (shell elements).
Using the ALE formulation, the brick mesh is only deformed by tank deformation the water
flowing through the mesh. The Lagrangian shell nodes still coincide with the material points
and the elements deform with the material: this is known as a Lagrangian mesh. For the ALE
mesh, nodes on the boundaries are fixed in order to remain on the border, while the interior
nodes are moved.
289

Altair Engineering

Velocities (/IMPVEL) are imposed on the left corners in the X direction.
Table 1: Imposed velocity versus time curve
Velocity
(ms-1)
Time (ms)
12
12.01
50
Fig 4: Kinematic condition: imposed velocities.
Regarding the ALE boundary conditions, constraints are applied on:

Material velocity
Grid velocity
All nodes, except those on the border have grid (/ALE/BCS) and material (/BCS) velocities
fixed in the Z-direction. The nodes on the border only have a material velocity (/BCS) fixed
in the Z-direction.
Both the ALE materials: air and water must be declared ALE using /ALE/MAT. Note that
Lagrangian material is automatically declared Lagrangian.
The /ALE/DONEA option activates the J. Donea grid formulation in order to compute the grid
velocity. See the RADIOSS Theory Manual for further explanations about this option.
Altair Engineering

290

Fluid Structure Coupling
Fig 5: X momentum variation for each part.
Kinematic conditions generate oscillations of the structure.
Fig 6: Density attached to the various brick elements.
291

Altair Engineering
Time = 0 ms
Density
Velocity
Altair Engineering

292
Time = 12 ms
Density
Velocity
293

Altair Engineering
Time = 42 ms
Density
Velocity
Altair Engineering

294
6.2 - Fluid Flow
Title
Fuel tank - Fluid flow
Number
6.2
Brief Description
Fuel tank overturning with simulation of the fluid flow. The reversing tank is modeled using
horizontally-applied gravity. The tank container is presumed without deformation and only
the water and air inside the tank are taken into consideration using the ALE formulation.
Keywords
Fluid flow simulation and ALE formulation
Brick elements
Hydrodynamic and bi-phase liquid gas (/MAT/LAW37)
RADIOSS Options
J. Donea Grid Formulation (/ALE/DONEA)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Input File
Fluid_flow_gravity_1: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/06_Fuel_tank/2Tank_overturning/Fluid_flow_1/PFTANK*
Fluid_flow_gravity_2: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/06_Fuel_tank/2Tank_overturning/Fluid_flow_2/PFTANK*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
295

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The fluid flow is studied during the fuel tank overturning. This example uses the ALE
(Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) formulation and the hydrodynamic bi-material law (/MAT/
LAW37) to simulate interaction between water and air. The tank container is presumed
without deformation and it will not be modeled.
A rectangular tank is partially filled with water, the remainder being supplemented by air.
The tank turns once around itself on the Y-axis. The overturning is achieved by defining a
gravity field in the X direction, which is parallel to the liquid gas interface. All gravity is
applied in other directions. The initial distribution pressure is already known and supposed
homogeneous. The tank dimensions are 460 mm x 300 mm x 10 mm.
The example deals with two loading cases: an instantaneous rotation of the fuel tank by 90
degrees (gravity function 1) and a progressive rotation (gravity function 2).
The main material properties for the ALE bi-phase air/water are:
Air density: 1.22x10-6 g/mm3
Water density: 0.001 g/mm3
Gas initial pressure: 0.1 MPa
Altair Engineering

296

The bi-material air-water is described in the hydrodynamic material law (/MAT/LAW37). See
previous section for information about this law, including full input data.
This loading case does not require a tank container mesh and the model, air and water are
only comprised of the brick element using an ALE formulation.
Fig 8: Air and water mesh (ALE bricks).
Using the ALE formulation, brick mesh is only deformed by the tank deformation, the water
flowing through the mesh. The Lagrangian shell nodes still coincide with the material points,
while the elements are deformed with the material: this is the Lagrangian mesh. For the ALE
mesh, nodes on boundaries are fixed to remain on the border, while the interior nodes are
moved.
Regarding the ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS), constraints are applied on:
Material velocity
Grid velocity
All nodes inside the border have grid and material velocities fixed in the Z direction; the
nodes on the left and right sides have a material velocity fixed in the X and Z directions,
while the nodes on the high and low sides have a material velocity fixed in the Y and Z
directions. The grid velocity is fully fixed on the border, just as the material velocity is fixed
on the corners.
A function defines gravity acceleration in the X direction compared with time in order to
simulate the rotation effect. Gravity is activated by /GRAV. Two cases are studied depending
on the acceleration function chosen:
297

Altair Engineering
Fig 9: Variable acceleration function 1
Fig 10: Constant acceleration function 2
Gravity is considered for all nodes.

Both ALE materials: air and water must be declared as ALE using /ALE/MAT. Note that
the Lagrangian material is automatically declared as Lagrangian.
The /ALE/DONEA option activates the J. Donea grid formulation in order to compute
grid velocity. See the RADIOSS Theory Manual for further explanation about this option.
Altair Engineering

298

Model with Constant
Acceleration
(Gravity function 1)
Time = 170 ms
Density
Velocity
299

Altair Engineering
Model with Constant Acceleration

Time = 280 ms
Density
Velocity
Altair Engineering

300
Model with Variable Acceleration

Time = 50 ms
Density
Velocity
301

Altair Engineering
Model with Variable Acceleration

Time = 70 ms
Density
Velocity
Conclusion
This example allows the study of hydrodynamic bi-material using Law 37 in RADIOSS. ALE
and Eulerian formulations are used. The application of boundary conditions in ALE formations
and handling the fluid-structure interaction are discussed. Furthermore, the results obtained
correctly represent the physical problem.
Altair Engineering

302
Example 7 - Pendulums
Summary
The purpose of this example is to simulate the oscillation and wave propagation of a group of
pendulums, arranged in a line, when impacted at one end. The material is described as being
elastic. Two models are used to simulate two different physical problems:
The 2D model represents the infinite cylindrical mass for pendulums
The 3D model is necessary for determining the spherical mass
The quality of the model first depends on how contact is managed. For the 2D model, a
simple type 5 interface with a plane facet is used. For the 3D model, however, a type 16
interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method is used.
303

Altair Engineering
Title
Pendulums
Number
7.1
Brief Description
Five pendulums in line, initially in contact with each other, are struck by a sixth one. The
shock wave and oscillating motion are observed.
Keywords
Tri-dimensional analysis, truss, brick, and 16-node thick shell
Type 16 interface (Node to brick contact)
Elasticity, momentum transmission, shock wave propagation, and multiple-impacts
Bi-dimensional analysis, plane strain, type 5 interface, and quad element
RADIOSS Options
Bi-dimensional analysis (/ANALY)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Type 16 interface (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 5 (/INTER/TYPE5)
Experimental and analytical results
Input File
Tri-dimensional_analysis: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/07_Pendulums/3D_model/PENDULUMS_3D*
Bi-dimensional_analysis: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/07_Pendulums/Plan_strain_model/PENDULUMS_2D*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Medium
Altair Engineering

304
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to study the shock wave propagation and the momentum
transfer through several bodies, initially in contact with each other, subjected to multipleimpact. The process of collision and the energetic behavior upon impact are delineated using
a tri-dimensional model. A plane strain assumption can be used as a compliment to this
study, whereby a bi-dimensional model using fine mesh enables shock wave propagation and
the mechanics contact to be shown in a qualitative manner.
A metal ball strikes a line of five balls, initially in contact with each other. The momentum is
transferred from pendulum to pendulum until reaching the last one at the opposite end. The
system is subjected to gravity. This results in the end pendulums alternate oscillating for
half the time period.
Units: mm, ms, g, N, MPa.
Fig 1: Description of the problem.
The left pendulum has an initial angle of 45 in relation to the vertical. The material used is
aluminum alloy which behaves like a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) during impact.
The properties are defined as follows:
Density: 0.0027 g.mm-3
The geometrical characteristics of the balls and trusses are:
Truss:
- Length: 124.6 mm
Ball:
- Radius: 25.4 mm (massball = 182.5g)
305

Altair Engineering

Two approaches 2D and 3D are used to provide complementary simulation results.
Modeling Methodology: 3D Model
Brick and thick shell elements are used to create the 3D model for balls. The quadratic 16node thick shell element is used to model the external surface of the balls. However, the
core of each ball is modeled using 8-node solid elements.
Fig 2: Tri-dimensional mesh in initial state.
The modeling technique used enables to ensure contact between the quadratic surfaces.
Figure 3 shows the mesh used for balls. The mesh uses a hypercube mesh topology
combining brick and 16-node thick shell elements.
Fig 3: Mesh for balls (brick and 16-node thick shell).
The type 16 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method is employed to model contacts
between the nodes and the quadratic elements surface. An interface must be defined for
each ball (five interfaces).
Altair Engineering

306
Fig 4: Slave nodes and master surfaces defined for the type 16 interface.
No gap is required for the type 16 interface, enabling the contact condition to be exactly
satisfied.
Gravity is applied to all nodes. A function defines the gravity acceleration in the Z direction
compared with time. Gravity is activated by the /GRAV option.
Fig 5: Gravity loading (-0.00981 mm.ms-2 ).
The upper extremities of the trusses are fixed in Y and Z translations and in Y and Z
rotations.
307

Altair Engineering
Fig 6: Boundary conditions on the upper extremities of trusses.
Modeling Methodology: 2D Model

By adopting a plane strain approach, a 2D model is used (N2D3D = 2 in the /ANALY option set
in the input file). The plane strain analysis defines the X-axis as the plane strain direction.
The mesh consists of 2D solid elements (quads). The dimension of the quad is about 0.5 mm
for balls.
Fig 7: 2D mesh in the initial state.
Normal vectors of quad elements should have the same orientation to avoid negative
volumes. Quad elements undergo a type 14 general solid property.
The contact between the external segments of the quads is modeled five times using a type 5
interface.
Altair Engineering

308
Fig 8: Master segments and slave nodes defined for type 5 interfaces.
Type 5 interface uses the Penalty method for a master segment contact (blue side) to the
slave node (red side). The gap is set to 0.1 mm as the initial interval between the masses.
The contact is sliding using a Coulomb friction coefficient that is equal to zero.
Type 7 general interface is not available in a 2D analysis.
The upper extremities of the trusses are fixed in Y and Z translations. It should be noted that
the 2D conditions are automatically taken into account with N2D3D = 2 in /ANALY.
Gravity is applied to all nodes. A constant function (-0.00981 mm.ms-2) defines the gravity
acceleration in the Z direction compared with time. Gravity is activated by /GRAV.
Note that for the 2D analysis, the rigid body /RBODY option is not available.
For the purpose of this example, the balls are given the following numbers:
Fig 9: Ball numbers.

2D Approach: Dynamic System Analysis
Maintaining Energy and Oscillations
Figure 10 shows the kinetic energy variation of the model. When considering energy, the
system behaves as a simple pendulum.
309

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: Global energy assessment.
When the pendulum mass is released at time t=0, the No. 6 end ball has maximum potential
energy and null kinetic energy. Ball 6 achieves maximum velocity before striking the five
other pendulums. For a moderate case, that is without loss, we have:
EKINETIC = EPOTENTIAL
Where, h is the vertical displacement of the balls center, V is the velocity and m is the mass.
The maximum kinetic
energy is reached for:
Analytical solution:
Simulation results:
h = hmax = I(1 - cos(45)) = 43.934 mm

EKINETICmax = mghmax = 182.5 * 0.00981 * 43.934 = 78.656 mJ
EKINETICmax = 78.655 mJ (time = 203.33 ms, impact balls 6 and 5)
EKINETICmax = 72.478 mJ (time = 612.5 ms, impact balls 1 and 2)
Maintaining the kinetic energy in the system is not entirely satisfactory, due to the energy
contact being dissipated during impact.
The two extreme pendulums alternate, oscillating for half of the time period. The velocity of
the middle balls in comparison to time is shown in Fig 11.
Altair Engineering

310
Fig 11: Velocity transmission between the end balls 1 and 6.
Velocity is transferred from pendulum to pendulum until reaching the end one.
Equation of Motion
The relative motion of a simple pendulum can be described using the equation:
where,
is the systems pulsation:
Fig 12: Pendulum motion.
Such analytical equation can be corroborated with regard to the end balls No. 1 and 6.
Rotations and rotational accelerations
end of the trusses.
311
are indicated from the nodes located at the upper

Altair Engineering
Fig 13: Verification of the equation
Fig 14: Verification of the equation
for ball 6.
for ball 1.
The numerical results have an average correlation in relation to the analytical solution, due to
the dynamic response of the nodal acceleration saved in the Time History.
Energetic Behavior Upon Impact
Lets consider the interval [203,33 ms and 204,11 ms] where multiple impacts occur from
balls No. 6 to 1.
Altair Engineering

312
As shown in Fig 15, the internal energy stored in the system is released after each impact, in
line with the defining balls linear material law. The kinetic energy is transferred from
pendulum to pendulum.
Fig 15: Global energy assessment during multiple impacts.
The 16-node thick shells are elements which do not suffer hourglass deformation. Therefore,
the low amount of kinetic energy lost during multiple impact is due to the dissipated contact
energy (-2.47mJ). The external work of the gravity remains constant (78.655mJ).
The following animations separately illustrate:
the motion of the pendulums
the kinetic energy transmission
the stress wave propagation
313

Altair Engineering
Balls Motion (Oscillations)
Altair Engineering

314
Momentum transmission from pendulum to pendulum (cutting plane X = 0):

Velocity Norm
Time for total transmission: 0.78 ms
315
Maximum = 1.08588 m.s-1.

Altair Engineering
Shock wave propagation during multiple impact (cutting plane X=0):

von Mises Stress Wave
Time for transmission: 0.78 ms
Maximum = 17.7062 MPa.
2D Approach: Multiple Impact Analysis

In this section, we refer to the mechanics contact across a 6-ball chain.
The plane strain assumption changes the physical problem. Nevertheless, this case study is
an interesting example of a system undergoing several shocks.
Altair Engineering

316
Fig 16: A 6-ball chain system.
The force between balls compared with time is shown in Fig 17. Note the existence of a time
interval where forces contacts are not at zero.
Fig 17: Forces contact between balls compared with time (contact starts at t=0 ms).
This process leads to multiple impacts. It corroborates the experimental observations, where
the theory was well estimated. Based on an Impulse Correlation Ratio (ICR), a regularized
system of an N-ball chain using an elastic contact spring gives similar results.
Referential results: [V. Acaray, B. Brogliato / Second MIT Conference on Computational
Fluid and solid Mechanics]
von Mises stress wave propagation from ball to ball during the multiple impact period
(isostep values):
317

Altair Engineering
Conclusion
The impact between several pendulums in line is studied using RADIOSS. Two models
representing physical problems are studied:
(i) a global analysis using a relatively coarse mesh with 3D elements
Altair Engineering

318
(ii) a 2D model using a fine mesh

In the first case, the energy assessment and the wave propagation are studied. The mesh
used is not fine enough for studying the contact effects. This is due to the fact that 3D
represents a high cost model and using a fine mesh dramatically increases the computation
time. The results are compared to an analytical solution where the pendulum system is
assimilated to a simple pendulum.
The 2D analysis concentrates on contact between the balls. There still exists an analytical
solution though for a chain of three balls, but which can be generalized for the purpose of
this example. The results obtained by simulation and theory demonstrate the validity of the
numerical results obtained by RADIOSS.
319

Altair Engineering
Example 8 - Hopkinson Bar
Summary
Precise data for high strain rate materials is necessary to enable the accurate modeling of
high-speed impacts. The high strain rate characterization of materials is usually performed
using the split Hopkinson Pressure Bar within the strain rate range 100-10000 s-1. Using the
one-dimensional analysis of the Hopkinson bar experiment, it is assumed that the specimen
deforms under uni-axial stress, the bar specimen interfaces remain planar at all times, and
the stress equilibrium in the specimen is achieved using travel times. The RADIOSS explicit
finite element code is used to investigate these assumptions.
Altair Engineering

320
Title
Split Hopkinson
pressure bar testing
Number
8.1
Brief Description
The high strain rate tensile behavior of the 7010 aluminum alloy is studied using the
Hopkinson pressure bar technique (stress wave).
Keywords
Axisymmetrical analysis and quad elements
High strain rate and Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)
Wave propagation and stress pulse
Elastic model (/MAT/LAW1) and Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic model (/MAT/LAW2)
RADIOSS Options
Axisymmetrical analysis (/ANALY)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Experimental data
Input File
High_strain_rate: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/08_Hopkinson_Bar/
High_strain_rate/SHPB_H*
Low_strain_rate: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/08_Hopkinson_Bar/
Low_strain_rate/SHPB_L*
RADIOSS Version
44q
Advanced
321

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
In order to model and predict the behavior of material during impact, the responses at very
high strain rates should be studied. The Split Hopkinson Bar is an inexpensive device for
performing high strain-rate experiments [1]. This equipment consists of four long pressure
bars:
the striker bar
the incident bar
the transmission bar
the drop bar
The specimen is sandwiched between the transmission and the incident bar. Assuming that
the wave propagation in the bar is non-dispersive, the force and displacement upon contact
between the bar and the specimen can be obtained from the strains measured through
experience. In this example, the dynamic tensile behavior, achieved through experience of
the 7010 aluminum alloy with a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) is compared to
numerical simulations. Two cases are studied at the strain rates of 80 s-1 (low rate) and 900
s-1 (high rate) respectively. At high strain rates, experience shows that the stress flow
significantly increases by more than 30% with the strain rate increasing; thus demonstrating
strain rate dependence in aluminum alloys in general. For the strain rates range applied
here, an existing Johnson-Cook model is used to describe the stress flow as a strain and
strain rate function. Failure is not taken into account.
The Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar technique corresponds to a high strain rate deformation of
the aluminum alloy at high stress. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the basic Hopkinson bar
setup. It consists of two cylindrical bars of the same diameter, respectively called Input and
Output bars.
Fig 1: Hopkinson bar device.
The specimen material undergoes an isotropic elasto-plastic behavior which can be

reproduced using a Johnson-Cook model (/MAT/LAW2). The steel bars and the striker follow a
linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1).
Altair Engineering

322
Fig 2: Specimen geometry and cross-section (dimensions in mm).
Johnson-Cook Model
The Johnson-Cook model describes the stress in relation to the plastic strain and the strain
rate using the following equation:
where:
is the strain rate
0
is the reference strain rate
is the plastic strain (true strain)
a is the yield stress

b is the hardening parameter
n is the hardening exponent
c is the strain rate coefficient
The two optional inputs, strain rate coefficient and reference strain rate, must be defined for
each material in /MAT/LAW2 in order to take account of the strain rate effect on stress, that
is the increase in stress when increasing the strain rate. The constants a, b and n define the
shape of the strain-stress curve.
In the documents entitled CRAHVI, G4RD-CT-2000-00395, D.1.1.1, Material Tests Tensile
properties of Aluminum Alloys 7010T7651 and AU4G Over a Range of Strain Rates, the
behavior of the 7010 aluminum alloy can be described according to the relations:
for strain rates below 80 s-1
for strain rates exceeding 80 s-1 up to 3000 s-1
323

Altair Engineering
Fig 3: Yield curve of the Johnson-Cook model:
The material properties of the specimen are:

The material used for the bars and projectile is type 1 (linear elastic) having the following
properties:
The geometrical characteristics of the bars and projectile are:
Bars:
Length: 4 m
Diameter: 12 mm
Projectile:
Radius: 12 mm
Weight: 170 g
High Strain Rate Test Method

The specimen is screwed in between the incident and transmission bars. A stress pulse is
introduced into the input bar through impact from a steel projectile on the steel disc attached
Altair Engineering

324
to one end of the input bar. The impact generates a tensile wave which propagates along the
input bar. Part of the wave is reflected and a part is transmitted via the specimens interface.
The stress pulse continues through the specimen and into the transmitted bar. The wave
reflections inside the sample enables the stress to be homogenized during the test. The
strain associated with the output or transmitted stress wave is measured by the strain
gauges on the output or transmitted bar. The strain gauges attached to the specimen gauge
length provide direct measuring of the true strain and the true plastic strain in the specimen
during the experiment. The transmitted elastic wave provides a direct force measurement to
the bar specimen interfaces by way of the following relation:
F(t) - SbarEbar T(t)
Where, Ebar is the modulus of the output bar, T is the strain associated with the output
stress wave and the Sbar is the cross-section of the output bar.
If the two bars remain elastic and wave dispersion is ignored, then the measured stress
pulses can be assumed to be the same as those acting on the specimen.
The engineering stress value in the specimen can be determined by the wave analysis, using
the transmitted wave:
Engineering stress can also be found by averaging out the force applied by the incident, that
is the reflected and transmitted wave, as shown in the equation:
Where,
and
are the strains associated with input stress wave and
is the strain
associated with output stress wave.

True stress in the specimen is computed using the following relation (refer to Example 11 Tensile Test for further details):
true
= engineering exp( true)
The true strain rate is given by:
True stress and true strain are evaluated up to the failure point.
Interface 1: F1 = Sbar ( I(t) + R(t)) = SbarEbar( I(t) + R(t))

Interface 2: F2 = Sbar T(t) = SbarEbar T(t)
325

Altair Engineering
Balance in specimen: F1 = F2 ; 1(t) + R(t) = T(t)

Engineering stress in specimen: specimen (t) = F1 / Sspecimen = F2 / Sspecimen
Fig 4: 1D analysis.
Strain Rate Filtering

Because of the dynamic load, strain rates cause high frequency vibrations which are not
physical. Thus, the stress-strain curve may appear noisy. The strain rate filtering option
enables to dampen such oscillations by removing the high frequency vibrations in order to
obtain smooth results. A cut-off frequency for strain rate filtering (Fcut) is used with a value
less than half of the sampling frequency (1/ This or 1/ Tsampling) defined in D01 file using
the /TFILE option. Refer to Example 11 - Tensile Test for further details.
The cut-off frequency is set at 100 kHz in this example.

Taking into account the geometrys revolution symmetry the material and the kinematic
conditions, an axisymmetrical model is used (N2D3D = 1 in /ANALY set up in the D00 file). Y is
the radial direction and Z is the axis of revolution.
The mesh is made of 12054 2D solid elements (quads). The quad dimension is about 2 mm.
Fig 5: Mesh of the axisymmetrical model with imposed velocities on the top of the input bar.
Altair Engineering

326

Low extremity nodes of the output bar are fixed in the Z direction. The axisymmetrical
condition on the revolutionary symmetry axis requires the blocking of the Y translation and X
rotation.
The projectile is modeled using a steel cylinder with a fixed velocity in the direction Z. The
required strain rate is taken into account by applying two imposed velocities, 1.7 ms-1 and
5.8 ms-1 in order to produce strain rate ranges in the of 80 s-1 and 900 s-1 (low and high
rates) specimen.
True Stress, True Strain and True Strain Rate Measurement from Time History
Fig 6: Nodes and quads saved for Time History.
In the experiment, the strain gauge is attached to the specimen. In simulation, the true
strain will be determined from 9040 and 6 nodes relative Z displacements (l0 = 3.83638
mm).
The true stress can be given using two data sources. The first methodology consists of using
the equation previously presented, based on the assumption of the one-dimensional
propagation of bar-specimen forces. The engineering strain t associated with the output
stress wave is obtained from the Z displacement of nodes located on the output bar. The true
plastic strain is extracted from the quads on the specimen, saved in the Time History file.
True stress can also be measured directly from the Time History using the average of the Z
stress quads 6243, 6244, 6224 and 6235. It should be noted that the section option is not an
available option with the quad elements.
The strain rate can be calculated from either the true plastic strain of quads saved in /TH/
QUAD or from the true strain true.
327

Altair Engineering
Table 1: Relations used in the analysis

High Rate Testing
True
stress
Z stress
average from
quads saved in
/TH
True
strain
True
strain
rate

The purpose of this test is to obtain the results observed in experiments with a Johnson-Cook
model. The increase of stress is expected to equal approximately 30% compared to the low
strain rate test.
Experimental Data
Experimental results show that the variation of the true tensile flow stress compared with the
true strain is approximately equivalent to a strain rate between 80 s-1 and 100 s-1. The
reference strain, in the Johnson-Cook model is set to 0.08 ms-1. At higher rates, the true
flow stress increases significantly compared with the strain rate. The 7010 aluminum alloy
exhibits an increase in the flow stress by a typical 30% at high strain rates (900 s-1 3000 s1) compared to static values.
Results are given at the specific true strains of 0.02, 0.05 and 0.10. The influence of the
strain rate on stress can be seen in Fig 7 [1].
Fig 7: Variation of true stress compared with true strain for 7010 alloy using two different rates (experimental
data).
Altair Engineering

328
For the test performed with a strain rate of 900 s-1, the flow stress reaches 850 MPa at a
0.25 strain.
Table 2: True stress at specific strains using both strain rates (experimental data).
Strain rate: 80 s-1
Strain rate: 900 s-1
True strain
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.25
True stress
(MPa)
550
600
610
625
775
800
850
Johnson-Cook Model
Figure 8 shows the variation of true stress in time in relation to the wave propagation along
the bars. Stresses are evaluated on the input bar, the specimen and the output bar.
Fig 8: Stress measurement localizations.
Fig 9: Stress waves in the input bar, the output bar and the specimen (imposed velocities = 5.8 ms-1 ).
329

Altair Engineering
The stress-time curve shows the incident, reflected and transmitted signals.
Fig 10: Diagram of SHPB showing the motion in time of the tensile pulse.
Fig 11: von Mises stress wave propagation along bars (imposed velocities = 5.8 ms-1 ).
The speed of wave, C along the bars is calculated using the relation:
C = 5189 ms-1
Where, E is the Youngs modulus and
is the density of the bars.
The time step element is controlled by the smallest element located in the specimen. It is set
at 5x10-5 ms. The stress wave thus reaches the specimen in 0.77 ms and travels 0.26 mm
along the bar for each time step. Obviously, it remains lower than the element length of the
smallest dimension (0.88 mm).
An imposed velocity of 5.8 ms-1 produces a strain rate in the specimen of approximately 900
s-1, while a strain rate of approximately 80 s-1 is achieved using an imposed velocity of 1.7
ms-1. A simulation is performed for each velocity value. It should be noted that the study on
low rates is more limited in time than on high rates due to the reflected wave generated on
top of the output bar.
Figure 12 shows the true stress and true strain as a function of the strain rate.
Altair Engineering

330
Fig 12: Variation of true stress with true strain for high and medium strain rates.
At a high strain rate (900/s), an increase in the flow stress is observed, being approximately
30% higher than the stress obtained for a low strain rate (80/s). The Johnson-Cook model
used provides precise results compared with the experimental data.
331

Altair Engineering
Fig 13: Stress Z and plastic strain on specimen at 0.6 ms.
The true stresses determined from both methodologies are shown side-by-side. This validates
the analysis based on a transmitted wave. Typical curves for a model having imposed
velocities equal to 5.8 ms-1 are shown below:
Altair Engineering

332
True stress comparison in the specimen
True strain rate in the specimen

(using both computations)
Either data sources used to evaluate the strain rate give similar results.
333

Altair Engineering
The following results show:

the strain rate effect on stress, with or without the cut-off frequency for smoothing
(100 kHz);
the influence of the strain rate coefficient (comparison with experimental data).
Strain rate effect
Altair Engineering

334
Influence of the strain rate coefficient c
These studies are performed for the high strain rate model ( = 900 s-1).
Figure 14 compares the distribution of the von Mises stress on the specimen, with and
without the strain rate filtering at time t=0.6 ms.
335

Altair Engineering
Fig 14: Comparison of the distribution of the von Mises stress at time t=0.6 ms.
We obtain more physical flow stress distribution using filtering. Explicit is an element-byelement method, while the local treatment of temporal oscillations puts spatial oscillations
into the mesh.
Reference
[1] CRAHVI, G4RD-CT-2000-00395, D.1.1.1, Material Tests Tensile properties of Aluminum
Alloys 7010T7651 and AU4G Over a Range of Strain Rates.
Altair Engineering

336
Example 9 - Billiards (pool)
Summary
The impact and rebound between balls on a small billiard table is studied. This example
deals with the problem of defining interfaces and transmitting momentum between the balls.
The study is divided into three parts:
At first, a general study is used to see the results of a cue ball when coming into contact with
the 15 other balls arranged in a triangle. The balls are meshed for the purpose using 16node shell elements (for the curvature) and a type 16 interface between each ball as well as
between the balls and the table. The results show that the momentum is not homogenously
transmitted: the balls on the table are not being evenly spread out.
Secondly, the collision between two balls is studied. All parameters are the same as in the
first part. The reaction of those two balls is then compared to the analytical results.
Finally, six different interfaces are compared: types 16 and 17 tied or sliding interfaces using
the Lagrange Multipliers method and a type 7 tied or sliding interface using the Lagrange
Multipliers or the Penalty method. The study is also initiated using a quasi-static gravity
application prior to dynamic behavior. When comparing the kinetic energy transmission, the
results show that interfaces without the tied option provide better results than the others,
and that the type 16 interface seems to be the best.
337

Altair Engineering
9.1 - Billiards (Pool)
Title
Billiards (Pool)
Number
9.1
Brief Description
A pool game is modeled to show the transmission of momentum between one impacting ball
and 15 impacted balls.
Keywords
16-node thick shell and sphere mesh
Type 7 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method and the Penalty method
Type 16 sliding and tied interface type 17 sliding and tied interface, and quadratic
surface contact
Elastic shock
Momentum transmission and shock wave
RADIOSS Options
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7), type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 17 (/
INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE17)
16-node thick shell property type 20 (/PROP/TSHELL)
Input File
Billiard_game / Interface_16: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/09_Billiards/Billiards_model/BILLARD*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Billiards_model/
Supplement_Interface7Lag/BILLARD*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Advanced
Altair Engineering

338
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to investigate the transmission of momentum between several
balls. Contact with the various interfaces using the Penalty and Lagrange Multipliers method
is analyzed.
Pool is a game consisting of 16 balls, each 50.8 mm in diameter. It is played on a small
billiard table measuring 1800 mm x 900 mm. Fifteen (15) balls are placed in a triangle to
enable their tight grouping. The initial velocity of the shooting ball is presumed equal to 1.5
ms-1. Elastic rebounds are observed.
Fig 1: Pool game.
Units: mm, g, N, MPa.

The material is subjected to a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) with the following properties:
Balls: phenolic
resin
Frame: polymer
Plate: slate
Initial density
0.00137 g.mm-3
0.001 g.mm-3
0.0028 g.mm-3
Young's
modulus
10500 MPa
1000 MPa
62000 MPa
Poisson ratio
0.3
0.49

The balls are meshed with 16node solid shells (quadratic elements) in order to improve the
conditions of contact by taking into account the curvatures. The frame of the table is made of
16node solid shells to comply with the interface used. The plate is modeled using only one
solid element. The 16node thick shells are considered as solid elements. They are defined
by a thick type 20 shell property (number 16 solid formulation for quadratic 16-node thick
shells, fully-integrated with 2x2x2 integration points).
339

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Pool game mesh.
Fig 3: Mesh for balls.
Fig 4: 16-node thick shell element.
Altair Engineering

340
The type 16 interface with the Lagrange Multipliers method is used to model the ball/ball and
balls/table contacts. An interface must be defined for each ball (that is: 16 interfaces in
total). An additional interface is used to define the contacts between the balls and the table
(plate and frame).
Fig 5: Type 16 interface: slave SHEL16 for balls and master SHEL16 for the table.
Fig 6: Example of the type 16 interface defined for the contact between balls.
Slave nodes (red) are extracted from the external surfaces of the parts.
An initial velocity of 1.5 ms-1 in X direction is applied to all nodes of the white ball.
341

Altair Engineering
Fig 7: Initial translational velocities of the impacting ball.
All nodes of the lower face of the table are completely fixed (translations and rotations).
Gravity is considered for all the balls nodes. A function defines the gravity acceleration in the
Z direction compared with time. Gravity is activated using /GRAV.
Fig 8: Gravity function (-0.00981 mm.ms-2 )
Altair Engineering

342

Due to the faceting of the ball, contact between the impacting ball and the impacted balls is
not perfectly symmetrical and momentum is not homogeneously transmitted among the
balls. An apparent physical strike thus results.
Fig 9: Collision of the balls
343

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: History of the balls motions (contact control: type 16 interface).
Altair Engineering

344
9.2 - Collision between Two Balls

Study on Trajectories
Title
Collision between
two balls
Number
9.2
Input File
Collision study: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Collision_simulation/COLLISION*
Overview
Two balls are now considered in order to study the behavior of impacting spherical balls.
The balls behavior is described using the parameters (angles and velocities) shown in Fig 11.
The numerical results are compared with the analytical solution, assuming a perfect elastic
rebound (coefficient of restitution is equal to 1).
Fig 11: Problem data.
Initial values: V1 = 0.7m.s-1; V2 = 1m.s-1; 1 = 40;
= 30; massball = 44.514g.
The balls and the table have the same properties, previously defined for a pool game. The
345

Altair Engineering
dimensions of the table are 900 mm x 450 mm x 25 mm and the balls diameter is 50.8 mm.
The balls and the table are meshed with 16-node thick shell elements for using the type 16
Lagrangian interface.
Fig 12: Mesh of the problem (16-node thick shells).
The initial translational velocities are applied to the balls in the /INIV Engine option.
Velocities are projected on the X and Y axes.
Fig 13: Initial velocities applied on the balls (initial position).
Gravity is considered for the balls (0.00981 mm.ms-2 ).

The ball/ball and balls/table contact is modeled using the type 16 interface (slave nodes /
master 16-node thick shells contact). The interface defining the ball/ball contact is shown in
Fig 14.
Fig 14: Master and slave sides for the type 16 Lagrangian interface.
Analytical Solution
Take two balls, 1 and 2 from masses m1 and m2, moving in the same plane and approaching
each other on a collision course using velocities V1 and V2, as shown in Fig 15.
Altair Engineering

346
Fig 15: General problem of collision between two balls.
Velocities are projected onto the local axes n and t. To obtain the velocities and their
direction after impact, the momentum conservation law is recorded for the two balls:
(1)
or
(2)
The shock is presumed elastic and without friction. Maintaining the translational kinetic
energy is respected as there is no rotational energy:
(3)
Such equality implies that the recovering capacity of the two balls corresponds to their
tendency to deform.
This condition equals one of the elastic impacts, with no energy loss. Maintaining the
systems energy gives:
(4)
This relation means that the normal component of the relative velocity changes into its
opposite during the elastic shock (coefficient of restitution value e is equal to the unit).
The following equations must be checked for normal components:
The equations system using V1 and V2 as unknowns is easily solved:
347

Altair Engineering
It should be noted that these relations depend upon the masses ratio.
As the balls do not suffer from velocity change in the t-direction, maintaining the tangential
component of each spheres velocity provides:
The norms of velocities after shock result from the following relations.
and
In this example, balls have the same mass: m1 = m2.
Therefore:
and
(7)
The norms of the velocities are given using the following relations, depending on the initial
velocities and angles:
(8)
By recording the projection of the velocities, directions after shock can be evaluated using
relation (9):
(9)
Equations (8) and (9) are used for determining the analytical solutions (angles and velocities
after collision).
Simulation Results: Comparison of Numerical Results with the

Analytical Solution
The following diagram shows the trajectories of the balls center point obtained using
numerical simulation before and after collision.
Altair Engineering

348
Fig 16: Trajectories of balls (center of gravity).
Fig 17: Variation of velocities
349
(collision at 40 ms).

Altair Engineering
Fig 18: Energy assessment.
For given initial values of V1, V2, 1 and 2, simulation results are reported in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of results for after collision
Numerical Results
Analytical Solution
42.27
44.72
26.75
26.48
V1
0.731 m/s
V1
0.731 m/s
V2
0.969 m/s
V2
0.977 m/s
Conclusion
The simulation corroborates with the analytical solution. The 16-node thick shells are fullyintegrated elements without hourglass energy. This modeling provides a good transmission of
momentum. However, the type 16 interface does not take into account the quadratic surface
on the slave side (ball 2), due to the node to thick shell contact. Accurate results are
obtained for a collision without penetrating the quadratic surface of the slave side in order to
confirm impact between the spherical bodies.
A fine mesh could improve the results.
Altair Engineering

350
9.3 - Study on Interfaces

Comparison of Results Obtained using Different Interfaces
Title
Study on interfaces
Number
9.3
Input File
Inter_7_Penalty: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Contact_modelling/Inter_7_Penalty/TEST7P*
Inter_7_Lagrangian: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Contact_modelling/Inter_7_Lagrangian/TEST7L*
Inter_16_tied: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Contact_modelling/Inter_16_tied/TEST16T*
Inter_16_sliding: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Contact_modelling/Inter_16_sliding/TEST16S*
Inter_17_tied: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Contact_modelling/Inter_17_tied/TEST17ST*
Inter_17_sliding: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/
Contact_modelling/Inter_17_sliding/TEST17S*
Overview
The balls and the table have the same properties as previously defined. The dimensions of
the table are 900 mm x 450 mm x 25 mm and the balls diameter is 50.8 mm.
Six interfaces are used to model the contacts (ball/ball and balls/table):
Table 2: Interfaces used in the problems.
Type 16 (Lagrange Multipliers) tied or sliding: slave nodes / master
solids contact
Type 17 (Lagrange Multipliers) tied or sliding: slave 16-node shells /
master 16-node shells contact
Type 7 (Lagrange Multipliers): slave nodes / master surface contact
Type 7 (Penalty) sliding: slave nodes / master surface contact
The type 16 interface defines contact between a group of nodes (slaves) and a curved surface
of quadratic elements (master part). The type 17 interface is used for modeling a surface-tosurface contact. For both interfaces, the Lagrange Multipliers method is used to apply the
351

Altair Engineering
contact conditions; gaps are not required. Contact between the balls and the table is set as
tied or sliding. Contact between the balls themselves is always considered as sliding. The
type 7 interface enables the simulation of the most general contact types occurring between
a master surface and a set of slave nodes. The Coulomb friction between surfaces is not
modeled here (sliding contact) and the gap is fixed at 0.1 mm. The other parameters are set
to default values.
The type 7 interface with the Penalty method is not available with 16-node thick shell
elements. Thus, brick elements replace the 16-nodes shells in this case (check in the input
file).
Contact modeling between balls (always sliding).
Fig 19: Definition of slave and master sides for contact.
The symmetrical interface definition is not recommended when using the Lagrange Multipliers
method (types 16, 17 and 7-Lag). The problem using the interface with the Penalty method
uses two interfaces to model the symmetrical impact.
Fig 20: Symmetrical configuration of the type 7 interface using the Penalty method
Interface
Type 16 tied
Altair Engineering
Slave (red) and Master (blue)

Objects
Slave: nodes / Master: solids (16-node
shell)

352
Interface

Objects
Type 16 sliding

shell)
Type 17 tied
Slave: 16-node shell / Master: 16-node

shell
Type 17 sliding
Slave: 16-node shell / Master: 16-node

shell
Type 7 Lagrange
Multipliers
Slave: nodes / Master: surface

(segments)
Type 7 Penalty
method

(segments)
Contact between the balls and the table (sliding or tied depending on the problem):
Fig 21: Definition of slave and master objects for balls/table contacts.
353

Altair Engineering
Interface

Objects
Type 16 tied

shell)
Type 16 sliding

shell)
Type 17 tied
Slave: 16-node shell / Master: 16node shell
Type 17 sliding
Slave: 16-node shell / Master: 16node shell
Type 7 Lagrange
Multipliers

(segments)
Type 7 Penalty
method

(segments)
Pre-loading: quasi-static gravity loading to reach static equilibrium.

The explicit time integration scheme starts with nodal acceleration computation. It is efficient
for the simulation of dynamic loadings. However, a quasi-static simulation via a dynamic
resolution method needs to minimize the dynamic effects for converging towards static
equilibrium and describes the pre-loading case before the dynamic analysis. Thus, the quasistatic solution of gravity loading on the model shows a steady state in the transient response.
To reduce the dynamic effect, dynamic relaxation can be used (/DYREL in the D01 Engine
file). A diagonal damping matrix proportional to the mass matrix is introduced into the
dynamic equation:
with,
being the relaxation value by default, equal to 1, and T being the period to be
damped (less than or equal to the largest period of the system).
Thus, a viscous stress tensor is added to the stress tensor:
In an explicit code, the application of the dashpot force modifies the velocity equation:
without relaxation
with relaxation
with:
Altair Engineering

354
This option is activated in the D01 file using /DYREL (inputs:
= 1 and T = 0.2).
The dynamic problem (impact between balls) is considered in a second run managed by the
D02 Engine file with a time running from 30 ms to 130 ms.
Simulation Results: Kinetic Energy Transmission between Balls during

Collision
Type 17 Interface
Contact between
quadratic surfaces
Balls/table contact:
tied
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Type 17 Interface
Contact between
quadratic surfaces
sliding
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Type 16 Interface
Contact nodes /
quadratic surface
tied
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
355

Altair Engineering
Type 16 Interface
Contact nodes /
quadratic surface
sliding
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Type 7 Interface
Lagrange
Multipliers method
Contact nodes /
linear surface
(sliding contact)
Type 7 Interface
Penalty method
Contact nodes /
linear surface
sliding
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Altair Engineering

356
Conclusion
Interface
7
Interface 7
Lagrange
Penalty
Multipliers
Interface
16 Tied
Interface
16 Sliding
Interface
17
Tied
Interface
17 Sliding
Cycles
241392
241385
241387
241385
241385
773099
Error on
Energy
-30.8%
-1.4%
-55.5%
-10.8%
-1.2%
-46.1%
Rolling
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
Momentum
Transmissi
on
partial
quasiperfect
partial
good
good
partial
master and
slave sides
master and
slave sides
no
no
Quadratic
surface
master side master side
A non-elastic collision appears using the type 7 interface Penalty method. After impact, each
ball has about half of the initial velocity. The momentum transmission is partial and can be
improved by increasing the stiffness of the interface despite the hourglass energy and
degradation of the energy assessment.
Error on energy is more noticeable for interfaces using the Tied option, due to taking into
account the rolling simulation.
This study shows the high sensitivity of the numerical algorithms for the modeling impact on
elastic balls. Regarding the interface type, the kinematics of the problem and the
transmission of momentum are more or less satisfactory. Type 16 interface allows good
results to be obtained.
357

Altair Engineering
Example 10 - Bending
Summary
The bending of a straight cantilever beam is studied. The example used is a famous bending
test for shell elements. The analytical solution enables the comparison with the quality of the
numerical results. Carefully watch the influence from the shell formulation. In addition, the
results for the different time step scale factors are compared.
Altair Engineering

358
Title
Bending
Number
10.1
Brief Description
Pure bending test with different 3- and 4-nodes shell formulations.
Keywords
Q4 and T3 meshes
QEPH, Belytshcko & Tsay, BATOZ, and DKT shells
Mesh, hourglass, imposed velocity, quasi-static analysis, and bending test
RADIOSS Options
Rigid bodies (/RBODY)
Analytical solution
Input File
BATOZ: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/BATOZ/.../
ROLLING*
QEPH: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/QEPH/.../ROLLING*
BT (type1): <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/BT/BT_type1/
.../ROLLING*
.../ROLLING*
.../ROLLING*
DKT18: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/DKT18/.../
ROLLING*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Beginner benchmark
359

Altair Engineering
Overview
The purpose of this example is to study a pure bending problem. A cantilever beam with an
end moment is studied. The moment variation is modeled by introducing a constant imposed
velocity on the free end.
Units:
mm, ms, g, N, MPa
Several kinds of element formulation are used.

The material used follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and has the following
characteristics:
Initial density: 0.01 g/mm3
Reference density: .01 g/mm3
Young modulus: 1000 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0
Fig 1: Geometry of the problem.

Three beams are modeled using quadrilateral shells and one beam with T3 shells. A rigid
body is defined at the end of each beam for applying the bending moment.
The four models are integrated into one input file. The shell element formulations are:
Q4 mesh with the Belytshcko & Tsay formulation (Ishell =1, hourglass control type 1, 2,
and 3)
Q4 mesh with the QEPH formulation (Ishell =24)
Q4 mesh with the QBAT formulation (Ishell =12)
T3 mesh with the DKT18 formulation (Ishell =12)
Altair Engineering

360

At one extremity of the beam, all d.o.f. are blocked. A rotational velocity is imposed on the
master node of the rigid body placed on the other side.
This velocity follows a linear function: Y=1
Fig 2: Beam meshes.

Numerical Results Compared to Analytical Solutions
As shown in Fig 1, rotation around X and displacement with regard to Y of the free end are
studied.
The analytical solution of the Timoshenko beam subjected to a tip moment reads:
(a)
which yields the end moment for a complete loop rotation 2 :
KN-mm
The following tables summarize the results obtained for the different formulations. From an
analytical point of view, the beam deformed under pure bending must satisfy the conditions
of the constant curvature which implies that for = 2 , the beam should form a closed ring.
However, depending on the finite element used, a small error can be observed, as shown in
the following tables. This is mainly due to beam vibration during deformation as it is highly
flexible. Good results are obtained by the QBAT, QEPH and DKT18 elements, respectively.
This is mainly due to the good estimation of the curvature in the formulation of these
elements. The BT family of under-integrated shell elements is less accurate. With the type 3
hourglass formulation, the model remains stable until = 6rad. However, the momentrotation curves do not correspond to the expected response.
361

Altair Engineering
To reduce the overall computation error, smaller explicit time steps are used by reducing the
scale factor in /DT. The results reported in the end table show that a reduction in the time
step enables to reduce the error accumulation, even though the divergence problems for BT
elements cannot be avoided.
The following parameters are chosen for drawing curves and displaying animations:
BATOZ
QEPH
BT
DKT
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.2
Scale factor
Imposed
velocity rot.
0.005 rad/ 0.005 rad/ 0.005 rad/ 0.005 rad/

ms
ms
ms
ms
Altair Engineering

362
The following curves show the evolution previously shown (rotation and nodal displacement
by moment):
Fig 3: Moment versus rotation around X.
363

Altair Engineering
Fig 4: Moment versus displacement along Z.
Fig 5: Moment versus rotation around X.
Altair Engineering

364
BATOZ
QEPH
Sf=0 Sf
Sf
Sf
Sf
.9 =0.8 =0.6 =0.9 =0.8
BT
Type 1
Sf
Sf
=0.9 =0.1
Type 3
Sf
=0.9
Sf
=0.1
DKT
Type 4
Sf
Sf
Sf
=0.3
=0.9 =0.1
Sf
=0.2
Sf
=0.1
108.6
CPU
0
7.17 5.44 8.21 16.21
(normali 2.18 2.43 3.14 1.23 1.34 42.64 7.07 2.62
1.03
zed)
953 107 1429 935 1052 8153 730 25150 18241
7306 4200 62945 1258
53
77
74
8
808
1
248 81332 66
41
0
678
# cycles 05 219
Error
=2
(%)
0%
err
=20%
0%
0%
degree
=
2
(mm)
0%
6.91 6.89
(rad)
Dz
0%
99% 99% -78%
-53%
99.9
%
99.9
15%
%
4.36 4.53
5.98
4.38
4.51 6.37
6.06
396 395
250 260
347
343
8.9%
1.5%
251 258 365
500. 500.
500. 500.
525. 518.33
433. 476. -496.5
500.5
491.2
506.0 529.8
499.4
5
5
5
5
8
3
8
5
Mx
=
2
(x10
-4.06
-4.01 -0.21
-3.13
4.04 4.05
4.01
0.11
+5
kNmm)
-2.38 -0.07 -0.02 -3.09 -3.02
-3.08
Conclusion
A description summary of the different tests is provided below:
QBAT element:
This formulation gives a 2 -revolution of the beam with no energy error. However, a
20% error is attained for = 384.
Note that the decrease of the scale factor enables obtaining better results.
QEPH element:
This formulation seems to be the best one to treat the problem. It enables a 2 revolution of the beam to be obtained. The error remains null until = 400.
BT formulation:
This formulation does not provide satisfactory results and is not adapted to this
simulation, whatever the anti-hourglass formulation. This is mainly due to using a flat
plate formulation and the fact that the element is under-integrated. The type 3
hourglass formulation seems to be better than others.
365

Altair Engineering
For DKT formulation:

The bending is simulated correctly. However, the element is costly and the CPU time is
much longer.
Altair Engineering

366
Example 11 - Tensile Test
Summary
The material characterization of ductile aluminum alloy is studied. The RADIOSS material
laws 2, 27 and 36 are used to reproduce the experimental data of a traction test by
simulation. The work-hardening, damage and rupture of the specimen are simulated by a
finite element model. The parameters of the material laws are determined to fit the
experimental results. The influence of the strain rate is also studied. A strain rate filtering
method is used to reduce the effect of a dynamic resolution on the simulation results.
367

Altair Engineering
11.1 - Law Characterization
Title
Law characterization
Number
11.1
Brief Description
Elasto-plastic material law characterization using a tensile test.
Keywords
Shell element
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic model (/MAT/LAW2)
Tabulated elasto-plastic (/MAT/LAW36)
Elasto-plastic brittle (/MAT/LAW27)
Necking point, damage model, maximum stress, and failure plastic strain
RADIOSS Options
Material definition (/MAT)
Input File
Law_2_Johnson_Cook: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/11_Tensile_test/Law_2_Johnson-Cook/.../TENSIL2*
Law 27_Damage: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_test/
Law_27_Damage/DAMAGE*
Law_36_Tabulated: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_test/
Law_36_Tabulated/TENSI36*
RADIOSS Version
44q
Advanced
Altair Engineering

368
Overview
Aim of the Problem
It is not always easy to characterize a material law for transient analysis using the
experimental results of a tensile test. The purpose of this example is to introduce a method
for characterizing the most commonly used RADIOSS material laws for modeling elastoplastic material. The use of "engineering or "true stress-strain curves is pointed out.
Damage and failure models are also introduced to better fit the experimental response.
Apart from the experimental results, the modeling of the strain rate effect on stress will be
considered at the end of this example using a sensitivity study on a set of parameters for
Johnson-Cooks model.
Traction is applied to a specimen. A quarter of the specimen is modeled using symmetrical
conditions. The material to be characterized is 6063 T7 Aluminum. A velocity is imposed at
the left-end.
Fig 1: Geometry of the tensile specimen (One quarter of the specimen is modeled).
The material undergoes isotropic elasto-plastic behavior which can be reproduced by a

Johnson-Cook model with or without damage (/MAT/LAW27 and /MAT/LAW2, respectively).
The tabulated material law (/MAT/LAW36) is also studied.
369

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Experimental results of the tensile test: engineering stress vs. engineering strain.

The mesh is shown in Fig 3. The average element size is about 2 mm. There are 201 4-node
shells and one 3-node shell.
The shell properties are:
5 integration points (progressive plastification).
Belytschko elasto-plastic hourglass formulation (Ishell = 3).
Iterative plasticity for plane stress (Newton-Raphson method; Iplas = 1).
Thickness changes are taken into account in stress computation (Ithick = 1).
Initial thickness is uniform, equal to 1.7 mm.
Fig 3: Mesh of the specimen.
Node number 54 was renamed "Node 1" to be compliant with the Time History.
For node 54, only displacements in the x-direction (variable DX) are saved.
Altair Engineering

370
Fig 4: Sections saved for Time History.
For both sections, the variables FN and FTX, are saved; thus the following variables will be
available in /TH/SECTIO: FNX, FNY, FNZ (saved using "FN"), and FTX.
Engineering strains will be obtained by dividing the displacement of node 1 with the distance
up to the symmetry axis (75 mm). Engineering stresses will be obtained by dividing the force
through section 1 with its initial surface (10.5 mm2). Therefore, the results shown correspond
to the engineering stress as a function of the engineering strain, equivalent to the force
variation compared to displacement (similar curve shape).
An imposed velocity of -1.0 m/s in the x-direction is applied to the nodes, shown below
(abscissa less or equal to 25 mm). The displacement is proportional to time.
Fig 5: Imposed velocities
371

Altair Engineering
Fig 6: Variation of node 1 x-displacement in relation to time.
Only one quarter of the specimen is modeled to limit the model size and to eliminate the rigid
body motions. Symmetry planes are defined along axis x = 100 mm and axis y = 0. Note
that two boundary conditions cannot be applied to the same node 13 (corner).
The lower side is fixed in Y and Z translations and X, Y, and Z rotations.

The right side is fixed in X and Z translations and X, Y, and Z rotations; the node in the
corner is completely fixed.
Characterization of the Material Law
There are two steps to characterize the material law:
Transform the engineering stress versus engineering strain curve into a true stress
versus true strain curve (this step applies to any material law).
Extract the main parameters from the true stress versus true strain curve, to define the
material law (Johnson-Cook law and material coefficients for /MAT/LAW2 or the yield
curve definition for /MAT/LAW36).
- True stress/true strain curve
Altair Engineering

372
Engineering strains are computed using the following relationship:
And true strains are computed with the relationship:

tr
= In(1 + I / Io)
Both strains, therefore, are linked together by:

tr
= In(1 + e)
Engineering stresses are measured by dividing the force through one section with the initial
section. True stresses are measured by dividing the force with the true deformed section:
Thus, to compute true stresses, the surface variation must be taken into account. Assuming
that Poissons coefficient is 0.5 during plastic deformation, the true surface in mono-axial
traction is:
S = S0 exp( - tr)
Thus, the relationship between true and engineering stresses is:
tr
= e exp( tr)
Characterization of the Material Law

The characterization will be made for /MAT/LAW2 (Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic), /MAT/
LAW27 (elasto-plastic with damaged model) and /MAT/LAW36 (tabulated elasto-plastic). For
each of the material laws, the yield stress and Youngs modulus are determined from the
curve.
The plastic strain can be defined as:
pl
= tr - tr / E
An important point to be characterized on the curve is the necking point, where the slope of
the force versus the displacement curve is equal to 0, and where the following relationships
apply:
373

Altair Engineering
Fig 8: Guidelines for necking point.
Table 1: Equations used for analysis

Material Property
Generic Equation
Engineering stress
Engineering strain
True stress
True strain
tr
= e exp( tr )
tr
= In(1 + e)
True strain rate

Experimental Results
An experiment designed by the "Norwegian Institute of Technology" as part of an EC-financed
program, "Calibration of Impact Rigs for Dynamic Crash Testing" is used. The following curve
was obtained from the experiment:
Altair Engineering

374
Fig 9: Engineering stress versus engineering strain curve (experimental data).
It is estimated that the necking point occurs between 6% and 8% (engineering strain). After
analyzing the experimental data, the first point satisfying the necking condition is at 6.68%.
Fig 10: Comparison between engineering and true curves (from experimental data).
Engineering formulation is converted into true formulation using the relationship:
tr
= e
exp( tr)
The true stress curve is higher than the engineering stress curve, as it takes into account the
decrease in the specimen cross-section.
Law 2: Elasto-plastic Material Law Using the Johnson-Cook Model

Johnson-Cook Material Coefficients
The stress versus plastic strain law is: tr = e exp( tr) (Johnson-Cook model)
375

Altair Engineering
where, a is the yield stress and is read from the experimental curve and then converted into
true stress.
To compute b and n, two states are needed. This leads to the following formulas for b and n:
The first point is chosen at the necking point, then b and n are computed for each other point
of the curve and averaged out since the results tend to differ depending on the point chosen.
Characterization up to the Necking Point
The first stage when determining the material model is to obtain Johnson-Cooks coefficients.
Neither the maximum stress, nor the failure plastic strain effects are taken into account here
(set at zero).
The values of coefficients are chosen so that the model adapts to the test data.
Fig 11: Variation of the engineering stress/strain according to Johnson-Cooks model adapted to the test.
The material coefficients used for Law 2 are:


Figure 12 compares the yield curve defined using the Johnson-Cook model with the one
extracted from experimental data.
Altair Engineering

376
Fig 12: Yield curves Johnson-Cook model 1
The true stress true strain relationship can be described by:
The engineering stress deviations between experiment and simulation are described in the
table below:
Engineering
strain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.067
Deviation
7.9%
4.8%
1.8%
1.1%
1%
1.8%
2.9%
Comparison is performed up to the necking point (engineering strain = 6.68%) because after
this state, a rapid decrease in the engineering stresses occurs in the specimen. The rupture
sequence is simulated in the following paragraphs. Results using Law 2 remain within 8% of
the experimental curve.
The curve could be improved by slightly adjusting some of the values. The purpose of this
test is to propose a method for deducing material law parameters using a tensile test.
377

Altair Engineering
Beginning of the Necking Point

Necking Point Simulation
The Johnson-Cook model previously defined corresponds to the experimental results up to
the necking point. However, the slope of the numerical response does not enable the necking
point to start at the strain value observed experimentally.
The necking point is characterized by the slope value of the true stress versus the true strain
curve, which must be approximately equal to the true stress. The necking point numerically
appears by continuing simulation until the condition on the slope is observed.
The results are obtained using the Johnson-Cook model 1:
Fig 13: Beginning of the necking point using only the first coefficients of the Johnson-Cook model (a, b and n).
Altair Engineering

378
Fig 14: True stress versus true strain curve up to the beginning of the necking point.
The necking point can be simulated, either by adjusting the Johnson-Cook coefficients to
obtain an accurate slope, or by compelling curve with a maximum stress.
Simulation of the Slope Near the Necking Point
By implementing an energy approach, the hardening curve can be modified to achieve an
engineering curve which resembles a horizontal asymptote near the necking point with the
purpose of simulating the behavior of the curve as observed in the test.
The Johnson-Cook coefficients used to describe the physical slope are:
For this model, the new true stress / true strain relationship is:
(Johnson-Cook model 2)
The results obtained with those coefficients are provided below.
379

Altair Engineering
Figure 15 compares the Johnson-Cook model 3 with the experiment:
Fig 15: Adjusted engineering stress/strain curve to model the beginning of the necking point.
The shape of the yield curve versus the experimental data is depicted in Fig 16.
Fig 16: Yield curves.
The necking point is defined as
This condition is characterized by the intersection of the true stress versus the true strain
curve with its derivate.
Altair Engineering

380
Fig 17: Superposition of engineering curve and true curve with its derivate.
Beginning of the Necking Point Using a Maximum Stress Limit, max

For this test, the Johnson-Cook coefficients input are those set in characterization up to the
necking point, the failure effect not being taken into account (the failure plastic strain is set
to zero). The beginning of the necking point is set using the choice of a maximum stress
value. In comparison to the experimental results (see Fig 10), the necking point is well
defined for a maximum stress set at 175 MPa. The limit in stress appears on the von Mises
stress versus true strain curve on elements where the necking point occurs.
The maximum true stress manages the beginning of the necking, as shown below:
Fig 18: Engineering stress versus engineering strain; necking point characterization
381

Altair Engineering
Fig 19: Variation of the von Mises stress with the true strain from shell 11.
Maximum stress max is reached for von Mises stress on shells where the necking begins. To
avoid overly-high stresses after the necking point, a maximum stress factor must be set
approximately equal to the true necking point stress.
The following curves show the evolution of the von Mises stress versus the true strain shell at
two characteristic locations of the specimen (3b and 3a in Fig 20):
Fig 20: von Mises stress curve with a maximum stress limit.
The beginning of the necking point is observed following the point where the stress is equal
to stress versus strain derivate
.
Altair Engineering

382
Fig 21: Yield curve with maximum stress.
The yield curve is described by:
The derivate of the stress is very sensitive and strongly depends on the yield curve definition.
Thus, introducing the necking point into the simulation is very delicate (a small change can
result in many variations). The necking point should first begin on a given element for
numerical reasons. The preferred beginning of necking is addressed below.
Preferred Beginning of the Necking Point
Experimentally, the beginning of the necking point can appear anywhere on the specimen.
The beginning of the necking point should preferably be located on the right end elements in
order to propose a methodology for this quasi-static test. If the model only uses a quarter
part of the specimen, the necking point is found on elements 30, 125 and 78.
The beginning of the necking point is physically and numerically sensitive and can be
initiated on the right elements by changing a few of the coordinates along the Y-axis of the
node in the right corner (node 16) in order to decrease the cross-section and privilege the
necking point in this zone. Changing the node position by 0.01 mm is enough for achieving
the preferential beginning of the necking point.
Fig 22: Node 16 to be moved.
A second approach also enables the necking point to be triggered on the right end side by
defining an extra part, including shells 3, 11 and 4 by using a maximum stress slightly lower
than the remaining part, in order to initiate the necking point locally since the necking point
stress is first reached in the elements having the lowest maximum stress value, that is shells
3, 11 and 4. This method, based on material properties, is quite appropriate for
demonstrating the characterization of a material law and will thus be used in the continuation
of the example.
383

Altair Engineering
Fig 23: Localization of the beginning of the necking point according to the models using max.
The material is described as Johnson-Cook model 1:
max
= 174 / 175 MPa
The following curves indicate the variation of the engineering stress versus the engineering
strain according to the beginning of the necking point zone and in comparison to the
experiment.
Fig 24: Engineering stress/strain curve for each starting necking point location.
Altair Engineering

384
There is a fast decrease in the engineering stress after the right-end necking point. The
necking point, due to the boundary conditions of the y-symmetry plane (y-translation d.o.f.
released), becomes more pronounced.
Note that the variations in the section where the necking point is found are quite similar up
to the necking point. After such point, there is a sharp surface decrease for the right-end
necking point, contrary to the second case where the surface decrease is more moderate.
Fig 25: Variation of cross section (necking point zone).
Improvement of the Elements Contribution During the Necking Point

Sequence
In order to simulate physically the contribution of each element in the necking point, it is
advisable to adjust the curve by varying the Johnson-Cook coefficients in order to increase
the intensity of stress at the necking point. The main result is no longer the variation of the
stress/strain curve but rather the surface under the curve which characterizes the energy
dissipated during the test. This energy-based approach is relevant for crash tests since the
final assessment is often more significant than how it was achieved.
385

Altair Engineering
Fig 26: Engineering stress/strain curve obtained using adjusted Johnson-Cook coefficients.
The following graph compares the new yield curve with experimental data:
Fig 27: Yield curves.
Material is described in the the Johnson-Cook coefficients are:

Johnson Cook Model 3:
(true stress/strain)
Yield stress = 50 MPa
Hardening parameter = 350 MPa
Altair Engineering

386
Hardening exponent = 0.38

Maximum stress is set to 189 or 190 MPa (according to the parts)
The results of adjustment to the Johnson-Cook coefficients are depicted below:
Fig 28: Shell contribution during the necking point sequence (von Mises stress).
As the necking point progresses, more physical results are obtained due to the new input
data of the material law coefficients having a better element contribution.
Fig 29: Variation of the von Mises stress on elements 110, 109, 108, 107, 11 and 106.
Damage Modeling with Plastic Strain Failure

The elasto-plastic model of Johnson-Cook is used until failure, which is simulated using a
plastic strain failure option. The element is deleted if the plastic strain reaches a user defined
value max. This damage model shows good stability. A maximum plastic strain is defined for
each Johnson-Cook model:
387

Altair Engineering
Fig 30: max = 75% ; yield curve close to experimental data:
Fig 31: max = 47% ; yield curve adjusted with respect to lower stresses:
Altair Engineering

388
Fig 32: max = 40% ; yield curve adjusted with respect to high stresses:
Failure is reached for relatively high true strains.
Law 27: Elasto-plastic Material Law with Model Damage

Law 27 is used to simulate material damage following a Johnson-Cook plasticity law. Thus,
model damage is associated with the previous law in order to take account of failure.
The damage parameters are:
Tensile rupture strain t1: damage starts if the highest principal strain reaches this
tension value.
Maximum strain m1: the element is damaged if the highest principal strain is above the
tension value. The element is not deleted.
Maximum damage factors max: this value should be kept at its default value (0.999).
Failure strain f1: the element is deleted if the highest principal strain reaches the
tension value.
Fig 33: Stress/strain curve for damage affected material.
389

Altair Engineering
The following graphs display the results obtained using the material coefficients of two
previous Johnson-Cook models. Damage parameters complete those models.
Damage Model A
Damage model: t1 = 0.16 ; m1 = 0.72 ; dmax = 0.999 ; f = 1 ;

max = 16
Johnson-Cook model:
Altair Engineering

390
Damage Model B
Damage model: t1
= 0.16 ;
m1
max
= 0.45 ; dmax = 0.999 ;

= 16
=1
Johnson-Cook model:
Law 36: Tabulated Elasto-plastic Law

This is a tabulated law; therefore, the true stress versus plastic strain function can be directly
used. The rupture phase can be simulated by adding points to this hardening function.
391

Altair Engineering
Fig 34: Hardening function defined in law 36 to obtain the results below.
Fig 35: Results obtained with tabulated law 36.
The hardening curve has to be defined with precision around the necking point while the
decrease of the curve is very sensitive to its adjustment. In order to improve the modeling of
the necking point, two points can be interpolated, one "just before" the necking point, and
one "just after" with the slope between those two points equal to the necking point stress.
Altair Engineering

392
11.2 - Strain Rate Effect
Title
Strain rate effect
Number
11.2
Brief Description
The strain rate effect is taken into account, using filtering (cut-off frequency).
Keywords
Shell element
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic model (/MAT/LAW2)
Engineering strain / stress, strain rate effect, and filtering
RADIOSS Options
Input File
Time_History_files: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_Test/
TENSILET01
RADIOSS Version
44q
Advanced
Strain Rate Effect and Strain Rate Filtering (Cut-off Frequency)

In this additional study, the Johnson-Cook model is used to study the strain rate influence on
stress with or without filtering. There is no comparison with the experiment data in this
section. The study of sensitivity will be performed up to the beginning of the necking point.
Stress-strain relationship:
The Johnson-Cook plasticity model will take into account the strain rate effect on the elastoplastic material behavior in order to improve the quality of simulation.
393

Altair Engineering
The law reads as follows:
where:
is the strain rate
0
is the reference strain
is the plastic strain (true strain)
c is the strain rate coefficient

The two optional inputs, strain rate coefficient and reference strain rate must be defined for
the material. The purpose of the sensitivity study is to illustrate the influence of material
parameters.
For further explanations about the Johnson-Cook model, refer to "Elasto-plasticity of Isotropic
Materials" in the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
Strain Rate Filtering
Because of the numerical application of dynamic loadings, the strain rates cause high
frequency vibrations, which are not physical; thus the stress/strain curves look "noisy". To
obtain smooth results, the strain rate filtering option will allow the reduction of those
oscillations by removing the high frequency vibrations. A cut-off frequency for strain rate
filtering (Fcut) is used since its value has to be smaller than half of the sampling frequency
(1/ t).
In this example, t = 0.2163x10-3 ms.
The constants a, b and n which define the shape of the stress/strain curve are:
a = 90.27 MPa
b = 223.14 MPa
n = 0.375
The results are reported in the following tables.
Strain Rate Effect - Plasticity Model: Johnson-Cook
The influence of the strain rate and stress smoothing are shown below (with
and c = 0.1):
Altair Engineering
= 5x10-3 ms-1

394
Stress Comparison
Influence of the Cut-off Frequency for Smoothing
395

Altair Engineering
The following results show the effect of the reference strain rate,
c:
and strain rate coefficient,
Influence of the Reference Strain Rate

(c =0.1 and Fcut =10 kHz)
Altair Engineering

396
Influence of the Strain Rate Coefficient, c

(with = 10-2 ms-1)
Results are smoothed with correct cut-off frequencies.

Figure 36 compares the distribution of the first principal strain rate in the specimen, with and
without strain rate filtering.
Fig 36: First principal strain rate comparison at time t=4 ms.
A more physical strain rate distribution is achieved by filtering. Moreover, such results show
spatial oscillations when not damped by filtering. The explicit scheme is an element-byelement method and the local treatment of temporal oscillations puts spatial oscillations into
the model.
397

Altair Engineering
Strain rate coefficient c influence:

If c is set to zero, the strain rate effect is not taken into account. This coefficient
affects the yield stress and it slightly translates curves in the plastic region. It must be
adjusted in accordance with the reference strain rate.
Reference strain rate
influence:
If the strain rate is lower than the reference strain rate, there is no strain rate effect.
Therefore, the lower the reference strain rate, the more the effect will be emphasized.
The effect appears as a translation of the curve towards higher stresses. An increase in
the flow stress using an increasing reference strain rate is observed.
Cut-off frequency influence:
The cut-off frequency must not be set higher than half of the sampling frequency.
Smoothing is improved as the cut-off frequency comes closer to a particular value and
the convergence of the curve until a smoothing curve can be observed. A highreference strain rate requires low cut-off frequencies.
Conclusion
A tensile test is simulated using several material laws in RADIOSS. A method is set up to
correspond to the material parameters in the Johnson-Cook model. The rupture phase is
very sensitive and the simulation results strongly depend upon the starting point for necking.
The point-by-point definition of the hardening curve in law 36 enables to bypass the
adaptation difficulties when using the Johnson-Cook model. However, the results following
the necking point are very sensitive to the position of points defining the hardening curve.
A method to filter the strain rate is also demonstrated. The method can be generalized to
the industrial cases.
Altair Engineering

398
Example 12 - Jumping Bicycle
Summary
The purpose of this example is to illustrate how to use the RADIOSS description when
resolving a demonstration example. The particularities of the example can be summarized
using dynamic loading during a four-step scenario where a dummy is first put on a bike, then
it rides on a plane to subsequently jump back down onto the ground. The scenario described
is created using sensors.
399

Altair Engineering
Title
Jumping bike
Number
12.1
Brief Description
After a quasi-static pre-loading using gravity, a dummy cyclist rides along a plane, then
jumps down onto a lower plane. Sensors are used to simulate the scenario in terms of time.
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, truss, general spring, and beam
Sensors on rigid bodies and monitored volumes (perfect gas)
Quasi-static load treatment (gravity), kinetic relaxation, restart file, and MODIF file
Dummy and hierarchy organization
Type 7 interface auto-impacting and rigid wall (infinite plane and parallelogram)
Linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/LAW2)
RADIOSS Options
Added mass (/ADMAS)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Initial velocity (/INVEL)
Kinetic relaxation (/KEREL)
Monitored volume type gas perfect (/MONVOL/GAS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Sensor (/SENSOR)
Input File
Jumping_bicycle: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/12_Bicycle/Bike/
BIKERC*
RADIOSS Version
51h
Advanced
Altair Engineering

400
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to set up a demonstration in which sensors and restart files
are used to allow the change of a problem over time.
Subjected to the gravity field, a dummy cyclist rides on a higher plane, then jumps down
onto a lower horizontal plane. The problem can be divided into four phases:
positioning the cyclist under the gravity effect
running the bicycle on the high plane
free fly
the impact on the ground
Units: mm, s, ton, N, MPa
Fig 1: Problem scenario.
401

Altair Engineering

The bike is meshed with 12103 4-node shells, 68 3-node shells, 62 trusses, 12 beams and six
brick elements. The dummy consists of 4779 4-node shells, 207 3-node shell and 27 springs
(8).
Fig 2: Meshes of the main parts of the model.
The material of the metallic parts undergoes the Johnson-Cook model (/MAT/LAW2) using the
following properties:
Poissons ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.9x10-9 GKg/l
A QEPH formulation (Ishell = 24) is used for tires in order to prevent hourglass deformations.
A Belytschko & Tsay element with a type 4 hourglass formulation is used for the other shell
parts. A global plasticity model is used.
Altair Engineering

402
Materials and proprieties are provided in the table below:

Table 1: Proprieties and materials of main parts
Parts
Properties
Materials
Frame
Shell Q4 3 mm
Steel Law 2
Spokes
Truss 2 mm2
Steel Law 2
Rim
Shell Q4 3 mm
Steel Law 2
Tires
Shell QEPH 3 mm
Rubber Law 1
Hubs
Beam 900 mm2
Steel Law 2
Saddle
Brick
Foam Law 1
Pedals
Beam 900 mm2
Steel Law 2
Tube of saddle
Shell Q4 3 mm
Steel Law 2
Body (limbs)
Shell Q4 3 mm
Law 1
Joints
Spring (8)
Bike
Dummy
Hierarchy organization:
Bike model: 6 subsets comprising 23 parts.
Dummy model: 11 subsets comprising 38 parts.
Monitored Volumes / Perfect Gas
A perfect gas monitored volume is defined to model the pressure in the tires. For further
details about monitored volumes, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
The main properties are:
Initial internal pressure: 0.75 MPa
Gas constant: 1.4
403

Altair Engineering
All other properties are set to default values.
Fig 3: Visualization of a monitored volume (yellow part).
Quasi-static loading: gravity effect on initial static equilibrium

The quasi-static solution of gravity loading on structure deformation corresponds to the
steady state part of the transient response. It describes the pre-loading case before the
dynamic analysis. Therefore, the simulation is divided into two phases: quasi-static
response (structure subjected to the gravity) and dynamic behavior (run, jump and
landing). The solution is obtained from kinetic relaxation (see /KEREL). Gravity is
defined by /GRAV.
Contacts modeling
The type 7 interface using the penalty method serves to model contacts between the
dummy cyclist and the bike. An auto-impacting interface (symmetrical) is required to
treat the landing of the bike. It is modeled by a type 7 interface having default values.
Figure 4 below illustrates the description of the interface.
Altair Engineering

404
Fig 4: Contacts modeling with type 7 interface (Penalty method).
A type 11 interface models contact between the pedals (beams) and the feet (shells).
Links between man and bicycle
The spring type 8 (/PROP/SPR_GENE) general spring property model the links between the
feet/pedals and the hands/handlebar.
Stiffness (TX, TY and TZ): 100 kN/m
Mass: 1 g
Inertia: 0.1 kg/mm2
A rupture criteria based on displacements is activated by the beams connecting the hands
and handlebar in order to simulate the fall of the cyclist after landing.
Left hand: Z = 20 mm
Right hand: Z = 20 mm
405

Altair Engineering
Fig 5: Link right hand / handlebar (Type 8 springs)
Dummy joints
Fig 6: Type 8 Springs
The general type 8 springs, characterize a spherical hinge with a stiffness given for each
d.o.f. Directions are local and attached to a moving skew frame. Two coinciding nodes define
a spring.
Limbs are linked to the springs via the slave nodes of the rigid bodies, as shown in Fig 7.
Fig 7: Example of connection rigid body spring 8 rigid body.
Wheel rotation
Altair Engineering

406
Beam elements are used to attach the wheel to the forks. The rotational d.o.f. is released
around the beam axis.
Fig 8: Wheel / forks junction

Two types of rigid walls are set up:
A fixed infinite plane (floor);
A fixed parallelogram (springboard).
Fig 9: Position of the rigid walls
The characteristics of the parallelogram plane are: 2013 mm x 1200 mm. Both rigid walls are
tied to allow the wheels to turn.
The infinite plane is defined by the normal vector (MM1) and the parallelogram by the
coordinates of three corners (M, M1, and M2). For both rigid walls, the slave nodes are
obtained from the tire and rim parts (displayed in green in Fig 10).
407

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: Slave nodes definition (green) and profile view of rigid walls
Several rigid bodies are created (/RBODY) and activated by sensors for use at the appropriate
time and in a chronological manner (sens_ID not equal to 0). Thus, every rigid body is not
active at the same time. The activation order is described in the paragraph dedicated to /
SENSOR. According to their activation time, the rigid bodies are classified in groups which
are indicated in following table.
Fig 11: Classification of rigid bodies (group).
The inertias of rigid bodies are set in local skew frames for groups A, C and D.
Altair Engineering

408
Rigid body activation deactivation:

Groups A and B: The rigid bodies are activated during pre-loading up to equilibrium then
applied to the initial velocity start. They are activated again just before the impact of the bike
on the inferior plane.
During the free fly phase, both the cyclist and the bike undergo a rigid body motion. In order
to save the computation time, the motion can be simulated by putting the whole structure
into a global rigid body (Group D). The rigid body is deactivated just before landing.
Group C: Three rigid bodies include the dummy, the frame and both wheels (not including
the tires). This configuration allows just the wheels to turn, taking into account the active
tires action on the plane. This rigid body is activated while the bike is running on the
springboard.
Group D: This global rigid body, including all nodes of model is activated as long as the bike
is in the free fly phase and is deactivated just before impact on the floor.
Group E: This rigid body is activated before impact ensures the stiffness level of the lower
fork.
A 8333 mms-1 (30 km/h) initial velocity (/INIVEL) is applied to all nodes of the model
(bicycle and cyclist) in a parallel direction to the high plane at time t = 0.004 s. This initial
condition is defined in the Engine file *_0002.rad" (start time: 0.004 s) which is run after
the quasi-static equilibrium with gravity loading.
Options in D02 file:
/INIV/TRA/X/1
8333
1 338000
initial translational velocities in direction x

of 8333 mm/s
on node 1 to 338000
Fig 12: Initial translational velocities of the model bike man (30 km / h) at t = 0.004 s.
Gravity is applied to all nodes of the model. A constant function defines the gravity
acceleration in the Z direction versus time. Gravity is activated by /GRAV.
409

Altair Engineering
Fig 13: Gravity function (-9810 mm.s-2).
The explicit time integration scheme starts with the nodal acceleration computation. It is
efficient for the simulation of dynamic loadings. Nevertheless, quasi-static simulations via a
dynamic resolution method need to minimize the dynamic effects to converge towards the
static equilibrium. Among the methods usually employed, the kinetic relaxation method is
quite effective and is activated in the D01 Engine file with /KEREL. All velocities are set to
zero each time the kinetic energy reaches a maximum value.
Fig 14: Kinetic relaxation method with /KEREL.
Rigid bodies are activated and deactivated with sensors (/SENSOR). A sens_ID flag
characterizes the sensors and it is required in the rigid bodies definition. Five types of
sensors are used:
Sensor type TIME (activated with time)
Sensor type DIST (activated with nodal distance)
Sensor type INTER (activated after impact on rigid wall)
Sensor type SENSOR (activated with sensor IS1 and deactivated with sensor IS2)
Sensor type NOT (ON as long as sensor IS1 is OFF)
Fig 15: Events definition for the activations and deactivations of sensors.
Altair Engineering

410
At the beginning of the simulation (time=0), the rigid bodies are automatically set to ON, as
long as the sensors are not active. Thus, in order to deactivate the rigid bodies at the first
cycle, active sensors at time t=0 should be used. Consequently, the rigid bodies are active
when the sensors are not active.
It should be noted that added masses and inertia, as well as the flag for the gravity center,
are ignored when a rigid body is managed by sensors. By default, the gravity center is only
computed by taking into account the slave nodes mass (ICoG set at 2). The master node is
moved to the computed center of gravity where added mass and inertia are placed. In order
to distribute the mass to the dummy over the rigid bodies, option /ADMAS is used.
Sensors used are:
Table 2: Sensors used for simulation
Name
Type
Definition
Rigid bodys
group using
senor
S1
TIME
Time 0s.
S2
DIST
Distance between rear hubs and

extremity of springboard equal to
1810 mm.
S3
DIST
Distance between rear hubs and

extremity of springboard equal to 345
mm.
S4
RWALL
When the infinite rigid wall is

impacted.
SEN(S2,S3)
SEN
Activated with S2 and deactivated

with S3
SEN(S3,S4)
SEN

with S4
SEN(S2,S4)
SEN

with S4
Group A / B
NOT(SEN(S2,S
3))
NOT
Activated with S1, deactivated with

S1
and activated with S1
Group C
NOT(SEN(S3,S
4))
NOT
Activated with S1, deactivated with

S1
and activated with S1
Group D
Sensor (S4) is also used for deactivating both the beam type springs modeling links between
the feet and pedals (Isflag set to 1). A case could be considered without this sensor to study
the risks of automatic pedals.
The following graphs show the active and deactivated zones of sensors and rigid bodies.
411

Altair Engineering
Fig 16: Activation and deactivation of sensors and rigid bodies.

The elements included in a rigid body are deactivated. Therefore, the element flags saved in /
TH/RBODY provide information on the activation and deactivation of rigid bodies during
simulation.
Altair Engineering

412
Fig 17: Activation and deactivation of main model parts (elements flag ON/OFF).
Fig 18: Distribution of the von Mises stress on the frame after quasi-static loading.
413

Altair Engineering
Fig 19: Kinetic relaxation effect on kinetic energy with /KEREL.
Altair Engineering

414
Fig 20: Simulation phases (impact at t = 4.6 s).
Fig 21: Configuration of a dummy cyclist during impact on the ground (shoes not attached).
415

Altair Engineering
Fig 22: Variation of von Mises Stress for a shell element of the frame.
Altair Engineering

416
Example 13 - Shock Tube
Summary
This famous experiment is interesting for observing the shock-wave propagation. Moreover,
this case uses the representation of perfect gas and compares the different formulations: The
ALE uses Lagrangian or Eulerian and Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH).
The first part of the study deals with the modeling description of perfect gas with the
hydrodynamic viscous fluid law 6. The purpose is to test the different formulations:
Lagrangian (mesh points coincident to material points)
Eulerian (mesh points fixed)
For the Eulerian formulation, different scale factors on time step are also tested.
Furthermore, the SPH formulation is also tested; which does not use mesh, but rather
particles distributed uniformly over the volume.
The propagation of the gas in the tube can be studied in an analytical manner. The gas is
separated into different parts characterizing the expansion wave, the shock front and the
contact surface. The simulation results are compared with the analytical solution for velocity,
density and pressure.
417

Altair Engineering
Title
Shock tube
Number
13.1
Brief Description
The transitory response of a perfect gas in a long tube separated into two parts using a
diaphragm is studied. The problem is well-known as the Riemann problem. The numerical
results based on the SPH method and the finite element method with the Lagrangian and
Eulerian formulations are compared to the analytical solution.
Keywords
Brick elements
Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations
SPH modeling and hexagonal net
Scale factor for time step
Hydrodynamic viscous fluid law (/MAT/LAW6) and perfect gas modeling
RADIOSS Options
SPH symmetry conditions (/SPHBCS)
Analytical solution
Input File
Eulerian_formulation: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/13_Shock_tube/
Eulerian_formulation/TACEUL*
Lagrangian_formulation: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/13_Shock_tube/Lagrangian_formulation/TACLAG*
SPH_hexagonal-net: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/13_Shock_tube/
SPH_formulation/TUBSPH*
RADIOSS Version
44q
Advanced
Altair Engineering

418
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The shock tube problem is one of the standard problems in gas dynamics. It is a very
interesting test since the exact solution is known and can be compared with the simulation
results. The Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method, as well as the Finite Element
method using the Eulerian and Lagrangian formulations serve in the numerical models.
A shock tube consists of a long tube filled with the same gas in two different physical states.
The tube is divided into two parts, separated by a diaphragm. The initial state is defined by
the values for density, pressure and velocity, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. All the viscous
effects are negligible along the tube sides; it is also assumed that there is no motion in the
beginning.
Fig 1: Sketch of the shock tube.
Fig 2: Initial states with discontinuities.
The initial state at time t = 0 consists of two constant states 1 and 4 with p4 > p1, 4 > 1,
and V1 = V4 = 0 (table).
Table 1: Initial conditions in the shock tube.
High pressure side
(4)
Low pressure side

(1)
500000 Pa
20000 Pa
Velocity
0 m/s
0 m/s
Density
5.7487 kg/mm3
0.22995 kg/mm3
Pressure p
419

Altair Engineering
High pressure side

(4)
Low pressure side

(1)
303 K
303 K
Temperature T
Just after the membrane is removed, a compression shock runs into the low pressure region,
while a rarefaction (decompression) wave moves into the high pressure part of the tube.
Furthermore, a contact discontinuity usually occurs.

Perfect Gas Modeling with RADIOSS
The hydrodynamic viscous fluid law 6 is used to describe compressed gas.
The general equation describing pressure is:
with
where,
p is the pressure
Ci are the hydrodynamic constants
En is the internal energy per initial volume
is the density
0
is the reference density
Perfect gas is modeled by setting all coefficients C0, C1, C2 and C3 to zero.
Also:
C4 = C5 =
Where,
- 1c
is the gas constant.
Then the initial internal energy, per initial volume is calculated from initial pressure:
Under the assumption = Cst = 1.4 (valid for low temperature range), the hydrodynamic
constants C4 and C5 are equal to 0.4.
In this example, gas pressure is described by:
p = (C4 + C5 )En
Altair Engineering

420
Parameters of material law 6 are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Material properties of gas in law 6.
High pressure side
(4)
Low pressure side

(1)
Initial internal
energy
1.25x106 J
5x105 J
C4 and C5
0.4
0.4
5.7487 kg/mm3
0.22995 kg/mm3
Density
Analytical Approach
The shock tube problem has an analytical solution of time before the shock hits the extremity
of the tube [1].
Fig 3: Schematic shock tube problem with pressure distribution for pre- and post-diaphragm removal.
Evolution of the flow pattern is illustrated in Fig 3. When the diaphragm bursts, discontinuity
between the two initial states breaks into leftward and rightward moving waves, separated
by a contact surface.
Each wave pattern is composed of a contact discontinuity in the middle and a shock or a
rarefaction wave on the left and the right sides separating the uniform state solution. The
shock wave moves at a supersonic speed into the low pressure side. A one-dimensional
problem is considered.
421

Altair Engineering
Fig 4: Diagram of the shock, expansion waves and contact surface.
There are four distinct zones marked 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Fig 4. Zone 1 is the low pressure gas
which is not disturbed by the shock wave. Zone 2 (divided in 2 and 2' by the contact
surface) contains the gas immediately behind the shock traveling at a constant speed. The
contact surface across which the density and the temperature are discontinuous lies within
this zone. The zone between the head and the tail of the expansion fan is noted as Zone 3.
In this zone, the flow properties gradually change since the expansion process is isentropic.
Zone 4 denotes the undisturbed high pressure gas.
Equations in Zone 2 are obtained using the normal shock relations. Pressure and the velocity
are constant in Zones 2 and 2.
The ratio of the specific heat constant of gas is fixed at 1.4. It is assumed that the value
does not change under the temperature effect, which is valid for the low temperature range.
The analytical solution to the Riemann problem is indicated at t=0.4 ms. A solution is given
according to the distinct zones and continuity must be checked. Evolution in Zones 2 and 3
is dependent on the constant conditions of Zone 1 and 4. The analytical equations use
pressure, velocity, density, temperature, speed of sound through gas and a specific gas
constant. Equations in Zone 2 are obtained using normal shock relations and the gas velocity
in Zone 2 is constant throughout. The shock wave and the surface contact speeds make it
possible to define the position of the zone limits.
Altair Engineering

422
Zone 1 Zone 4
Pressure p
Velocity
Density
Temperature T
Zone 4
Zone 1
p4 = 500000 Pa
p1 = 20000 Pa
4
4
= 0 m/s
= 5.7487 kg/mm3
T4 = 303 K
1
1
= 0 m/s
= 0.22995 kg/mm3
T1 = 303 K
Speed of sound through gas:
Specific gas constant:
High pressure side

(4)
Low pressure side

(1)
a4 = 348.95 m/s
a1 = 348.95 m/s
287.049 J/(kg.K)
High pressure side

(4)
Low pressure side

(1)
a4 = 348.95 m/s
a1 = 348.95 m/s
423
287.049 J/(kg.K)

Altair Engineering
Zone 2
Analytical solution
Results at t = 0.4 ms
p2 = 80941.1 Pa
Pressure p
Velocity
Density
= 2RT2
= 399.628 m/s
= 0.5786 kg/mm3
T2 = 487.308 K
Temperature T
Shock wave speed:
m/s
Therefore, x2/1 = Vs * 0.4 + 500 = 765.266 mm
Zone 2'
Analytical solution
p2 = p2 '
p2' = 80941.1 Pa
Pressure p
Velocity
Density
Temperature T
2'
= 2'
= 3(x4/3 )
p2' = r2'RT2'
2'
2'
= 399.628 m/s
= 1.5657 kg/mm3
T2' = 180.096 K
Surface contact speed: Vc - 2

Therefore, x2/2' = 2 * 0.4 + 500 = 559.85 mm
Altair Engineering

424
Zone 3
Zone 3 is defined as:
where, x = 500 + X
Analytical solution
Pressure p
Velocity
= 290.792 + 2.0833 X
Density
Temperature T
Continuity verifications:
425

Altair Engineering
Finite Element Modeling with Lagrangian and Eulerian Formulations

Gas is modeled by 200 ALE bricks with solid property type 14 (general solid).
The model consists of regular mesh and elements, the size of which is 5 mm x 5 mm x 5 mm.
Fig 5: Mesh used for Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches.
In the Lagrangian formulation, the mesh points remain coincident with the material points
and the elements deform with the material. Since element accuracy and time step degrade
with element distortion, the quality of the results decreases in large deformations.
In the Eulerian formulation, the coordinates of the element nodes are fixed. The nodes
remain coincident with special points. Since elements are not changed by the deformation
material, no degradation in accuracy occurs in large deformations.
The Lagrangian approach provides more accurate results than the Eulerian approach, due to
taking into account the solved equations number.
For the ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS), constraints are applied on:
Material velocity
Grid velocity
The nodes on extremities have material velocities fixed in X and Z directions. The other
nodes have material and velocities fixed in X, Y and Z directions.
The ALE materials have to be declared Eulerian or Lagrangian with /ALE/MAT.
Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics Modeling (SPH)

The 12798 particles are distributed though a hexagonal compact net. No mesh is used.
Altair Engineering

426
Fig 6: Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics modeling with hexagonal compact net.
The nominal value h0 is the distance between each particle and its closest neighbor.
According to the assigned property of the part, the mass of the particles should be calculated.
The mass is related to the density and the size of the net, in accordance with the following
equation:
Where:
Particle mass of low pressure part: mp = 1.25265x10-5 g
Particle mass of high pressure part: mp = 3.13166x10-4 g
Particle mass is specified in the SPH property set.
The scale factor of the time step is set to 0.3 in order to ensure cell stability computation.
Boundary conditions are used to introduce SPH symmetry conditions (/SPHBCS). This option
is specific to the SPH modeling and consists of creating ghost particles, symmetrical to the
real particles with respect to the symmetry plane.
427

Altair Engineering
Fig 7: SPH symmetry planes definition.
Each symmetry condition is defined according to the plane passing through the frame origin
attached to the plane and is normal in relation to the local direction of this frame.
Selected nodes and SPH symmetry condition frame along (-x) axis:
Six symmetry planes are used:

x and (-x) symmetry conditions: SLIDE without rebound (Ilev =0)
y and (-y) symmetry conditions: SLIDE without rebound (Ilev =0)
z and (-z) symmetry conditions: TIED with elastic rebound (Ilev =1)
For the SLIDE-type condition, the material is perfectly sliding along the plane
The particles must lie on the symmetry planes at t = 0.
Altair Engineering

428
Fig 8: Local direction of frame
Particles should move into the positive semi-space defined as:
Where, O is the origin of the frame, P is a point of the plane, and

the frame.
is the local direction of

Comparison of the Finite Element Results with the Analytical Solution
Simulation results along the tube axis at 0.4 ms are shown in the following diagrams.
Pressure
429

Altair Engineering
Density
Velocity
Lagrangian formulation: Scale factor = 0.1

Eulerian formulation: Scale factor = 0.5
Scale Factor Effect on Eulerian Results
Case 1: Scale factor = 0.5
Case 2: Scale factor = 0.9
Altair Engineering

430
Pressure
Density
431

Altair Engineering
Comparison of SPH Results and Analytical Solution

Simulation results along the tube axis at 0.4 ms. Scale factor: 0.3 and 0.67.
Pressure Hexagonal Net and SPH Symmetry Conditions
Density Hexagonal Net and SPH Symmetry Conditions
Altair Engineering

432
Velocity Hexagonal Net and SPH Symmetry Conditions
Indications on computation for each formulation are given in the following table (the scale
factor is set to 0.5):
Finite Element approach
SPH approach
Formulation
Lagrangian
Eulerian
SPH
Normalized CPU
1.08
1809
Number of cycles
(normalized) up to
0.4 ms
1.42
3.46
(DTsca=0.5)
433

Altair Engineering
Pressure Distribution Along Tube at 0.4 ms
Altair Engineering

434
Fig 9: Pressure wave produced in the shock-tube at t = 4 ms for different approaches and animations regarding
pressure, density and velocity
Reference
[1] J. D. Anderson Jr., Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective, McGraw Hill
Professional Publishing, 2nd ed., Oct. 1989.
435

Altair Engineering
Example 14 - Truck with Flexible Body
Summary
The purpose of this example is to compare different studies with flexible or rigid bodies. The
method for using the flexible bodies in an explicit analysis is also studied.
At first, the truck is modeled using a classical finite element model for explicit analysis. All
parts of the truck are modeled using different kinds of finite elements, such as shells, bricks,
springs and beams. The volumes monitored with perfect gas characterize the tires.
The problem is divided into two loading phases. First, gravity is applied as a quasi-static
load. Then, the trucks Virtual Proving Ground (VPG) is studied to observe the truck driving
over an obstacle (bump).
For the gravity loading phase, the explicit approach using relaxation techniques or not is
employed. For the VPG analysis, three approaches are compared: (i) classical finite element
model; (ii) simplified finite element model with a global rigid body; and (iii) finite element
model involving a flexible body. The last approach requires the first run to compute the Eigen
and static modes. A flexible body input file is then generated for use in a second time-history
run. The main interest of this method is to economize the CPU time.
Altair Engineering

436
14.1 - VPG with a Complete Finite Element Model
Title
VPG with a complete
finite element model
Number
14.1
Brief Description
After applying gravity, a truck runs on a horizontal plane and passes over a bump.
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, beam type spring, and monitored volume (perfect gas)
Quasi-static load treatment and kinetic relaxation
Type 7 and 2 interfaces, auto-impacting, and rigid wall (infinite plane and cylinder)
Linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1), elasto-plastic law (/MAT/LAW2), and void material law
(/MAT/LAW0)
RADIOSS Options
Gravity (/GRAV)
Initial velocity (/INIVEL)
Monitored volume type gas perfect (/MONVOL/GAS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Skew frame (/SKEW)
Input File
VPG_complete_model: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/VPG_complete_model/TRUCK*
RADIOSS Version
51j
Advanced
437

Altair Engineering
Overview
In the first step, the truck model is placed on the ground under the gravity field until static
equilibrium is obtained. Then, under the impulse of 15.6 m/s (56 km/h) initial speed, the
truck runs in a straight line and passes over a speed bump. The shock is expected to cause
major deformation in some highly solicited parts.
Units: mm, s, ton, N, MPa.
Fig 1: Problem studied.
In order to simplify modeling, most of the parts undergo the linear elastic material law (/
MAT/LAW1).
Poissons ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.85x10-9 Kg/l
The elasto-plastic Johnson-Cook model (/MAT/LAW2) mainly describes the joint and
strengthening elements, such as the beams and spring.
Poissons ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.85x10-9 Kg/l
The truck represents a simplified model having the essential parts. The weight of the truck is
approximately 8 tons.
Altair Engineering

438

Finite Element mesh:
The truck model is meshed with 21430 elements - 148356 degree of freedom, as follows:
1D elements: 173
2D elements: 20109
3D elements: 1148
Details of the elements used are provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Composition of the EF mesh.
Number
439
Node
24726
4-node shell
18471

Altair Engineering
Number
3-node shell
1638
Brick
1148
Beam
47
Spring
126
Part
159
The improved Belytschko hourglass formulation (type 4 hourglass, Ishell =4) is used for shell
elements in the explicit computation. The Eigen analysis requires fully-integrated elements
since the computation mode needs an implicit option. Compatible element formulations are
set by default.
Fig 3: Overall mesh of truck.
The main parts of the model are shown in the table below:
Altair Engineering

440
Fig 4: Definition of the part.
Monitored Volumes / Perfect Gas

Monitored volumes are used to model the pressure in the tires. They are defined with one or
more shell property sets and the surface must be closed. The monitored volume used is the
perfect gas type.
The main properties for this type are:
Initial internal pressure: 0.3 MPa
Constant gas: 1.4
All other properties are set to default values. The parts modeled with the monitored volumes
are highlighted in Fig 5:
Fig 5: Visualizing the monitored volumes (yellow parts).
441

Altair Engineering
Connections Between Parts

In order to assemble the parts, four link types are used in the model:
Beam type spring (type 13)
Rigid body (kinematic condition)
Tied interface type 2 (kinematic condition)
Merged nodes
The beam type spring elements are useful for modeling the welding points. The modeling
techniques are described in the RADIOSS User's Guide.
In this example the beam type spring properties are:
Inertia: 2x10-4 kg.m2
Mass: 2x10-6 ton
Force and moment are read from the input curves:

Table 2: Input force versus displacement curve.
Displacement
-1
Fx, Fy, Fz
-105
105
Table 3: Input moment versus rotation curve.

Rotation
-1
Mx, My, Mz
-106
106
Fig 6: Beam type springs (13) used in the model.
Altair Engineering

442
The type 2 tied interface rigidly connects a set of slave nodes to a master surface. The
kinematic constraint is set on the slave nodes which remain in the same position on their
master segments. This interface is a kinematic condition. The Spotflag spotweld formulation is
set to zero in order to connect two meshes without coincident nodes. The master surface
should be the coarser mesh.
Fig 7: Tied interface (type 2).
Fig 8: Tied interfaces (type 2) used in model
Fig 9: Example of the tied interface modeling connections between the fuel tank and its support
Rigid bodies are created to join two or more parts together. For these rigid bodies no added
mass is required and the master node can be located anywhere.
Slave nodes may not accept the other kinematic conditions (such as tied interface).
443

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: Visualization of rigid bodies in model.
A spherical inertia must be used for the rigid bodies having only two slave nodes for ensuring
the stability of the connected elements (set Ispher = 1). Thus, inertia is spherical and not
computed from data.
Contact Modeling Auto-impacting
Taking into account self-impacting parts, a type 7 auto-impacting interface must be used.
The Block Format definition of this interface is to define master surface (/SURF/PART), then
define slave nodes as all nodes on this surface (/GRNOD/SURF).
Gap is equal to 0.5 mm.
Fig 11: Type 7 interface Auto-impacting (slave side in red and master side in blue).
Wheel Rotation Modeling

Wheels are linked to a frame using an axle attached to the brake systems. A beam element
(in red in the opposite figure) models the axle causing released rotations at the node linked
to the wheel rim.
Altair Engineering

444
Fig 12: Wheel model (without brake disk)

Two types of rigid walls are set up:
A fixed infinite plane (ground);
A fixed infinite cylinder having a diameter, D = 1500 mm (bump).
Fig 13: Infinite plane and cylindrical wall for modeling the ground and bump (slave nodes displayed in green).
The cylindrical wall is defined by point M (500, 0, -600), M1 (500, 100, -600) and the
diameter.
Fig 14: Cylindrical wall definition.
Both rigid walls are tied to allow the wheels to turn. The tire parts define the slave nodes for
445

Altair Engineering
the infinite plane (contact of ground and tires) and only the nodes of the front right tire are
set as slave for the speed bump in order to model a local bump. The obstacle is not infinite.
A kinematic condition is applied on each impacted slave node. Therefore, a slave node
cannot have another kinematic condition; unless such condition is applied in an orthogonal
direction. In such a manner, incompatible kinematic conditions can be detected, due to the
coincident normal orientations along the Z-axis of the cylindrical and plane walls. However,
the common slave nodes are not affected simultaneously by both kinematic conditions.
Fig 15: Incompatible kinematic conditions (no orthogonal directions of normals).
A 15600 mm.s-1 (56 km/h) initial velocity (/INIVEL) is applied to all nodes of the structure in
the X direction at t = 0.3 s. This initial condition is defined in the D02 restart file (start time:
0.3 s), which is run after achieving the quasi-static equilibrium with gravity loading.
Option in D02 file:
/INIV/TRA/X/1
15600
1 265130
initial translational velocities in the X direction

of 15600 mm/s
on node 1 to 265130 (/INIV/TRA/X/1)
Fig 16: Selected nodes for the initial translational velocity of the truck (56 km/h) at t = 0.3 s.
Quasi-static Loading: Gravity Effect on Initial Static Equilibrium

The quasi-static solution of gravity loading on structure deformation is the steady state part
of the dynamic response and describes the pre-loading case before the transient analysis.
Thus, simulation is divided into two phases: quasi-static response (structure deformation
under the gravity effect) and dynamic behavior (run and impact on the bump). The solution
is obtained using the kinetic relaxation method.
Gravity is applied to all nodes of the model. A constant function defines the gravity
acceleration in the Z direction versus time and is equal to -9810 mms-2. Gravity is activated
Altair Engineering

446
with the /GRAV option.

The explicit time integration scheme assumes starting with nodal acceleration computation. It
is very efficient for simulating dynamic loadings. Nevertheless, quasi-static simulations via a
dynamic resolution method need to minimize the dynamic effects in order to converge
towards static equilibrium. Among the usual methods employed, the kinetic relaxation
method is quite effective and is activated in the D01 Engine file using /KEREL. All velocities
are set to zero each time the kinetic energy reaches a maximum value.
Fig 17: Kinetic relaxation method using the /KEREL option.

Animation of the passing over the speed bump:
Fig 18: Distribution of von Mises stress on the model during bump passage.
447

Altair Engineering
Fig 19: Cab deformation (initial state and after bump passage).
Altair Engineering

448
14.2 - VPG with Flexible and Rigid Bodies
Title
VPG with flexible and
rigid bodies
Number
14.2
Brief Description
After applying gravity, a truck runs on a horizontal plane and passes over a bump. The
major part of the truck is described using a flexible body.
Keywords
Eigen and static analysis
Eigen modes
Flexible body
RADIOSS Options
Eigen modes computation (/EIG)
Flexible body input file (/FXINP)
Flexible body (/FXBODY)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
VPG_Rigid_body: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/
VPG_Rigid_body/TRUCK*
VPG_Flexible_body: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/VPG_Flexible_body/Model_EIG/TRUCK_EIG_*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/
VPG_Flexible_body/Model_FXB/TRUCK_FXB_*
RADIOSS Version
51j
Advanced
449

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to perform an Eigen analysis on a complete truck model with
the purpose of creating a flexible body which will be used to model the trucks main part,
excluding transmission (wheels, left-springs, differential, shaft, brakes and axles). In order to
appreciate the quality of the modeling, the results will be compared with those obtained
using two other models: one without a flexible body (previous analysis) and the other
substituting the flexible body with a rigid body.
The study deals with:
an Eigen analysis to create a file containing the dynamic response of the structure
a quasi-static analysis (explicit pre-loading by gravity)
an explicit dynamic analysis with a global flexible body
an explicit dynamic analysis with a global rigid body

The original model and two alternative models are compared:
1 complete model
1 model including a
global flexible body
1 model including a
global rigid body
In the previous section where a complete finite element model is used, it is noted that the
stress and strain levels are low for most parts of the global model. Thus, the CPU time can
be considerably reduced if the elements working in the linear elastic field are replaced with a
flexible body. The purpose of this example is to provide an overall view of using flexible
bodies in RADIOSS.
The top part of the truck, where no damage and no plastic strain occurs, is first successively
modeled with a rigid body (non-deformable) and then with a flexible body (deformable), as
shown in Fig 20.
Parts of the truck covered by rigid or flexible body is shown in the following diagram:
Altair Engineering

450
Fig 20: Top part of truck included in a flexible/rigid body depending on the model.

Eigen and Static Modes Computation Flexible Body Creation
A flexible body is similar to a rigid body where displacement is computed on nodes
corresponding to vibration modes. The input file for a flexible body uses the RADIOSS Eigen
modes and static modes computation. Modes can derive from experimental analysis, as well
as from vibratory software.
The total displacement field for every point of a flexible body is obtained by displacing the
local frame defining the rigid body modes and from an additional local displacement field
corresponding to the bodys small vibrations.
Fig 21: A flexible body is deformable according to its Eigen modes (from vibratory analysis).
A preliminary study with RADIOSS extracts Eigen or static modes for creating the flexible
body input file used in a second run. This computation phase requires the /EIG and /FXINP
options.
The /EIG option is set up in the Starter input file and defines the part to be included in the
flexible body, as well as the type and number of modes to be computed.
451

Altair Engineering
In this example, the main data is:

Number of modes = 25
Maximum Eigen frequency = no
Minimum Eigen frequency = 13 Hz
Number of Eigen modes per block = 10
Two types of modes can be obtained:
Free Eigen modes
Static modes
Eigen modes (or dynamic modes) are computed for the entire structure without any specific
boundary condition. The equation solved is:
Ku = Mu
In this approach, rigid body modes in the structure are possible and give null Eigen
frequencies.
If Kur = 0, K is not singular and ur
0, therefore, Mur = 0 and
=0
In addition, static modes can be computed if boundary conditions are added to a node group
in the flexible body frontier. They correspond to the static response of the structure. All
degrees of freedom in the set of interface nodes concerned by the additional boundary
conditions are fixed and one static mode is computed for each constrained degree of
freedom. The equation solved is:
Ku = F
Static modes are displayed with null frequencies in animations.
Rigid modes are not permitted and generate null pivots during inversion of the stiffness
matrix.
It should be noted that modes computation requires the implicit options in the Engine file (/
IMPL/LINEAR and /IMPL/SOLVER/1).
Eigen frequencies are provided in the Engine output file. One animation exists per
computed mode.
The /FXINP option is used in the Engine file for creating a flexible body input file .fxb.
The flexible body has the same support as that defined in /EIG. You should enter:
- Identification number of the Eigen mode or static mode problem defined in /EIG;
Altair Engineering

452
- The critical structural damping coefficient used for computing the Rayleigh damping
coefficient to be introduced in the flexible body (it is recommended to use default
value 0.03);
- Type of flexible body (1 = free flexible body, 2 = fixed flexible body).
The flexible body input file can be used in a second run using /FXBODY in the Starter
Input file to generate a flexible body. The flexible body input file name ending in .fxb
for the RADIOSS format and master node coordinates are required (possible
coordinates are given at the top of the .fxb file).
Eigen Analysis (writing FXB input
file)
FXB
domain
can
contain
FXB
domain
must not
contain
Run using Flexible Body
Rigid bodies + master nodes.

Boundary conditions.
Master nodes of rigid bodies.

Master node of the flexible body.
Interfaces.
Free parts.
Slave nodes on the flexible body
frontier.
Rigid body overlapping on
flexible body and the rest of
structure.
Truss elements.
Void material.
Monitored volumes.
Rigid bodies (slave nodes).

Slave nodes on the flexible body
frontier.
Rigid body overlapping on flexible
body and the rest of structure.
Options incompatible with the implicit solver must be avoided.
Fig 22: Flexible body creation from RADIOSS options.
453

Altair Engineering
The inputs files used with the specific options are:
For the truck model, the global flexible body includes 14344 nodes, 120 of which are the
master nodes of the inside rigid bodies. Thus, the flexible body takes into account
constraints of the rigid bodies.
Eigen Run
In addition, you can define nine interface nodes linking the flexible body and the rest of the
truck with the translation fixed along the X-, Y- and Z-axis. Thus, 27 static modes will be
computed.
Only the translation degrees are retained in order to minimize the input file size of the
flexible body, given that preliminary studies have shown that additional static modes
computed by fixing rotational degrees have not substantially improved flexible body
behavior.
Fig 23: Nine interface nodes with blocked translations for computing static modes.
Altair Engineering

454
A static mode is computed for each fixed degree of freedom, in addition to the Eigen modes.
Thus, the number of modes is equal to the number of Eigen modes, plus the number of
blocked degrees of freedom.
Flexible Body Run
The rigid bodies and tied interfaces included in the flexible body domain should be removed
for the second run. Those kinematic conditions are only considered in Eigen modes
computation.
The coordinates of the center of mass (possible master node) indicated in the flexible body
input file are:
X: 3.267252E+03
Y: -1.71759E+01
Z: 1.407584E+03
(node 265200)
The master node should be included in the nodes groups for gravity loading and initial
velocity. It should be defined in the Starter file (/NODE).
Connections between the parts covered by the flexible body and other parts of the model are
modeled with beams and the rigid body, as shown in Fig 24. Connection is set at the beam
extremity.
Fig 24: Example of the connection point for flexible body.
455

Altair Engineering
Fig 25: Characteristic Eigen modes (arbitrary displacement).
Altair Engineering

456
Fig 26: Characteristic static modes (arbitrary displacement).
457

Altair Engineering
Comparison of Animation Results

Deformed configurations are compared with global bodies according to the modeling used:
Fig 27: Face view of the different models behavior during bump passage (displayed with multi-models option)
Animation Results
Animations multi models: cab deformation face view
Animation flexible body model: cab deformation
Animation original model: cab deformation
Conclusion
This example introduced a method for creating and employing a flexible body using an Eigen
analysis performed by RADIOSS. The number of retained modes and the frequency range set
for the Eigen analysis are according to the parameters which influenced the results.
Simulation using the flexible body provided accurate distribution of deformations in the
model, compared with the modeling not having a substitute body. However, the amplitudes
obtained are very low. The flexible body behavior could be enhanced by improving
connections between the flexible body and the rest of the structure to ensure transmission of
the shock wave up to the flexible body.
The flexible body input file required the IMPLICIT module (RADIOSS version 5) for the Eigen
modes computation.
Altair Engineering

458
Example 15 - Gears
Summary
The main purpose of this example is to study how to represent a quadratic contact. Two
different interfaces are compared:
Type 16 interface (node to surface)
Type 17 interface (surface to surface)
Moreover, 20-node brick and 16-node shell elements are used for the mesh to represent the
curvature of the teeth. Constant acceleration is also applied to the gear using constant initial
rotation and an imposed velocity.
Finally the results of the contact force show that the type 16 interface is more adaptable than
a type 17 interface.
459

Altair Engineering
Title
Simple gears
Number
15.1
Brief Description
The problem studied is a twin gear having an identical pitch diameter and straight teeth.
Keywords
Type 16 and 17 interfaces (sliding)
20-node brick and 16-node thick shell
Quadratic surface contact
RADIOSS Options
Interface type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 17 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE17)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Interface_type16: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/15_Gears/Inter16/
DIF24416*
Interface_type17: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/15_Gears/Inter17/
DIF24416*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
Altair Engineering

460
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the use of quadratic contact via node-surface and
surface-to-surface interfaces of types 16 and 17.
The following study shows a gear example using interface type 16 and type 17. The finite
elements used to model this gear are the thick SHELL16 elements and the quadratic BRICK20
elements. In the first stage the interface type 16 is used to model contact between the teeth.
Then, interface type 17 is used to manage a surface-to-surface contact.
The gear system is turning with a constant acceleration ( = 0.002 rad/ms2). The
acceleration is applied to both of the gears. It is assumed that contact between the teeth
does not generate any friction.
Steel characteristic (elastic /MAT/LAW2) are:
Young Modulus: 210000 MPa
Poissons coefficient: 0.29
Number of teeth: Z =19
Diametric pitch: P = 1/mo = 1/40
Pressure angle: ao = 20 degrees
The following parameters are calculated as:
Pitch diameter: Dp = mo * Z, then Dp = 760 mm
Root diameter: Db = mo * cos(ao), then Db = 714.17 mm
Addendum:
ha = mo, then ha = 40 mm
Dedendum:
hf = 1.25 * mo, then hf = 50 mm
Circular pitch: p = PI * mo, then p = 125.66 mm
Fig 1: Global view of the mesh.
461

Altair Engineering

The finite elements used to model this gear are the thick SHELL16 type elements and the
quadratic BRICK20 elements.
A quadratic solid mesh is used to take into account the teeths curvature. The external
BRICK20 elements are then converted to solid SHELL16 shells using pre-processing. The
interface types 16 and 17, available as of RADIOSS V44, manages contact between the
quadratic surfaces of the SHELL16 elements.
Fig 2: View of the teeth.
Interfaces types 16 and 17 use the Lagrange multipliers. Type 16 interface is built with a
slave node group impacting a quadratic master surface. Type 17 interface is built with two
quadratic surfaces.
Fig 3: Contact modeling between quadratic surfaces (type 16/17 interfaces).
Altair Engineering

462

To apply constant acceleration, we are starting at time, t, with a constant initial rotation
phase to reduce the initial value effects. Then, an imposed velocity is applied to the gears to
manage a rotational acceleration of 0.002 rad/ms2.
Fig 4: Initial velocities on the temporary rigid bodies master nodes.
To apply the initial rotational velocity to the gears, two rigid bodies are created, as shown in
Fig 4. Then both the rigid bodies are set to OFF to ensure a realistic deformation of parts
after the first loading phase.
The out-of-plane rotation of the rigid bodies is set free. A YZ symmetry plan is used to
stabilize the model.
Fig 5: Free out-of-plane rotation of rigid bodies.
Number of options:
Options
BCS
Quantity
3
BRIC20
950
FUNCT
463

Altair Engineering
Options
Quantity
GRBRIC
GRNOD
20
IMPVEL
INIVEL
INTER
MAT
NODE
10757
PART
PROP
RBODY
SENSOR
SHEL16
380
TH
4
Minimum time step: 0.4E-03 ms

Time History Results
Figure 6 shows the application of velocities on the gears.
Altair Engineering

464
Fig 6: Imposed rotational velocity curves.
Fig 7: Contact force obtained with type 16 interface.
Fig 8: Contact force obtained with type 17 interface.
Figures 7 and 8 compare the contact forces obtained for two different models; one using the
type 16 interface and the other using the type 17 interface. The comparison shows that some
numerical problems may appear when using the interface type 17, due to the complexity of
the algorithms; especially when two surfaces with nonlinear curvatures are used.
On the other hand, interface type 16 obtains an overall physical response.
Animation with Multi-model Mode
465

Altair Engineering
Conclusion
The type 16 interface provides an overall satisfactory results for this kind of application,
where the contact surfaces are complex and there is no gap.
Altair Engineering

466
Example 16 - Dummy Positioning
Summary
The problem of a dummy positioning on the seat before a crash analysis is the quasi-static
loading which can be resolved by either RADIOSS explicit or RADIOSS implicit solvers. If
deformation remains small, a linear analysis may be used as a simple approach to determine
the position after applying gravity force. However, this method is not valid if the contact
surface between the dummy and the seat is not correctly estimated before analysis. When
comparing the implicit and explicit solvers, it's shown that the implicit computation enables
saving time in the computation. However, the rigid body modes of the dummy must be
controlled. This is not the case if the explicit solver is used.
467

Altair Engineering
16.1 - EXPLICIT Solver

Title
EXPLICIT solver
Number
16.1
Brief Description
A dummy is sat down via gravity using the quasi-static load treatment.
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, and dummy
Quasi-static analysis by explicit, kinetic and dynamic relaxation, and Rayleigh damping
Type 7 interface (symmetric)
Kelvin-Voigt visco-elastic model (/MAT/LAW35) and linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1)
RADIOSS Options
Added mass (/ADMAS)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Material definition (/MAT)
Rayleigh damping (/DAMP)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Rayleigh_damping: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/RAYLEIGH/.../SEAT_RAYLEIGH*
Dynamic_relaxation: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/DYREL/SEAT_DYREL*
Kinetic_relaxation: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/KEREL/SEAT_KEREL*
Without_damping: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/Without_damping/SEAT*
RADIOSS Version
51f
Advanced
Altair Engineering

468
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The topic of this study concerns quasi-static load treatment using kinetic relaxation, dynamic
relaxation and Rayleigh damping. The explicit solutions provided by the three different
approaches will be compared and analyzed.
The purpose is to position a dummy on a foam seat under the gravity field using a quasistatic approach prior to a possible dynamic crash simulation.
Units: mm, s, ton, N, MPa
The dummy weighs 80 kg (173.4 lbs.). The material introduced does not represent the
physical case; however, the global weight of the dummy is respected. As the dummy
deformation is neglected in this loading phase, simplifying the material characterizations has
no incidence on the simulation.
Material for seat brace - both the columns and the floor are made of steel with the following
properties (/MAT/LAW1):
Poissons ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.8 x 10-9 Gkg/l
The seat columns have the following characteristics:
Area: 2580 mm2
Inertia: IXX = 554975 mm4; IYY = 554975 mm4; IZZ = 937908 mm4
The thickness for the seat back and the floor:
Brace thickness = 2 mm
Floor thickness = 1 mm
469

Altair Engineering
The seat cushion is made of foam which can be described using the generalized Kelvin-Voigt
model. The material properties of the foam are:
Youngs modulus: 0.2 MPa
Poissons ratio: 0
Density: 4.3 x 10-11 Gkg/l
E1 and E2: 0 MPa
Tangent modulus: 0.25 MPa
Viscosity in pure shear: 10000 MPa/s
C1 = C2 = C3 = 1 (visco-elastic bulk viscosity)
RADIOSS material law 35 is used. The open cell foam option is not active (IFlag = 0) and the
pressure is read using the following input curve:
Table 1: Pressure versus compression curve.
Compression
Pressure
-100000
-10
3000
-1000
-1000
7.633
209000 210000
7.633
18.5
Visco-elastic Foam Material Law (/MAT/LAW35):

Based on the Navier equation, law 35 describes materials using visco-elastic behavior. The
effect of the air enclosed is taken into account via a separate pressure versus compression
function. Relaxation and creep can be modeled.
The schematic model in Fig 2 describes the generalized Kelvin-Voigt model where a timedependent spring working in parallel with a Navier dashpot is put in a series with a nonlinear
rate-dependent spring.
Fig 2: Generalized Kelvin-Voigt model Law 35.
Two pressure computations are available in RADIOSS for foam having no open cells. The
expression used by default is:
See the RADIOSS Theory Manual for explanation of coefficients.
Altair Engineering

470
Pressure may also be computed using the pressure versus compression curve defined by you.
The compression, is defined as:
Where,
is the density at a time t, and 0 is the initial density.

The model consists of two subsets:
a dummy composed of 38 parts (limbs and joints).
a seat comprised of six parts (foam seat back, foam seat cushion, seat back brace, seat
bottom brace, seat columns and the floor).
Fig 3: Model mesh.

(Perspective view Shaded display)
Fig 4: Model mesh.

(Profile view Edges display)
The seat cushion is meshed with 70 brick elements defined by general type 14 solid property.
Quadratic bulk viscosity: 1.1
Linear bulk viscosity: 0.05
Hourglass viscosity coefficient: 0.1
The dummy and seat brace are modeled with shell elements, divided into 4871 4-node shells
and 203 3-node shells (Dummy: 5004 shells and seat: 70 shells).
Using a dummy in the model, the /DEL/SHELL/1 option should be activated in the Engine file
to avoid a small time step, due to the low density of material defining the dummy envelope.
The shell properties are:
Belytschko hourglass formulation (Hourglass type 4, Ishell = 4).
Membrane hourglass coefficients: 0.01 (default value)
Out-of-plane hourglass: 0.01 (default value)
Rotation hourglass coefficient: 0.01 (default value)
471

Altair Engineering
Contacts between the dummy and the seat cushion, as well as between the foot and the
floor, use type 7 interface models with the penalty method. Additionally, symmetrical
contact between the body and seat is achieved by creating two complementary interfaces, as
shown below:
First interface: Dummy parts: slave nodes / seat: master surface
Second interface: Dummy parts: master surface / seat: slave nodes
Fig 5: Contacts modeling with type 7 symmetrical interface
The gap between the symmetrical interfaces is equal to 5 mm, while a gap of 0.5 mm is set
for the other interface.
The type 7 interface allows sliding to occur between surfaces. A Coulomb friction can be
introduced; in addition, a critical viscous damping coefficient can be defined to damp sliding.
The symmetric interfaces properties are:
Coulomb friction (Fric flag) = 0.3
Critical damping coefficient (Visc flag) = 0.05
Scale factor for stiffness (Stfac flag) = 1
Sorting factor (Bumult flag) = 0.20
Maximum impacted segment / node (Multimp flag) = 4
See the RADIOSS Theory Manual and Starter Input for further information about the
definition of the type 7 interface.
The goal is to set the body on the seat using a quasi-static approach in order to obtain static
equilibrium. The positioning phase is not included in this study. Thus, all nodes of the
dummy are placed in a global rigid body in order to maintain the dummys initial
configuration.
In order to save the CPU, a second global rigid body includes parts of the seat and the floor;
except for the seat cushion parts, which will only have active elements during simulation.
Altair Engineering

472
Fig 6: Set up of both rigid bodies.
When the ICoG flag is set to 1 for the rigid body of the seat, the center of gravity is
computed using the master and slave node coordinates, and the master node is moved to the
center of gravity, where mass and inertia are placed.
When the ICoG flag is set to 3 for the rigid body of the dummy, the center of gravity is set at
the master node coordinates defined by you. The added masses and added inertia are
transmitted to the master node coordinates.
The master node coordinates and skew are extracted from the pelvis part of the original rigid
body.
Gravity is applied to all nodes of the model. A function defines gravity acceleration in the z
direction versus time. Gravity is activated by /GRAV in the D00 file.
Fig 7: Input gravity function (-9810 mm.s-2) and nodes selection (yellow).
The six rigid body modes of the seat are removed by completely fixing the rigid body master
node attached to the seat. In order to limit the out-of-plane vibrations, the master node of
the dummy's rigid body is fixed in translation along the Y axis.
473

Altair Engineering
Fig 8: Boundary conditions on the rigid bodies master nodes.
Static analysis: quasi-static treatment of gravity loading up to static equilibrium.

for simulating dynamic loading. However, a quasi-static simulation via a dynamic resolution
method needs to minimize the dynamic effects in order to converge towards static
equilibrium. This usually describes the pre-loading case prior to dynamic analysis. Thus, the
quasi-static solution of gravity loading on the model is the steady state part of the transient
response.
To reduce the dynamic effect, three options are available in the Engine file:
Kinetic Relaxation Method

All velocities are set to zero each time the kinetic energy reaches a maximum value. This
option is activated in the Engine file using /KEREL (input is not required).
Fig 9: Kinetic relaxation method with /KEREL (also named energy discrete relaxation).
Altair Engineering

474
Dynamic Relaxation Method

Dynamic loading is damped by introducing a diagonal damping matrix, proportional to mass
matrix, in the dynamic equation:
with,
being the relaxation value (recommended default value 1), and T being is the period
to be damped (less than or equal to the highest period of the system).
Thus, a viscous stress tensor is added to the stress tensor:
Using an explicit code, application of the dashpot force reduces the velocity equation
modification:
This option is activated in the D01 file using /DYREL (inputs:
and T).
Rayleigh Damping Method

Dynamic loading is damped by introducing a damping matrix, proportional to the mass and
stiffness matrix, in the dynamic equation. This simplified approach will allow you to reduce
the global equilibrium equation to n-uncoupled equations by using an orthogonal
transformation. This damping is said to be proportionally uncoupled.
Where,
and
are the pre-defined constants.
The orthogonal transformation using this proportional damping assumption leads to:
with:
i
i
475
is the ith being the damping ratio of the system
is the ith being the natural frequency of the system

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: Rayleigh type damping.
If you have some experimental results, the proportionality factors, and are found by
evaluating the damping for a pair of the most significant frequencies used. Thus, two
equations with two unknown variables are obtained:
If several frequencies are available, an average of computed values,
and
may be used.
This model of proportional damping is not recommended for complex structures and does not
enable good experimental retiming.
This option is activated in the D01 Engine file using /DAMP (inputs data:
and
).
Parameters Used
In this example,
First case:
and
= 10 and
Second case:
Third case:
are set to the following values:

= 10
= 0 and
= 10 and
Fourth case:
= 20 and
= 10
=0
=0
The resulting assumptions are:

First case: [C] = 10[M] + 10[K]
Second case: [C] = 10[K]
Third case: [C] = 10[M]
Fourth case: [C] = 20[M]
Altair Engineering

476

Results Obtained using Kinetic Relaxation: /KEREL
Fig 11: Z-displacement of the rigid bodys master node on dummy (node 14199).
Fig 12: Kinetic energy of global model.
477

Altair Engineering
Results Obtained using Dynamic Relaxation: /DYREL
Fig 13: Z-displacement of the rigid bodys master node on dummy (node 14199).
Fig 14: Z-velocity of the rigid bodys master node on dummy (node 14199).
The period T to be damped is estimated from the velocity curves (highest period).
Altair Engineering

478
Results Obtained using Rayleigh Damping: /DAMP
Fig 15: Z-displacement of the rigid bodys master node on dummy (node 14199)
Fig 16: Z-velocity of rigid bodys master node on dummy (node 14199)
479

Altair Engineering
Comparison of the Different Approaches
Fig 17: Comparison of the nodal displacements display on the seat at time t = 1.48 s
Fig 18: Comparison of damping on displacement obtained using the three static approaches
(Z-displacement of the rigid bodys master node on dummy: node 14199)
Conclusion
It is undeniable that the damping methods used to converge towards static equilibrium
provide accurate results, especially in the case of this problem where the low rigidity of the
seat caused very little quenched oscillations.
The kinetic relaxation introduced in /KEREL, was relatively effective having a swift
convergence of the solution towards a static solution, in addition to being easy to use since
no input is required. Stability was obtained at 0.137 s.
Altair Engineering

480
The /DYREL and /DAMP options are based on viscous damping conducted for the same
response, with convergence in three oscillations. Stability was obtained at 0.75 s.
Furthermore, dynamic relaxation and the Rayleigh damping methods are basically equivalent
in this problem, due to the low stiffness of the seat cushion (Youngs modulus is equal to 0.2
MPa), which breaks the balance between the mass and the weight stiffness in the Rayleigh
assumption. Moreover, the boundary conditions and the loading applied on the model lead to
a problem described using a predominant natural frequency. Thus, only one parameter, is
needed to describe this physical behavior, which reverts back to the dynamic relaxation
assumption.
Using =1 and T =0.18s for dynamic relaxation and
achieve:
=10 for Rayleigh damping, you
Dynamic relaxation:
Rayleigh damping:
[C] = [M] +
[K]
[M]
10[M]
In conclusion, the approaches available in RADIOSS provided after convergence a single
solution, namely displacement of the dummy by -12.66 mm along the Z-axis and an identical
deformation of the seat cushion.
481

Altair Engineering
16.2 - IMPLICIT Solver

Title
IMPLICIT solver
Number
16.2
Brief Description
A dummy is sat down via gravity using the implicit approach (static).
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, spring, and dummy
Linear and nonlinear static solution by implicit solver
Type 7 interface (symmetric) and tied interface (type 2)
Kelvin-Voigt visco-elastic model (/MAT/LAW35) and linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1)
RADIOSS Options
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Time step control method for implicit (/IMPL/DT)
Initial time step for implicit (/IMPL/DTINI)
Static linear implicit solution (/IMPL/LINEAR)
Static nonlinear implicit solution (/IMPL/NONLIN)
Print frequency for implicit (/IMPL/PRINT)
Implicit solver method (/IMPL/SOLVER)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Input File
Linear_implicit_model: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/IMPLICIT_solver/Linear/SEAT_IMPL_LIN*
Nonlinear_implicit_model: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/IMPLICIT_solver/Nonlinear/
Imposed_displacement: //.../Imposed_displacement/SEAT_IMPL_DISP*
Concentrated_load: //.../Concentrated_load/SEAT_IMPL_CLOAD*
Gravity_loading: //.../Gravity/SEAT_IMPL_GRAV*
RADIOSS Version
51f
Advanced
Altair Engineering

482
Linear and Nonlinear Analysis by Implicit Solver

The main advantages of implicit resolution are:
Unconditional stable scheme
Large time step
Treatment of the static problem
However, the implicit algorithm uses a global resolution which requires convergence for each
time step and has low robustness in comparison to the explicit (null pivots, divergence for
high nonlinearities, etc.).
The implicit methods result in solving a linear system for each time step, which is relatively
expensive but enables a large time step: few expensive calculations. The explicit method
treats linear or nonlinear systems depending on the problem. It is less expensive and faster
for each step, but requires short time steps to ensure stability of the scheme that has many
inexpensive cycles.
Implicit integration scheme: Newmark
This scheme is unconditionally stable, the stability condition being independent of the time
step choice. See the RADIOSS Theory Manual for further information about the Newmark
scheme.
RADIOSS has a linear and a nonlinear solver. Only static computations are available and
loading should be defined as a monotonous increasing time function for nonlinear analysis.
The main computational methods available in RADIOSS:
Cholesky (direct method, linear solver)
Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (linear solver)
Modified Newton-Raphson method (nonlinear solver)
The precondition methods for linear solver available in RADIOSS:
No preconditioned
Diagonal Jacobi
Incomplete Cholesky
Stabilized incomplete Cholesky
Factored Approximate Inverse (by default)
You should define the tolerance and stop criterion for the linear and nonlinear solver
(residual).
Strategies of resolution for nonlinear static computation / time step control:
Iterations number limit for updating stiffness matrix
Convergence iterations number for increasing time step
Convergence iterations number for decreasing time step
Increase time step factor
Decrease time step factor
483

Altair Engineering
Minimum time step

Maximum time step
Initial time step
The nonlinear solver uses the modified Newton-Raphson method and the resolution is based
on sparse iterative techniques.
Fig 19: Newton-Raphson resolution in the case of load control technique.
The modified Newton-Raphson method is based on maintaining the tangent matrix for all
iterations and can be combined with the line search acceleration technique for accelerating
convergence.
Piloting techniques available in RADIOSS:
Displacement norm control
Arc-length control
An automatic time step control is used.
Static Analysis and Implicit Options
This example deals with two implicit analyses:
A static linear computation (loading by gravity),
A static nonlinear computation (three computations are performed: dummy positioning
using an imposed displacement, followed by a concentrated load and a gravity loading).
An adapted modeling methodology is set up for each analysis. Contact with the different
interfaces depends on the computations taken into account and then the material can be
updated.
Altair Engineering

484
The goal for this analysis is to propose a modeling method for different loading cases, with
specific input data used in the implicit strategies. The studies by linear implicit and nonlinear
implicit using imposed displacement are no longer comparable with results obtained by
explicit due to the different physical approaches. Comparisons are only valid for the
positioning by gravity loading.
Linear Static Analysis

Type 7 interface uses nonlinear algorithms to check contact. Thus, in order to be used in a
linear solver, it is replaced by a type 2 tied interface which creates kinematic conditions
between slave nodes and master surfaces. Gravity loading is studied.
Fig 20: Type 2 tied interface linear contact for dummy / seat cushion modeling.
The visco-elastic law 35 (generalized Kelvin-Voigt model) describing the foam of a seat is
converted into a linear plastic law 1 (properties are maintained):
Youngs modulus: 0.2 MPa
Poissons ratio: 0
Density: 4.3 x 10-11 k g/l
You can select BATOZ formulations for the shell elements and HA8 formulations using 2x2x2
integration points for the brick elements.
The linear implicit methods used are:
Implicit type:
Static linear
Linear solver:
Direct Cholesky
Precondition method:
Factored Approximate Inverse
Stop criteria:
Relative residual of preconditioned matrix
Tolerance:
10-6
485

Altair Engineering
The implicit options used in the Engine file are:
Results
Only one animation corresponds to the static solution.
Fig 21: Linear static implicit solution of gravity loading (type 2 interface is used).
It should be noted that this modeling contact slightly modifies the problem which is no longer
comparable with the previous explicit models.
Table 1: Indication of time computation.
Normalized CPU
Explicit Solver - /
DYREL
Implicit Solver
Linear
170
Nonlinear Static Analysis

Positioning Using an Imposed Displacement
The modeling methodology defined in the explicit studies is maintained (visco-elastic
material law, type 7 interface, etc.). Brick elements are modeled by default element
formulation.
Altair Engineering

486
Fig 22: Nonlinear contact modeling with auto-impacting type 7 interface.
In addition to the constant gravity load, an imposed displacement along the Z-axis is applied
on the master node of the global rigid body covering the dummy. This approach allows
computation to converge and the rigid body modes to be removed (no null pivot). An input
curve for the imposed displacement is required. The boundary conditions on master node
14199 are: 110 111.
Fig 23: Imposed displacement along the Z-axis as a monotonous increasing time function.

Implicit type:
Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver:
Modified Newton
Stop criteria:
Tolerance:
0.01
Arc-length method and "line-search"
Initial time step:
5s
Minimum time step:
0.01 s
Maximum time step:
no
20
487

Altair Engineering
0.8
Maximum increasing time step scale factor: 1.1

Arc-length:
Spring-back option:
no
Implicit parameters are set in the Engine file with the options beginning with /IMPL/.
The implicit options used are:
Due to the contact problem, the tolerance value (Tol) is set to 10-2 (default value = 10-3).
Some options are not compatible with the implicit solver. Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for
more details about implicit options.
Results
The last animation corresponds to the static solution.
Fig 24: Nonlinear static implicit solution of the imposed displacement.
Note that the Z-displacement of the dummy should not be considered as a result but as an
input data (imposed displacement on the master node 14199).
Altair Engineering

488
Table 2: Time computation comparison between explicit and implicit computations:

Explicit Solver - /DYREL
Implicit Solver Nonlinear
Normalized CPU
1.26
Number of cycles
(normalized)
56704 (1718)
33 (1)
Positioning Using a Concentrated Load

The modeling methodology defined in the explicit studies is maintained. The gravity loading
is taken into account by applying a constant concentrated load of 813.05N (dummy weight +
added masses) on the master node of the rigid body, including the dummy. In order to
remove the rigid body modes, the dummy is connected to fixed nodes via type 8 spring
elements.
Fig 25: Concentrated load along the Z-axis as a monotonous increasing time function.
Fig 26: Springs type 8 defined for removing rigid body modes during implicit computation.
The properties of the general type 8 springs are:

Linear elastic behavior
Mass = 1g
Inertia = 0.001
489

Altair Engineering
Translational stiffness:
TX = 1 N/mm
TY = 1 N/mm
TZ = 1 N/mm
Rotational stiffness:
RX = 100 Mg.mm2/(s2.rad)
RY = 100 Mg.mm2/(s2.rad)
RZ = 100 Mg.mm2/(s2.rad)
Implicit options are the same as the previous implicit problem; except for the initial time step
is set to: 2s.
Results
Explicit Solver - /DYREL
Implicit Solver
Nonlinear
Normalized CPU
3.07
Number of cycles
(normalized)
56704 (1090)
52 (1)
Z displacement
(master node dummy)
-12.75 mm
-12.49 mm
Positioning Using Gravity Loading

The modeling methodology defined in the implicit model is maintained using a concentrated
load. Gravity loading is applied on the slave nodes and the master node of the rigid body,
including the dummy. In order to remove the rigid body modes, the dummy is connected to
fixed nodes via type 8 spring elements.
Fig 27: Gravity loading as a monotonous increasing time function.
Implicit options are the same as the previous implicit problem (initial time step is set to: 2s).
Altair Engineering

490
Results
Explicit solver - /DYREL
Implicit solver
Nonlinear
Normalized CPU
2.53
Number of cycles
(normalized)
56704 (1090)
52 (1)
Z displacement
(master node dummy)
-12.75 mm
-12.42 mm
Fig 28: Convergence results of the X- and Z-displacement of master node 14199 (rigid body dummy) for the
implicit models using gravity loading and concentrated load.
491

Altair Engineering
Fig 29: Final dummy position obtained using IMPLICIT (model using gravity loading) and EXPLICIT (model with
gravity loading and kinetic relaxation).
Conclusion
This example brings awareness to the use of the RADIOSS implicit solver in resolving quasistatic problems. On the other hand, it illustrates different convergence acceleration
techniques when an explicit solver is applied to the quasi-static problems. The advantages
and drawbacks of the methods are compared.
Altair Engineering

492
Example 17 - Box Beam
Summary
The crashing of a box beam against a rigid wall is a typical and famous example of simulation
in dynamic transient problems. The purpose for this example is to study the mesh influence
on simulation results when several kinds of shell elements are used.
At first, the quality of the results obtained for the different mesh densities is studied using
several element formulations. Then the mesh transition influence is highlighted. Finally, the
meshes are disturbed and the simulation results are compared.
This example illustrates element sensitivity for various kinds of mesh, in the case of a crash
analysis.
493

Altair Engineering
17.1 - Densities
Title
Box Beam - Densities
Number
17.1
Brief Description
A steel box beam, fixed at one end and impacted at the other end by an infinite mass.
Results for mesh with different densities are compared.
Keywords
Shells Q4
Type 7 and 11 interface
Global plasticity, iterative plasticity, and variable thickness
BT_TYPE1, 3, 4, QEPH, BATOZ, DKT18 and C0 formulation
RADIOSS Options
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Mesh 0: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Densities_mesh/
mesh0/.../BOXBEAM*
mesh1/.../BOXBEAM*
mesh2/.../BOXBEAM*
mesh3/.../BOXBEAM*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
Altair Engineering

494
Overview
A steel box beam fixed at one end, is impacted at the other end by an infinite mass. The
dimensions of the box beam are 203 mm x 50.8 mm x 38.1 mm, and its thickness is 0.914
mm. As symmetry is taken into account, only one quarter of the structure is modeled. Four
kinds of mesh are compared.
Units:
mm, ms, g , N , MPa
The material used follows an isotropic elasto-plastic material (/MAT/LAW2) using the
Johnson-Cook plasticity model, with the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.8 x 10-3 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Maximum stress: 340 MPa

Four kinds of meshes are used to model the beam. The initial mesh is uniform using a total of
60 x 8 elements. For the three other meshes, the element length is multiplied by 2, 3 and 4,
495

Altair Engineering
as shown in the following diagram.

For each model, several element formulations are tested:
BT_TYPE1
BT_TYPE3
BT_TYPE4
QEPH
BATOZ
C0 (T3 element)
DKT18 (T3 element)
Fig 2: Meshes.
The 3-node shell mesh is obtained by dividing the 4-node shell elements.
Boundary conditions:
Take into account the symmetry, all nodes in the Y-Z plan are fixed in a Y translation
and an X and Z rotation. One quarter of the structure is modeled.
Rigid body:
The lower (fixed) end is modeled using a rigid body connecting all lower nodes (Z =
0.0). The rigid body is completely fixed using translations and rotations.
Wall:
The impactor is modeled using a sliding rigid wall having a fixed velocity (13.3 m/s) in
a Z direction and is fixed for other translations and rotations.
Interfaces:
The structures self-impact is modeled using a type 7 interface on the full structure.
Note that the interface master surface is defined using the complete model. The slave
nodes group is defined using the master surface.
Altair Engineering

496
On top of the beam, possible edge-to-edge impacts are dealt with using a type 11 autoimpacting interface. The edges use the master surface of the type 7 interface as the input
surface.
Fig 3: Boundary conditions.

The results are compared using two different views:
The role and influence of the mesh for a given type of element formulation
The shell element formulations for a given mesh
Three criteria are used to compare the quality of results obtained:
Crushing force versus displacement
The crushing force corresponds to normal force in the Z-direction of the impactor (rigid
wall), multiplied by 4 due to the symmetry.
In comparison, the displacement corresponds to the Z-direction motion of the rigid
walls master node.
Hourglass energy
Total energy
Total energy is the sum of all energies.
497

Altair Engineering
Mesh Influence of a Given Shell
Fig 4: Total energy for a BATOZ formulation.
Fig 5: Force for a BATOZ formulation.
Altair Engineering

498
Fig 6: Total energy for a QEPH formulation.
Fig 7: Force for a QEPH formulation.
499

Altair Engineering
Fig 8: Total energy for a BT_TYPE1 formulation.
Fig 9: Hourglass energy for a BT_TYPE1 formulation.
Altair Engineering

500
Fig 10: Force for a BT_TYPE1 formulation.
501

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

502
503

Altair Engineering
Fig 17: Total energy for a CO formulation.
Altair Engineering

504
Fig 18: Force for a CO formulation.
Fig 19: Total energy for a DKT formulation.
505

Altair Engineering
Fig 20: Force for a DKT formulation.
Influence of Element Formulation using Mesh 3
Fig 21: Total energy for different element formulations.
Altair Engineering

506
Fig 23: Hourglass energy for different element formulations.
Fig 24: Displacement for different element formulations.
507

Altair Engineering
Fig 25: Displacement for different element formulations
Altair Engineering

508
MESH 0
MESH 1
509

Altair Engineering
MESH 2
MESH 3
Altair Engineering

510
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
3.25 x 105
3.82 x 105
4.88 x 105
7.23 x 105
Ehr
t = 8 ms
EK
1.32 x 104
1.23 x 104
1.26 x 104
1.10 x 104
Total Energy
3.38 x 105
3.94 x 105
5.00 x 105
7.34 x 105
Error
0.3%
1.1%
1.6%
2.9%
10350
10491
10953
11555
EI
t = 8 ms
t = 8 ms
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
Formulation: QEPH
511

Altair Engineering
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
EI
t = 8 ms
3.38 x 105
4.55 x 105
5.49 x 105
8.13 x 105
Ehr
t = 8 ms
EK
t = 8 ms
1.32 x 104
1.36 x 104
1.35 x 104
0.93 x 104
Total Energy
3.51 x 105
4.68 x 105
5.63 x 105
8.23 x 105
Error
2.0%
2.9%
3.2%
8.0%
10345
10574
11335
11865
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
Formulation: BT_TYPE1
Altair Engineering

512
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
EI
t = 8 ms
3.19 x 105
3.60 x 105
4.68 x 105
5.19 x 105
Ehr
t = 8 ms
2.42 x 104
4.17 x 104
3.87 x 104
8.80 x 104
EK
t = 8 ms
1.29 x 104
1.23 x 104
1.16 x 104
1.35 x 104
Total Energy
3.32 x 105
3.72 x 105
4.79 x 105
5.32 x 105
Error
-6.4%
-9.3%
-5.8%
-11.5%
10344
10505
10971
11569
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
513

Altair Engineering
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
EI
t = 8 ms
3.14 x 105
3.73 x 105
4.46 x 105
4.94 x 105
Ehr
t = 8 ms
2.02 x 104
3.80 x 104
6.56 x 104
11.90 x 104
EK
t = 8 ms
1.31 x 104
1.24 x 104
1.32 x 104
1.29 x 104
Total Energy
3.27 x 105
3.85 x 105
4.60 x 105
5.07 x 105
Error
-5.5%
-8.2%
-11.0%
-16.7%
10353
10526
11000
11670
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
Altair Engineering

514
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
EI
t = 8 ms
3.23 x 105
3.52 x 105
4.60 x 105
5.26 x 105
Ehr
t = 8 ms
1.26 x 104
1.94 x 104
3.74 x 104
5.02 x 104
EK
t = 8 ms
1.30 x 104
1.24 x 104
1.21 x 104
1.31 x 104
Total Energy
3.36 x 105
3.64 x 105
4.72 x 105
5.39 x 105
Error
-3.3%
-4.0%
-5.8%
-6.5%
10344
10538
11011
11568
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
Formulation: C0
515

Altair Engineering
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
EI
t = 8 ms
3.45 x 105
4.56 x 105
4.79 x 105
8.64 x 105
Ehr
t = 8 ms
EK
t = 8 ms
1.29 x 104
1.30 x 104
1.10 x 104
1.12 x 104
Total Energy
3.58 x 105
4.69 x 105
4.90 x 105
8.75 x 105
Error
0.2%
0.8%
1.7%
2.5%
10355
10344
10875
11435
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
Formulation:
DKT18
Altair Engineering

516
MESH 0
MESH 1
MESH 2
MESH 3
3.21 x 105
3.75 x 105
3.97 x 105
4.32 x 105
EK
t = 8 ms
1.29 x 104
1.34 x 104
1.13 x 104
1.45 x 104
Total Energy
3.34 x 105
3.88 x 105
4.08 x 105
4.47 x 105
Error
0.5%
0.8%
1.6%
1.9%
10348
10367
10800
11139
EI
t = 8 ms
Ehr
t = 8 ms
t = 8 ms
Maximum
normal force on
the wall (N)
517

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

518
17.2 - Transitions
Title
Box Beam Transitions
Number
17.2
Brief Description
A steel box beam, fixed at one end, impacted at the other end by an infinite mass.
Results for meshes with different transitions are compared.
Keywords
Q4 shells
BT_TYPE1-3-4, QEPH, BATOZ, DKT18 and C0 formulation
RADIOSS Options
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Mesh 0: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/
Transition_mesh/mesh0/...//BOXBEAM*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
519

Altair Engineering
Overview
kinds of mesh and three plasticity formulations are compared (global plasticity, five
integration points and iterative plasticity).
Units:
mm, ms , g , N , MPa
The material used follows an isotropic elasto-plastic material (/MAT/LAW2) with the JohnsonCook plasticity model, having the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.8 x10-3 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Fig 26: Problem studied
Altair Engineering

520

Four types of mesh are used to model the beam. The beam is divided into two parts: a fine
mesh for one half (8 x 26 elements) and a coarse mesh for the other half. Transition between
the two meshes of a single beam is carried out using a mesh transition element of the same
length as each particular case. We will compare results using a reference case which has a
uniform mesh.
The layout of the elements is shown in the following diagram. The following are tested for
each model:
1. Element formulation:
BT_TYPE1
BT_TYPE3
QEPH
BATOZ
C0
DKT18
2. Plasticity:
Global plasticity
Progressive plasticity with five integration points
Iterative plasticity with five integration points and variable thickness
Fig 27: Meshes

521

Altair Engineering
Rigid body:
0.0). The rigid body is completely fixed in translations and rotations.
Wall:
The impactor is modeled by a sliding rigid wall using a fixed velocity (13.3 m/s) in the
Z-direction and fixed for other translations and rotations.
Interfaces:
On top of the beam, the possible edge-to-edge impacts are dealt with using a type 11
auto-impacting interface. The edges use the master surface of the type 7 interface as
the input surface.

The results are compared using three different views:
Role and influence of the mesh for a given type of element formulation
Shell element formulations for a given mesh
Plasticity options for a given mesh and element formulation
Three criteria are used to compare the quality of the results obtained:
The crushing force corresponds to the normal force in the Z-direction of the impactor
(rigid wall), multiplied by 4 due to symmetry.
For comparison, displacement corresponds to the Z-direction motion of the rigid walls
master node.
Altair Engineering

522
Hourglass energy
Total energy
Total energy is the sum of all energies.
Mesh Influence for a Given Shell Using Global Plasticity
BATOZ
Fig 29: Total energy for a BATOZ formulation.
Fig 30: Force for a BATOZ formulation.
523

Altair Engineering
QEPH
Fig 31: Total energy for a QEPH formulation.
Fig 32: Force for a QEPH formulation.
Altair Engineering

524
BT_TYPE1
525

Altair Engineering
BT_TYPE3
Altair Engineering

526
527

Altair Engineering
BT_TYPE4
Altair Engineering

528
C0
Fig 42: Total energy for a CO formulation.
529

Altair Engineering
Fig 43: Force for a CO formulation.
DKT18
Fig 44: Total energy for a DKT formulation.
Altair Engineering

530
Fig 45: Force for a DKT formulation.
Influence of Element Formulation Using Mesh 3 and Global Plasticity
531

Altair Engineering
Fig 48: Hourglass energy for different element formulations.
Altair Engineering

532
Fig 49: Force for different element formulations.
Fig 50: Displacements for different element formulations.
Influence of Plasticity Options Using Mesh 1 and BT_TYPE3 Formulation
533

Altair Engineering
Fig 51: Total energy for different plasticity computations.
Fig 52: Hourglass energy for different plasticity computations.
Altair Engineering

534
Fig 53: Force for different plasticity computations.
535

Altair Engineering
MESH 0
MESH 1
Altair Engineering

536
MESH 2
MESH 3
537

Altair Engineering
Formulation: QEPH
Formulation:
BT_TYPE1
Altair Engineering

538
539

Altair Engineering
Formulation: C0
Formulation: DKT18
Altair Engineering

540
541

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

542
17.3 - Distorted
Title
Box Beam Distorted
Number
17.3
Brief Description
A steel box beam, fixed at one end and impacted at the other by an infinite mass.
Results for distorted meshes are compared.
Keywords
Q4 shells
BT_TYPE1-3-4, QEPH, BATOZ, DKT18 and C0 formulation
RADIOSS Options
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Mesh 0: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Distorted_mesh/
mesh0/...//BOXBEAM*
mesh1/...//BOXBEAM*
mesh2/...//BOXBEAM*
mesh3/...//BOXBEAM*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
543

Altair Engineering
Overview
kinds of mesh and three plasticity formulations are compared (global plasticity, five
integration points and iterative plasticity).
Units:
mm, ms , g , N , MPa
The material used follows an isotropic elasto-plastic (/MAT/LAW2) with the Johnson-Cook
plasticity model, with the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.8 x10-3 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Altair Engineering

544

Four beams are modeled with different kinds of mesh, all having 56 elements in length and 8
in height. The layout of the elements is shown in the following diagram.
The following are tested for each model:
1. Element formulation:
BT_TYPE1
BT_TYPE3
QEPH
BATOZ
C0
DKT18
2. Plasticity:
Global plasticity
Progressive plasticity with five integration points
Iterative plasticity with five integration points and variable thickness
Fig 55: Meshes.

545

Altair Engineering
Rigid body:
0.0). The rigid body is completely fixed in translations and rotations.
Wall:
The impactor is modeled using a sliding rigid wall with a fixed velocity (13.3 m/s) in the
Z-direction and fixed for other translations and rotations.
Interfaces:
On top of the beam, the possible edge-to-edge impacts are dealt with using a type 11
auto-impacting interface. The edges use the master surface of the type 7 interface as
the input surface.

The results are compared using three different views:
The role and influence of the mesh for a given type of element formulation.
Shell element formulations for a given mesh.
Plasticity options for a given mesh and element formulation.
Three criteria are used to compare the quality of the results obtained:
The crushing force corresponds to the normal force in the Z-direction of the impactor
(rigid wall), multiplied by 4 due to symmetry.
For comparison, displacement corresponds to the Z-direction motion of the rigid walls
master node.
Altair Engineering

546
Hourglass energy
Total energy
Total absorption energy is the sum of internal energy and hourglass energy.
Mesh Influence of a Given Shell Using Global Plasticity and BT_TYPE3 Formulation
547

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

548
Influence of Element Formulation Using Mesh 1 and Global Plasticity
Fig 60: Total energy for different element formulation.
Fig 61: Total energy for different element formulation.
549

Altair Engineering
Fig 62: Hourglass energy for different BT element formulation.
Fig 63: Force for different element formulation.
Altair Engineering

550
Fig 64: Force for different element formulation.
Influence of Plasticity Options Using Mesh 0 and BT_TYPE3 Formulation
Fig 65: Total energy.
551

Altair Engineering
Fig 66: Hourglass energy.
Fig 67: Crushing force.
Altair Engineering

552
MESH 0
MESH 1
553

Altair Engineering
MESH 2
MESH 3
Altair Engineering

554
555

Altair Engineering
Altair Engineering

556
Formulation: QEPH
Formulation: BATOZ
557

Altair Engineering
Formulation:
DKT18
Formulation:
C0
Conclusion
The crash of a box beam using several meshes and finite element formulations was studied in
detail. The simulation results for uniform, mapped and transit meshes are classified and
compared for each different shell formulation. The results obtained illustrate the sensitivity of
the shell elements with respect to the quality of the mesh for a typical crash problem.
Altair Engineering

558
Example 18 - Square Plate
Summary
A square plane subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane static loading is a simple element test.
It allows you to highlight element formulation for elastic and elasto-plastic cases. The underintegrated quadrilateral shells are compared with the fully-integrated BATOZ shells. The
triangles are also studied.
559

Altair Engineering
18.1 - Square Plate Torsion
Title
Square plate torsion
Number
18.1
Brief Description
Torsion test on a cantilever plate submitted to two opposing forces on the same side.
Keywords
Q4 shells
T3 shells
Hourglass, mesh, and concentrated loads
RADIOSS Options
Concentrated loads (/CLOAD)
Element formulation (/PROP)
Input File
4Q4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Torsion/4Q4/
.../TORSION*
8T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Torsion/8T3/
.../TORSION*
8T3 inv: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/
Torsion/8T3_inv/.../TORSION*
2Q4-4T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/
Torsion/2Q4-4T3/.../TORSION*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Beginner
Altair Engineering

560
Overview
This example concerns a torsion problem of an embedded plate subjected to two
concentrated loads, as shown in the following diagram. The purpose of this example is to
illustrate the role of the different shell element formulations with regard to the mesh.
Units:
mm, ms, g, N, MPa
The material used follows a linear elastic behavior with the following characteristics:
Poisson ratio: 0.3

Four different types of mesh are used:
Mesh 1: two quadrilateral shells and four triangular shells (2Q4-4T3)
Mesh 2: four quadrilateral shells (4Q4)
Mesh 3: eight triangular shells (8T3)
Mesh 4: eight triangular shells (8T3 inverse)
561

Altair Engineering
For each model, the following shell formulations are tested:

QBAT formulation (Ishell =12)
QEPH formulation (Ishell =24)
Belytshcko & Tsay formulation (Ishell =1 or 3, hourglass control type 1, 3)
C0 and DKT18 formulations
Fig 2: Square plate meshes.

The boundary conditions are such that the three nodes of a single side and the two middle
ones are blocked, while the others are free with respect to the Y axis.
Two concentrated loads are applied on the corner points of the opposite side. They increase
over time as defined by the following function:
F(t)
10
10
200
400
Altair Engineering

562
Fig 3: Boundary conditions and loads.

The purpose of this example is to compare several models concerning:
the use of different element formulations for each mesh
the different types of mesh for a given element formulation
Two criteria used to compare the results are:
absorbed energy (internal and hourglass)
vertical displacement of the node under the loading point
The following diagrams summarize the results obtained.
563

Altair Engineering
Energy Curves / Comparison for Element Formulations

Mesh 1: 2Q4-4T3
Fig 4: Internal energy for 2 x Q4 and 4 x T3 elements.
Mesh 2: 4Q4
Fig 5: Internal energy for 4 x Q4 elements
Altair Engineering

564
Meshes 3 and 4: 8T3 and 8T3_INV
Fig 6: Internal energy for 8 x T3 elements.
Energy Curves / Comparison for Mesh Definitions
Fig 7: Internal energy for different meshes.
565

Altair Engineering
Fig 8: Hourglass energy for different meshes.
Displacement and Maximum Energy Comparison

2 Q4- 4 T3
4 Q4
8 T3
BT_TY BT_TY
BT_TY BT_TY
BATOZ QEPH
BATOZ
PE1
PE4
PE1
PE4
DKT
IEmax 2.74x1 2.35x1 2.37x1 7.21x1 3.64x1 2.93x1 2.97x1 2.30x1
1.37
QEPH
0-2
HEmax
---
0-2
0-2
1.01x1 1.03x1
0-4
0-2
0-2
---
---
0-4
0-2
0-2
1.94x1 1.98x1
0-4
C0
8 T3 Inverse
DKT
C0
1.69x1 1.37x1 1.69x1
0-2
x10-1
0-2
0-1
0-2
---
---
---
---
---
0-6
DZmax 1.75x1 1.78x1 1.78x1 1.21x1 2.42x1 2.95x1 2.97x1 2.30x1 1.44x1 1.69x1 1.44x1 1.69x1
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-2
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-2
0-3
0-2
0-3
Conclusion
A square plate under torsion is a severe test to study the behavior of shell elements in
torsion-bending. A general overview of the results obtained highlight the following key
points:
For the 4Q4 mesh, the results obtained using QBATOZ and QEPH are similar. BT
elements are too flexible and are not significantly influenced by the hourglass
formulation, due to the in-plane mesh.
For triangular meshes, the DKT element is able to bend much better, the co-element
being too stiff.
The mesh with both Q4 and T3 elements may not comment like the other two, as one
part uses the triangle elements employed in RADIOSS.
Altair Engineering

566
18.2 - Square Membrane Elastic
Title
Square membrane
elastic
Number
18.2
Brief Description
Square plate submitted to two opposing in-plane end forces.
Keywords
Q4 shells
T3 shells
RADIOSS Options
Input File
4Q4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/
Membrane_elastic/4Q4/.../TRACTION*
8T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/
Membrane_elastic/8T3/.../TRACTION*
Membrane_elastic/8T3_inv/.../TRACTION*
Membrane_elastic/2Q4-4T3/.../TRACTION*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Beginner
567

Altair Engineering
Overview
This example concerns the in-plane traction-comparison problem of an embedded plate
subjected to two concentrated loads, as shown in the following diagram. The purpose of this
example is to illustrate the role of the different shell element formulations with regard to the
mesh.
Units:
mm, ms, g, N, MPa
The material used follows a linear elastic behavior and has the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.8 x 10-3 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3

Four different types of mesh are used:
Altair Engineering

568
For each model, the following shell formulations are tested:

C0 and DKT18 formulations

ones are blocked, whereas the others are free with respect to the Y axis.
Two concentrated loads are applied on the corner points on opposing sides. They increase
over time, as defined by the following function:
569
F(t)
10
10
200
400

Altair Engineering
Simulation Results
Altair Engineering

570

Mesh 1: 2Q4-4T3
Fig 13: Y Displacement for 2 x Q4 and 4 x T3 elements
571

Altair Engineering
Mesh 2: 4Q4
Fig 14: Internal energy for 4 x Q4 elements.
Energy Curves / Comparison for Mesh Definitions
Altair Engineering

572

2Q4-4T3
Elastic
Plate
QEPH
BT_TYPE 1
BATOZ
and 3
IEmax
1.07 x
10-2
1.19 x
10-2
HEmax
---
2.10 x
10-5
Dymax
1.18 x
10-3
1.38 x
10-3
(Traction)
(Traction)
573
4Q4
QEPH
8T3
BT_TYPE 1
BATOZ
and 3
DKT
8T3_INV
CO
DKT
CO
1.07 x 1.24 x 1.44 x 10- 1.24 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x

2
10-2
10-2
10-2 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3
---
---
3.49 x 106
---
---
---
---
---
1.18 x 1.24 x 1.44 x 10- 1.24 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x

3
10-3
10-3
10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3
(Tractio
n)

Altair Engineering
Conclusion
In the case of elastic flat plate modeling, when the loading is in-plane, the shell elements are
reduced to become a membrane if the loads applied do not cause buckling.
A general overview of the results obtained highlight the following key points:
1. The quadrilateral shell elements QEPH and QBAT have the same in-plane behavior.
2. The different types of hourglass formulations in the BT shell elements lead to the same
results, as there is no out-of-plane deformation and the material is supposed to be elastic.
3. The three in-plane behaviors of the DKT18 and T3C0 RADIOSS triangles are exactly the
same, as both of the elements are used for the same membrane formulation.
4. The triangles are stiffer than the quadrilateral elements and do not provide good results,
especially when the mesh is coarse.
Refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual for more details.
Altair Engineering

574
18.3 - Square Membrane Elasto-Plastic
Title
Square membrane
elasto-plastic
Number
18.3
Brief Description
Square plate submitted to two opposing in-plane end forces.
Keywords
Q4 shells
T3 shells
RADIOSS Options
Input File
4Q4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/
Membrane_elasto-plastic/4Q4/.../TRACTION*
8T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/
Membrane_elasto-plastic/8T3/.../TRACTION*
Membrane_elasto-plastic/8T3_inv/.../TRACTION*
Membrane_elasto-plastic/2Q4-4T3/.../TRACTION*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Beginner
575

Altair Engineering
Overview
This example concerns the torsion problem of an embedded plate subjected to two
concentrated loads, as shown in the following diagram. The purpose of this example is to
illustrate the role of different shell element formulations with regard to the mesh.
Units:
mm, ms, g, N, MPa
The material used follows an isotropic elasto-plastic behavior with the Johnson-Cook
plasticity model (/MAT/LAW2), with the following characteristics:
Initial density: 0.0078 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3

Four shells are modeled with different types of mesh:
Altair Engineering

576
For each model, the following element formulation is tested:

C0 and DKT18 formulation

ones are blocked, while the others are free with respect to the Y axis.
Two concentrated loads are applied on the corner points of the opposite side. They increase
over time, as defined by the following function:
577
F(t)
10
10
200
400

Altair Engineering
Simulation Results
Altair Engineering

578

Mesh 1: 2Q4-4T3
Fig 21: Hourglass energy for 2 x Q4 and 4 x T3 elements.
579

Altair Engineering
Fig 22: Force for 4 x Q4 elements.
Mesh 2: 4Q4
Fig 23: Internal energy for 4 x Q4 elements.
Altair Engineering

580
Fig 24: Hourglass energy for 4 x Q4 elements.
Fig 25: Total energy for 4 x Q4 elements.
581

Altair Engineering
Fig 26: Force for 4 x Q4 elements.
Fig 27: Internal energy for 8 x T3 elements.
Fig 28: Force for 8 x T3 elements.
Altair Engineering

582
Mesh 4: 8T3_INV
Fig 29: Internal energy for 8 x T3 elements (inversed mesh).
Fig 30: Force for 8 x T3 elements (inversed mesh).
583

Altair Engineering
Comparison for Different Meshes
Altair Engineering

584
Fig 33: Force for different meshes.
585

Altair Engineering
Conclusion
The purpose of this example was to highlight the role of the elasto-plastic treatment when
formulating RADIOSS shells. The in-plane plasticity was considered here. Regarding the
applied boundary conditions and the Poisson effect on the plate, the test may be very severe
with respect to the behavior of plastic in under-integrated elements.
In the case of a mesh with four quadrilaterals, the QBAT element always provides the best
results as it allows four integration points to be put over the element. The plasticity
computation over the integration points is thus more accurate. The under-integrated
elements, having just one integration point at the center, allows only two integration points
to be put through the width of the mesh. Another point concerns the role of Poissons ratio in
the plasticity computation. In fact, the QEPH element uses an analytical expression of the
hourglass energy which takes into account the accurate expression in terms of the Poisson
ratio (refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual for further information). However, some
approximations are induced in its elasto-plastic formulation, possibly influencing the results,
especially for low levels of work-hardening. In the BT element formulation with a type 3
hourglass control, the Poisson ratio effect on the plastic part of the hourglass deformation is
computed by a simplified expression which minimizes its role. In fact, the results obtained
using BT_TYPE3 are slightly affected by the change in (use =0 for the example studied
and compare the results obtained). The BT elements are generally more flexible and provide
better results for a very coarse mesh.
For triangular meshes, the in-plane behavior of DKT18 should be noted as being the same as
the T3C0 element. In fact, the elements are essentially different with respect to their bending
behaviors.
When combining the T3 and Q4 elements, the results generally come between a uniform
triangular mesh and a quadrangular mesh.
Altair Engineering

586
Example 19 - Wave Propagation
Summary
Elastic shock wave propagation on a half-space is studied using two different approaches:
Lagrangian formulation
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) formulation
The simulation results are compared with an analytical solution. A bi-dimensional problem is
considered.
The domain subjected to the vertical impulse load undergoes an elastic material law process.
The generated shock wave is composed of a longitudinal wave and a shear wave. Results are
indicated in 0.77 ms, for which the longitudinal wave is predicted to reach the lower
boundary of the domain. In order to ensure an accurate wave expansion, an infinite domain
is modeled using a silent boundary material law available in the ALE formulation.
587

Altair Engineering
Title
Lagrangian
Number
19.1
Brief Description
Elastic wave propagation on a half-space subjected to a vertically-distributed load.
Keywords
Bi-dimensional analysis, quad and general solid
Impulse load, shock wave propagation, longitudinal and shear waves
ALE and Lagrangian modeling
Bound silent material and infinite domain
RADIOSS Options
Bi-dimensional analysis (/ANALY)
Function (/FUNCT)
Bound silent material law 11 (/MAT/BOUND)
Lagrangian vs. ALE modeling / Analytical solution
Input File
Lagrangian modeling: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/19_Wave_propagation/Lagrangian_formulation/WAVE*
ALE modeling: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/19_Wave_propagation/
ALE_formulation/WAVE*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Medium
Altair Engineering

588
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to study wave propagation through a bi-dimensional domain.
Two analyses are performed using:
a Lagrangian formulation
an ALE (Arbitrary Langrangian Eulerian) formulation
The simulation results are compared to an analytical solution.
A half-space is subjected to a vertical load distributed over a varied time span and creating
wave propagation in the domain. The dimensions of the model are 8 m x 4.76 m and the
impulse load is applied over a 1 m-width zone.
Units: m, s, Kg, N, Pa.
The material used follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and has the following
characteristics:
Initial density: 2842 kg.m-3
Youngs modulus: 73 GPa
Poisson ratio: 0.33
The expansion process of the shock wave is comprised of the longitudinal and shear waves.
Based on these material properties, the propagation speed of longitudinal waves in the
material correspond to 6169.1 m.s-1 and 3107.5 m.s-1 for shear waves. Thus, the
longitudinal waves should reach the lower boundary of the domain in about 0.77 ms.
The wave pattern caused by a distributed load is shown in Fig 2.
589

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Longitudinal and shear waves comprising the wave pattern.
The impulse load is described by the sinusoidal function: F(t) = sin(2 * 105t) GPa

The part is modeled using a regular mesh with 19080 QUAD elements (44.9 mm x 44.4 mm
with lc =63.15 mm).
Fig 3: Mesh of the bi-dimensional domain.

A bi-dimensional problem is considered. The flag N2D3D defined in /ANALY is set to 2. The 2D
analysis defines the X-axis as the plane strain direction.
The applied vertical pulse is a concentrated load (/CLOAD) in the form of a sinusoidal
function having an amplitude F = 1 GPa and a time period of T = 2 x E-5 s.
Altair Engineering

590
Fig 4: Variation of the impulse load over time.
Specific Options for the Lagrangian Modeling

Boundary conditions: Three sides of the model are fixed in terms of translation.
Fig 5: Fixed sides.
The limitation of this approach is the reflection on the domains boundaries. Simulation
results are shown for the point in time prior to the shock hitting the low side (< 0.77 ms).
Specific Options for the ALE Modeling
Silent boundary: The mesh includes quiet boundary elements to model the infinite domain.
These elements minimize the reflection of the propagating waves. The material used for
these elements follow a bound silent material law 11 (type 3) as a silent boundary, and has
the following characteristics:
Initial density: 2842 kg.m3
Characteristic length: 0.0632m
591

Altair Engineering
Fig 6: Infinite domain modeled by the silent boundary material law 11 (type 3).
ALE material: The materials have to be declared ALE using /ALE/MAT in the input desk.

Comparison of Lagrangian and ALE Results with the Analytical Solution
Figures 7 and 8 represent the von Mises stress wave propagation and the velocities at t=0.77
ms.
Fig 7: von Mises isovalues at t=0.77 ms.
Altair Engineering

592
Fig 8: Velocity isovalues at t=0.77 ms.
The shock wave propagation is well predicted. Simulation results obtained at t=0.77ms
corroborate the analytical solution: Longitudinal and shear waves.
Lagrangian Results
Wave Pattern
The wave pattern produced by the distributed load shown previously can be identified in the
deformed configuration when the longitudinal wave reaches the lower boundary of the mesh.
Fig 9: Wave pattern in domain at t=0.77 ms.
Vertical Displacement
The graphs below shows the vertical displacement (DZ) of three nodes respectively
positioned at 0 m, 3.2 m and 4.75 m under the edge of the distributed load.
593

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: Nodes saved in Time History.
Figure 11 shows the vertical displacement of Node 0. The beginning of the wave propagation
can be seen during the time [0; 1.35e-04]. Note that the response after the end of the
application force [1.35e-04; 4e-04] is due to the shear wave.
Fig 11: Z-displacement of "Node 0".
The vertical response of Node 1 shows that the longitudinal wave reaches it in 0.47 ms (Fig
12). The reflection can be seen after 0.97 ms. Note that the shear wave does not appear
because its motion is in the horizontal direction.
Altair Engineering

594
Fig 12: Z-displacement of "Node 1".
The displacement of Node 2 placed at the other extremity of the pattern, shows that the
longitudinal wave crosses the model in 0.7 ms, in accordance with the analytical results.
Fig 13: Z-displacement of "node 2".
Horizontal Displacement
Figure 14 shows the horizontal displacement of Node 1 (placed 3.2 m below the load
surface). The horizontal component of the longitudinal wave reaches the node in 0.49 ms,
while the shear wave arrives at 1.1 ms. Any response after this time results from the
different reflections of the longitudinal and shear waves.
595

Altair Engineering
Fig 14: Y-displacement of "node 0".
Fig 15: Global energy assessment.
ALE Results
The wave pattern produced by a distributed load can be identified in the deformed
configuration by displaying the pressure. The grid is fixed and nodal displacements are equal
to zero. The following figure shows propagation when the longitudinal wave reaches the lower
boundary of the mesh.
Altair Engineering

596
Fig 16: Pressure isovalues at time t=0.77 ms.
Conclusion
The wave propagation in a finite domain is studied using Lagrangian and ALE approaches.
The Lagrangian formulation does not allow an infinite domain to be defined. Reflections of the
longitudinal and shear waves against boundaries restrict simulation in terms of time (t <
0.77 ms). The ALE approach allows you to model an infinite domain by defining the silent
boundary material (Law 11 - type 3) on the limits. Such specific modeling minimizes the
reflection of the expansion wave.
The bi-dimensional analysis illustrates a planar propagation. An accurate representation of
the wave pattern is obtained and the simulation results are in a closed agreement with the
analytical solution.
597

Altair Engineering
Example 20 - Cube
Summary
The fall of a dropping ice cube on two sloped beams is studied here to illustrate the use of an
explicit time integration scheme in resolving a transient dynamic analysis with free
deformable flying objects. The impact and the rebound are modeled easily using various
types of RADIOSS contact algorithms. Due to the rotary motion of the ice cube, a corotational solid formulation is required.
Altair Engineering

598
Title
Cube
Number
20.1
Brief Description
Ice cube dropping on two sliding channels.
Keywords
Brick elements and 16-node shell elements
Co-rotational formulation
RADIOSS Options
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7) and type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16)
Function (/FUNCT)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Input File
Model: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/20_Cube/CUBE*
RADIOSS Version
44s
Beginner
599

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
This problem demonstrates comparing two interfaces which allows a sliding contact between
an ice cube and the steel beams to be modeled.
The cube is submitted to gravity and slides on inclined fixed beams and is collected in a cup.
The width of the cube is 30 mm and the dimensions of the beams are 40 x 30 x 500 mm.
The material used for the cube is ice and has a linear elastic behavior (/MAT/LAW1), with the
following characteristics:
Initial density: 916 Kg/m3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
The material used for the beams and the cup is steel and follows an isotropic elasto-plastic
material (/MAT/LAW2) with the Johnson-Cook plasticity model, having the following
characteristics:
Initial density: 7800 kg/m3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Units: m, s, Kg, N, Pa
Fig 1: Overview of the problem.
Altair Engineering

600

Contact between the ice cube and the first beam is modeled using a type 16 interface.
Contact between the ice cube and the second beam is modeled using a type 7 interface. A
type 7 interface defines contact between the ice cube and the cup.
The first beam is modeled using twelve 16-node thick shell elements.
The second beam is modeled using twelve 8-node brick elements.
The ice cube is modeled using 8-node brick elements having a co-rotational solid
formulation.
The cup is modeled with twelve standard shell elements.
The ice cube nodes are constrained in the Y translation and rotation is around the X-Z
axis.
The lower nodes of the beams are constrained in all directions.
The cup is constrained in all directions.
Load:
A gravity load (g = 9.81 m/s2) in the Z-direction is applied on the ice cubes nodes.
Interface:
The type 16 interface is used by deactivating the "tied" option, which enables a sliding
contact to be modeled. Ice cube nodes are slave and the upper surface of the beam
defines the master surface.
The type 7 interface between the ice cube and the second beam uses the Penalty
method, with an initial gap of 1.5 mm. Ice cube nodes are slave and the master surface
is defined using the upper surface of the beams. Friction is not taken into account.
The type 7 interface between the ice cube and the cup uses the same parameters as
those defined above. Ice cube nodes are slave and the cup defines the master surface.
601
Interfaces.

Altair Engineering

The results below represent the trajectory of the ice cube and the cubes reaction forces on
the channels. The ice cube trajectory is obtained using a post-processing option, which
enables to draw the trajectory of a picked node (here the center ice cube node) throughout
simulation.
Fig 3: Trajectory of the ice cube.
Fig 4: Reaction forces of the ice cube on channels.
Conclusion
This demonstrative example illustrated the capacity of RADIOSS to simulate sliding contacts,
either using a Lagrangian (type 16 interface) or a Penalty method (type 7 interface).
Altair Engineering

602
The co-rotational solid formulation is essential in this case, taking into account the ice cubes
rotary motion.
603

Altair Engineering
Example 21 - Cam
Summary
A cam can be considered as a device that translates motion from circular to linear. The
camshaft of a car takes the rotary motion of the engine and translates it into the linear
motion required for operating the intake and exhaust valves.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the capacity of RADIOSS to simulate the dynamic
behavior and the kinematic motion of a cam-valve system. The smooth motion of the valve
can be simulated using an adequate and accurate contact model having contact algorithms
with quadratic surfaces and without gaps.
Altair Engineering

604
Title
Cam
Number
21.1
Brief Description
The modeling of a camshaft, which takes the engines rotary motion and translates it into
linear motion for operating the intake and exhaust valves, is studied.
Keywords
Penalty/Lagrangian contact, type 7 interface, and type 16 interface
Linear/quadratic elements and quadratic surface contact
RADIOSS Options
BRIC20 elements (/BRIC20)
SHEL16 elements (/SHEL16)
Initial velocities around axis (/INIVEL/AXIS)
Spring element (/PROP/SPRING)
Type 16 interface (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 7 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE7)
Input File
Interface 16:
Fine mesh: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface16/
fine_mesh/I16S16FM*
Coarse mesh: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface16/
coarse_mesh/I16S16CM*
Interface 7:
Penalty method: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/
penalty/slave_cam/I7PMCAM*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/penalty/
slave_valve/I7PMVALVE*
Lagrange multipliers: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/
interface7/lagrange/slave_cam/I7LMCAM*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/lagrange/
slave_valve/I7LMVALVE*
Friction: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/
friction/I7PFMCAM*
RADIOSS Version
As of 51e
Medium
605

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
Modeling a contact between a plane and a curved surface uses a faceted curved surface. Two
interfaces (interfaces 7 and 16), which are compatible with the geometry of the problem and
the faceting, are described and compared.
This problem demonstrates a cam rotating with an angular velocity of 314 rad/s, which
interacts and triggers off the translation of a valve tied to two springs. The superposed
springs have varying stiffness (spring 1: 30000 N/m and spring 2: 15000 N/m). The springs
control the higher and lower rotary frequencies.
The cam is 36 mm in length, having a maximum width of 14 mm and a thickness of 18
mm.
The valve is 44 mm in diameter with a thickness of 3 mm (Fig 1).
The spring is 40 mm in length.
The following system is used: mm, s, kg, mN , KPa.
The material used for the cam and the valve is steel. It is characterized by the isotropic
elasto-plastic material (/MAT/LAW2) and the Johnson-Cook plasticity model, with the
following properties:
Initial density: 7.8 x 10-06 Mkg/l
Young modulus: 2.1 x 10+08 KPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Yield stress: 20000 KPa
Hardening parameter: 40000 KPa
Altair Engineering

606

The problem raised in this example is the modeling of an interface between a plane and a
curved surface. In this case, using quadratic elements is the most appropriate. Two interfaces
are compared.
A type 16 interface with 16-node shell elements for both the valve and the cam should be
chosen first for the modeling. 20-node brick elements are used for the mesh inside the cam
(Fig 2).
Fig 2: BRIC20 and SHEL16 mesh.
Another model using linear elements is studied. Contact between the cam and valve is
defined by a type 7 interface. In order to satisfy the closed contact between parts, the
Lagrange Multipliers method is selected.
Fig 3: BRICK elements mesh.
The springs are modeled using RADIOSS type 4 springs. The stiffness is linear and defined by
the following functions. Damping is neglected.
l-l0 (mm)
-40
50
Fspring 1 (mN)
-1.5 e+06
-0.3 e+06
1.2 e+06
Fspring 2 (mN)
-0.75 e+06
-0.15 e+06
0.6 e+06
607

Altair Engineering

Rigid bodies:
In order to apply a constant angular velocity to the cam, a rigid body is created over
the internal nodes, as shown in Fig 4. The master node is moved to the camshaft axis.
To attach the valve head to the spring, another rigid body is created to distribute the
internal spring force over several nodes.
Fig 4: Rigid body cam
- Master node of the cam is blocked, except when rotating around Y.
- Master node of the valve is blocked, except when translating around Z.
- One extremity of the spring is fixed to the valve, while the other is blocked.
Fig 5: Boundary condition on valve.
Altair Engineering

608
Imposed velocity:
A rotational velocity of 314 rad/s is imposed on the master node of the rigid body. This
velocity is activated by a temporal sensor, with a short activation delay (Tdelay
=0.0002s). This sensor is necessary to avoid applying the initial and imposed velocities
at the same time.
Fig 6: Imposed velocity.
Initial velocity:
An initial rotational velocity is applied to all the cams nodes, including the master node
of the rigid body. This option is available as of RADIOSS V51. You must define the
origin (center of rotation) and the orientation vector.
Fig 7: Initial velocity.
Interfaces:
The type 16 interface simulates a contact between a quadratic master surface and a
group of nodes. In the case of contact between a curved and a plane surface, the
curved surface is defined as the master surface and the nodes of the plane part are
slave.
609

Altair Engineering
Fig 8: Interface 16.
The type 7 interface works either with Penalty or with Lagrange multipliers. In its basic
formulation, the interface simulates contact between two facetisated surfaces. The use of
the Lagrange Multipliers method enables to precisely satisfy the kinematic contact without
introducing a gap.
Fig 9: Interface 7.

We are, at first, interested by the kinematics of the problem. The results obtained for velocity
and acceleration at the master node of the rigid bodys valve are thus compared.
The graphs in Fig 10 provide the velocity of the valves master node when a type 7 interface
is used with the Penalty method. The raw results obtained are noisy due to the fact that the
Penalty method applies discontinued forces. The smooth velocity curve is obtained by using a
low pass CFC 180 (3db) filter. Figure 11 shows the acceleration of the same master point.
Altair Engineering

610
Fig 10: Vertical velocity of the master node valve for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
Attention should be paid to the use of filters. The filtered curves are in fact generally
affected by a border effect. Filtering induces an error in the beginning and end parts of the
curves (for this example, take the intervals of 0 < t < 0.002 and 0.038 < t < 0.04).
Fig 11: Vertical acceleration of the master node valve for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
The filtering quality depends on the number of samples which, in this case is the number of
points computed by RADIOSS for each curve. Therefore, a low value for the /TFILE parameter
in the D01 file is used to obtain good results, especially for the acceleration curve.
In the following sections, only the filtered curves are represented in order to the compare
different models.
Comparison of Interfaces
Figures 12 and 13 represent velocity and acceleration curves for a model using a type 7
interface with the Penalty method. As for the master and slave part definition, the results are
slightly different.
Figures 14 and 15 give velocity and acceleration curves for type 7 interface using the
Lagrange Multipliers method.
611

Altair Engineering
Fig 12: Vertical velocity of the valves master node for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
Fig 13: Vertical acceleration of the valves master node for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
For both Figures 12 and 13, the model using slave nodes on the cam and a master surface on
the valve seems to be the most realistic.
Fig 14: Vertical velocity of the valves master node for a type 7 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method.
Altair Engineering

612
Fig 15: Vertical acceleration of the valves master node for a type 7 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers
method.
Even if using a type 7 interface with the Penalty or the Lagrange Multipliers method good
results can be achieved, a quadratic mesh with the type 16 interface will enable the reduction
of oscillations, due to facetisation.
Figures 16 and 17 compare the results for models using type 7 and 16 interfaces.
Fig 16: Vertical velocity of the valves master node.
613

Altair Engineering
Fig 17: Vertical acceleration of the valves master node.
Comparison of Meshes
Considering a contact modeled with a type 16 interface, the influence of the mesh density is
studied using two relatively coarse and fine meshes
Fine mesh: Cam:
Valve:
200 external SHEL16 elements, 250 internal BRIC20

elements
88 SHEL16 elements
Coarse
mesh:
40 SHEL16 elements
12 SHEL16 elements
Cam:
Valve:
Fig 18: Vertical velocity of the valves master node.
Altair Engineering

614
Fig 19: Vertical acceleration of the valves master node.
Although the coarser mesh amplifies the facetisation of the curved surfaced, the mesh
density does not influence the results for velocity after filtering. However, the fine mesh
provides better results for acceleration, having limited parasite oscillations for each node/
surface contact.
Friction
An option in interface 7 using the Penalty method allows you to add friction to the model.
Several friction models are available. The Coulomb friction model is used here. A comparison
is made between models with and without friction.
Fig 20: Type 7 interface using Penalty and friction.
615

Altair Engineering
Fig 21: Vertical velocity of the valves master node for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
Fig 22: Vertical acceleration of the valves master node for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
Comparison of the CPU and Time Step

Simulation
CPU
(normalized)
Time Step
Type 16 interface with fine mesh
22,50
0.8365x10-7
Type 16 interface with coarse mesh
0.207x10-6
Type 7 interface with Penalty method

(slave nodes on cam and master surface on
valve)
1.65
0.2133x10-6
Type 7 interface with penalty method

(slave nodes on valve and master surface on
cam)
1.75
0.2117x10-6
Type 7 interface with Lagrange multipliers

method
1.68
0.2133x10-6
Altair Engineering

616
CPU
(normalized)
Time Step
Type 7 interface with Lagrange multipliers

method
cam)
1.69
0.2126x10-6
Type 7 interface with Penalty method and

friction
valve)
1.66
0.2133x10-6
Type 7 interface with Penalty method and

friction
cam)
1.65
0.2126x10-6
Simulation
valve)
Conclusion
This example illustrated the ability of RADIOSS to model mechanisms, particularly in the case
of this contact mechanism. Interface types 16 and 7 can be used to model contact between
plane and curved surfaces. The type 16 interface enables you to simulate contact between
quadratic surfaces without using a gap and provides accurate results within a reasonable
computation time. The type 7 interface allows a frictional modeling of the contact, needing
little computation time and provides good simulation results.
617

Altair Engineering
Example 22 - Ditching
Summary
The ditching of a specimen into a pool of water is studied using SPH and CEL approaches. The
simulation results are compared to the experimental data and to the analytical results.
Furthermore, the study is performed using different impact velocities. The specimen is
modeled using a triangular section. In the first approach, a SPH model is used for water. This
example deals with the problem of an interface definition between the two parts. First, the
SPH boundary and type 7 interface are used. Moreover, the specimen undergoes a linear
elastic law; the water being defined by the hydrodynamic viscous fluid law 6. The results are
compared with regard to the pressure and acceleration outputs. The OUTLET boundary
conditions provide appropriate results. In the second approach, the water is modeled with an
ALE mesh while the structure is Lagrangian. The interface type 18 is used to treat the fluidstructure interactions. The results compared to Von Karman theory, illustrate the robustness
and stability of the CEL method.
Altair Engineering

618
22.1 - Ditching using SPH

Title
Ditching using SPH
Number
22.1
Brief Description
Impact of a simple specimen on water.
Keywords
SPH modeling and hexagonal net
Hydrodynamic viscous fluid law (/MAT/LAW6) and impact on water modeling
Type 7 interface
RADIOSS Options
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Accelerometer (/ACCEL)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Interface (/INTER)
SPH outlet (/SPH/INOUT)
Experimental data provided by Politecnico di Milano (Polytechnic University of Milan)
[1]
Analytic solution proposed by Von Karman [2]
Input File
Impact_velocity=3.5m/s: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/22_Ditching/Impact_velocity_35/SPHEX351*
Impact_velocity=6.8m/s: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/
Impact_velocity_68/SPHEX681*
Impact_velocity=11m/s: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/
Impact_velocity_110/SPHEX110*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Skilled
619

Altair Engineering
Overview
The problem consists of a simple specimen falling into water simulating the ditching of a
helicopter.
Units: mm, ms, N, MPa, g.
Impact of a triangular section specimen on water is performed and the results are compared
qualitatively [2], also using the experimental data obtained from the Politecnico di Milano
[1].
The computation is performed using several impact velocities: 3.5 m/s, 6.8 m/s and 11 m/s.
The material used for the specimen follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) with the
Initial density: 7.8 x 10-3 g.mm-3
Reference density: 7.8 x 10-3 g.mm-3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
The material law for water is a hydrodynamic viscous fluid law (/MAT/LAW6) with the
Initial density: 1 x 10-3 g.mm-3
C3: 7324 MPa
Reference density: 1 x 10-3 g.mm-3
Pressure cutoff: -0.1 MPa
Kinematic viscosity: 0
Pressure shift: 0 MPa
C0: 0 MPa
C4: 0 MPa
C1: 2199 MPa
C5: 0 MPa
C2: 5351 MPa
Initial energy / unit of volume: 0 mJ/mm3
Altair Engineering

620

The specimen is modeled using shell elements with an average mesh size of 15 x 15 mm2.
The water is modeled using SPH particles having a hexagonal compact net with a smoothing
length "ho" equal to 28.2843 mm. Each particle of the net represents a volume equal to 16
mm3 and weighs 16 g. This part uses 36075 SPH cells.
The size of the water block is adapted to the shape of the specimen for the purpose of
reducing the models size and the simulations CPU time.
Rigid body:
The specimen is modeled using a rigid body, and a mass of 23042.2 kg is added to the
rigid bodys master node (ID: 287002).
Initial velocity:
An initial velocity, in accordance with the Z-axis, is set on the rigid bodys master node
and its value is set successively at 3.5 m/s, 6.8 m/s and 11 m/s.
Gravity:
A gravity load gz = -9.81 m.s-2 is applied to the specimen.
621

Altair Engineering
Accelerometer:
An accelerometer is set on the rigid bodys master node.
SPH outlet:
The parallelepiped water mesh is surrounded on five faces by Outlet SPH boundary
frontier absorbing conditions. A control surface is placed at a distance equal to 2 x ho
inside the water. This surface shown in green on Fig 2, is oriented so that its normal
vector points face the interior of the domain. On this outlet surface, specific silent
boundary conditions are applied to the SPH cells.
Interfaces:
One type of contact occurs in the simulation. Contact between the skin structure (shell
finite elements) and the water (SPH cells) is modeled using a sliding interface (type 7).
The gap between the surface skin and the SPH cells is equal to 1 mm. After
optimization, a scale factor on the Penalty stiffness interface equal to 0.1 is used for
controlling the interface forces between the rigid specimen and the water.
Fig 2: SPH outlet boundary conditions (green).
Altair Engineering

622

Output Pressure
The SPH module does not enable output pressure time history values; only the animation
values may be compared to the experimental data. Figures 3 and 4, show a variation in the
pressure when the wedge ditches into the SPH water, corresponding to an impact velocity of
6.8 m/s. In order to attain a representative pressure gradient, the pressure range has been
fixed at -0.01 MPa for the minimum value and 0.08 MPa for the maximum value. In
comparison to the experimental data, the pressure values are basically the same, the wave
propagation being well described.
Fig 3: Ditching simulation (from the beginning to 3 ms).
623

Altair Engineering
Fig 4: Ditching simulation (from 4 ms to 9 ms).
Output Acceleration
For the specimen, an accelerometer is set on the master node of the corresponding rigid
body. The acceleration values expressed in g units are compared to both the experimental
values [1] and the analytic solution proposed by Von Karman [2]. The signal is filtered using
a CFC 60 (-3db) filter frequency after calculation. The filtering reduces discrepancy between
the peaks.
The following diagrams indicate the time history acceleration results at the wedge specimens
rigid bodys master node for three cases of impact speed: 3.5, 6.8 and 11 m/s.
Altair Engineering

624
Fig 5: Deceleration of the wedge for an impact velocity of 3.5 m/s.
Fig 6: Deceleration of the wedge for an impact velocity of 6.7 m/s.
625

Altair Engineering
Fig 7: Deceleration of the wedge for an impact velocity of 11 m/s.
For these three cases, the SPH approach using the OUTLET SPH boundary conditions
indicates a good deceleration. For an impact velocity nearing the 8 m/s of the Helicopter
ditching configuration, the deceleration is in correlation with the experimental data [1] and
also with the analytic solution proposed by Von Karman [2].
Conclusion
The simulations show that the SPH approach using the OUTLET option developed in RADIOSS
V4.4, allows the ditching of simple specimens to be modeled without any numerical
problems.
The SPH and OUTLET results are very close to the experimental test results and also to the
analytical solution. In conclusion, to achieve ditching simulations with the correct results, it is
necessary to model the water block using the SPH method with the OUTLET boundary
conditions.
References
[1] CAST Deliverable 5.5.1 Generic Water Impact Tests performed at Politecnico di Milano
(Polytechnic University of Milan)
[2] Olivier Pastore Study and modelization of rigid bodies impact during sea landing phase;
Annex 1 Von Karman's Theoretical Models, T. Miloh et al. May.
Altair Engineering

626
22.2 - Ditching using CEL

Title
Ditching using CEL
Number
22.2
Brief Description
Impact of a simple specimen on water simulated by CEL approach.
Keywords
CEL modeling
Type 18 interface
RADIOSS Options
/MAT/ELAST
/ALE/DONEA
/UPWIND
/MAT/BIPHAS
/ALE/MAT
/INTER/TYPE18
Experimental data provided by Politecnico di Milano (Polytechnic University of Milan)
[1]
Analytic solution proposed by Von Karman [2]
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_CEL/ALE37-15*
RADIOSS Version
51h
Skilled
627

Altair Engineering
Overview
The problem consists of a simple specimen falling into water simulating the ditching of a
helicopter.
Units: mm, ms, N, MPa, g.
Impact of a triangular section specimen on water is performed and the results are compared
qualitatively [2], also using the experimental data obtained from the Politechnico di Milano
[1].
The computation is performed using several impact velocities of 3.5 and 11 m/s.
The material used for the specimen follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) with the
Initial density: 7.8 x 10-3 g.mm-3
Reference density: 7.8 x 10-3 g.mm-3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
The material law for water is BIPHAS law (/MAT/LAW37) with the following characteristics:
Altair Engineering

628

The specimen is modeled using shell elements with an average mesh size of 15 x 15 mm2.
In order to simplify the computation, it is put in a rigid body with an accelerometer on the
master node.
The water is modeled using 15x15x15 mm mesh with a total of 166023 elements. The
material law BIPHAS (/MAT/LAW37) is used.
The air is modeled using a BIPHAS material with the following characteristics:
#
Init. dens.
1.22E-9
#
RHO_L
LAMBDA_ON_RHO_L
1e-6
0
#
RHO_G
LAMBDA_ON_RHO_G
1.22E-9
0
Ref. dens.
0
CL
ALPHA_L
NU_L
2.089
.00089
GAMMA
P0
NU_G
1.4
.1e-3
.014607
The boundary conditions are applied to the pool as following:

Z displacement component fixed for lower and upper faces
Y displacement component fixed for lateral faces normal to Y
X displacement component fixed for lateral faces normal to X
An interface type 18 is defined to manage the contact between the solid in Lagrangian mesh
(Prism) and the fluid (pool). The diedra is defined as master and the nodes in the pool (air
and water) as slave.
The interface type 18 forces are computed by Penalty method. The interface stiffness is
proportional to impact velocity. The results obtained by the CEL approach can be highly
dependent to the interface stiffness factor Stfac, which should be adjusted in function of size
of element and fluid properties.

The interface type 18 forces are computed by Penalty method. The forces are proportional to
the stiffness factor Stfac which should be calibrated. The following graph shows the
dependence of results (acceleration at the accelerometer) to the mesh and Stfac.
629

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Higher peak force with coarse mesh and interface stiffness dependence
Higher peak forces are obtained with the coarse mesh. That can be partially corrected by
filtering, as shown in Fig 3.
Fig 3: Filtering of results for coarse and fine meshes
Using a filter CFC 60, -3 dB, the simulation results of the CEL and SPH approaches are
compared to Von Karman theoretical solution and experimental measures in Fig 4.
Altair Engineering

630
Fig 4: Comparison between simulation results, theoretical solution and experimental measures (acceleration)
SPH and CEL approaches respectively give the maximum acceleration of 83g and 84g.
However, the Von Karman theory delivers 82g; with the maximum value by experience is
between 83g and 73g.
On the other hand, the duration for acceleration beyond 40g is respectively 7.9ms and 8.2ms
for SPH and CEL simulation methods, where the experience provides values between 7.5ms
and 8.5ms and the Von Karman theory provides 8 ms.
It is worthwhile to note that:
The computation time is similar for both SPH and CEL approaches.
Using a fine enough mesh both RADIOSS methods SPH and CEL provide satisfactory
results, compared to experience and analytical solution.
The CEL approach is more robust and stable when the SPH signal is highly vibrated.
The use of a coarse mesh in the CEL approach requires the interfaced stiffness
calibration.
References
[1] CAST Deliverable 5.5.1 Generic Water Impact Tests performed at Politecnico di Milano
(Polytechnic University of Milan).
[2] Olivier Pastore Study and modelization of rigid bodies impact during sea landing phase;
Annex 1 Von Karman's Theoretical Models, T. Miloh et al. May.
631

Altair Engineering
Example 23 - Brake
Summary
A frictional mechanism is studied, which consists of a brake system, defined by a disk
pinched between two pads. The main aspects of the model are the initial rotary motion of
the disk and the interface definition between the disk and the pads. Carefully watch the
accuracy of the simulation results compared to the analytical solution.
Altair Engineering

632
Title
Brake
Number
23.1
Brief Description
A brake system is simulated using a finite Lagrangian mesh element.
Keywords
Brick elements and HEPH formulation
Type 7 interface and friction
RADIOSS Options
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7)
Skew frame (/SKEW)
Function (/FUNCT)
Input File
Lagrangian_formulation: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/23_Brake/
Lagrangian_formulation/BRAKE2*
RADIOSS Version
44s
Advanced
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to highlight the capacity of RADIOSS to simulate frictional
mechanisms. The braking system retained consists of a disk pinched in between two pads.
633

Altair Engineering

A disk with a hole in the center rotates at 0 = 120 rad/s around its axis. It is subjected to
frictional contact using two small brake pads, placed on two faces.
Description of the disk:
Radius = 100 mm
Width = 50 mm
Thickness = 5 mm
Mass = 1 kg
Inertia = 0.57x10-2 kg/m2 (about its free rotation axis).
Description of the pads:
Length = 65 mm
Width = 28 mm
Thickness = 5 mm
A constant P = 300N pressure is applied on the back of each pad to push them against the
disk.
A Coulomb friction coefficient is assumed as being 0.15.
Units: m, s, kg
The material used for the disk follows an isotropic elasto-plastic law (/MAT/LAW2) using the
Johnson-Cook plasticity model, with the following characteristics:
Poisson ratio: 0.3
The material used for the pads follows a linear elastic law, with the following characteristics:
Altair Engineering

634

Poisson ratio: 0.3

The two parts are modeled using a regular mesh having 720 BRICK elements for the disk and
80 such elements for the pads. The HEPH formulation is used to describe the BRICK
elements.
Two steps are necessary to compute the model: The first 0.03 ms, an initial velocity is
applied to the disk. The second step, pressure is applied to the pads to push them onto the
disk.
Rigid bodies:
Two rigid bodies are created to put the disk into motion: the first (called RBODY1)
contains all the nodes of the disk, except those in the disks internal periphery, which
are contained in the second rigid body (called RBODY2). Both rigid bodies are activated
in the first step of computation; however, the first one (RBODY1) is deactivated in the
D02 file.
Two other rigid bodies are created to model the pads faces where concentrated loads
are applied.
Fig 2: Rigid bodies on the disk (RBODY1 on the left and RBODY2 on the right).
Fig 3: Rigid body on a pad.
635

Altair Engineering
For the disks rigid bodies, all d.o.f., except the rotation around Y are fixed. For the
pads rigid bodies, all d.o.f,; except translation around Y are fixed.
Load:
Two concentrated opposite forces are applied to the rigid bodies master nodes for the
pads.
Initial velocity:
An initial rotational velocity 0 = 120 rad/s is applied to the disks master nodes during
the first computation phase.

Angular Velocity of the Disk
The normal contact force between the pads and the disk is FN = 600N. Then the tangential
friction force on the surface of the disk is obtained at FT = 0.15 x FN = 90N. The torque
around the axis of the disk is T = r x FT = 7.1 Nm, with r = 0.0789 m, which corresponds to
the orthogonal projection on a radial axis with regard to the distance between the center of
the disk and the point of the pad where the load is applied. This leads to an angular
deceleration of =T / IR = 1246 rad/s2.
The necessary time to stop the disk can be computed as: t = 0 /
= 0.096 second.
The simulation by RADIOSS using the explicit solver allows similar results to be obtained, as
shown in the following diagrams. The following graph shows the time history for angular
velocity. The disk stops at t = 0.095 s, which corresponds to the analytical solution.
Fig 4: Angular velocity of the disk.
Altair Engineering

636
Rotation of the Disk

The following graph shows the total rotation of the disk, which rotates 5.65 rad before
stopping.
Fig 5: Total rotation of the disk.
Reaction Forces
Fig 6: Reaction forces.
The reaction forces value in Fig 6 is about 90 N, which corresponds to the analytical value.
637

Altair Engineering
Energies
The total energy remains constant during computation. After braking, the kinetics energy
decreases smoothly while the contact energy increases. There is no hourglass energy as a
HEPH solid element is used.
Fig 7: Energies.
Contact Forces
The following diagram presents the tangential contact forces for three consecutive moments.
Fig 8: Variation of X-component of tangential contact forces.
Conclusion
The accuracy of the results obtained, using the simulation and corresponding to the analytical
solution, proves that RADIOSS is able to simulate mechanisms, such as braking systems.
Altair Engineering

638
Example 24 - Laminating
Summary
The lamination of a metal strip under two rolling cylinders is studied. Several formulations
are compared. Large and small strain assumptions are respectively used. The influence of the
number of elements concerning the thickness of the metal strip, as well as element
formulation is discussed.
639

Altair Engineering
Title
Laminating
Number
24.1
Brief Description
Two rolling rigid cylinders squeeze a plate to laminate it.
Keywords
Brick element, solid formulation, co-rotational formulation, and fully-integrated
element
Constant pressure formulation and plasticity options
Large deformation / Small strain
RADIOSS Options
Constant time step (/DT/BRICK/CST)
Elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/PLAS_JOHNS)
General solid property (/PROP/SOLID)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Thickness: 2 elements: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/24_Laminating/Thickness/2_elements/ROLLING*
5 elements: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/Thickness/5_elements/ROLLING*
Formulation: Isolid=12: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/24_Laminating/Formulation/Isolid12/ROLLING*
Icpre=0: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/Formulation/Icpre0/ROLLING*
Icpre=1: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/Formulation/Icpre1/ROLLING*
Temperature: T=800C: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/24_Laminating/temperature/T=800/ROLLING*
T=1200C: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/temperature/T=1200/ROLLING*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Advanced
Altair Engineering

640
Overview
This analysis shows a phase of a rail rolling. A metal strip is successively passed through two
rollers aiming at reducing its thickness. Both rollers have a constant angular velocity of 6.85
rad/s, and the metal strip is dragged along a moving machine bed. This process may be
considered quasi-static and involves high deformation (mainly compression).
Both rollers and the metal strip are made of mild steel. They exhibit an isotropic elastoplastic behavior which can be modeled using the Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/LAW2):
Initial density: 7.8 x 103 Kg/m3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Note: Any temperature influence will not be taken into account. The problem is studied
using the following parameters:
Temperature exponent: 1
Melting temperature: 2073 K (around 1800C)
Specific heat at constant pressure: 460 J/Kg.K
Geometry: The metal strip has a cross-section of 80 x 20 mm and the rollers have a
radius of 100 mm. After the passage of the first roller, the thickness is reduced by 7
mm, then by another 5 mm after the second roller.
641

Altair Engineering

It is not necessary to pass many elements over the width of the metal strip, but rather to
obtain an accurate stress distribution over its thickness by passing a minimum of five
elements over the thickness of the metal strip. Depending on what is being looked for,
passing five elements over the thickness may seem like a lot. This issue should be discussed
in the early part of the analysis. Concerning the rollers as the elements is of first order, as it
is not easy to perfectly model the curvature. The mesh must be fine enough to estimate the
curvature with as much accuracy as possible, one element over the width being sufficient.
Some details are made: The moving machine bed is not modeled and all lower nodes of the
metal strip are constrained in the Z-direction. Moreover, an initial velocity is applied to the
metal strip to initiate contact with the first roller. Assuming there is a Coulomb friction
between the metal strip and the roller using a friction coefficient of 0.3, the metal strip is
then dragged by the roller.
Assuming the rollers are rigid, a constant angular velocity to the master nodes is applied.
As this process may be considered as a quasi-static one, the density is artificially increased
by a factor of 10000, that the density used is now 7.8 x 105 kg/mm3. Consequently, the time
step will be higher, and assuming the kinetic energy is negligible compared to the energy of
deformation, results will be correct.
Note: Density can be increased as long as dynamic effects are negligible.
The lower nodes of the metal strip are constrained in Z (to represent the moving
machine bed).
The master nodes of the rollers are constrained in all directions, except rotation around
the X-axis.
Imposed velocity:
A constant angular velocity around the X-axis is applied to both of the rollers master
nodes.
Initial velocity:
An initial velocity of 500 mm/s in the X-direction is applied to every node of the metal
strip.
Interfaces:
Contact between the metal strip and the rollers is modeled by a type 7 interface. The
master surface is defined by the external surface of the rollers, and the slave nodes by
the metal strip (/GRNOD/PART). Note that as there is only one element over the width
of the rollers, the previous interface does not need to be symmetrically arranged. The
gap is chosen arbitrarily at 1 mm.
Altair Engineering

642
Simulation Results
Number of Elements Over the Thickness
It was mentioned earlier that passing five elements over the thickness is a minimum; but
how was that number reached? It is not an easy question, this number depends on what is
being looked for. If interested in the stress distribution over the thickness, the higher the
better; thus the choice would be a trade-off between accuracy and the CPU time. Let's
compare the von Mises stress and the plastic strain for two elements over the thickness using
one integration point (Isolid =1) and five elements with 8 integration points (Isolid =12).
Table 1: Comparison between two and five elements.
Passing two elements over the thickness is definitely not enough to see the stress (or strain)
distribution; five elements though, seem to be enough. If the deformed shape is not smooth
and/or the gradient between the two elements is too high, consider refining the mesh;
however, this can be somewhat costly! Additionally, it takes 12 times longer to run the
model with five elements over the width.
What if the only interest is in the reaction force acting on the cylinder?
643

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Reaction forces acting on the cylinder.
The above graph indicates the reaction force on the first cylinder using two or five elements
over the thickness. Both curves are almost identical and, as mentioned previously, it takes
much more time to use five elements. Thus, in this case to save CPU time, there is no need
to use more than two elements.
Influence of the Small Strain Formulation
Usually for problems involving large deformations, a large strain formulation would be used.
In RADIOSS this is the default setting, but it is also possible to use a small strain
formulation. This formulation is not very accurate for large deformations, but it is more
robust and enables the time step to not decrease too much. Indeed, large deformation/
rotation problems may lead to mesh distortion which causes the time step to drop drastically;
computation may even stop due to a negative volume. The small strain formulation
overcomes all this by assuming a constant volume, consequently the time step becomes
constant, and even if the mesh is completely distorted, computation will not be stopped due
to the negative volume.
This formulation can be applied from t=0 by setting the flag Ismtr to 1, directly in the type of
a specific part. It is also possible to switch from a large strain formulation to a small strain
formulation during the simulation in order to prevent a negative volume and/or to maintain a
decent time step using the /DT/BRICK/CST option in the D01 Engine file having a critical time
step.
In this example the results between a full large strain formulation, a full small strain
formulation and a "mixed formulation using /DT/BRICK/CST are compared. Concerning the
average time step, it is 20% higher for a full small strain formulation and 3.5% higher for a
"mixed formulation in comparison to the default large strain formulation. Thus, there is a
significant gain in terms of CPU time using the small strain formulation. The deformed shape
is not good (see Table 2).
Altair Engineering

644
Table 2: Deformed shape.
Moreover, looking at the plastic strain, using a small strain formulation from t=0 leads to
major errors (see Table 3). First of all, the strain distribution is not well determined and most
importantly, the maximum is far too low, which means permanent deformation was underestimated.
645

Altair Engineering
Table 3: Deformed shape.
In such a case, it may be of interest to use the small strain formulation but only for a few
elements reaching a critical time step (using /DT/NODA/CST); as the time step will not stop,
due to one very distorted element. However, for accuracy reasons, the number of elements
switching to a small strain formulation should be checked, the lower the better.
The HA8 Formulation
An improved solid formulation, HA8 has been introduced in RADIOSS V44. This formulation
overcomes the drawbacks of the standard 8 integration points formulation (Isolid=12 or 112).
In particular, in the case of a pure bend, "shear-locking, which makes the standard
formulation rather stiffer, does not exist. It is also possible to use the small strain
formulation, which contrary to the 8 integration points formulation is not compatible. It is
now possible to use up to 9 integration points for each direction.
Depending on the value given for the Icpre flag, the HA8 formulation may use a reduced
pressure integration. In this part the influence of this flag on simulation will be investigated
in order to find out the most suitable value. Table 4 shows both the deformed shape and the
equivalent plastic strain for the different solid formulations. The new HA8 formulation with
reduced pressure integration behaves the same way as the standard 8 integration points
formulation. However, if the reduced pressure integration is not activated, the results will
not be correct, with the metal strip deforming badly and the plastic strain being overestimated (see Table 4). Moreover, the reaction force acting on the cylinder will also be
over-estimated (see Table 3), which means that the structure will be stiffer without the
reduced pressure integration.
Altair Engineering

646
Fig 3: Rolling Force for different formulations
Table 4: Plastic Strain for different formulations.
647

Altair Engineering
The HA8 formulation must in fact always be used with reduced pressure integration, the only
time when this option must be deactivated is in the case of emulating a thick shell
formulation with 8-nodes bricks.
Temperature Influence
When metal forming, one of the main parameters engineers' study whether the force is
needed during the process. In this particular case, it concerns the rolling force applied by the
cylinders. Engineers try to minimize this force in order to use less power and to reduce
maintenance on the cylinders. One way to do so is to form metal at a higher temperature.
RADIOSS will take into account the temperature dependency using the same law already
used (Johnson-Cook law). The following diagram indicates the rolling force in accordance
with the temperature and, as expected the higher the temperature, the lower the force.
Consequently, metal forming is a trade-off between the power saved using a lower force and
the power required to raise the temperature.
Fig 4: Rolling Force.
Conclusion
The squeezing of the metal strip under two rolling cylinders is simulated by RADIOSS. The
large deformation formulation, when a sufficient number of elements is used, obtaining
physically-acceptable results is allowed. The small strain option leads to bad results, but
with low cost. The element formulation and the number of integration points through
thickness are other parameters influencing results; the higher the precision, the higher the
cost. On the other hand, as the problem is considered to be quasi-static, resolution using the
RADIOSS implicit solver can be envisaged.
Altair Engineering

648
Example 25 - Spring-back
Summary
The spring-back simulation of sheet metal bent into a hat-shape is studied. The problem is
one of the famous tests from the Numisheet93. As spring-back is generally a quasi-static
unloading, the use of the RADIOSS implicit solver is justified. The RADIOSS explicit solver is
also used to compare the methods efficiency. However, for the stamping phase only the
explicit solver is used, as the forming process is highly dynamic.
The example illustrates how to link up the explicit computations. It highlights the efficiency of
the implicit solver for the spring-back simulation.
649

Altair Engineering
Title
Spring-back
Number
25.1
Brief Description
An explicit stamping simulation is followed by a spring-back analysis using implicit or explicit
solvers for stress relaxation. Results are compared with a reference.
Keywords
Explicit stamping simulation, implicit / explicit spring-back simulation, and stress
relaxation
Implicit strategy and time step control by arc-length method
Anisotropic elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/LAW43) and Hill model
Orthotropic shell formulation, QEPH, progressive plastification, and iterative plasticity
Type 7 Interface, Penalty method, and friction
RADIOSS Options
Implicit parameters (/IMPL)
Implicit spring-back (/IMPL/SPRBACK)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Experimental data
Input File
Explicit spring-back: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/25_Spring-back/
Explicit_spring-back/DBEND_44*
Implicit spring-back: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/25_Spring-back/
Implicit_spring-back/DBEND_44*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Advanced
Altair Engineering

650
Overview
Aim of the Problem
This example deals with the numerical simulation of a stamping process, including the
spring-back. This refers to one of the sheet metal stamping tests "2D Draw Bending"
indicated in Numisheet93. The final shape of the formed sheet metal, after releasing all
constraints on the blank sheet is studied. During the spring-back simulation, an explicit-toimplicit sequential solution method is used, where a dynamic forming process using the
explicit solver is used first, followed by an implicit modeling of the the spring-back
deformations by statically removing the stamping stress.
Thus, two analysis are performed in order to compare the performances and the accuracy of
results:
Explicit stamping and implicit spring-back simulations
Explicit stamping and explicit spring-back simulations (using dynamic relaxation)
The spring-back simulation of the forming sheet metal uses an elasto-plastic nonlinear
approach. The implicit input options and the incremental strategy used are described in the
modeling section.
A numerical simulation of stamping is performed up to 960 ms. The spring-back computation
is carried out from 960 ms to 1000 ms for implicit (static approach) and to 6000 ms for
explicit (quasi-static approach).
A standard stamping operation is studied. The stamping tools include a punch, a die and a
blank holder.
A load F of 1225 N is vertically applied on the blank holder in order to flatten the sheet metal
against the die. The load is removed before spring-back simulation.
The sheet metal stamping operation is managed using a variable imposed velocity applied on
the punch with a maximum set to 0.1 ms-1. The tools are withdrawn after the stamping
phase in order to enable the spring-back to be observed.
Fig 1: Description of the problem.
651

Altair Engineering
The main geometrical dimensions of parts are:

Radius of dies corners: 5 mm
Radius of punchs corners: 5 mm
Width of punch: 50.4 mm
Sheet metal dimensions: 35 mm x 175 mm
The thickness of the sheet metal is defined at 0.74 mm. The Coulomb friction coefficient
between the sheet metal and the die is defined at 0.129.
The stamping tools material undergoes a linear law using the following properties:
Initial density: 8x10-3 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
The material of the sheet metal under the roller has distinct characteristics of anisotropy. Its
anisotropic elasto-plastic behavior can be reproduced by a Hill model (/MAT/LAW43). This
law can be considered as a generalization of the von Mises yield criteria for anisotropic yield
behavior.
The yield stress is defined according to a user function and the yield stress is compared to
equivalent stress:
The Ai coefficients are determined using Lankfords anisotropy parameters range. Angles for
Lankford parameters are defined according to orthotropic direction 1.
A hardening coefficient is used to describe the hardening model as full isotropic (value set to
0) or based on the Prager-Ziegler kinematic model (value set to 1). Hardening can be
interpolated between the two models, if the coefficient value is between 0 and 1.
The material parameters are:
Initial density: 8x10-3 g/mm3
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Lankford 0 degrees: r00= 1.73
Lankford 45 degrees: r45 = 1.34
Lankford 90 degrees: r90= 2.24
The yield curve used is shown in the diagram below. Failure is not taken into account.
Altair Engineering

652
Fig 2: Users yield function.

Taking symmetry into account, only a quarter of the structure is modeled. The symmetry
plane is along axis y = 17.5 mm and x = 0 mm.
Fig 3: Finite mesh elements of the problem studied.
The punch is shown in purple, the blank holder in green and the die in red. The sheet metal
(blue) is modeled using 4-node shell elements.
653

Altair Engineering
The sheet metal is discretized by a non-regular mesh and a fine mesh is used for parts to be
plastically deformed. The smallest size of the shell element is 1.5 mm.
Fig 4: Progressive mesh of the sheet metal.
In order to achieve accurate simulation results, the QEPH shell element formulation is used in
explicit and implicit analyses. A Lagrangian formulation is adopted.
In accordance with the elasto-plastic Hill model for the material law, the sheet metal is
described by the shell elements using the orthotropic property (Type 9). The shell
characteristics are:
Five integration points (progressive plastification)
Interactive plasticity with three Newton iterations (Iplas = 1)
Thickness changes are taken into account in stress computation (Ithick = 1)
Initial thickness is uniform, equal to 0.74 mm
Orthotropy angle: 0 degree
Reference vector: (1 0 0)
The input components of the reference vector
is used to define direction 1 of the local
coordinate system of orthotropy. The orthotropy angle, in degrees defines the angle between
direction 1 of the orthotropy and the projection of the vector
on the shell.
Three type 7 interfaces using the Penalty method are employed to model contacts between
the stamping tools and the sheet metal. The parameters defining the contact are:
Coulomb friction: 0.129
Gap: 0.37
Critical damping coefficient on interface stiffness: 1
Critical damping coefficient on interface friction: 1 (default)
Fig 5: Contact modeling using a type 7 interface considered with the Penalty method (master / slave sides).
Altair Engineering

654
In the implicit approach, the contact using the Penalty method with fictional springs is stored
in a separate stiffness matrix to the main one. Therefore, supplementary memory is needed
and information of the second contact stiffness will be printed out when contact is active.
Critical damping coefficients (inputs) description:
The normal force computation is indicated by:
K0 = initial interface spring stiffness

VISCS = critical damping coefficient on interface stiffness (default value:
0.05)
The tangential force computation is indicated by:
Ft = min(Fric * Fn, Fad)
where: Fad = Ct Vt: adhesion force
VISf = critical damping coefficient on interface friction (default value: 1)
For spring-back computation by implicit, the removing of the stamping tools is taken into
account by deleting all interfaces using the input option in the second D02 Engine file as
follows:
/DEL/INTER
1 2 3
Interfaces ID 1, 2 and 3 are deleted.

Simulation deals with:
1. Stamping simulation by explicit: from the beginning up to 960 ms.
2. Spring-back simulation:
using explicit (dynamic approach): from 960 ms to 6000 ms:
655
From 960 ms to 2000 ms: Stamping tools are slowly withdrawn because the quasistatic analysis requires dynamic effects to be minimized during spring-back. Thus,
the interfaces are not deleted. Options are defined in the D02 Engine file.
From 2000 ms to 6000 ms: A dynamic relaxation (/DYREL) is activated in the D03
Engine file in order to converge towards quasi-static equilibrium.

Altair Engineering
using implicit (static approach): from 960 ms to 1000 ms:

-
The input implicit options are added in the D02 Engine file. Stress relaxation is
activated using the /IMPL/SPRBACK keyword. All interfaces are deleted and specific
boundary conditions are added on the stamping tools. Tools are not withdrawn.
In the simulation, the tools are modeled using rigid bodies (/RBODY) as shown in Fig 6.
Fig 6: Modeling of the stamping tools as rigid elements.
An automatic master node is chosen. The center of gravity is computed using the master and
slave node coordinates and the master node is moved to the center of gravity where is placed
mass and inertia (ICoG is set to 1). No mass or inertia are added to the rigid bodies.
A quarter of the structure is modeled in order to limit the model size and to eliminate rigid
body modes for implicit computation. Symmetry planes are defined along the y axis = 0.
Fig 7: Boundary conditions (/BCS) on the sheet metal according to the symmetries.
The nodes on the longitudinal plane are fixed in the Y translation and X, Z rotations.
For the other symmetry plane, the nodes are fixed in the X translation and Y, Z rotations.
Stamping tools are restricted to moving only along the Z-axis. The boundary conditions are
applied on the master nodes of the rigid bodies, including the parts (Fig 7).
For the numerical simulation of the implicit spring-back, additional conditions must be added
in the D02 Engine file in order to remove the rigid body modes that is not permitted in the
implicit approach. The stamping tools are fully fixed (X, Y, Z translations and X, Y, Z
rotations). The translation of the ID 427 node is fixed along the Z-axis allowing the sheet
Altair Engineering

656
metal to move towards the final shape without rigid body mode.
Fig 8: Added boundary conditions on the 427 node for implicit spring-back.
Imposed velocities are applied on the stamping tools via the master nodes of the rigid bodies.
The velocity of the punch is controlled by a specific input curve, as shown in Figures 9 and
10. During implicit spring-back, all velocities are set to zero. Explicit spring-back
computation up to 6000 ms necessitates imposed velocities on tools in order to withdraw
them as of 1000 ms.
Fig 9: Imposed velocity on punch via the rigid bodys master node.
657

Altair Engineering
Fig 10: Imposed velocity on die and blank holder via the rigid bodies master node.
" Punch partCurve 1, scale factor set to -1.

" Die part.Curve 2, scale factor set to 1.
" Blank holder part.Curve 2, scale factor set to -1.
The stamping is performed by explicit simulation up to 960 ms using Curve 1. The implicit
simulation is carried out only for the spring-back stage from 960 ms to 1000 ms. Curve 2,
therefore, is only defined for explicit spring-back simulation.
Fig 11: Imposed velocities on tools in two phases: stamping then tools removing.
Considering the symmetries, a constant concentrated load of 612.5 N is vertically applied on

the blank holder via the master node of the rigid body. The load is set to zero from 960 ms
before studying the spring-back.
Implicit spring-back analysis is launched using /IMPL/SPRBACK.
Altair Engineering

658

Implicit type:
Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver:
Modified Newton
Tolerance:
0.025
Norm displacement (arc-length)
Initial time step:
0.8 ms
Minimum time step:
10-5 ms
Maximum time step:
no
Desired convergence iteration

number:
Maximum convergence
iteration number:
20
0.67
Maximum increasing time step

scale factor:
1.1
Arc-length:
Spring-back option:
Activated
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of the nonlinear cycle. It is
defined using /IMPL/SOLVER.
Linear solver:
Preconditioned conjugate gradient
Factored approximate inverse
Maximum iterations
number:
Stop criteria:
Relative residual on force
Tolerance for stop

criteria:
Machine precision
659

Altair Engineering
The input implicit options added in the D02 Engine file are:
Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for more details about implicit options.
Explicit spring-back analysis uses the dynamic relaxation in the D03 Engine file from 2000
ms.
for the simulation of dynamic loading. However, a quasi-static simulation via a dynamic
resolution method is needed to minimize the dynamic effects for converging towards static
equilibrium, the final shape achieved after spring-back.
The dynamic effect is damped by introducing a diagonal damping matrix proportional to mass
matrix in the dynamic equation.
where:
is the relaxation value which has a recommended default value 1.
T is the period to be damped (less than or equal to the highest period of the system).
The inputs of the relaxation dynamics are:
Relaxation factor: 1
Period to be damped: 1000 ms
This option is activated using the /DYREL keyword (inputs:
and T).

In the metal stamping operation the highly nonlinear deformation processes tend to generate
a large amount of elastic strain energy in the metal material besides in addition to some of
the plastic deformed areas. The internal energy, which is stored in the sheet metal during
stamping, is subsequently released once the stamping pressure has been removed. This
energy released is the driving force of the spring-back in the sheet metal forming process.
Therefore, the spring-back deformation for sheet metal forming is mainly due to the amount
of elastic energy stored in the part while it is being plastically deformed.
The material density has been multiplied by 10,000 to obtain a reasonable computation time
using explicit simulations. An additional time period is also required for slowly withdrawing
Altair Engineering

660
the tools, prior to the explicit spring-back simulation in order to achieve a good result. Thus,
note that explicit stamping takes longer than stamping followed by implicit spring-back
computation.
Figure 12 shows the deformed configurations using implicit simulation. The symmetrical part
is added.
Fig 12: Deformed sheet metal before and after spring-back (implicit spring-back).
Stamping is performed from the beginning up to 960 ms. The final shape after the springback process is achieved after 1000 ms using the implicit solver and after 6000 ms using the
explicit solver.
Fig 13: Deformed mesh of the sheet metal before and after the spring-back (multi-models mode).
661

Altair Engineering
The animations in Fig 14 include the results of the spring-back during simulation. There is an
increasing number of stresses in the sheet metal from the start up to 960 ms, after which,
the stresses begin to decrease as a result of the spring-back (stress relaxation).
Fig 14: Stamping results on the sheet metal before and after spring-back.
Figure 15 shows the internal energy stored in the sheet metal during the stamping.
Fig 15: Internal energy in the sheet metal part (explicit spring-back simulation).
The dynamic relaxation used in the explicit spring-back computation enables to improve
convergence towards quasi-static solution. The variation of the kinetics energy on the sheet
metal in the explicit spring-back simulation is depicted in Fig 16 (from 960 ms up to 6000
ms):
Altair Engineering

662
Fig 16: Convergence towards quasi-static equilibrium (explicit spring-back simulation).
Comparison with experimental data on geometry after spring-back is shown in Table 1.
The performance results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Implicit / explicit computation time.
Stamping CPU
(cycles)
Spring-back
cycles
(iter. Num.)
Spring-back CPU
(CPU per cycle)
Total CPU
Explicit
1160 (92326)
229379 (-)
2698 (0.01)
3858
Implicit
120 (354)
1589 (13.2)
2749
The implicit simulation for spring-back is performed from 960 ms to 1000 ms. Explicit springback simulation is performed until the kinetics energy on the sheet metal reaches a minimum
value (quasi-static equilibrium). The final computation time is set to 6000 ms.
Explicit and implicit analyses both obtain good results in this test, with implicit computation
being 40% faster than the explicit computation. The implicit approach is; however, 1320
times more expensive per step than the explicit solver. The use of the implicit approach
allows you to economize on the overall computation time.
663

Altair Engineering
Example 26 - Ruptured Plate
Summary
Failure of a circular plate subjected to the impact of an infinite rigid sphere is studied.
Material models, with or without a dedicated failure criteria, are compared. The new failure
criteria available in RADIOSS version 5, adds to the simple rupture models existing in such
material laws as Law 2 and Law 27. The study is divided into three parts:
Rupture using a damage model in Law 27
Failure using the Johnson-Cook model
Advantage of Forming Limit Diagram as a failure model
The sensitivity of the results for the different failure models is demonstrated.
Altair Engineering

664
Title
Ruptured plate
Number
26.1
Brief Description
A metallic thick plate is perforated by a rigid sphere. Simulation of the rupture uses different
failure models.
Keywords
Rupture, elements deletion, maximum stress, and failure plastic strain
Johnson-Cook failure model, failure model using Forming Limit Diagram
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic material law and damage integrated in the material law
General shell formulation, progressive plastification, and layers
RADIOSS Options
Johnson-Cook failure model (/FAIL/JOHNSON)
Forming Limit Diagram failure model (/FAIL/FLD)
Material law 2 (/MAT/PLAS_JOHNS) and law 27 (/MAT/PLAS_BRIT)
Rigid Sphere (/RWALL)
Input File
Law 2 without failure: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law2/Without_FAIL/LAW2*
Johnson failure: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/
Law2/JOHNSON_model/.../FAILURE_JOHNSON*
FLD failure: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law2/
FLD_model/Ishell=1_without_epsmax/.../FAILURE_FLD*
Law 27: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law27/
LAW27*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Advanced
665

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to model the perforation of a thick plate using a rigid sphere.
The simulations are performed using different failure models:
Damage model integrated in the elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/LAW27)
Johnson-Cook failure model, in addition to the elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/LAW2)
Failure model using the generic Forming Limit Diagram (FLD), in addition to the elastoplastic material law 2
Numerical results are not compared with experimental data. However, this example proposes
different approaches to take account of failure.
A 3 mm thick plate is impacted at its midpoint by a 12.7 mm diameter sphere with an
imposed velocity of 1 ms-1.
The material undergoes an isotropic elasto-plastic behavior which can be reproduced by a

Johnson-Cook model, independently of the failure model:
Material properties are:

Poissons ratio: 0.3
Density: 2.8 x 10-3 gmm-3
The maximum stress and the failure plastic strain are considered in the failure modeling
section. The strain rate effect is not taken into account in this example.
Altair Engineering

666

The plate is meshed with 4-node shell elements.
The shell properties (Type 1) are:
5 integration points (progressive plastification).
Belytschko elasto-plastic hourglass formulation (Ishell = 3).
Iterative plasticity for plane stress (Iplas = 1).
Thickness is constant (Ithick = 0).
Initial thickness is uniform, equal to 3 mm
Fig 2: Mesh of the metallic plate with the initial rigid sphere position.

A sphere with non-zero mass is considered as a rigid body, modeled by a rigid sphere of 12.7
mm diameter. Slave nodes include the plate part.
Here in this example, non-zero mass (5g) will be taken in /RWALL to keep energy balance. If
we use mass =0, then we will get 99% energy error. This is because we have external work
done by the rigid wal and this external work is proportional to the mass of the rigid wall. But
if the mass is zero, then the external works is also zero. The loss of external work will lead to
bad energy balance.
A constant imposed velocity of -1.0 ms-1 in the Z-direction is applied on the rigid sphere via
the ID 4067 master node. Its displacement is proportionally linked to time.
Boundaries of the plate are clamped, as shown in Fig 3.
667

Altair Engineering
Fig 3: Side fixed in X, Y, Z translations and X, Y, Z rotations.
Failure Modeling
Law 27: Elasto-plastic Material Law using a Damage Model
Law 27 is used to simulate material damage following a Johnson-Cook plasticity law. Thus, a
damage model is incorporated into the material law to take into account the damage
evolution with stress decreasing up to element rupture.
The damage parameters are:
Tensile rupture strain t1: damage starts if the highest principal strain reaches this
tension value.
Maximum strain m1: the element is damaged if the highest principal strain is above the
tension value. The element is not deleted.
Maximum damage factors max: this value should be kept at its default value (0.999).
Failure strain f1: the element is deleted if the highest principal strain reaches the
tension value.
Fig 4: Stress/strain curve for damage affected material.
The parameters used in the damage model are:

max
= 0.999
Altair Engineering

668
For the first principal direction:

t1
= 0.14
m1
f1
For the second principal direction:

t1
= 0.15
= 0.14
m1
= 0.151
f1
= 0.15
= 0.151
The maximum stress and the failure plastic strain are activated:
max
= 0.151
max
= 425 MPa
The element is removed if one layer (one integration point) of the element reaches the failure
tensile strain.
For further information about this law, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual and RADIOSS
User's Guide.
Johnson-Cook Failure Model New Feature in RADIOSS, Version 51

The elasto-plastic behavior of the material is defined using the Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/
LAW2), with or without damage ( max and max). The failure model is independent from the
material law and the hardening model.
The Johnson-Cook failure model is defined using /FAIL/JOHNSON in the input deck.
The model uses cumulative damage to compute failure.
where,
d refers to the current damage (failure if d = 1)
*
is the normalized mean stress

f
is the increment of plastic strain during the loading increment
D1, D2 and D3 are the first three parameters

The strain rate and thermo-plastic effects are not taken into account in this example. Thus,
only three parameters are required (D1, D2 and D3).
Two cases are considered:
The maximum stress and the failure plastic strain are not taken into account.
In addition to the Johnson-Cook failure model, the maximum stress and the failure
plastic strain are activated.
669

Altair Engineering
Two failure approaches are also investigated:

Shell element is deleted if damage d > 1, for one layer (Ishell set to 1),
The layer stress tensor is set to zero and the shell element is deleted if damage d > 1,
for all layers (Ishell set to 2).
Therefore, the four simulations performed are shown in the following table:
Ishell = 1
/FAIL
max
Johnson-Cook
failure model
Ishell = 2
/FAIL
only /FAIL
max
max
only /FAIL
max
D1 = 0.11
D1 = 0.09
D1 = 0.11
D1 = 0.09
D2 = 0.08
D2 = 0.08
D2 = 0.08
D2 = 0.08
D3 = -1.5
D3 = -1.5
D3 = -1.5
D3 = -1.5
max
= 0.151
max
= 0.151
max
= 425 MPa
max
= 425 MPa
For further information about this failure model, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual and
the RADIOSS User's Guide.
FLD Failure Model (Forming Limit Diagram) New Feature as of Version 51
This failure model uses the generic forming limit diagram, defined for the given material. The
curve is expressed in the area of principal strains (max and mini strains) and defines the
failure zone.
An input curve and the flag Ishell (same as Johnson-Cook model) are required. However, the
results obtained using Ishell = 1 and Ishell = 2 are very similar and only if Ishell = 1 is
presented.
Altair Engineering

670
Two failure modes can be simulated by adjusting the diagram. Shells elements are deleted if
one layer is in the failure zone.
Explosive Perforation (Hole Creation)
Perforation by Shell Tearing
Curve 1
Curve 2
For further information about this failure model, see the RADIOSS User's Guide.

The failure simulations considered in the example are:
Law 27
Incorporated damage model
max
max
Material law 27
max
Law 2
max
(without /FAIL)
Material law 2
Ishell = 1
Law 2 + /FAIL
/FAIL
max
max
only /FAIL
Ishell = 2
/FAIL
max
only /FAIL
max
Johnson failure model

FLD failure
model
671
FLD 1
FLD 2

Altair Engineering
In the /DEF_SHELL option defined in the input desk, the Istrain flag must be set to 1 for
computing strains in view of post-processing.
During simulation, failure of the elements can be checked in the output file
runname_0001.out.
Example of output file (extract):
[]
3869 0.5145
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
+00
3870 0.5147
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
+00
-- RUPTURE OF SHELL ELEMENT NUMBER
3871 0.5148
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
+00
3872 0.5149
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
+00
3873 0.5151
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
+00
3874 0.5152
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
+00
3875 0.5153
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
3876 0.5155
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
3877 0.5156
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
3878 0.5157
0.1330E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
3879 0.5159
0.1329E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
3880 0.5160
0.1329E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
3881 0.5161
0.1329E-03 SHELL
159 0.0%
Altair Engineering
2451.
0.1692
2.336
0.0000E+00 0.0000E
2452.
0.1697
2.335
0.0000E+00 0.0000E
151
151
2453.
0.1694
2.361
0.0000E+00 0.0000E
2452.
0.7397
3.424
0.0000E+00 0.0000E
2446.
3.288
6.740
0.0000E+00 0.0000E
2443.
5.818
8.481
0.0000E+00 0.0000E
6.888
7.988
12.35
17.44
21.28
23.82
8.419
8.214
9.924
11.89
13.40
14.56
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
25.85
15.13
0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
169
169
192
192
2443.
2443.
2437.
2430.
2425.
2421.
153
153
2419.
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.0000E+00

672
[]
Fig 6: Perforation of the plate by the rigid sphere at 5 ms (case: Johnson-Cook failure model without failure plastic
strain, Ishell=2).
The following table compares the results provided by simulations in terms of plate
deformation, hole dimension, residual shells, etc.
Conclusion
The rupture of a circular plate, due to the impact of a rigid sphere was studied and several
failure models with different simulation parameters were compared. The results obtained
highlight the sensitivity of the numerical models to simulate the failure.
Laws 2 and 27, with or without the failure models were compared. The comparison shows
that the results are quite similar when coherent simulation parameters are used.
673

Altair Engineering
Example 27 - Football (Soccer) Shots
Summary
This is mainly a demonstration example. An unusual application is used: In 1976, the
European Football (Soccer) Cup final was between the Bayern of Munich and Saint Etienne.
During the match, two shots from Saint Etienne rebound on the opposite bars, shaped as a
square cross-section. The fact that England is the only European country not having replaced
its square bars by round bars always makes French supporters believe that Saint Etienne
could have won the final if the bars had been round. This example provides an answer
through simulation. The controversy, however, will no doubt continue.
Altair Engineering

674
Title
Football shot
Number
27.1
Brief Description
Simulation of a football (soccer) shooting impact on bars.
Keywords
Q4 and T3 meshes, and Orthotropic shell
Airbag modeling and sensor
Rigid cylinder
Initial velocity
RADIOSS Options
Initial velocities around axis (/INIVEL/AXIS)
Monitored volume type airbag (/MONVOL/AIRBAG)
Rigid bodies (/RBODY)
Rigid cylinder (/RWALL)
Sensor (/SENSOR)
Video films for a square cross-section case.
Input File
Bathenays shot: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/
Bathenay_circular/BAT_CIR*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/
Bathenay_square/BAT_SQR*
Santinis header: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/
Santini_circular/SANT_CIR*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/
Santini_square/SANT_SQR*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Medium
675

Altair Engineering
Overview
Aim of the Problem
During the European football (Soccer) Cup final in 1976 (Bayern of Munich versus Saint
Etienne), a shot from Bathenay (Fig 1) and a header from Santini (Fig 2) rebounded off the
square cross-section frame of the German teams goal. The purpose of this demonstration is
to determine the influence of a square or a round cross-section bar for both cases.
Fig 1: Bathenays shot.
Fig 2: Santinis header

The main differences between both shots are the incidence, the velocity and the impact point
of the ball on the bar (its vertical value).
The material used for the ball follows a linear elastic orthotropic law (/MAT/LAW19) with the
Young modulus (dir. 1 and 2): 20000 MPa
Altair Engineering

676
Shear modulus (12, 23 and 31): 10000 MPa

Poisson ratio: 0.29
Units:
mm, ms, g, N, MPa

The ball is modeled using 60 3-node shells and 1420 4-node shells. The shell element
formulations are set by default. The bar and the ground are also modeled with 4-node shell
elements, but their mesh will not be used for the computation.
Fig 4: Ball mesh.

A rigid body is created, containing all the nodes of the ball. It is deactivated just before
impact on the bar.
Two initial velocities are applied to the rigid bodys master node. They are defined
using /INIVEL/AXIS for the rotary motion and /INIVEL/TRA for the translating motion.
The bars are modeled with a cylindrical rigid wall for the round bar and two rigid
parallelograms for the square bar.
Gravity is taken into account using a gravity load.
The ball is considered as an airbag, which is activated when the rigid body is
deactivated.
677

Altair Engineering
Fig 5: Impact of the ball on a square and a round cross-section.
Fig 6: Trajectory of the ball for Bathenays shot (impact on a square and a round bar respectively).
Fig 7: Trajectory of the ball for Santinis head (impact on a square and a round bar respectively).
Altair Engineering

678
Conclusion
Even using a simple modeling of the impact (bars modeled with rigid walls instead of parts),
the simulation provides quite accurate results in the case of a square cross-section when
simulations are compared to reality. The results obtained for the bars with a round crosssection show that the ball enters to the goal for both shots. However, several impact
parameters, such as friction and rotational velocity are estimated as calibrating the case of a
square cross-section. Conclusions on the results of the match in case of cylindrical bars
should be moderated.
679

Altair Engineering
Example 37 - Analytical Beam
Summary
This example deals with the use of RADIOSS linear and nonlinear solvers. A beam submitted
to a concentrated load on one extremity and fixed on the other hand is studied. This problem
is well known and results can be compared with analytical solutions.
Different meshes are tested: beam, shell, thick-shell, and brick elements. For thick-shell
representation, different formulations are also tested: HA8, HSEPH, and 16-node thick-shell.
Moreover, this study tests with solvers: linear and nonlinear implicit solvers, as well as
nonlinear explicit solver. The linear solver is used for small displacements, whereas nonlinear
can solve more problems.
The main propose of this example is to illustrate how to prepare a RADIOSS deck for linear
analysis. It also demonstrates a high quality of RADIOSS finite elements to resolve linear and
nonlinear problems.
Altair Engineering

680
Title
Analytical beam
Number
37.1
Brief Description
A cantilever beam submitted to a shear-bending is tested by RADIOSS linear and nonlinear
solvers. Different kinds of RADIOSS finite elements provide results close to the analytical
one.
Keywords
Linear solver
Beam, shell, thick-shell and brick elements
BATOZ, HA8 and HSEPH formulations
Dynamic relaxation and implicit solver
RADIOSS Options
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Implicit options (/IMPL)
Analytical results
Input File
2 Bricks: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/
Analytical_beam/2_bricks/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../2_bricks/implicit/Linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../2_bricks/implicit/Nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
4 Bricks: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/
Analytical_beam/4_bricks/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../4_bricks/implicit/linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../4_bricks/implicit/nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
Beam: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/
Analytical_beam/beam/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../beam/implicit/linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../beam/implicit/nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
681

Altair Engineering
Shell: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/
Analytical_beam/shell/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../shell/implicit/linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../shell/implicit/nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
Thick Shell: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/
Analytical_beam/thick_shell/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../thick_shell/implicit/linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../thick_shell/implicit/nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
RADIOSS Version
51f
Beginner
Overview
Aim of the Problem
This study deals with two choices: finite element approach and resolution techniques.
A simple beam is fixed on one extremity, and loaded on the other hand by concentrated load:
The material behavior is linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) with the following properties:
Density:
= 0.0078 g/mm3
Young modulus: E = 210 000 MPa

Poisson coefficient:
Altair Engineering
= 0.29

682
Analysis Assumptions and Modeling Description

The beam is modeled with four different kinds of mesh: beams (/BEAM), shells (/SHELL),
thick-shells (/PROP/TSHELL), and bricks (/BRICK).
Fig 2: Different meshes.
Each formulation has particular properties (/PROP). Beam elements use the default
formulation (Ismstr = 0). Furthermore, in order to satisfy Timoshenkos beam assumptions,
with the following properties:
Cross section: 100 mm2
Moment of inertia: 833.33 mm4
This conducts to a shell thickness of 10 mm, where BATOZ shell formulation is used (Ishell =
12).
For the solid mesh, the HA8 formulation (Isolid = 14) is applied. No reduced pressure
integration is necessary for implicit computation, as the behavior is elastic (Icpre = 0).
For thick-shell elements (/PROP/TSHELL), several formulations are tested: HA8 (Isolid = 14),
HSEPH (Isolid = 15), and 16-node thick-shell (Isolid = 16), which require a specific nodal
connectivity, as shown below:
Fig 3: Thick-shell element numbering

The boundary conditions option (/BCS) is used to fix the beam on one extremity.
To apply the load, a rigid body is created (/RBODY), and then the beam is submitted to an
increasing force (/CLOAD and /FUNCT).
683

Altair Engineering
When the loading is small enough, the beam behavior can be considered to be linear. Then,
the easiest way to resolve the problem is to use RADIOSS linear solver existing from version
51.
The implicit RADIOSS V51 solver considers a static loading. It needs to define some
parameters with the /IMPL option. Under the linear behavior assumption, RADIOSS linear
solver can be used by putting /IMPL/LINEAR in the rootname_0001.rad file. The nonlinear
implicit solver can be activated by /IMPL/NONLIN. To solve the equation, both methods need
a numerical linear solver as Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient solver (/IMPL/SOLVER/1).
The nonlinear explicit solver can also be used. In this case, the load is considered to be
applied dynamically. Then, the dynamic relaxation technique (/DYREL) allows to speed
converge to the static solution by introducing a numerical damping. That implies the
knowledge of the frequency to damp. To obtain the dominating period of the structure to
damp, you can look at the kinetic energy variation in time during the first phase of run. The
modal analysis solver by eigen values in RADIOSS V51 can also be used.
Analytical solution
Fig 4: Notation.
For the linear problem, the analytical solution gives:
For nonlinear case, the Timoshenko and Gere study provides the following results [1]:
Altair Engineering

684
Fig 5: Timoshenko and Gere results.

In the case of linear behavior, the numerical results are quite close to the analytical solution
(error lower than 0.01% for all meshes).
Fig 6: Linear solutions.
For the nonlinear case, the results obtained by RADIOSS with explicit and implicit solvers are
in good concordance with the analytical solution of Timeshenko and Gere.
685

Altair Engineering
Fig 7: Comparison of results.
The numerical error or the difference between the numerical results and the analytical
solution can be evaluated by:
(4)
Fig 8: Error on w/L
Here it appears that errors for the slender case (

=2) are high for the explicit solver. This
is mainly due to difficult convergence of the dynamic solution to the static response. High
flexibility means low frequency vibrations and thus low efficiency of dynamic relaxation
method. On the other hand, the implicit solver converges to the good solution. The error is
remains lower than 0.5%.
Regarding the thick-shell elements, RADIOSS results are quite close to the analytical
solution. The error remains always less than 0.5%.
Altair Engineering

686
Fig 9: Thick-shell solutions.
Fig 10: Error for thick-shell formulations.
A schematic deformation mode for each case of mesh is shown in the following figures.
687

Altair Engineering
Fig 11: Beam animation
Fig 12: Shell animation.
Altair Engineering

688
Fig 13: Shell 16 animation.
Fig 14: Brick animation
Reference
[1] S.P. Timoshenko, J.M. Gere, "Mechanics of materials", D. Van Nostrand Co, 1972
689

Altair Engineering
Example 39 - Biomedical Valve
Summary
This example aims at demonstrating how to perform an FSI run using RADIOSS on a
relatively simple case. The maximum deflection of a flap in an interaction with a transient
fluid is computed once the stationary state is reached.
In this example, the two following points are emphasized:
How to set up an FSI case study
Fast description of the various options used in an ALE/CFD run (refer to the RADIOSS
Theory Manual for more information)
Altair Engineering

690
Title
Biomedical Valve
Number
39.1
Brief Description
A Fluid-Structure-Interaction (FSI) problem is studied. The RADIOSS ALE/CFD solver is used
to resolve the problem.
Keywords
FSI, CFD, and Fluid
INLET and OUTLET
Turbulent Fluid
RADIOSS Options
/MAT/BOUND
/ALE/MAT
/ALE/BCS
/PROP/FLUID
/VEL/ALE
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/39_Bio_Valve/BIO_VALVE/VALVE*
RADIOSS Version
51i
Skilled
Overview
A simplified heart valve is modeled. The valve opens under the pressure of the incoming
blood flow. As the opening process of the valve is taken into account, the problem is
transient.
Additionally, fluid-structure interaction must be taken into account, as the flap deforms under
the pressure of the blood.
Units: Kg, m, s, N, Pa
691

Altair Engineering
Fig 1: Definition of the problem.
RADIOSS ALE/CFD Terminology

Euler Formulation
The Eulerian formulation is classical in fluid mechanics. The mesh is fixed and material flows
through the mesh. Equations are modified with respect to the Lagrangian formulation in
order to take into account the convective terms.
It can be activated for a specific part by a flag in material data:
/EULER/MAT/mat_ID
Where, mat_ID is the identification number of the material to be set Eulerian.
In this case, the Eulerian formulation cannot be used because the boundaries of the domain
(and mainly the flap) move.
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) Formulation
The material flows through an arbitrary moving mesh and it can degenerate either in a
Lagrangian or an Eulerian formulation.
This option can be activated for a specific part by a flag in material data:
/ALE/MAT/mat_ID
Where, mat_ID is the identification number of the material to be set ALE.
Grid velocities and displacements are arbitrary.
In practice, built-in algorithms determine smooth grid deformation according to
displacements of the ALE domain boundaries. Several algorithms are available (DONEA,
SPRINGS, DISP, and ZERO), in this case, the DISP option is used: the velocity of a
node is computed using the average velocities of the connected nodes.
Boundary nodes between ALE and Lagrangian materials must be set Lagrangian: grid and
material velocities are equal. Boundary nodes between ALE and Eulerian materials with must
have a fixed grid velocity.
Both conditions are set using the /ALE/BCS option.
Altair Engineering

692
We can also specify extended boundary conditions for ALE nodes (grid velocity components
can be set to 0 or to the material velocity), or impose grid velocities or ALE links to any
nodes in a similar manner to classical kinematic conditions.
Nodal Boundary Conditions
Kinematic constraints act on material velocities and accelerations. In RADIOSS CFD, you can
define a wide variety of such constraints. For fluid applications, options of interest are:
fixed and full slip boundary conditions
imposed velocities (for example: imposed flux at inlet)
rigid links (temporary adds during restarts)
rigid bodies to model rigid structures and connections and also to compute drag and lift
forces (that is: fluid impulse on rigid body is stored in time history database)
Grid constraints act only on grid velocities. You can specify:
fixed and full slip grid conditions
Lagrangian conditions, that is: grid and material velocity are set equal.
ALE links to maintain regular distribution of nodes.
imposed grid velocities (for example: moving inlet and outlet)
Elementary Boundary Conditions
Boundary elements allow prescription of element values at domain boundaries. They can be
specified by assigning material law type 11 (or type 18 in purely thermal cases) to boundary
elements. Those are quads in 2D and solids in 3D. For each variable P, rho, T, k, epsilon,
internal energy, you can recommend:
imposed varying conditions according to user function
continuity
smoothly varying predefined function
Silent boundaries (material type 11, option 3) ensures free field impedance to pressure and
velocity fields.
With RADIOSS ALE/CFD, any combination of the above options can be specified. On the
counterpart, the closure of the various convection and diffusion equations has to be verified
carefully by you.
Generally the following elementary boundary conditions are used:
Inlet, flux is imposed using imposed velocities; density, energy, turbulent energy (that
is, k) are imposed as constants. Continuity is imposed for pressure (display purposes
only) and for epsilon. Turbulent energy, rho k is set to zero for external flows and to
1.5*rho*(0.06 Vin)2 for internal flows.
Outlet, continuity for all variables except pressure, which is imposed. When using the
silent boundary option, you need to provide a value for sound speed and a typical
relaxation length, which must be greater than the biggest wave length of interest.
Sides, continuity for all variables with silent boundary option or slip conditions without
boundary elements.
693

Altair Engineering
If no element exists at boundary, continuity is assumed but kinematic conditions are

necessary to disallow fluxes; otherwise, the convection equation is not closed and the
program might diverge.

A quasi-uniform solid mesh is used for domain discretization. One element through the
thickness with a fine enough mesh along the axis is used.
Shell elements are used to model the flap. The flap is clamped on one side and its nodes are
attached by the springs to the clamp. One row of meshes are created at each extremity to
define inlet and outlet.
The problem is incompressible; therefore, in order to increase the time step, the speed of the
sound in the fluid has been arbitrarily reduced to 50 m/s.
When doing such an approximate, it must be verified that the velocity of the fluid is much
lower than the modified speed of the sound.
Fig 2: Mesh of the model
Four material laws are defined:

A linear elastic material for flap (/MAT/ELAST),
A turbulent fluid material for the main parts of model (/MAT/LES_FLUID),
/MAT/LES_FLUID
Rho = 960.0 Kg/m3
Sound speed = 50.0 m/s
Molecular kinematic viscosity = 5.45E-05 N.s/m
Sub-grid scale model flag = 0
Cs = 0.1
Csp = 0.1
Altair Engineering

694
A fluid material for the inlet to define density, energy and pressure of fluid (/MAT/
BOUND),
/MAT/BOUND
Rho = 960.0 Kg/m3
Ityp = 2 (General case)
A fluid material for the outlet to define pressure of fluid outside the domain (/MAT/
BOUND).
/MAT/BOUND
Rho = 960.0 Kg/m3
Ityp = 3 (Silent boundary)
Characteristic length = 1.0E-03 m
The format /ALE/MAT is assigned to each of fluid materials.
Two imposed velocity are applied to the inlet nodes:
Upper inlet: Vx= 1.253 m/s
Lower inlet: Vx= 0.849 m/s
The boundary conditions are defined in the following table:
Type
Position
Boundary Condition
/BCS
Lateral nodes
Translation Vz = 0
/ALE/BCS
Lateral nodes
Grid velocity Wz = 0
/BCS
Nodes domain on
the lateral edge of
flap
Translation Vz = 0
/ALE/BCS
Nodes domain on
the lateral edge of
flap
Wx = Vx
Wy = Vy
Wz = Vz
/BCS
Nodes on flap
Translation Vz = 0
Rotation Wx = 0
Rotation Wy = 0
/ALE/BCS
Nodes on flap
Wx = Vx
Wy = Vy
Wz = Vz
An interface type 2 is created to connect the nodes of fluid domain on the lateral edge of flap,
to the Lagrangian mesh of flap. Thus, the fluid domain is connected to the structural part.
With the use of this method, it is possible to have different meshes and mesh densities
between the fluid and the structure.
695

Altair Engineering

Vorticity distribution in the transient period gives a good overview of the problem evolution in
time before stabilization.
Fig 3: Vorticity distribution in time and in space
The main purpose of this study is to obtain the maximum deflection of the flap in time.
Plotting the vertical displacement of the node 23360 given in the following graph in which the
flap position is stabilized at time t=1 s.
The pressure stabilization in time is shown in Fig 5 for elements 3370 and 3992.
Altair Engineering

696
Fig 4: Vertical displacement of the free extremity (node 23360) of the flap in meter
Fig 5: Pressure stabilization for elements 3370 and 3992 in Pa
697

Altair Engineering
Fig 6: Position of elements 3992 and 3370
This example demonstrates RADIOSS capabilities to simulate transient Fluid-StructureInteractions. The use of the ALE formulation attached to a Lagrangian mesh is described.
Some elementary
Altair Engineering

698
Example 40 - Lap Joint
Summary
Two overlapping plates (aluminum) are connected by a rivet (titanium) forming a lap joint.
The aluminum and titanium materials are both defined by piece-wise linear elasto-plastic
law. The plates and the rivet are meshed with solid elements. The free end of the bottom
plate is constrained and the free end of the top plate is pulled (by applying imposed
displacement) to shear the joint. An all inclusive contact is defined such that all the
components in the model are master and all nodes of the model are slave.
This example is considered a static problem and the nonlinear implicit solver is used.
699

Altair Engineering
Title
Lap joint
Number
40.1
Brief Description
A lap joint is fixed at one end and pulled at the other to shear the joint.
Keywords
Nonlinear large displacement analysis (NLGEOM)
Contact definition (CONTACT)
Plasticity and Piece-wise linear elasto-plastic material (MATX36 and TABLES1)
RADIOSS Options
Parameters for Geometric Nonlinear Implicit Static Analysis Control (NLPARMX)
Boundary conditions (SPC)
Imposed displacement (SPCD and NLOAD1)
Solid element (PSOLIDX)
Contact property for NLGEOM analysis (PCONTX)
Input File
Lap_joint: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/40_Lap_joint/lapjoint*
RADIOSS Version
11.0
Beginner
Altair Engineering

700
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to demonstrate a nonlinear large displacement implicit
analysis (NLGEOM) involving elasto-plastic material and contact using RADIOSS.
The top and bottom plates have a length of 30mm, width of 20mm and height of 1.5mm.
The rivet is 8mm in diameter and 6mm in height. The geometry of the joint is shown in
Figure 1. Due to symmetry only half of the joint is modeled.
Fig 1: Geometry of the joint.
The material used for the aluminum plates have the following properties:
Density: 1.2e-9 Mg/mm3
The stress vs plastic strain plot for aluminum is shown in Figure 2.
701

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Stress plastic strain curve for aluminum
The material used for the titanium rivet has the following properties:
Density: 7.8e-9 Mg/mm3
The stress vs plastic strain plot for titanium is shown in Figure 3.
Fig 3: Stress plastic strain curve for titanium
Altair Engineering

702

Geometric Linear (NLSTAT) or Geometric Nonlinear (NLGEOM) Analysis
In a geometric linear analysis all deformations and rotations are small displacements of 5%
of the model dimension are considered small.
For this lap joint example, the final deformations and strains after shearing of the lap joint
are 9.5% of the largest dimension of the model (30mm). So, the geometrically nonlinear
static NLSTAT analysis could not be considered for this example.
The mesh is a regular solid mesh with the plates being around 1.5mm in dimension and the
rivet being around 0.5mm in dimension.
The plates and rivet have been modeled using first order fully-integrated solid elements.
PSOLID
PSOLIDX
4
4
1
14
222
VAR
The boundary conditions applied in the model are shown in Figure 4.
The imposed displacements are defined in FEM file using NLOAD1 card:
SPCD
572
2.5
LINEAR
LINEAR
0.0
0.0
1.0
TABLED1
+
NLOAD1
703
1.0ENDT
DISP

Altair Engineering

An all inclusive general purpose contact has been defined in the model. All the nodes of the
model are defined as slave and all components in the model are defined as the master.
SET
GRID
LIST
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
SET
ELEM
PROP
CONTACT
7 OPENGAP
A small physical gap of around 0.02mm has been introduced between the top and bottom
plates and also between the plates and the rivet. The minimum gap specified (0.022) for the
contact is slightly higher than the physical gap for contact to take effect. A static Coulomb
friction of 0.05 is defined for the interface.
PCONT
PCONTX
AUTO
0.05
0.022
CONST
+
+
COUL
STIFF
The plasticity and contact causes major nonlinearities; therefore, a static nonlinear analysis
is performed using the arc-length displacement strategy. The time step is determined by a
displacement norm control.
Implicit type:
Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver:
BFGS Quasi-Newton method
Termination criteria:
Tolerance:
0.01
Arc-length
Initial time step:
0.01
Minimum time step:
1e-5
Maximum time step:
0.05
Line search method:
AUTO
Altair Engineering

704
Special Residual force computation with

contact interfaces present:
20
0.8
Maximum increasing time step scale factor:
1.02
Arc-length:
Spring-back option:
No.
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. The linear
implicit options used are:
Linear solver:
Direct (BCS)
Stop criteria:
Relative residual of preconditioned

matrix
Machine precision
The input nonlinear implicit options set in the FEM file are defined by NLPARMX:
NLPARM
100
0.01
NLPARMX
+
0.0
0.1
0.01
-1
BFGS
ARC
1e-5
0.05
AUTO
1.02
20
0.8
40
+
+
Refer to the RADIOSS manual for more details about implicit options.
The nonlinear large deformation analysis has to be defined through a subcase. An NLPARM
statement, as well as ANALYSIS=NLGEOM has to be present in the subcase. The termination
time of 1.0s is defined thru the TTERM entry.
SUBCASE
ANALYSIS NLGEOM
SPC =
10
NLPARM =
NLOAD =
9
7
TTERM = 1.000
705

Altair Engineering

Animations
The displacement, stresses (mises) and plastic strain results after the shearing of the joint
are shown in the following figures.
Fig 5: Displacements (max = 2.84mm)
Fig 6: Stress (max = 1022 MPa)
Fig 7: Plastic strain in aluminum plates (max. = 23.86%).
Altair Engineering

706
Example 41 - Follower Force for Implicit Analysis
Summary
Four cantilever beams are analyzed. The objective is to evaluate the response of the beams
under (i) linear static analysis (small displacements) and (ii) geometric nonlinear analysis
(large displacements) with and without the application of follower forces.
Considering the example is a static problem, the nonlinear implicit solver is used.
707

Altair Engineering
Title
Follower Force
Number
41.1
Brief Description
Cantilever beams.
Keywords
Nonlinear large displacement analysis (NLGEOM)
Termination time (TTERM)
RADIOSS Options
Parameters for Geometric Nonlinear Implicit Static Analysis Control (NLPARMX)
Boundary conditions (SPC)
Applied forces (FORCE, TABLED1, and NLOAD1)
Default shell element parameters (XSHLPRM)
Fixed coordinate system (CORD2R)
Moving coordinate system (CORD3R)
Input File
Follower force: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/41_Follower_force/
follow_force*
RADIOSS Version
11.0
Beginner
Altair Engineering

708
Overview
Aim of the Problem
Follower forces imply that the direction of the load is assumed to rotate with the rotation at
the node (where the load is applied). The purpose of this example is to compare the
deformation characteristics of several cantilever beams with and without the application of
follower forces in a geometrically nonlinear implicit analysis (NLGEOM) and that in a
geometrically linear static analysis.
The four beams are all identical with a length of 100mm, width of 10mm and thickness of
1mm.
Fig 1: Geometry of the beams.
Small displacement (linear static) analysis is performed on beam 1. Large displacement

(NLGEOM) analysis is performed on beams 2, 3 and 4, as shown in Figure 1.
The material used is elastic with the following properties:
Density: 7.9 e-9 Mg/mm3
Youngs modulus: 2.1e+5 MPa
Poissons ratio: 0.3

The mesh is a regular shell mesh with average element size of 5mm.
The beams have been modeled using first order reduced integrated shell elements as
specified in the default definition of shell element properties (XSHLPRM):
PSHELL
XSHLPRM
11.0
24
1
2
VAR
1
NEWT
0.0
The loads and boundary conditions applied in the model are shown in Figure 2.
709

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Loads and Boundary conditions
The cantilever beams are constrained at one end and all dof and forces are applied at the
other end (15N are applied at the the two outer nodes as 30N is applied at the center node).
SPC
1234560.0
For NLGEOM analysis, the loading is defined using NLOAD1 card:

TABLED1
+
NLOAD1
LINEAR
LINEAR
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0ENDT
8
Force Type Follower or Non-follower

For beams 1 and 4, the loading is defined in default global coordinate system, which is a
fixed coordinate system, signifying the definition of non-follower force on both the beams.
Static analysis is performed on beam 1, while geometric nonlinear analysis is performed on
beam 4.
For beam 2, loading is defined with a fixed coordinate system (CORD2R) signifying the
definition of non-follower force on this beam as well. Geometric nonlinear analysis is
performed on beam 2.
CORD2R
+
1
130.0
30.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
30.0
100.0
0.0
FORCE
88
11.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
FORCE
89
11.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
FORCE
90
11.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
Altair Engineering
100.0

710
For beam 3, loading is defined with a moving coordinate system (CORD3R) signifying the
follower force on beam 3. Geometric nonlinear analysis is performed on beam 3.
CORD3R
151
150
178
FORCE
151
31.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
FORCE
152
31.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
FORCE
153
31.0
0.0
0.0
15.0

As mentioned before, small displacement linear static analyses (for beam 1), as well as large
displacement nonlinear implicit analyses (for beams 2, 3 and 4) have been performed in this
example. The nonlinear analysis is performed using the arc-length displacement strategy.
The time step is determined by a displacement norm control.
Implicit type:
Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver:
Modified Newton method
Relative residual in force and energy
Tolerance:
0.01
Arc-length
Initial time step:
0.5
Minimum time step:
1e-5
Maximum time step:
1.5
Line search method:
ENERGY

number:
Maximum convergence iteration

number:
20
0.67
Maximum increasing time step

scale factor:
1.1
Arc-length:
Spring-back option:
No.
711

Altair Engineering
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. The linear
implicit options used are:
Linear solver:
Direct (BCS)
Stop criteria:
Machine precision
The input nonlinear implicit options set in the FEM file are defined by NLPARMX:
NLPARM
0.0
+
NLPARMX
0.1
0.01
-1
40
The nonlinear large deformation analysis has to be defined through a subcase. An NLPARM
statement, as well as ANALYSIS=NLGEOM has to be present in the subcase. The termination
time of 1.0s is defined thru the TTERM entry. The first subcase is linear static and the second
subcase is geometric nonlinear.
$HMNAME LOADSTEP
1"linstatic"
$
SUBCASE
SPC =
LOAD =
$
$HMNAME LOADSTEP
2"nlgeom"
15
$
SUBCASE
ANALYSIS NLGEOM
SPC =
NLPARM =
NLOAD =
1
7
TTERM = 1.0
Altair Engineering

712

Animations
The displacement contour on the beams is shown in Figure 3. As expected, beam 1 for which
static analysis has been performed, shows the largest deformation. Beam 2 (for which
loading has been defined in a fixed coordinate system) and beam 4 (for which loading has
been defined in the default global coordinate system) show the exact same deformations.
Beam 3 for which NLGEOM analysis has been performed with follower forces, shows higher
deformations than beams 2 and 4, and the end where load is applied bulges out into a
spherical shape.
Fig 3: Displacement contour of the four cantilever beams
Figure 4 shows the differences in deformation characteristics with and without the application
of follower forces for geometrically linear and geometrically nonlinear analyses.
713

Altair Engineering
Fig 4: Comparison of deformations for geometrically linear, geometrically nonlinear without application of follower
force and geometrically nonlinear analysis with follower force applied
Whether follower force should be applied or not depends on the application. For situations
where the applied force rotates with the rotation of the load application point, follower forces
should be defined for correct representation of the physical situation. In all other situations
where the direction of the force remains constant, follower forces do not need to be
considered.
Altair Engineering

714
Example 42 - Rubber Ring: Crush and Slide
Summary
The model consists of a deformed rubber ring resting on a flat, rigid surface. Another circular
rigid impactor rests at the top of the ring, and is in contact with the ring at just a point.
Contact is defined between the rigid surfaces and the outside surface of the ring ands selfcontact is defined in the inside surface of the ring. The loading is applied in two steps in the
first step, the circular indenter is pushed down enough to produce self-contact of the inside
surface of the ring. In the second step, the indenter is simultaneously translated and rotated
such that the crushed ring rolls along the flat rigid surface producing a constantly changing
region of contact.
This example is considered a static problem and the nonlinear implicit solver is used.
715

Altair Engineering
Title
Rubber-ring
Number
42.1
Brief Description
A rubber ring resting on a flat rigid surface is pushed down by a circular indenter to produce
self-contact on the inside surface of the ring. Then the indenter is simultaneously rolled and
translated so that crushed ring rolls along the flat surface.
Keywords
Nonlinear implicit large displacement analysis
Self-contact
Hyper-elastic material
RADIOSS Options
Hyper-elastic rubber material (/MAT/LAW42)
Releasing of dof (/BCSR)
Incompressible solid element (/PROP/SOLID)
Contact definition (/INTER/TYPE7)
Implicit analysis (/IMPL)
Input File
Rubber_ring: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/42_Rubber_ring/
rubber_ring*
RADIOSS Version
11.0
Beginner
Altair Engineering

716
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to demonstrate a nonlinear large displacement implicit
analysis involving hyper-elastic material and contacts using RADIOSS.
The deformed ring has an inner diameter of six units and an outer diameter of 8 units and
the thickness of the ring is 0.67 units. The diameter of the circular rigid indenter is 2 units.
The thickness of the rigid flat surface and the circular impactor is 0.01units. A question that
might come to mind is: "Why a half-symmetric model is not be used in this example?" Now,
even though the loading in the first step is symmetric, the loading in the second step is not,
so the full model had to used for the example to simulate the loading of both the steps.
Fig 1: Geometry of the rubber ring and impactor model.
The hyper-elastic rubber ring has been modeled using the Ogden, Mooney-Rivlin material (/
MAT/LAW42) with the following properties:
1: 0.7
2: -0.5
1: 2.0
2: -2.0
The rigid barriers (indenter and flat surface) have been modeled using elastic material. But a
1D rigid link has been connected to all the nodes of each of the barriers, making them
essentially rigid. The material used for the rigid barriers has the following properties:
Density: 7.9e-9
Poissons ratio: 0.3
717

Altair Engineering

Geometric Linear (NLSTAT) or Geometric Nonlinear (NLGEOM) Analysis
In geometric linear analysis all deformations and rotations are small displacements of 5%
of the model dimension are considered small.
For this rubber ring example, the final deformations and strains after crushing the rubber ring
are much larger than the above mentioned limit. So, the geometrically linear static NLSTAT
analysis could not be considered for this example.
1) Mesh and properties
The ring mesh is a regular solid mesh modeled with four elements (dimension of 0.25 units)
along the width and two elements (dimension of 0.335 units) through the thickness. The flat
rigid surface and the circular indenter are both modeled as a regular shell mesh of 0.01mm
thickness with the flat surface around 0.75 units in dimension and the indenter being around
0.467 units in dimension.
Fig 2: Geometry of the rubber ring and impactor model.
The ring has been modeled using first order fully-integrated solid elements.
/PROP/SOLID/5
WHEEL
14
10
222
The flat surface and indenter have been modeled using the first order reduced integration
shell elements with three integration points through the thickness. Full integration elements
were not considered as we are not interested in any detailed post-processing of the barrier.
/PROP/SHELL/6
BARRIER
1
0.01
Altair Engineering

718
2) Load and boundary conditions

The boundary conditions applied to the rubber ring in step 1 are shown in Figure 3.
Fig 3: Boundary conditions applied to ring in first step
The boundary conditions applied to the flat rigid surface and circular indenter in step 1 are
shown in Figure 4.
The flat surface is constrained in all dof's, while the impactor is pushed down by 6.22 units in
Y-axis so much that self-contact is established within the inner surface of the ring.
Fig 4: Boundary conditions applied to flat surface and indenter in 1st step
In the second step, the top indenter is to be simultaneously translated and rotated such that
the wheel in the crushed configuration rolls along the flat rigid surface in X direction. So,
the X translation and ZZ rotations of the circular indenter have to be released from the
primary node of /RBODY. Additionally, the center nodes of the ring that were constrained in
X dof (as shown in Fig 3) need to be released for the ring to roll along the flat surface. So,
the Engine file for the second step has the following cards representing release of the abovementioned degrees of freedom.
/BCSR/TRA/X/
5 6 8 9 15 16 17 18
87 88 89 93 94 95 241 242
719

Altair Engineering
243 244 245 246 5717 5699 5681 5663

5662 5537 5517 5497 5477 5476 2269
/BCSR/ROT/Z
2269
3) Contact definition
Several contacts have been defined: i) contact between the circular indenter and rubber ring,
(ii) contact between the flat rigid surface and rubber ring, and (iii) self-contact within the
inner surface of the rubber ring.
A small physical gap (0.05 units) has been introduced between the circular indenter and the
rubber ring and also between rubber ring and the flat rigid surface. The minimum gap
specified for the contact is slightly higher than the physical gap for contact to take effect.
Static Coulomb friction of 0.5 is defined for all the interfaces. The definition of one such
interface is shown below:
/INTER/TYPE7/14
TOP_Rubber
25
30
0.5
000
0.055
Also, since the contact involved is between a rigid part and a very soft hyper-elastic material,
it is advisable that the E*h (Youngs modulus * thickness) of the rigid part be approximately
the same order as the bulk modulus of the rubber material.
The hyper-elasticity and contact causes major nonlinearities. Therefore, a static nonlinear
analysis is performed using the arc-length displacement strategy. The time step is
determined by a displacement norm control.
Implicit type:
Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver:
BFGS Quasi-Newton method
Relative residual in energy
Tolerance:
0.001
Arc-length
Initial time step:
0.001
Minimum time step:
1e-6
Altair Engineering

720
Maximum time step:
0.001
Line search method:
AUTO
Special residual force computation

with
contact interfaces present:

number:
Maximum convergence iteration

number:
15
0.8
Maximum increasing time step scale

factor:
1.1
Arc-length:
Spring-back option:
No
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. It is

defined in the option /IMPL/SOLVER. The linear implicit options used are:
Linear solver:
Direct
Stop criteria:
Machine precision
A restart analysis is performed for the second load step.

The input implicit options set in both the Engine files are:
/IMPL/PRINT/NONLIN/-1
--- Printout frequency for nonlinear iteration
/IMPL/NONLIN/2
5
---- Static nonlinear computation
0.001
/IMPL/SOLVER/3
5
----- Solver method (solve Ax=b)
/IMPL/DTINI
0.0
----- Initial time step determines initial loading increment
0.001
/IMPL/DT/STOP
1e-6
721
-------
Min Max values for time step
0.001

Altair Engineering
/IMPL/DT/2
------ Time step control method 2 Arc-length + Line-search
will be used with this method to accelerate and control convergence.
6
15
/IMPL/AUTOSPC/ALL
/IMPL/LSEARCH/3
/IMPL/RREF/INTER/5
0.8
1.1
---- Constraining automatically zero stiffness dof

---- Line search method for nonlinear analysis
------ Special Reference residual computation with
contact

Animations
The deformed shape of the rubber ring after the circular indenter is pushed down enough is
shown in Figure 5.
Fig 5: Deformed shape of the rubber ring after 1st step
Figure 6 shows the slide of the crushed rubber ring along the flat rigid surface after the
indenter has been simultaneously translated and rotated.
Altair Engineering

722
Fig 6: Deformed shape of the rubber ring after 2nd step
The stresses in the rubber ring after it has been crushed and sliding along the flat rigid
surface are shown in Figure 7.
Fig 7: Stress in the rubber ring
723

Altair Engineering
Example 43 - Perfect Gas Modeling with Polynomial EOS
Summary
Polynomial EOS is often used by RADIOSS to compute hydrodynamic pressure. It is cubic in
compression and linear in expansion.
where,
(1)
and
(2)
Material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) uses this equation to compute hydrostatic pressure. It is

possible to consider absolute values or relative variation (Table 1). The purpose of this
example is to show how to build material control cards for each of the following cases:
Case
Mathematical
model
Pressure
Energy
,E
absolute
absolute
,E
relative
absolute
, E
relative
relative
absolute
relative
3
4
, E
Table 1: Modeling formulation for perfect gas with /MAT/HYDRO
A simple test of compression/expansion is made to compare these formulation outputs with

theoretical results.
Altair Engineering

724
Title
Perfect Gas Modeling
with
Polynomial EOS
Number
43.1
Brief Description
Polynomial EOS is used to model perfect gas. Pressure or energy can be absolute values or
relative. Material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) is used to build material cards for each of these
cases.
Keywords
Perfect gas
Polynomial EOS
Absolute / Relative formulations
Pressure shift
RADIOSS Options
Hydrodynamic fluid material (/MAT/LAW6 (HYDRO))
Boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS)
Compare to / Validation method
Input File
Model 1: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/43_perfect_gas_polynomial_eos/01-Pabsolute_Eabsolute/*
radioss/43_perfect_gas_polynomial_eos/02-Prelative_Eabsolute/*
radioss/43_perfect_gas_polynomial_eos/03-Prelative_Erelative/*
radioss/43_perfect_gas_polynomial_eos/04-Pabsolute_Erelative/*
RADIOSS Version
9.0
725

Altair Engineering

Beginner
Overview
Aim of the Problem
The purpose of this example is to plot numerical pressure, internal energy, and sound speed
for a perfect gas material law. Comparison to theoretical results is made. Control cards for
Absolute and Relative formulations will be used.
This test consists with an elementary volume of perfect gas undergoing spherical expansion
and compression.
Initial conditions are listed below:

P0 = 1e5 Pa
V0 = 1000 m3
0
= 1.204 kg/m3
=0
The fluid will be assumed to be a perfect gas. Volume is changed in the three directions to
consider a pure compression (-1 < < 0) followed by an expansion of matter (0 < ). See
Figure 1.
This test will be modeled with a single ALE element (8 node brick) and polynomial EOS.
Evolutions of pressure, internal energy and sound speed will be compared between numerical
output and theoretical results.
Altair Engineering

726
Fig 1: Elementary volume change. Length is modified with /IMPDISP card; its influences on V and
are plotted.

Nodes on each of the faces are moved with imposed displacement (/IMPDISP).
Boundary nodes are defined as Lagrangian with the /ALE/BCS card.
Element pressure, density and internal energy density are saved in the Time History file.
Polynomial EOS
Polynomial EOS is used in material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) to compute hydrodynamic pressure.
It is cubic in compression and linear in expansion.
Where, P is the hydrodynamic pressure.
(1)
and
(2)
727

Altair Engineering
are called hydrodynamic coefficients and they are input flags. Hypothesis on the
material behavior allows determining of these coefficients:
General case corresponds to Mie-Guneisen EOS (see Appendix C of the Theory Manual)
Incompressible gas
Linear elastic material
Perfect gas
This example is focused only on Perfect Gas modeling.
Theoretical Results
The purpose of this section is to plot pressure, internal energy, and sound speed in function
of the single parameter V or .
1. Pressure
Perfect gas pressure is given by:
PV
1 Eint
(3)
Then,
RADIOSS assumes the hypothesis of an isentropic process to compute the change in

internal energy:
dEint
P dV
This theory gives the following differential equation:
dP
dV
P
V
This has the form
y'
and the general solution is:
y Cst.x
Pressure is also polytropic:
PV
PoVo
V
P(V ) P 0 0
V
(4)
Here, is the material constant (ratio of heat capacity). For diatomic gas
made mainly of diatomic gas, so set gamma to 1.4 for air.
Altair Engineering
=1.4. Air is

728
2. Internal Energy
Equations (3) and (4) lead to the immediate result:
3. Sound Speed
Perfect gas sound speed is:
(5)
Equation (4) gives its expression in term of volume:
The theoretical results are listed in the table below. Pressure, internal energy, and sound
speed are expressed both in function of V and .
Pressure (Pa)
PREF(V
)
Internal Energy Density

(J)
PREF( )
eREF(V)
eREF( )
Sound Speed (m/s)

cREF(V)
cREF( )
Corresponding plots are shown below:
Fig 2: Perfect Gas Pressure
729

Altair Engineering
Fig 3: Perfect Gas Internal Energy
Fig 4: Perfect Gas Sound Speed
A single ALE brick element is used. Material is confined inside the element by defining brick
nodes as Lagrangian. For each face, displacement is imposed on the four nodes along the
normal.
Material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) is used and describes the hydrodynamic viscous fluid material.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID
mat_title
i
C0
C1
Pmin
Psh
C4
C5
Altair Engineering
C2
C3
E0

730
Pressure Shift
Material law 6 introduces flag Psh which allows shifting computed pressure in the polynomial
equation of state:
RADIOSS Engine shifts C0 flag and computed pressure P( ,E) with an offset of -Psh.
Minimum Pressure
The theoretical value is Pmin = 0 Pa (absolute pressure) with a default value of -1030, to
allow negative value in relative pressure formulation.
This flag has to be manually offset with -Psh.

Material Control Cards
Material is supposed to be a perfect gas. The following cases have been investigated:
Case 1: Both Pressure and Energy are absolute values:
Case 2: Pressure is relative and Energy is absolute:
Case 3: Both Pressure and Energy are relative:
Case 4: Pressure is absolute and Energy is relative:
,E
,E
, E
P
, E
Case 1: Both Pressure and Energy are absolute values

1. Equation of State
Equation of state can be written:
with
731

Altair Engineering
Expanding this expression and identifying the polynomial coefficients leads to:
,E
C4 C5
where,
2. Corresponding Input
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
AbsolutePRESSURE_AbsoluteENERGY
i
C4 =
-1
C5 =
-1
3. Output Results
Time
History
Initial
Value
Measure
Unit
/TH/BRICK (P)
P0
Pressure
/TH (IE)
Eint (= E x V0)
E0V0
Energy
/TH/BRICK (IE)
Eint / V
E0
Pressure
4. Comparison with Theoretical Result

Numerical result for perfect gas pressure is given by time history. Element time history
(RADIOSS /TH/BRICK) allows displaying it. This result is compared to a theoretical one.
Curves are superimposed.
Altair Engineering

732
Fig 5: Numerical pressure, model 1:
,E
Internal energy can be obtained through two different ways. The first one is internal
energy density (Eint / V) recorded by element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK). The
second one is the internal energy from the global time history
model is composed of a single element.
Fig 6: Numerical internal energy, model 1:
because the
,E
Case 2: Pressure is relative and Energy is absolute

Equation of state for a perfect gas is:
Calculating Pressure from a reference one provides relative pressure:
Expanding this expression and identifying with polynomial coefficients leads to:
P( ,E) = P( ,E) = Psh = -Psh + (C4 + C5 )E
where,
733

Altair Engineering
2. Minimum Pressure
Then, the minimum pressure must be set to a non-zero value Pmin = -P0.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
RelativePRESSURE_AbsoluteENERGY
i
-P0
P0
C4 =
-1
C5 =
-1
4. Output Result
Time History
/TH/BRICK (P)
Measure
P
Initial
Value
Unit
Pressure
/TH (IE)
Eint (= E x V0)
E0V0
Energy
/TH/BRICK (IE)
Eint / V
E0
Pressure

Element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK) is the pressure relative to Psh. The
resulting curve is then shifted with Psh value and starts from 0.
Altair Engineering

734
,E
energy density (Eint / V) recorded by element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK). The
second one is the internal energy from the global time history
model is composed of a single element.
because the
,E
Case 3: Both Pressure and Energy are relative

Initial internal energy can be introduced:
Calculating oressure from a reference one provides:

P( ,E) - P0 = P = ( - 1)(1 + )( E + E0) - P0
Where,
735

Altair Engineering
P( , E) = P( ,E) - Psh = C0 - Psh + C1 + (C4 + C5 ) E
where,
C0 = C1 = E0( - 1)
C4 = C5 =
-1
E0 = 0
Psh = P0
2. Minimum Pressure
The minimum pressure must be set to a non-zero value Pmin = -P0

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
RelativePRESSURE_RelativeENERGY
i
E0( - 1)
E0( - 1)
-P0
P0
C4 =
-1
C5 =
-1
4. Output Results
Time History
Measure
Initial Value
Unit
/TH/BRICK (P)
Pressure
/TH (IE)
Energy
/TH/BRICK (IE)
Pressure

Element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK) is the pressure relative to Psh. The
resulting curve is then shifted with Psh value and starts also from 0.
Altair Engineering

736
, E
energy density (Eint / V) recorded by element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK).
The second one is the internal energy from the global time history
because
the model is composed of a single element. This numerical internal energy is relative
to its initial value; it is shifted with the E0V0 value from the absolute theoretical one
and also starts from 0.
, E
Case 4: Pressure is absolute and Energy is relative

Initial internal energy can be introduced:
Which leads to:

P( ,E) = ( -1)(1 + )(E0 + E)
737

Altair Engineering
P( ,E) = C0 + C1 + (C4 + C5 ) E
Where,
C0 = C1 = E0 ( - 1)
C4 = C5 =
-1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
AbsolutePRESSURE_RelativeENERGY
i
E0( - 1)
E0( - 1)
C4 =
-1
C5 =
-1
3. Output Results
Time
History
/TH/BRICK (P)
Initial
Value
Measure
P
Unit
P0
Pressure
/TH (IE)
Energy
/TH/BRICK (IE)
Pressure

Element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK) gives absolute pressure. This result is
compared to a theoretical one. Curves are superimposed.
Altair Engineering

738
, E
energy density ( Eint / V) recorded by element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK).
The second one is the internal energy from the global time history
because the model is composed of a single element. This numerical internal energy is
relative to its initial value; it is shifted with the E0V0 value from the absolute
theoretical one and also starts from 0.
, E
Sound Speed and Time Step

Material law 6 computes sound speed through the usual expression for fluids:
It can be written in function of
Then,
739

Altair Engineering
The total differential of P in terms of internal energy E and
is:
In case of an isentropic transformation (i.e. reversible and adiabatic), the change of internal
energy Eint with volume V and pressure P is given by:
dEint = -PdV
Using relation which links Eint and E leads to:
can be expressed in terms of volume ratio:
its variation in function of the volume change is also:
Change in internal energy per unit volume E is then:
Finally, the sound speed is given by:
(5)
This expression allows computing the sound speed for a given equation of state P( ,E). In
the case of perfect gas, it was shown that for each type of formulation (absolute or relative),
EOS can be written:
P( ,E) = C0 + C1 + (C4 + C5 )E
Equation (5) is used to compute sound speed:
Altair Engineering

740
(6)
This calculation is then applied for each of the four cases.

Numerical Sound Speed vs. Theoretical Expression
C0
C1
-1
-1
c = cREF
-1
-1
c = cREF
E0( - 1)
E0( -
-1
-1
c = cREF
E0( - 1)
-1
-1
c = cREF
1)
E0( 1)
C4
C5
Comparison with
theoretical value
Case
c2 from Eq (5)
For each of the four formulations, the computed sound speed by RADIOSS is the same as the
theoretical one. Time step and cycle number are also not affected.
741

Altair Engineering
Example 44 - Blow Molding with AMS
Summary
The aim of this example is to introduce high quality time step control Advanced Mass Scaling
(AMS). Time step will be computed by RADIOSS. Small element sizes may lead to small time
step and; therefore, occupy many CPU sources. Increase time step could use time step
control, but using old option of time step control will for example increase the mass or
kinematic energy. If the increase is not small enough, it will affect the solution, but with this
high quality time step control AMS, there is no change in inertia effects on translational
global acceleration, non-diagonal mass added. With AMS we got similar results like the old
one, but with much less computation time.
Altair Engineering

742
Title
Blow Molding with
AMS
Number
44.1
Brief Description
Blow molding with Advanced Mass Scaling (AMS).
Keywords
Advanced Mass Scaling (/AMS)
Time Step for Advanced Mass Scaling (/DT/AMS/Iflag)
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7)
Visco Elastic Plastic Piecewise Linear Material law (/MAT/LAW66)
Shell property (/PROP/SHELL)
RADIOSS Options
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Impose displacement (/IMPDISP)
Pressure Load (/PLOAD)
Input File
EXAMPLE44: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/44_blow_molding_ams/
E4_66_AMS/*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/44_blow_molding_ams/
E4_66_no_dt_control/*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/44_blow_molding_ams/
E4_66_Noda_CST/*
RADIOSS Version
10.0 and 11.0
Advanced
743

Altair Engineering
Overview
Description of the Physical Problem
A hollow plastic parison (tube-like) has been formed. Then the parison is clamped into a
mold and air is pumped into it. Here we use pressure load to modeling air pressure. Let it
push the plastic out and then match the mold. The dimension of the parision is cylinder with
30mm and its thickness 2mm. The dimension of the mold is 207mm x 120 mm and its
thickness is 1.0 mm.
Fig 1: Problem description for blow molding
Units: mm, s, Mg , N , MPa

The mold material using the Elastic model (/MAT/ELAST), with the following characteristics:
Initial density = 7.8e-9 Mg/mm3
Young modulus = 200000 MPa
Poisson ratio = 0.3
The plastic parison using Visco Elastic Plastic Piecewise Linear material (/MAT/LAW66), with
Initial density = 1e-9 Mg/mm3
Young modulus = 4 MPa
Altair Engineering

744

Modeling Methodology of Blow Model with AMS
Blow molding using AMS will be modeled as follows:
1. Define /AMS in Starter. Choose the part group which will use AMS. If part group has not
been specified, then the whole model will use AMS.
2. Using /DT/AMS/Iflag in Engine to define the tolerance for AMS convergence. For example
here is:
/DT/AMS/1
0.67 1.5700e-03
1e-4
Rigid body and Boundary conditions:
Using rigid body, two molds have been fixed in all direction of rotation and translations
of y-direction and x-direction. They are only free in z-direction (translation).
Pressure Load:
The air pressure on plastic parison is modeled using pressure load /PLOAD from inside
towards outside
Fig. 2: Pressure load on plastic parison
Imposed displacement:
Two molds are moved in opposite directions with imposed displacement.
Interface:
Type 7 interface has been defined between mold and plastic parison with friction 0.7.
745

Altair Engineering

The following figures show the plastic strain, von Mises stress on plastic parison. (See below).
Fig. 3: Plastic strain and von Mises stress on plastic parison
Performance
Using the AMS technique, CPU time is reduced by a factor of approximately 3, in this case.
Below shows results comparison of tests:
Without time step control (no mass scaling)
With standard mass scaling /DT/NODE/CST
With AMS
Table 1: Results of model computation with and without AMS
Without time
step control
With standard
mass scaling /
DT/NODA/CST
With AMS
Time step(s)
0.157e-04
0.34e-04
1.5700e-03
Total Number
of cycle
78198
24278
6966
Altair Engineering

746
Without time
step control
With standard
mass scaling /
DT/NODA/CST
With AMS
5.015e+03 s
1.517e+3 s
1.429E+03 s
Speed-up
3.31
3.51
Results quality
Bad
Good
CPU time(s)
Fig. 4: Plastic strain for tests without time step control (no mass scaling). With /DT/NODA/CST and with AMS at
time 0.4s.
Fig. 5: Internal energy on plastic parison with and without AMS
It shows at time 0.4s for the same speed up factor with AMS we got more accurate results
compare with no mass scaling test than with node mass scaling.
Conclusion
To obtain a CPU saving factor of about 3, the target time step should be about 10 times
higher than the one without AMS; AMS treatment itself is taking some CPU cost.
Standard mass scaling technique can also speed up the calculation by a factor of about 3, but
the results quality will be affected.
747

Altair Engineering
In general, AMS technique for a given speed up, gives more accurate results than standard
mass scaling.
The AMS technique does not change the total mass; the mass is added only on non-diagonal
terms of the mass matrix.
It is applicable to the entire model
There is no change in inertia effects on translational global acceleration
Note:
Result accuracy, in terms of stress and strains, is normally not affected; by the way
AMS is affecting Eigen modes of the structure(s) to which it is applied. Higher
frequencies are lowered.
AMS technique is highly scalable; large models could show even more significant speed
up factors.
Altair Engineering

748
Example 45 - Multi-Domain
Summary
The multidomain technique aims at optimizing performance of large scale RADIOSS models
containing one sub-domain with significant time step discrepancy, often related to mesh
refinement differences. It makes possible the split of a whole model into master domain and
several sub-domains. Each domain is computed as a separate RADIOSS model, using its own
timestep. The force and momentum transfers between them are managed by a separate
program insuring stability constraints. The aim of this example is to show you how to use the
new Multi-Domain Single Input Format and how to prepare a model.
749

Altair Engineering
Title
Multi-Domain
Number
45.1
Brief Description
Separate the whole model into master domain and sub-domain and solve each one with its
own timestep. The new Multidomain Single Input Format makes the sub-domain part
definition with the /SUBDOMAIN keyword.
Keywords
Multidomain Decomposition (/SUBDOMAIN)
Multidomain Coupling (/RAD2RAD/ON)
/INTER/TYPE2
Input File
FRAME_MODIFIED: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/45multidomain_tied/monodomain/*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/45-multidomain_tied/multidomain/*
RADIOSS Version
11.0-SA1-220
Advanced
Altair Engineering

750
Overview
Description of the Physical Problem
The bumper beam impacts the rigid cylinder (254 mm diameter) with an initial velocity of
5m/s. The crash box behind the bumper is fixed in all directions, except translation in x
direction - the pillar is fixed in all directions.
The pillar is fixed in all directions.
Fig 1: Problem description

Modeling Description
In order to get more accurate results we use a fine mesh in the area of interest (e.g. high
deformation location). In this example, the part near the impact area (highlighted in red)
where the bumper highly deforms was chosen. The fine mesh size is about 2 mm, whereas
the mesh size of the remaining part is about 7 mm. The finely meshed part has 18370 shell
elements that represent nearly 50% of the whole model. In explicit analysis the timestep will
be controlled by this fine mesh. In order to improve performances, this computation is
usually treated with classical mass scaling (/DT/NODA/CST). By using the multi-domain
technique, it is possible to use a small timestep for the fine meshed part and a large timestep
for the coarse meshed part.
There are two different methods to use the multidomain technique. The first (old) method
requests users to build separate Starter and Engine files for each domain and to define a /
LINK keyword for the connections between domains.
Since RADIOSS v11.0.220 a new feature called Multi-Domain Single Input Format is
available. Using the keyword /SUBDOMAIN, you can insert the parts, which shall use a
different timestep into the new sub-domain and create an Engine file with its specific
timestep. RADIOSS will automatically create the Starter information for the sub-domain and
its link for connection between the two domains.
751

Altair Engineering

In this example the following files are used: One Starter file with two Engines files:
bumper_LL4_0000 Starter file
.rad
bumper_LL4_0001 Engine file for master domain
.rad
FINE_MESH_0001. Engine file for sub-domain
rad
Only the following two keywords need to be added:

1. /SUBDOMAIN in bumper_LL4_0000.rad
Starter
With /SUBDOMAIN defining our sub-domain in Starter file, as shown below:
Fig. 2: Parts of the sub-domain
Remark:
We must keep the subdomain_title in /SUBDOMAIN the same as the sub-domain Engine
file root_name.
In this example, the subdomain_title in /SUBDOMAIN is FINE_MESH. Therefore, the
Engine sub-domain is FINE_MESH_0001.rad.
2. /RAD2RAD/ON must be present in both Engine files:
In order to use the multidomain technique, /RAD2RAD/ON in both Engine files needs to
be defined, so that the multidomain coupling can be established.
Altair Engineering

752
Definition of the Contact Between Domains

We define tied contact (/INTER/TYPE2) between sub-domain and master-domain. This
connection is fully compatible with Multi-Domain single input format and will automatically
create the coupling links between domains during RADIOSS Starter run.
In this example, sub-domain will not impact the master domain during the simulation. So, we
just define two self-contacts for each domain. In case the sub-domain impacts the master
domain during the simulation, it is recommended to define the following four contact
interfaces type 7.
Two internal contact interfaces (/INTER/TYPE7) each one treated in its own domain:
Contact interface 1: self-contact interface for the master domain
Contact interface 2: self-contact interface for the sub-domain
Two contact interfaces (/INTER/TYPE7) for the interaction between domains treated in
the sub-domain:
Contact interface 3: contact subframe / car subframe on the slave side
Contact interface 4: contact car / subframe subframe on the master side
In this case, if all contacts are treated in one single contact (/INTER/TYPE7), every element
of the model would impact the sub-domain and all the elements of the model would be
duplicated in the sub-domain. If the model is large, the multi-domain interface would be
huge, the CPU cost of RAD2RAD would be very high; therefore, the performance of the
computation is very poor. The warning message Multi-Domains interface is too big will be
printed by Starter, in this instance.
Units: mm, ms, kg, N , GPa
753

Altair Engineering

In order to show the performance of a multi-domain, the following two tests were
conducted:
Test 1: Mono-domain free DT control
Test 2: Multi-domain free DT control
Table 1: Total calculation time comparison of two tests

Multi-Domain (2)
Test
Mono-Domain (1)
free DT control
CPU
Timestep [ms]
CPU time [s]
Elapsed time [s]
Master domain
free DT control
Sub-domain
free DT
control
2E-04
8E-04
2E-04
5.93E+03
0.67E+03
2.64E+03
5.9E+03
3.3E+03
For Test 1 the timestep will be controlled by the fine mesh part. In order to avoid small
timesteps, you could use the multi-domain approach (Test 2). The master domain (coarse
mesh part) has a free timestep of about 8e-4 ms and the sub-domain (fine mesh part) has a
timestep of about 2e-4 ms. The total calculation time is only 3.3e-3 s (almost 2 times faster
than Test 1). Fig 3 shows same failure behavior between Test 1 and Test 2. Fig 4 and Fig 5
show exactly the same results between Test 1 and 2. So, Test 2 is faster and provides same
results quality as in Test 1.
Altair Engineering

754
Fig. 3: Failure of crash box in the two tests
Fig. 4: Impactor force of the two tests
755

Altair Engineering
Fig. 5: Internal energy of the two tests
When using multi-domain, the performance will be more significant for large models or for
cases where the fine mesh part represents less than 30% of the whole model (50% here is a
lot).
The RADIOSS domains are treated sequentially, which means that only one RADIOSS process
is running at a time. The full CPU resource is automatically allocated to the running process
and the other is put into a no CPU consuming idle mode.
Fig. 6: RAD2RAD multi-timestep method
Altair Engineering

756
Conclusion
By using the multidomain approach, the computation time can be reduced significantly, with
preserving high quality results.
The new single input file format makes the multi-domain more user friendly, compared to the
set-up process in earlier versions.
757

Altair Engineering
Example 46 - TNT Cylinder Expansion Test
Summary
The Cylinder Expansion Test is an experimental test used to characterize the adiabatic
expansion of detonation products. It allows determining JWL EOS parameters.
It consists in a copper cylinder filled with an explosive (here TNT). Detonation is initiated at
the bottom of the explosive with a planar detonation wave. It propagates along cylinder axis
and radial expansion of the copper cylinder is measured at a given point of external surface.
In order to simulate this experience, a model is created with the following details:
3D mesh of a quarter-cylinder with eight node brick elements
Jones Wilkins Lee Equation-of-State for TNT detonation products (/MAT/JWL)
Hydrodynamic Johnson-Cook material law for the copper cylinder (/MAT/HYD_JCOOK)
Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51)
The simulation results are then compared to the experiment data.
Altair Engineering

758
46.1 - Lagrange Formulation
Title
Cylinder
Expansion Test
with Lagrange
formulation
Number
46.1
Brief Description
Detonation is initiated at the bottom of the explosive. Radial expansion of the cylinder is
measured and compared to experimental data.
Keywords
Lagrange formulation
Jones Wilkins Lee EOS (/MAT/JWL)
Hydrodynamic Johnson-Cook Material (/MAT/LAW4)
Gruneisen equation of state (/EOS/GRUNEISEN)
Brick elements
RADIOSS Options
Solid property (/PROP/SOLID)
Detonation plan (/DFS/DETPLAN)
Time history on node (/TH/NODE)
Input File
Cylinder
Test:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/46_TNT_Cylinder_Expansion_Test/Lagrange/*
RADIOSS Version
V11.0.240
Advanced
759

Altair Engineering
Overview
The purpose of this example is to show how to simulate the cylinder expansion test and
compare the simulation result to experimental data.
A OFHC copper cylinder (1.53cm diameter, 0.26cm thickness, 30.5cm height) is filled with an
explosive (TNT). Detonation is initiated at the bottom of the explosive. Radial expansion is
measured at a length of 8*D cm.
Since this problem is axisymmetric, only a quarter of the cylinder is modeled.
Fig 1: Problem description for cylinder test
Units: cm, s, g, Mbar

The TNT material uses Jones Wilkins Lee Material (/MAT/JWL) and Lagrange formulation with
Initial density = 1.63
A = 3.7121
B = 0.0323
R1 = 4.15
R2 = 0.95
= 0.3
Chapman Jouget parameters enable detonation time to compute and burn fraction evolution:
Detonation velocity D = 0.693
Chapman Jouguet pressure PCJ = 0.21
Detonation energy E0 = 0.07
Altair Engineering

760
RADIOSS Card (TNT)

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/MAT/JWL/2
TNT
#
RHO_I
1.63
R1
R2
4.15
.95
OMEGA
3.7121
.3
#
.0323
P_CJ
.693
.21
E0
.07
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
Using Hydrodynamic Johnson-Cook material law (/MAT/LAW4), the Copper cylinder material
has the following characteristics:
E-Module = 1.24
Poisson = 0.35
A = 0.9e-3
B = 0.292e-2
N = 0.31
max
= 0.0066
C = 0.025
0
= 1e-5
M = 1.09
0 Cp
= 3.461e-3
Tmelt = 1656
The Gruneisen equation of state (/EOS/GRUNEISEN) is used for copper with the following
characteristics:
C = 0.394
S1 = 1.489
0 = 1.97
a = 0.47
E0 = 8.96
761

Altair Engineering
RADIOSS Card (Copper)

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|---8----|----9----|---10----|
/MAT/HYD_JCOOK/1
Copper
#
Init. dens.
Ref. dens.
8.96
0
#
E0
nu
1.24
.35
#
A
B
n
epsmax
sigmax
.9E-03
.292E-02
.31
0
0.0066
#
Pmin
-1.E30
#
C
EPS0
M
Tmelt
Tmax
.25E-01
.1E-05
1.09
1656.0
1e30
#
RHOCP
.3461E-04
/EOS/GRUNEISEN/1
Copper
0.394
1.489
1.97
0.47
8.96
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|---8----|----9----|---10----|

Modeling methodology
A 3D mesh is made of brick elements. The element size is approximately of 0.035 cm x
0.035 cm x 0.035 cm.
The mesh is dragged along the z direction (z = 30.5 cm). It is important to have no
discontinuity in element volume in order to ensure a good propagation of detonation wave
and shock wave.
Altair Engineering

762
Fig 2: Model mesh

Due to the symmetries of the model, a quarter of the cylinder is modeled. Boundary
conditions are set on the yOz plan at x = 0 (Tx = 0) and on the xOz plan at y = 0 (Ty = 0) to
simulate the symmetry.
A planar detonation wave is defined at the bottom of the cylinder.
In order to plot the curve of radial expansion, displacements of node n 201 520 at z = 24.48
cm on the outer wall of the copper cylinder are saved in time history. It corresponds to L/
D=8 in agreement with experimental protocol.
A scale factor of 0.5 (on time step for all elements) is used for this type of application.
In solid properties, qa and qb default values are used. These values have to be changed
depending of the formulation (ALE, Euler).
Isolid is set to 14 for copper solid properties.
763

Altair Engineering
RADIOSS Card (TNT)

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/PROP/SOLID/2
TNT
#
Isolid
Ismstr
dn
0
Icpre
0
Inpts
0
Irot
0
Iframe
0
0
#
q_a
q_b
0
#
dt_min
h
0
istrain
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/PROP/SOLID/1
Copper
#
Isolid
Ismstr
dn
14
Icpre
Inpts
0
Irot
Iframe
0
#
q_a
dt_min
q_b
0
0
h
0
istrain
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|

The two following diagrams display the pressure and density in the cylinder and the explosive
(see below).
Altair Engineering

764
Fig. 3: Pressure distributed in copper and TNT at time = 13s.
Fig. 4: Density distributed in copper and TNT at time = 13 s.
765

Altair Engineering
The following diagram shows the comparison between the experimental and simulation
measurement of radial expansion.
Fig. 5: Comparison between experimental results and simulation results
Conclusion
Good correlation between experimental and simulation results. A thinner meshing could
improve the correlation between simulation and experimental curves.
Elapsed time for simulation: t = 11 441 s, 8514 cycles, (4 cpu intel core i7 Q 840 @ 1.87
GHz).
As the model is Lagrangian, the mesh becomes very distorted at the end of the simulation to obtain a
proper mesh, it is possible to use the Euler method.
References
[1] Adiabatic Expansion of high explosive detonation products, LANL, Wilkins (1969)
[2] A Constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and
high temperatures, Gordon R. Johnson, William H. Cook
Altair Engineering

766
46.2 - Euler Formulation

Title
Cylinder
Expansion Test
with Euler
formulation
Number
46.2
Brief Description
Detonation is initiated at the bottom of the explosive. Radial expansion of the cylinder is measured and
compared to experimental data.
Keywords
Euler formulation
Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51)
Brick elements
RADIOSS Options
Detonation plan (/DFS/DETPLAN)
Input File
Cylinder Test: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/46_TNT_Cylinder_Expansion_Test/
Euler/*
RADIOSS Version
V11.0.240
Advanced
767

Altair Engineering
Overview
The purpose of this example is to show how to simulate the cylinder expansion test and
compare the simulation result to experimental data.
A OFHC copper cylinder (1.53cm diameter, 0.26cm thickness, 30.5cm height) is filled with an
explosive (TNT). Detonation is initiated at the bottom of the explosive. Radial expansion is
measured at a length of 8*D cm. With an Euler formulation, the air has to be modeled to be
able to measure radial expansion.
Since this problem is axisymmetric, only a quarter of the cylinder is modeled.
Fig 1: Problem description for cylinder test
Units: cm, s, g, Mbar

Using the Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the Copper
cylinder material has the following characteristics:
Initial pressure C01 = 1e-6
Hydrodynamic coefficients:
C11 = 1.38
C21 = 1.372
C41 = 0.87
C51 = 0.87
Elastic shear modulus G1 = 0.519
Yield stress 1y = 0.9e-3
Platic yield factor BB1 = 0.292e-2
Plastic yield exponent N1 = 0.31
Plastic strain rate factor CC1 = 0.025
Plastic reference strain rate 10 = 1e-6
Thermal exponent CM1 = 1.09
Altair Engineering

768
Specific heat Rhocv1 = 3.461e-5

Tmelt = 1656
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
/MAT/LAW51/1
Copper
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
Material Law No 51. MULTI-MATERIAL SOLID LIQUID GAS -ALE-CFD-SPH
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
RHO_I
RHO_0
8.96
#
Iflg
10
P_ext
NU
0
#
C_01
ALPHA_1
1
LAMDA
RHO_01
E_01
P_min1
8.96
C_21
C_31
C_41
1.372
.87
1E-6
#
C_51
C_11
1.38
.87
#
G_1
CC_1
SIGMA_Y_1
.519
9E-4
N_1
.00292
.31
EPSILON_DOT_0_1
.025
#
Rhocv_1
BB_1
1E-6
CM_1
T_10
1.09
T_1melt
T_1limit
1656
3.461E-5
#
EPSILON_max_1
SIGMA_max_1
0
#
C_02
ALPHA_2
0
K_A1
K_B1
RHO_02
E_02
P_min2
.0012
2.5E-6
-1E-20
C_22
C_32
C_42
.4
0
#
C_52
C_12
0
.4
#
G_2
SIGMA_Y_2
0
#
CC_2
N_2
EPSILON_DOT_0_2
0
#
Rhocv_2
BB_2
0
0
CM_2
T_20
T_2melt
T_2limit
0
#
769
EPSILON_max_2
SIGMA_max_2
K_A2

K_B2
Altair Engineering
0
#
C_03
ALPHA_3
RHO_03
E_03
P_min3
C_23
C_33
C_43
0
#
C_53
C_13
0
0
#
G_3
SIGMA_Y_3
0
#
CC_3
N_3
EPSILON_DOT_0_3
0
#
Rhocv_3
BB_3
0
0
CM_3
T_30
T_3melt
T_3limit
0
#
EPSILON_max_3
SIGMA_max_3
0
#
C_04
ALPHA_4
K_A3
K_B3
RHO_04
E_04
1.63
.07
0
P_min4
-1E-20
1E-6
#
B_1
B_2
3.712
.0323
R_1
R_2
W
4.15
.95
.3
#
P_CJ
.693
.21
C_14
0.036
/EULER/MAT/1
#
Modif. factor.
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
Using Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the TNT material has
Explosive cavitation pressure Pmin = -1e-20
Initial explosive pressure C04 = 1e-6
Explosive coefficient B1 = 3.712
Explosive coefficient B2 = 0.0323
Explosive coefficient R1 = 4.15
Explosive coefficient R2 = 0.95
Explosive coefficient
= 0.3
Explosive coefficient C14 = 0.036
Altair Engineering

770
Chapman Jouget parameters allow to compute detonation time and burn fraction evolution:
Detonation velocity D = 0.693
Chapman Jouguet pressure PCJ = 0.21
Initial explosive energy per unit initial volume E04 = 0.07
RADIOSS Card (TNT)
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
/MAT/LAW51/2
TNT
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
#
RHO_I
RHO_0
1.63
Iflg
10
P_ext
NU
0
#
C_01
ALPHA_1
0
LAMDA
RHO_01
E_01
P_min1
8.96
C_21
C_31
C_41
1.372
.87
1E-6
#
C_51
C_11
1.38
.87
#
G_1
SIGMA_Y_1
.519
#
CC_1
N_1
.00292
.31
EPSILON_DOT_0_1
.025
#
Rhocv_1
BB_1
9E-4
1E-6
CM_1
T_10
1.09
T_1melt
T_1limit
1656
3.461E-5
#
EPSILON_max_1
SIGMA_max_1
0
#
C_02
ALPHA_2
0
K_A1
K_B1
RHO_02
E_02
P_min2
.0012
2.5E-6
-1E-20
C_22
C_32
C_42
.4
0
#
C_52
C_12
0
.4
#
G_2
SIGMA_Y_2
0
#
CC_2
771
N_2
0
EPSILON_DOT_0_2
0
#
BB_2
CM_2
T_20
T_2melt

T_2limit
Altair Engineering
Rhocv_2
0
0
#
EPSILON_max_2
SIGMA_max_2
0
#
C_03
ALPHA_3
K_A2
K_B2
RHO_03
E_03
P_min3
C_23
C_33
C_43
0
#
C_53
C_13
0
0
#
G_3
SIGMA_Y_3
0
#
CC_3
N_3
EPSILON_DOT_0_3
0
#
Rhocv_3
BB_3
0
0
CM_3
T_30
T_3melt
T_3limit
0
#
EPSILON_max_3
SIGMA_max_3
0
#
C_04
ALPHA_4
1
K_A3
K_B3
RHO_04
E_04
1.63
.07
0
P_min4
-1E-20
1E-6
#
B_1
B_2
3.712
.0323
R_1
R_2
W
4.15
.95
.3
#
P_CJ
.693
.21
C_14
0.036
/EULER/MAT/2
#
Modif. factor.
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
Using the Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51, the Air material
has the following characteristics:
Initial energy per unit initial volume E02 = 2.5e-6
Hydrodynamic cavitation pressure Pmin = -1e-20
Hydrodynamic coefficient C42 = 0.4
Hydrodynamic coefficient C52 = 0.4
Altair Engineering

772
RADIOSS Card (Air)

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
/MAT/LAW51/3
Air
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
RHO_I
RHO_0
.0012
#
Iflg
10
P_ext
NU
0
#
C_01
ALPHA_1
RHO_01
8.96
LAMDA
0
E_01
0
P_min1
0
1E-6
#
C_51
C_11
C_21
1.38
1.372
C_31
0
C_41
.87
.87
#
G_1
CC_1
#
Rhocv_1
CM_1
SIGMA_Y_1
.519
9E-4
BB_1
.00292
N_1
.31
EPSILON_DOT_0_1
.025
1E-6
T_10
1.09
T_1melt
1656
T_1limit
0
3.461E-5
#
EPSILON_max_1
SIGMA_max_1
0
#
C_02
ALPHA_2
RHO_02
K_A1
0
E_02
K_B1
0
P_min2
.0012
2.5E-6
-1E-20
C_22
C_32
C_42
0
#
C_52
C_12
0
.4
.4
#
G_2
SIGMA_Y_2
0
#
CC_2
#
Rhocv_2
CM_2
BB_2
0
N_2
0
EPSILON_DOT_0_2
0
T_20
T_2melt
0
T_2limit
0
0
#
EPSILON_max_2
SIGMA_max_2
773
K_A2
0

K_B2
0
Altair Engineering
#
C_03
ALPHA_3
RHO_03
E_03
P_min3
0
#
C_53
C_13
C_23
C_33
C_43
0
#
G_3
SIGMA_Y_3
0
#
CC_3
#
Rhocv_3
CM_3
BB_3
N_3
EPSILON_DOT_0_3
0
T_30
T_3melt
T_3limit
0
#
EPSILON_max_3
SIGMA_max_3
0
#
C_04
K_A3
ALPHA_4
RHO_04
1.63
K_B3
0
E_04
.07
0
P_min4
-1E-20
1E-6
#
B_1
B_2
R_1
3.712
.0323
4.15
R_2
W
.95
.3
#
P_CJ
.693
.21
C_14
0.036
/EULER/MAT/3
#
Modif. factor.
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
Using the Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the Boundary
material has the following characteristics:
RADIOSS Card (Boundary)
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|
/MAT/LAW51/4
Boundary
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
RHO_I
.0012
RHO_0
0
Iflg
3
#
C_01
ALPHA_1
Altair Engineering
RHO_01
E_01
P_min1

774
8.96
1E-6
#
C_02
ALPHA_2
RHO_02
.0012
E_02
2.5E-6
P_min2
-1E-20
1E-6
#
C_03
ALPHA_3
RHO_03
E_03
0
P_min3
0
0
/EULER/MAT/4
#
Modif. factor.
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|--10----|

A 3D mesh is made of brick elements. The element size for the copper cylinder is
approximately of 0.035 cm x 0.035 cm x 0.035 cm.
The mesh is dragged along the z direction (z = 30.5 cm). It is important to have no
discontinuity in element volume in order to ensure a good propagation of detonation wave
and shock wave.
Fig 2: Model mesh
775

Altair Engineering

Due to the symmetries of the model, a quarter of the cylinder is modeled. Boundary
conditions are set on the yOz plan at x = 0 (Tx = 0) and on the xOz plan at y = 0 (Ty = 0) to
simulate the symmetry.
A planar detonation wave is defined at the bottom of the cylinder. A scale factor of 0.5 (on
time step for all elements) is used for this type of application.
In solid properties, qa =1.1 and qb =0.05. These values have to be set to 0 for the Lagrange
formulation.
Isolid is set to 0 for TNT and copper solid properties.
RADIOSS Card (TNT)

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/PROP/SOLID/2
Copper
#
Isolid
Ismstr
dn
Icpre
Inpts
Irot
Iframe
0
#
q_a
q_b
1.1
#
dt_min
0.05
istrain
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/PROP/SOLID/1
TNT
#
Isolid
Ismstr
dn
Icpre
Inpts
0
Irot
Iframe
0
#
q_a
dt_min
q_b
1.1
0
0.05
h
0
istrain
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
Altair Engineering

776

The following figure displays the variation of density in the cylinder, explosive and air.
Fig. 3: Density distributed in copper and TNT at time = 33s.
The following diagram shows the comparison between the experimental and simulation
measurement of radial expansion. The displacement values are estimated on the animations
using the density contour.
777

Altair Engineering
Fig. 4: Comparison between experimental results and simulation results
Conclusion
Good correlation between experimental and simulation results. A thinner meshing could
improve the correlation between simulation and experimental curves.
References
[1] Adiabatic Expansion of high explosive detonation products, LANL, Wilkins (1969)
[2] A Constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and
high temperatures, Gordon R. Johnson, William H. Cook
Altair Engineering

778
Example 47 - Concrete Validation
Summary
RADIOSS includes the material model CONC to model concrete failure modeling under
compression and tension.
Three kinds of tests are performed in this example:
Uniaxial tests (uniaxial compression and uniaxial tension) where experimental results
have been used to calibrate the model reference
Multi-axial tests to evaluate the simulation/experiment correlation
Cyclic tests to illustrate the right behavior of the model used
In order to simulate this experience, a model is created with the following details:
A one element cube with eight node brick elements
Concrete material law (/MAT/LAW24)
The simulation results are then compared to the experiment data.
779

Altair Engineering
Title
Concrete Validation
Number
47.1
Brief Description
Three kinds of tests are performed in order to evaluate the simulation/experiment
correlation and to illustrate the good behavior of the model used.
Keywords
Concrete material law (/MAT/LAW24)
Brick elements
RADIOSS Options
Pressure load (/PLOAD)
Input File
Concrete Failure: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/47_concrete_test/*
RADIOSS Version
V11.0.240
Advanced
Altair Engineering

780
Overview
The purpose of this example is to compare the simulation results to experimental data.
A concrete cube is subjected to various tests:
Kupfer Tests [2]
1.1: C000 - Uniaxial compression
principle stress 1 = -1; 2 = 0; 3 = 0
1.2: T000 - Uniaxial tension
principle stress 1 = 0; 2 = 0; 3 = 1
1.3: CC00 - Biaxial compression
principle stress 1 = -1; 2 = -1; 3 = 0
2.1: CC01 - Compression/Compression
principle stress 1 = 0.52; 2 = 0; 3 = -1
2.2: TC01 - Compression/Tension
principle stress 1 = -.052; 2 = 0; 3 = -1
Units: mm, ms, mg, MPa

The Concrete material law (/MAT/LAW24) has the following characteristics:
Initial density = 0.0022 mg/mm3
Concrete elasticity Youngs modulus Ec = 31700 MPa
Poissons ratio
= 0.22
Concrete uniaxial compression strength fc = 32.22 MPa

Concrete biaxial strength fb/fc = 1.15
Concrete confined strength f2/fc = 4.2
Concrete confining stress so/fc = 0.8
Concrete plasticity initial value of hardening parameter ky = 0.35
Concrete plasticity dilatancy factor at yield y = -0.6
Concrete plasticity dilatancy factor at failure f = -0.2
781

Altair Engineering
RADIOSS Card (Concrete)

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/MAT/CONC/1
Concrete
#
RHO_I
.0022
E_c
NU
31700
.22
fc
ft_on_fc
fb_on_fc
f2_on_fc
s0_on_fc
32.22
1.15
4.2
.8
#
H_t
k_y
ALPHA_y
f_k
0
.35
-.6
0
#
E
0
ALPHA1
0
D_sup
0
r_t
0
ALPHA_f
.2
f_0
0
sigma_y
0
ALPHA2
0
EPS_max
0
r_c
H_bp
V_max
0
H_v0
0
E_t
0
ALPHA3
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
Altair Engineering

782
Schickert and Winkler Tests

3.1: TRX1 - Meridian Compression
m=
51 MPa; 1 = 0.5; 2 = 0.5; 3 = -1
3.2: TRX0 - Meridian Shear
m = 51 MPa; 1 = 1; 2 = 0; 3 = -1
3.3: TRX2 - Meridian Tension
m = 51 MPa; 1 = 2; 2 = -1; 3 = -1

Concrete elasticity Youngs modulus Ec = 23000 MPa
Poissons ratio
= 0.19
Concrete uniaxial compression strength fc = 30.6 MPa

Concrete data tensile tangent modulus Ht = -31700
Concrete plasticity initial value of hardening parameter ky = 0.35
Concrete plasticity base plastic modulus Hbp = 29170
Concrete plasticity dilatancy factor at yield y = -0.6
Concrete plasticity dilatancy factor at failure f = -0.2
783

Altair Engineering

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/MAT/CONC/1
Concrete
#
RHO_I
.0022
E_c
23000
fc
0
NU
.19
ft_on_fc
fb_on_fc
f2_on_fc
s0_on_fc
30.6
0
#
H_t
-31700
k_y
.35
ALPHA_y
-.6
f_k
0
ALPHA1
0
0
D_sup
0
r_t
0
ALPHA_f
.2
f_0
0
sigma_y
0
ALPHA2
0
EPS_max
0
r_c
0
H_bp
29710
V_max
0
H_v0
0
E_t
0
ALPHA3
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
Altair Engineering

784
Cyclic Tests
4.1: BBX0 Tension-Compression-Tension Cycle without Reinforcement

Young modulus for concrete: Ec =57600 MPa
Poissons ratio:
= 0.25
Compressive strength of concrete: fc = 35.60 MPa

#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/MAT/CONC/1
Concrete
#
RHO_I
.0022
E_c
NU
57600
#
.25
fc
ft_on_fc
fb_on_fc
f2_on_fc
s0_on_fc
35.60
0
#
H_t
D_sup
0
#
k_y
ALPHA_y
f_k
ALPHA1
0
r_t
0
ALPHA_f
0
f_0
0
sigma_y
0
ALPHA2
EPS_max
0
r_c
0
H_bp
0
V_max
0
H_v0
0
E_t
0
ALPHA3
0
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
785

Altair Engineering
4.2: BBX1 Tension-Compression-Tension Cycle with Reinforcement

Young modulus for concrete: Ec =57600 MPa
Poissons ratio:
= 0.25
Compressive strength of concrete: fc = 35.60 MPa

Reinforcement percentage: 3 = 1%
Young modulus for steel: Ec = 210000 MPa
Yield stress for steel: y = 500 MPa
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/MAT/CONC/1
Concrete
#
RHO_I
.0022
E_c
NU
57600
#
.25
fc
ft_on_fc
fb_on_fc
f2_on_fc
s0_on_fc
35.6
0
#
H_t
D_sup
0
#
k_y
r_t
0
#
ALPHA_y
f_k
ALPHA1
EPS_max
0
r_c
0
ALPHA_f
0
0
0
H_v0
0
sigma_y
210000
0
E_t
500
ALPHA2
V_max
0
f_0
H_bp
0
ALPHA3
.01
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
The results for each test are:

Stress in various directions as a function of deformations
Von Mises stress as function of Pressure
Altair Engineering

786

A 10 mm cube is modeled with a one element brick.
Fig 1: Geometry of the cube

Boundary conditions depend on the test.
A scale factor of 0.1 (on time step for all elements) is used for single elements models.
Solid properties are:
qa =1.1 and qb =0.05 (default values)
Isolid = 1
Iframe = 2 (co-rotational formulation)
Istrain is set to 1 (to post-treat strains).
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----|
/PROP/SOLID/1
Concrete
#
Isolid
Ismstr
dn
1
Icpre
0
Inpts
0
Irot
0
Iframe
0
0
#
q_a
dt_min
q_b
1.1
0
0.05
h
0
Istrain
1
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|---9----|---10----
787

Altair Engineering

Curves
Test C000: Uniaxial Compression
The X displacement is fixed for nodes 2, 3, 6 and 7. A negative displacement is applied on
the face defined by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8.
Fig 2: Uniaxial compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. The stress/strain curve is made of three line segments.
2. After failure, the behavior obtained with RADIOSS curves (left) is perfectly plastic
whereas there is experimentally a softening phenomenon (right).
3. The yield stress is obtained at = 0.337 fc for theoretical, numerical and experimental
curves.
Altair Engineering

788
Test T000: Uniaxial Tension

The X displacement is fixed for nodes 2, 3, 6 and 7. A positive displacement is applied on the
face defined by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8.
Fig 3: Uniaxial Tension with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Failure is modeled by stress and elastic modulus softening.
2. On the RADIOSS curve there is a residual stiffness in concrete after the softening: (1Dsup)E
3. Dsup is set to 0.9 (default value = 0.99999).
789

Altair Engineering
Test CC00: Biaxial Compression

The X displacement is fixed on nodes 2, 3, 6 and 7. The Y displacement is fixed on nodes 3,
4, 7 and 8.
A displacement is applied in X direction on the face described by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8 and in Y
direction on the face described by nodes 1, 2, 5 and 6.
Fig 4: Biaxial Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. The yield stress is obtained at =0.197 fc for theoretical, numerical and experimental
curves.
2. Failure mode is similar to uniaxial compression.
Altair Engineering

790
Test CC01 Compression/Compression

The X displacement is fixed on nodes 2, 3, 6 and 7. The Z displacement is fixed on nodes 5,
6, 7 and 8.
A pressure load is applied in X direction on the face described by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8 and in Z
direction on the face described by nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Fig 5: Compression/Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1.
Theoretical yield strength: 0.288 fc
2.
Theoretical failure: 1.926 fc
3.
Experimental failure: 1.22 fc
4.
Theoretical and numerical results are the same, but they are different from experimental
results; linear interpolation between the traction meridian and the compression meridian
is too coarse for small confinement.
791

Altair Engineering
TC01 Compression/Tension
X displacement is fixed on nodes 2, 3, 6 and 7.
Z displacement is fixed on nodes 5, 6, 7 and 8.
A pressure load is applied in X direction on the face described by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8, and in
Z direction on the face described by nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Fig 6: Compression/Tension with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Theoretical, numerical and experimental results are the same.
Altair Engineering

792
6, 7 and 8.
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Theoretical and numerical results are the same, but they are lightly different from
experimental results.
793

Altair Engineering
6, 7 and 8.
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Theoretical and numerical results are the same, but they are different from experimental
results.
Altair Engineering

794
Test TRX00: Triaxial Meridian Shear

4, 7 and 8. The Z displacement is fixed on nodes 5, 6, 7 and 8.
A hydrostatic pressure of 51 MPa is applied on the sample.
Fig 9: Triaxial Meridian Shear with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 64.3 MPa
2. Theoretical failure: 88.9 MPa
3. Experimental failure: 93 MPa
795

Altair Engineering
Test TRX01: Triaxial Meridian Compression

A hydrostatic pressure of 51 MPa is applied on the sample.
A pressure load is applied in X direction on the face described by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8, in Y
direction on the face described by nodes 1, 2, 5 and 6, and in Z direction on the face
described by nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Fig 10: Triaxial Meridian Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
4. The behavior of the model under hydrostatic loading is elastic, whereas there are nonlinearities experimentally.
Altair Engineering

796
Test TRX02: Triaxial Meridian Compression

An hydrostatic pressure of 51 MPa is applied on the sample.
A pressure load is applied in X direction on the face described by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8, in Y
direction on the face described by nodes 1, 2, 5 and 6, and in Z direction on the face
described by nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Fig 11: Triaxial Meridian Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
797

Altair Engineering
Test BBX0: Tension-Compression-Tension Cycle without Reinforcement

A displacement is applied in the Z direction on the face defined by nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4 with a
tension-compression-tension cycle as shown as below:
Fig 12: Velocity imposed
Fig 13: Cycle without reinforcement
This test illustrates the behavior of the model LAW24:

Failure, damage and cracks reopening
Cracks reclosing
Plastification and hardening
Compressive strength
Residual plastic deformation
Altair Engineering

798
Test BBX1: Tension-Compression-Tension Cycle with Reinforcement

A velocity is set among the Z direction on the face defined by nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4 with a
tension-compression-tension cycle, as shown below:
Fig 14: Cycle with reinforcement
Comments
1. Steel reinforcement improves compressive and tensile strength by 5 MPa compared to the
same model without steel reinforcement.
799

Altair Engineering
Von Mises / Pressure Curves

The following von Mises / Pressure curves show the different areas described by tensile and
compressive tests.
Each orange point corresponds to the failure point of the model considered.
fc is the uniaxial compressive strength.
Fig 15: von Mises / Pressure curves
Conclusion
Under complex loading we demonstrate concrete mechanic behavior between RADIOSS
simulation, theory and experiments. With three kinds of tests the mechanic behavior of
concrete could be well characterized using LAW24.
References
[1] A non-uniform hardening plasticity model for concrete materials, Mechanics of Materials,
D.J. Han and W.F. Chen, 1984.
[2] Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, ASCE, V. 99, No. 4, pp. 853-866u, LKupfer, B., and Gerstle, K., 1973.
Altair Engineering

800
Example 48 - Solid Spotweld
Summary
The aim of this example is to introduce solid element modeling for spotweld connection.
801

Altair Engineering
Title
Solid Spotweld
Number
48.1
Brief Description
Solid spotweld defined with /MAT/LAW59 and /FAIL/CONNECT connect two metal sheets with
tied contact.
Keywords
Shell element (for sheet metal)
Tied contact interface /INTER/TYPE2 (between solid spotweld and sheet metal)
Material law /MAT/LAW59 and failure model /FAIL/CONNECT for solid spotweld
Solid element property for connect material /PROP/TYPE43 for solid spotweld
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic material law /MAT/LAW2 for sheet metal
RADIOSS Options
Boundary condition /BCS
Rigid wall /RWALL
Input File
Frame Modified: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/48_solid_spotweld/*
RADIOSS Version
V10.0.5 and 11.0
Advanced
Altair Engineering

802
Overview
A steel crash box with solid spotweld, fixed at one end, is impacted at the other end by a
rigid wall. The dimensions of the crash box are 333.6 mm x 122.7 mm x 68.28 mm, and its
thickness is 1.8 mm.
Fig 1: Problem description and beam cross section
Units: mm, s, Mg , N , MPa

The sheet metal material using the Johnson-Cook plasticity model (/MAT/LAW2), with the
Initial density = 7.8e-9 [Mg/mm3]
Young modulus = 210000 [MPa]
Poisson ratio = 0.3
Yield stress = 250 [MPa]
Hardening parameter = 350 [MPa]
Hardening exponent = 0.3
In this connection material (/MAT/LAW59) we could use stress - plastic strain curve to
describe the material characters of spot-weld. And with failure model (/FAIL/CONNECT) it is
possible for us using two different failure criteria to describe the failure of solid spot. Here in
this example, use the following characteristics:
Initial density = 7.8e-9 [Mg/mm3]
Young modulus = 210000 [MPa]
Failure relative displacement in normal direction = 1.0
Failure relative displacement (elongation) in tangential plane = 1.8
803

Altair Engineering
Fig 2: Material curve of sheet metal and solid spotweld.
In this simple example a linear behavior of spotweld has just been assumed. For more
accurate results you could also put nonlinear behavior of spotweld though real physic test
and CAE validation.
Altair Engineering

804

Modeling Methodology of Solid Spotweld
Solid spotweld will be modeled as follows:

/MAT/LAW59 to define the material,
/FAIL/CONNECT to define the rupture criteria,
/PROP/TYPE43 to define the spotweld property, which should be only used with /MAT/
LAW59
/INTER/TYPE2 to define the connection between spotweld and sheet metal
Comments
1. In this spotweld modeling surface 1 (Node 1, 2, 3, and 4) and surface 2 (Node 5, 6, 7,
and 8) are defined. The normal direction has been defined from surface 1 to surface 2.
2. Surface 1 and 2 for each solid spotweld should always connect with a shell element. If
one surface of one solid spotweld is not connected with a shell element, then the stiffness
will not be computed correctly and an error may occur.

Rigid body and Boundary conditions:
One end of crash box is modeled using a rigid body and this rigid body is completely
fixed using translations and rotations.
Rigid wall:
The impactor is modeled using a moving rigid wall having a fixed velocity (5 m/s) in a X
direction and is fixed for other translations and rotations.
Interface:
The structure interaction is modeled using a type 7 interface on the full structure with
self-impact, where master surface is defined using the complete model and the slave
805

Altair Engineering

With /ANIM/BRICK/TENS/STRAIN and /ANIM/BRICK/TENS/STRESS we could get the strain
and stress results of the solid spotweld. (See below).
Fig. 3: Strain of solid spotweld
Fig. 4: Stress of solid spotweld
Here in the model we define max. relative displacement in normal direction EPS_N_MAX=1.0
in option /FAIL/CONNECT. Therefore, two solid spotwelds (circled in red) failed after reaching
this criterion.
Fig. 5: Strain of solid spotweld (display erode element in HyperView)
Altair Engineering

806
Fig. 6: Force vs displacement of crashbox
Performance
Compare with spring beam spotweld molding, the following performance could be observed:
If we use this solid spotweld modeling, it shows less sheet metal mesh size dependence
compared with spring beam element.
With coarse sheet metal mesh size we got similar deformation and similar Force vs
Displacement curve for solid spotweld modeling and spring beam spotweld modeling.
See below:
But once you remesh the sheet metal shell element with fine mesh size (for example
with 2.5mm mesh size here), then you still get similar deformation and Force vs
Displacement curve in solid spotweld modeling but not in spring beam spotweld
modeling. This means less sheet metal mesh size dependence for this new solid
spotweld modeling. See below:
807

Altair Engineering
The solid spotweld element is time step is free. The element stability is assured by its
nodal connection. The node of the solid element must be connected (tied interface,
common nodes, and rigid connection).
The solid spotweld element height (length in local Z direction) can be null and the
spotweld results are independent from its height.
Strain rate of solid spotweld can be taken into account.
Altair Engineering

808
Example 49 - Bird Strike on Windshield
Summary
Birds striking an aircraft windshield is a very important topic, for safety reasons and also
financially. The aim of this example is to introduce how to simulate a bird strike on the
windshield.
809

Altair Engineering
Title
Bird Strike on
Windshield
Number
49.1
Brief Description
Using SPHCEL to simulate a bird striking a windshield.
Keywords
/SPHGLO
/SPHCEL
/MAT/HYD_VISC
/MAT/PLAS_TAB
/MAT/PLAS_BRIT
/PROP/SPH
/PROP/SH_SANDW
/INIVEL/TRA
RADIOSS Options
Rigid Body (/RBODY)
Interface (/INTER/TYPE7 and /INTER/TYPE2)
Input File
Bird Strike on Windshield: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/49_bird_strike_on_windshield/*
RADIOSS Version
V10 and V11
Advanced
Altair Engineering

810
Overview
Description of the physical problem
A bird weighing about 4 pounds (1.93kg) with an initial speed of 80m/s impacts a windshield
of a plane. The bird model is extremely simplified with one cylinder (Diameter: 106mm;
Height: 195mm) but allows getting familiar with the major options used in a bird strike
analysis. Fix the edge of the plane model.
Fig 1: Problem description
Units:
mm, ms, kg, KN, GPa
A bird with the following characteristics:

The bird uses material law 6 which is a simple hydro-viscous law based on water properties /
MAT/HYD_VISC.
Initial density = 9.82242e-7 [kg/mm3]
C1 = 2.24
with SPH cells property /PROP/SPH
mp = 1.725149e-4 [kg]
qa = 2e-30
qb = 1e-30
order = 0
h = 6.286 [mm]
811

Altair Engineering
Notes:
1. In property, mp is the mass of each particle. There are 11190 particles in the bird model,
so the bird weighs 11190*1.725149e-4 = 1.93kg (4 pounds).
2. Set qa = 2e-30 and qb = 1e-30 for no damping.
To properly simulate a bird strike, the compression phase of the bird is the most
important; therefore, the initial compression wave should properly propagate through the
bird. Energy conservation is also important, so that the bird communicates the most
realistic amount of energy to the target, thus ensuring that the impact is reasonably
conservative.
A low value of qa and qb should be chosen. The behavior of the bird for very low values of
the damping is very similar, and there is no evidence of instability; therefore, negligible
values of qa and qb (that is 1-30 and 2-30) are considered.
3. In property, h is smoothing length
mp 2
1
3
1.725149 10
9.82242 10
1
3
6.286 [mm]
The smoothing length, h is highly recommended to use the minimal distance between any
particle and its closest neighbor.
4. SPH correction order is used to satisfy the consistency conditions. It is generally to insure
a better representation when the particles are not so well organized than into a hexagonal
compact net. High order value is very expensive. In this example, set order to 0.
For the windshield in this example, use composite material with matrix glass and plastic
fabric. Both use /MAT/PLAS_BRIT (composite with isotropic layers).
Glass matrix:
Initial density = 1.74e-6 [kg/mm3]
E-Modules = 61 [GPa]
Poisson ratio = 0.3
Yield stress a = 0.045 [GPa]
Plasticity hardening b = 0.05
_t 1
_ m1
= 0.01
= 0.03
element deleted at
Altair Engineering
_ f1
=0.06

812
Fabric plastic:
Initial density = 8e-7 [kg/mm3]
E-Modules = 3 [Gpa]
Poisson ratio = 0.3
Yield stress a = 1e30 [Gpa]
with /PROP/SH_SANDW
Thickness of windshield = 9 [mm]
Number of lays N = 9
Ithick=1
For metalic parts (aluminum) in the airplane, use /MAT/PLAS_TAB.

Initial density = 2.7E-6 [kg/mm3]
E-Modules = 73.1 Gpa
Poisson ratio = 0.33
For metalic parts connection (bolt) in the airplane, use /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS and /PROP/BEAM.
In /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS:
Initial density = 7.8E-6 [kg/mm3]
E-Modules = 210 [Gpa]
Poisson ratio = 0.28
Yield stress a = 0.58 [Gpa]
hardening parameter b =0.6
hardening exponent n =1
813

Altair Engineering
Strain rate coefficient =0.017

In /PROP/BEAM:
Area = 50.265 [mm2]
Iyy = Izz = 201.061 [mm4]
Ixx = 403.12 [mm4]

Modeling methodology
Bird modeling
A 4 pound bird model with 11190 particles. The distributions follow a hexagonal compact
net. The cell distribution must be cubic centered. The diameter for each particle is about
5.0 mm.
Fig 2: Perspective view of the cubic centered faces net
SPH simulation setup

In order to define the SPH bird, you will need the following keyword:
o Use /PROP/SPH to define the bird SPH cells property.
Altair Engineering

814
o Use /SPHCEL to define SPH cells for bird. Use bird part ID in this keyword.
o Use /SPHGLO to defined global parameter for this simulation.
o Set sort = 0.25 (default value). sort is a security coefficient which is used when
searching for neighbors, so that for each particle more than the actual neighbors are
found. This allows reducing the computational time.
Contact between SPH bird and structure and impact setup
o Use interface type 7 to simulate the Contact between SPH bird and structure. Set the
structure as master and the bird as slave.
o Set Igap=1 (use variable gap). The gap is 1/2(particle diameter)+1/2(thickness of
the target). This is the physical value for contact.
o The stiffness between bird and structure are quite different. In order to get results
more close to reality. Normally set Istf=0 and Stfac=0.1. This means interface
stiffness equals to 0.1 times stiffness of master side (structure).
o Use /INIVEL/TRA to set bird part with initial velocity 80m/s strike on the structure.
Connection between the windshield and fuselage
o Use spring beam to simulate the weld connection between Windshield and fuselage,
and use tided contact to connect them.
Other remarks
In order to decrease the size of animation files and get the best display of SPH
particles, use /ANIM/VERS/44 in Engine file.

Figure 3 shows von Mises stress of the windshield at time 3ms ~ 8ms.
815

Altair Engineering
Fig. 3: von Mises Stress at time 3ms~8ms
The Interface Force between the bird and the windshield is shown in Fig. 4.
Altair Engineering

816
Fig. 4: Interface force between bird and windshield
Conclusion
The size of the mesh and the number of particle seems to be a good compromise
between the accuracy of the problem and the CPU considerations (especially for larger
models such as 4 and 8 pound birds).
For interface parameters default values could be used.
The simplified viscous law is good.
Impact velocity remains small compared to the sound speed in the material (that is less
than 300 m/s).
The h value should be set to a value larger than the inter-cell distance (to avoid
excessive decohesion), but not too large to avoid excessive energy absorption by the
bird.
Using this model, the discrepancies between the real tests and the simulations are
usually due to parameters independent from bird modeling: boundary conditions, target
material laws and test sensitivity and so on.
The final shape of the bird is more physical, so more experimental data would be
required, such as for instance multiple penetration cases.
817

Altair Engineering

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

HyperWorks 13.

HyperWorks is a division of Altair

Altair Engineering Support Contact Information

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS Tutorials and Examples

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RD-0010: Running RADIOSS from HyperMesh

Step 2: Retrieve the HyperMesh database

Step 3: Launch the RADIOSS job

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

HTML report of the analysis, giving a summary of the problem

ASCII output file containing specific information on the file set

HyperMesh binary results file.

Summary of analysis process, providing CPU information for

HyperView binary result file.

Step 4: Post-process the RADIOSS job

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RD-0020: Running RADIOSS at the Command Line

To check the current version of RADIOSS at the command prompt, enter:

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

Large Displacement Finite Element Analysis

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RD-3000: Tensile Test Setup using HyperCrash

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

Setting up the Problem in HyperCrash

5. Select the part in the graphics area.

Step 3: Create and assign a property

6. Select the part in the graphics area.

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

Step 4: Define boundary conditions representing symmetry

to select the nodes in the

4. Click Yes in the Dialog menu bar to validate your selection.

9. Toggle Ty, Rx, and Rz.

Step 5: Define the imposed velocity

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

5. Enter the first point (0,1) and click Validate.

select the nodes in the graphic window, as shown in the

9. Go to the Properties tab and enter a Y-Scale factor = -1.

Step 6: Select a node for time history output

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

5. For filename, enter TENSILE and click OK.

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

Exercise Expected Results

Total Displacement Contour (mm)

Plastic Strain Contour

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

RD-3030: Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

Step 2: Create and assign a material

3. For Title, enter Steel.

RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials

4. Click Include picked parts

and select boxtube in the graphics area.

5. Click Yes in the lower right corner.

Step 3: Create and assign a property