A Comparative Study of Some Non-Linear Formulations For The Analysis of Plane Frames

European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering
ECCOMAS 2000
Barcelona, 11-14 September 2000
ECCOMAS
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME NON-LINEAR FORMULATIONS

FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PLANE FRAMES
Ricardo A. M. Silveira*, Alexandre S. Galvo*, and Paulo B. Gonalves
*
Civil Engineering Department, School of Mines, UFOP
35400-000 Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
E-Mail: ricardo@em.ufop.br;

Civil Engineering Department, PUC-Rio
22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
E-Mail: paulo@civ.puc-rio.br
Key words: Non-Linear Finite Element Formulations, Incremental-Iterative Solution,

Stiffness Matrix, Internal Load Vector.
Abstract. This work presents a comparative study of geometrically non-linear formulations

for the analysis of two-dimensional frames. The non-linear formulations under consideration
employ different Lagrangian reference frames, different approximations of the Green-
Lagrange strains and potential energy, and various procedures to obtain the stiffness matrix
and the internal load vector. The importance of these different approaches is highlighted in
the finite element formulations proposed by Alves1, Yang and Kuo2, and Pacoste and
Eriksson3, which are tested in this work.
To solve the resulting non-linear equations and obtain non-linear equilibrium paths, the
Newton-Raphsons method is employed together with path following techniques, such as the
arc-length schemes and the generalized displacement control technique. The performance of
the formulations is illustrated by means of three challenging numerical examples.
1
Ricardo A. M. Silveira, Alexandre S. Galvo, and Paulo B. Gonalves.
1 INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in structural materials, more refined design methodologies and the
large amount of research on stability of structures have led to increasingly slender structural
elements whose analysis necessitates a truly non-linear approach due to the presence of
geometric non-linearities. These systems may exhibit multiple solutions and may loose their
stability due to bifurcation or the existence of limit points along the non-linear equilibrium
path. The knowledge of the non-linear behaviour of slender structural elements, such as
columns, frames. rings and arches, is essential in the local or global stability analysis of
complex structural systems. The finite element method (FEM) has shown to be particularly
appropriate for the analysis of complex structural problems. The discretization process of non-
linear structures by the use of finite elements leads to a system of non-linear algebraic
equations that are often solved by Newton-type methodologies.
In the analysis of steel frames, which is the topic of the present work, in order to evaluate
accurately numerically the instability behaviour, or critical structural aspects, some relevant
problems have to be studied:
The development of reliable 2D and 3D non-linear finite element formulations1,2,3,4;
Numerical procedures for determining the equilibrium path in both pre and post-buckling
ranges, which may include softening behaviour, the presence of load and displacement limit
points and bifurcations2,4,5;
Bracketing procedures for the computation of singular points (limit points or bifurcations)
and techniques for branch switching4;
Finite element formulations for 2D and 3D elastic-plastic and rigid-plastic frames6;
Semi-rigid steel connections7; the moment-rotation characteristics of the connections can
strongly influence the response of individual members as well as the overall behavior of the
complete framing system;
Graphical user interface during the model creation, analysis and post-analysis.
This work is mainly concerned with the first topic, but utilizes the knowledge of the second
and the last subject. Basically, the aim of the present work is to make a comparative study and
the computational implementation of the following geometrically non-linear formulations for
two dimensional frame elements: Alvess updated Lagrangian formulation1, in which
complete expression of the Green-Lagrange strain increments and internal load vector based
on natural displacement were used; Yang and Kuos updated Lagrangian formulation2, where
a simplified planar frame element was adopted and two methodologies were used to obtain the
internal load vector: natural displacement and external stiffness approaches; and three of the
Pacoste and Erikssons formulations3, where a total reference frame (total Lagrangian),
following both total and co-rotational approaches, were tested.
These formulations were used together with the non-linear solution methodology
implemented initially by Silveira5, which solves the resulting non-linear equations and obtains
non-linear equilibrium paths through the Newton-Raphsons method together with path
following techniques, such as the arc-length schemes of Crisfield4 and generalized
displacement control technique2. The computational performance and reliability of these
2
formulations are evaluated by means of several numerical examples.
2 NON-LINEAR METHOD OF SOLUTION

In this section, the incremental-iterative solution strategy for non-linear elastic problems
adopted in this work will be summarized. In the finite element context, the equilibrium of a
structural system can be expressed as
Fi (u) = Fr (1)
where Fi defines a set of generalized internal forces in terms of the corresponding generalized
displacement components u; is a scalar load multiplier, and Fr is a fixed load vector
(reference vector).
To obtain the equilibrium paths of a structure, an incremental solution technique should be
used to solve Equations (1). This is achieved by calculating a sequence of displacement
increments u1, u2, u3,..... corresponding to a sequence of load parameter increments 1,
2, 3,..... In each increment, however, due to the non-linearities in Fi, the problem must be
solved iteratively.
To obtain the internal out-of-balance (or residual) forces acting on the structural system
in the iterative process and the new estimate for the displacements, the vector of residual
forces:
g = Fi (u) Fr (2)
must be computed. This vector can be used to correct the displacements through the following
expression:
K u = g (3)
where, K is a representative stiffness matrix and u is the residual displacement vector. This
work is particularly interested in the different definitions of K and Fi, which depend on the
adopted non-liner finite element formulation.
For an iterative algorithm to be able to deal with load and displacement limit points it must
include modifications of the load level during iterations. As a consequence, u cannot be
obtained directly using Equation (3). Crisfield4 and other researchers2,9 advocate that the
residual displacement can be written as the linear combination of two vectors:
u = u g + u r (4)
where is the load correction parameter that must be measured at each equilibrium iterative
cycle and ug and ur are obtained from: ug = K 1g and ur = K 1 Fr . The definition of
in (4) depends on the selection of an appropriate iterative strategy; in other words, an
additional constraint equation involving with the aim of restoring equilibrium as rapidly as
possible is necessary. The numerical strategy used in this work to obtain is based on the
concept of an arc-length constraint equation4, which consist in considering, in addition to
3
Equation (1) the following relation:
u T u + 2 FrT Fr = l2 (5)
in which l is the generalized arc-length of the tangent at the converged state (i-1) in load-
displacement space. The iteration k gives the subincrements k e uk, which are used as
corrections for the load and displacement increments:
k = ( k 1) + k and u k = u ( k 1) + u k (6)
If the convergence criteria are fulfilled after a number of iterations, a new equilibrium state of
the structural system is obtained.
In a computational context, a cycle of the proposed incremental-iterative strategy can be
summarized as follows:
1. Considering the previous equilibrium configuration as a reference, the initial increment
of the load parameter 0 is selected and used to calculate the initial increment of the
nodal displacements u0:
u 0 = 0 u T (7)
with u T = K 1Fr . The initial increment of the load parameter 0 can be selected
here using the constraint equation (5). The approximations 0 and u0 are termed
here tangent incremental solution or predictor solution. This solution rarely
satisfies the equilibrium equations, so additional iterative cycles are required. In this
work different load increment strategies will be used.
2. The second step of the solution methodology deals with the geometric non-linearity of
the structural system. Here the Newton-Raphsons method (full or modified) is used to
solve the discretized equilibrium equations making correction in the predictor solution
by using k e uk. Then, a new incremental solution is obtained and the correction
procedure is repeated until the convergence criteria are satisfied.
These procedures are better described in Figure 1.
3 NON-LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATIONS

The stiffness matrix K and internal forces vector Fi depend on the adopted finite element
formulation. In this section three different formulations are presented, where special attention
is given to kinematics relations, the incremental potential energy and the interpolation
functions used to approximate the displacement fields.
3.1 Alvess formulation1: AFI

Alves finite element formulation1 for non-linear frames is based on an updated Lagrangian
formulation and the complete form of the Green-Lagrange strain increments. In this case, the
axial deformation increments can be written as:
4
Initial configuration: tu and t
Stiffness matrix: K
New increment
Non-Linear
Predictor: 0 and u 0 Formulations
Yes
Iterative loop: k=1,2,...
g Internal force vector:Fi
Res. vector: g
Fr
No Update total and

Corrector: k and uk incremental variables
Figure 1: Non-linear solution strategy.
2 2
du 1 du dv
xx = + [ + ]
dx 2 dx dx (8)
where u is the axial displacement and v the lateral displacement.
Using Bernoulli-Euler hypothesis: u = u y dv / dx ; where, u is due to the
extensional forces and the second part, y (dv/dx), is due to bending forces, one obtains from
equation (8):
xx = exx + xx (9)
with exx defining the linear component and xx the non-linear component, which can be
expressed as:
2 22
du d 2 v 1 du du d 2 v 2
2 d v 1 L dv
e xx = y and xx =
[ 2 y + y + dx ]
dx dx 2 2 dx dx dx 2 dx 2 L dx (10)
0
In order to remove or, at least ameliorate, the membrane locking due to usually poor
shape functions adopted for u (see Section 3.1.2), the last term in (10) was uniformized
following Crisfields suggestion4.
In the updated Lagrangian formulation, the last calculated configuration t is selected as the
reference configuration. Therefore, it is important to know for the frame element considered
the stress field, or deformation configuration of the body, at configuration t. Following Alves1
proposal, the deformation at configuration t is obtained from:
5
t
=
P y (M + M 2 ) x ]
+ [M1 1
(11)
EA EI L
where P, M1, M2 are, respectively, the in-plane normal force and the bending moments acting
on the beam element at step t, as shown in Figure 2.
M
2
M P
1
P
Figure 2: Force and moments at equilibrium configuration t.
3.1.1 Potential energy

The incremental equilibrium equations can be derived by setting the first variation of the
increment of the total potential energy of the element equal to zero. Thus it is important to
define , which can express by: = U + V . Considering linear elastic behaviour
( = E ) and an updated Lagrangian formulation, the strain energy increment, U, and the
work of external forces, V, can be written as:
E 2 (12)
U = (E t + ) dAdx and V = - Fi u i ds = - [ t Fi u i ds + Fi u i ds]
vol 2 s s s
By substituting Equation (9) into (12) and by using the definitions in (10), it is possible to
write as follow:
= U 0 + U + U L + U1 + U 2 - [ t Fi u i ds + Fi u i ds] (13)
s s
where:
1 1
U0 = E t xx e xx t dVol ; U = E t xx xx t dVol ; U L = E e 2xx t dVol ;
2 t Vol t
Vol 2 t Vol
t 1 2 t
U1 = Ee xx xx dVol and U 2 = E xx dVol (14)
t
Vol
2 t Vol
Here U0 is associated with the total force applied at configuration t; U corresponds to the
initial deformation influence and will generate the geometric stiffness matrix; UL is
responsible for the linear part of stiffness matrix; and, U1 and U2 will originate the stiffness
matrices which are linear and quadratic functions of the nodal displacement increments. All
these matrix components are presented in the next section.
However, the increment of the total potential energy can be rewritten, if the equality
6
t
vol E xx e xx dvol = s t Fi u i ds is true, in the form:
= U + U L + U1 + U 2 - s Fi u i ds (15)
3.1.2 K and Fi expressions

Figure 3 shows the adopted planar frame element with the nodal displacements, which are
the degrees of freedom of the member. The displacements u and v along the centroidal axis
x can be related to those at the ends of the element by the following functions:
u = H1 u1 + H 2 u 2 and v = H 3 v 1 + H 4 1 + H 5 v 2 + H 6 2 (16)
where H1 and H2 are linear interpolation functions and H3, H4, H5 and H6 are the well-known
cubic Hermitian interpolation functions.
v2 2
u
Y x,
v u 2
y, 2
v

v1 u
1 L
1 x
u 1
X
Figure 3: Frame element adopted.
Using, the previous relations (Alves1 and Silveira5), the energy functional (15) can be
written as a function of the nodal displacements and forces, that is:
1 e 1 e 1 e 1 t + t (17)
= u T [ K L + K + K 1 (u) + K e2 (u, u)]u + u T t Fie u T Fre
2 2 6 24
in which K eL , K e , K 1e e K e2 can be obtained by differentiation of the energy terms in (14):
2U L 2U 3U1 4U 2
k L(i, j) = ; k (i, j) = ; k1(i, j) = u k ; k 2(i, j) = u k u l
u i u j u i u j u i u ju k u i u ju k u l
(18)
The incremental equilibrium equations obtained by setting the first variation of the
increment of the total potential energy of the element equal to zero ( u = 0 ), can be
t
expressed as: Fie + t Fie = t + t Fr , where increment of the internal forces vector is given by:
7
t 1 1 (19)
Fie = [ K e + K e + K e (u) + K e (u, u) ] u
L 2 1 6 2
Finally, the stiffness matrix Ke in local coordinates is obtained from Equation (17) and is
given by:
1 e (20)
K e = [ K e + K e + K e (u) + K (u, u) ]
L 1 2 2
Here K eL is the conventional linear elastic-stiffness matrix and K e is commonly referred
to as the initial-stress matrix (geometric-stiffness matrix) and its terms depend on the initial
nodal forces. The elements of the matrix K 1e are linear functions of the incremental
displacements while the terms in K e2 are quadratic functions of the incremental nodal
displacements. All these matrices are symmetric.
If a rigid body rotation is applied to the frame element, the forces in Equation (19) are not
equal to zero. Such result is inconsistent with the rigid body law. Trying to minimize this
inconsistency, the increment of the internal force vector may be rewritten using now the
natural displacement approach as:
t 1 1 (21)
Fie = [K L + K + K 1 (un ) + K 2 (un , un )]u n
2 6
where un is the natural displacement increment vector, which can be expressed as:
unT = [ 0 0 1 0 2 ] (22)
t
t
y L

1 2 B*
u1 1 2
v2
A*
v1
tL
u2
t
A B x
Figure 4: Natural deformation of frame element.
Using the geometrical relations showed in Figure 4, is possibly to write:
= t + t
L t L ; 1 = 1 ; and 2 = 2 (23)
where the rigid body rotation is given by: = tan -1 [ (v 2 v1 )/ t L] .

Finally, the stiffness matrix and the internal forces vector of the structural system are
8
defined in global coordinates as:

K = t R T K e t R and t + t
Fi = R aT t + t e
Fi (24)
m m
in which tR is the rotation matrix updated in configuration t and Ra is the rotation matrix
updated in the last iteration.
3.2 Yang and Kuos formulations2: YGN and YGE

In this section two non-linear frame element formulations proposed by Yang and Kuo2 are
presented, which are different only in the way that the member forces at each incremental step
are obtained. One formulation uses the natural deformation approach, denoted here by YGN,
which has often been employed by researchers in the analysis of frame-type structures; the
other uses the external stiffness approach, denoted here by YGE, which has the advantage that
it can be generalized to deal with other types of structures.
These authors3 adopted for the frame element showed in Figure 3 two independent stress
components, the Cauchy stresses xx and xy, and two associated strain components, the
updated Green-Lagrange strain increments xx and xy. They are presented below
decomposed into their linear and non-linear components, i.e.,
xx = e xx + xx and xy = e xy + xy (25)
Based on Bernoulli-Euler hypothesis, these linear and non-linear components can be

expressed as follows:
2 2 2 2 2
du d 2v 1 du du d v d v dv
; xx = [ 2y + y2 + ]
dx 2 dx
e xx = y 2 2
dx dx 2 dx dx dx
1 du dv dv d 2v
e xy = 0 ; and xy = [ +y ]
2 dx dx dx dx 2 (26)

The stress resultants (initial forces) are obtained through integration of the Cauchy stresses
xx and xy, that is,
t
P = t xx dA ; t
Q = t xy dA ; and t M = t xx y dA (27)
A A A
where tP is the axial force; tQ is the transverse shear; and tM is the bending moment. Based on
Figure 2, tM and tQ can be rewritten as follows:
t
M = M1 +
(M1 + M 2 )x and t
Q= -
(M1 + M 2 ) (28)
L L
9

Considering the stress and the strain components defined in the last section, and assuming
additionally a linearized approach, it is possibly to express the increment of the strain energy,
U, as:
t E 2 t (29)
U = ( xx xx + 2 t xy xy ) t dAdx + ( e xx ) dAdx
t
Vol t
Vol 2
and the increment of V, as:
V = - Fi u i ds = - [ t Fi u i ds + Fi u i ds] (30)
s s s
1
According to Alves , the following condition is observed:
t t t t
t Vol E ( xx e xx + 2 xy e xy ) dVol = s Fi u i ds . Hence, can be rewritten as:
= U L + U - s Fi u i ds (31)
in which:
1 2 t
UL = E e xx dVol ; and
2 t Vol
2 2 2
1 L t du dv I d 2v 1 L t du d 2v
U = P [ + + ]dx + [ M dx ]dx
20 dx dx A dx 2 20 dx 2
1 L t du dv
[ Q ]dx
20 dx dx
(32)
3.2.2 K and Fi expressions

Using the variables given in Figure 3 again, and substituting Equation (16), used here to
approximate the axial and lateral (u and v) displacements, into Equation (32), it is possibly
to express as a function of nodal displacements of the element. This leads to:
1 e 1 e t + t (33)
= uT [ K L + K ]u + u T t Fie u T Fre
2 2
where K eL and Ke are obtained using Equation (18). The increment of the internal forces
vector is obtained from (33), setting the first variation of the increment of the total potential
energy of the element equal to zero. Thus, this vector can be written as follows:
10
t
Fie = [K eL + Ke ] u (34)
The total internal forces vector in the equilibrium configuration is calculated

making t + t Fie = t Fie + t Fie . The global stiffness matrix of the planar frame element has a
linearized form, i.e., is independent of nodal displacement and can expressed by:
K = t R T K e t R , where:
m
K e = [K L
e
+ K e ] (35)
Now, two procedures to evaluate the increment of the internal force vector t Fie will be
presented.
The first approach, as mentioned before, is denoted by YGN, and allows the calculation of
t e
Fi through Equation (34) using the incremental natural displacements vector un (see
Equation (22)) in place of u, as illustrated in the Section (3.1.2). The second approach,
formulation YGE, is based on the external stiffness matrix to account for the effect of rigid
body motions of the planar frame element. This matrix can be used to evaluate t Fie . Suppose
that the planar frame element is subjected to a rigid body rotation , as shown in Figure 5,
which, when assumed to be small, can be represented by the following displacement vector:
ur = [0 0 0 L ]T (36)

L
L tan () L

x
L
Figure 5: Rigid body rotation.
Note that no forces will be generated by elastic stiffness matrix, that is, K L ur = 0 .
However, the forces generated by the geometric stiffness matrix K during the rigid body
rotation are not equal zero, i.e.,
T (37)
M + M2 M1 + M 2
K ur = - 1 -P 0 P 0
L L
11
If small rigid body rotations are assumed, the following approximation can be adopted:
= ( v 2 v1 ) / L , and it is possible to rewrite Equation (37) in the following form:
M1 + M 2 M + M2
0 0 0 - 1 0
2 2
L L
M1 + M 2 P M1 + M 2 P u1
2 L
0 -
2
-
L
0 v
L L 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
K u r = = K re u
M 1 + M 2 M1 + M 2 u 2
0 - 0 0 0
L2 L 2 v 2

- M1 + M 2 - P M1 + M 2 P
0 0 2
2 L 2 L
L L (38)

0 0 0 0 0 0
where Kre is defined as the external stiffness matrix. As stated in Yang and Kuo2, by
subtracting the external stiffness matrix Kre from tangent stiffness matrix (KL + K) a matrix
that accounts for the effect of member deformations can be obtained. Accordingly, the internal
force increments caused by deformation of the planar frame element can be calculated as:
t
Fie = [K eL + K e K re
e
] u (39)
3.3 Pacoste and Erikssons formulations3: PTT, PC1 and PC2

Pacoste and Eriksson3 proposed five different formulations for planar frames, following
both total and co-rotational approaches. In this work three of them are presented. These
authors explain that the total and co-rotational approaches only differ in the way they describe
the displacements of an element, the later eliminating or reducing rigid rotations. They are,
however, in both approaches, referred to as the initial shape of the element, and thus in a
Total Lagrangian reference system.
The first formulation presented here is denoted by PTT, and is based on Timoshenko type
strains; the second formulation PC1, is based on a co-rotational description and linear local
strains; and finally the third formulation PC2, is based on a co-rotational description and
shallow arch strain definitions.
For the PTT formulation, a highly non-linear frame theory, the deformations are written as:
du dv dv du d (40)
xx = 1 + cos() + sen() ; = cos() - 1 + sen() ; and k =
dx dx dx dx dx
The constitutive relations are taken as linear and can be written as:
P = EAxx; Q = GA; and M = EIk (41)
in which EA, GA and EI represent axial, shear and flexural rigidities, respectively.
12
In formulations PC1 and PC2, the central idea is to introduce a local coordinate system,
which continuously rotates and translates with the element. For PC1 a linear definition
t+t
y, v y, v x
Q2 M2 P2
M2 t+t
L
r,x P2
t+t
y n1 2 = r + n2
a(x) 0
u1 u(x) y
(x) = r + n(x) u2 r v2
1
Q1 (S) 0
M1 v2 M1 u2 x
P1 P1
v(x) v1
v1 (S)
u1
x x, u x, u
L 0
(a) (b) L
Figure 6: Element formulations: (a) total; (b) co-rotational.
for the local strain is assumed:

du d (42)
xx = ; = 0 ; and k =
dx dx
and for PC2, where an average axial strain to avoid membrane locking is introduced, the
following expressions are adopted:
2
1 L du 1 dv d
xx = [ + ] dx ; = 0 ; and k =
L 0 dx 2 dx dx (43)

In the total Lagrangian context, the total potential energy can be written as follows:
1L (44)
= [EA 2xx + GA 2 + EI k 2 ] dx Fi u i ds
20 s
ij
where the first part of (44) is the strain energy U = vol 0 (ij dij )dVol and the last part is the
potential energy V due to applied forces. Note that in the PC1 and PC2 formulations = 0 in
(44).
3.3.2 K and Fi expressions Total approach: PTT

For the finite element based on PTT formulations, linear interpolation functions are used to
approximate of the u, v and w (see Figure 6), that is: p = H1 q1 + H2 q2, where pT =[u v w], qi
13
and qj are the corresponding values of the displacement at the two nodes of the element, and
H1 = 1-x/L and H2 = x/L are the linear interpolation functions. If one-point Gaussian
quadrature is used to perform the integral of the strain energy in (43), the following expression
is obtained for U:
L (45)
U= [EA 2xx + GA 2 + EI k 2 ]
2
For a generic element, the components of the internal forces vector fiie and the components
of the tangent stiffness matrix k ije are obtained through successive differentiation of (45), that
is:
U 2U (46)
fi ie = and k ije =
u i u i u j
The stiffness matrix K and the internal forces vector Fi are calculated in the local
coordinates system of the element and can be transformed into the global coordinate system
by the use of Equation (24), but adopting now for the calculation of Re the initial
(undeformed) configuration of the structural system.
3.3.3 K and Fi expressions Co-rotational approach: PC1 and PC2

For PC1 and PC2 formulations, the basic idea is to write the strain energy U as a function
of the natural displacement components. As shown in Figure 6b, the natural displacement
vector has three components and can be written as follows:
un = [ u n2 n1 n2 ] T = [ t + t
L - 0L 1 - r 2 - r ]T (47)
where t+tL and 0L denote the initial and current length of the element; r is the rigid body
rotation, which can be computed now from the total global nodal displacements3.
In both cases (PC1 and PC2) the following approximations for the axial and rotational
natural displacements are used: u n = H 2 u n 2 and n = H 3 n1 + H 4 n 2 , where H2, H3 and H4
are given by:
x 1 2x 3x 2 1 2x 3x 2 (48)
H2 = ; H3 = (1 + ); and H 4 = ( 1 + + )
L 4 L L2 4 L L2
The strain relations (42) and (43) can then be rewritten in terms of the natural
displacements. Under these assumptions, the strain energy expression for PC1 becomes:
EA 2 EI (49)
U = u n 2 + 2 (2n1 + n1n 2 + 2n2 )
2L L
and for the shallow arch model (PC2) the strain energy expression is given by:
14
EA L 1 EI (50)
U= [u n 2 + (2n1 n1n 2 + 2n2 )]2 + 2 (2n1 + n1n 2 + 2n 2 )
2L 15 2 L
Expressions for the internal forces vector and tangent stiffness matrix in local (natural)
coordinates are:
U U U T 2U i = 1,2,3
Fn = [ ] and K n = { };
u n 2 n1 n 2 u ni u nj j = 1,2,3
(51)
where Fn = [P M1 M 2 ]T .
According to Pacoste and Eriksson3, the internal forces vector and the tangent stiffness
matrix can be obtained in terms of the six nodal degrees of freedom in global coordinates
using the following expressions:
Fi = A cT Fn and K = AcT K n A c + P Ac1 + M1 Ac2 + M 2 Ac3 (52)
in which the transformations matrices Ac, Ac1, Ac2 and Ac3 are given by:
u n k 2u n 2 2 r k = 1,2,3
Ac = { }; Ac1 = { }; and Ac2 = A c3 = { };
u j u i u j u i u j i,j = 1,2,3,4,5,6
(53)
4 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In this section three examples (two arches and one frame) were analyzed using the
proposed non-linear finite element formulations. The main objective is to check their
computational performance when solving highly non-linear problems.
To solve the non-linear equilibrium equations (Section 2), the modified Newton-Raphson
approach together with one of the following iterative strategies was adopted: cylindrical arc-
length4 and generalized displacement control technique2. Also, the following ratio Id(desired
number of iterations)/I(actual number of iterations previous load step) or the generalized
stiffness parameter (GSP) were used to control the increment of the load parameter .
4.1 Circular arch with snap-through and snap-back

The shallow arch shown in Figure 7a has been used by several researches2,5,8 to investigate
the efficiency of incremental-iterative solution algorithms. This example, as illustrated in
Figure 7b, exhibits substantial geometric non-linear behavior: four load limit points and two
displacement limit points, and is used to test the non-linear finite element formulations here
implemented. In this work, the arch was modeled using meshes with 4, 6, 10 or 20 finite
elements and the results are compared with those given by Yang e Kuo2, obtained using 26
elements and formulation YGN.
The average error in the computation of the 6 limit points shown in Figure 7b is presented
in Table 1. In Table 1 it is also shown the CPU time necessary to obtain the equilibrium path
15
from A to B (see Figure 7b), for the arch modeled with 20 elements. For the calculations, a
Pentium II350/32MB was used. In general can be observed that all formulations performed
well, in particular YGN which uses a natural displacement approach and calculates the
internal force vector using an incremental procedure. Observe that PC1 and PC2 formulations
present higher CPU time, which can be explained by the calculation of transformation
matrices. A stiff behaviour was observed for the PTT formulation, mainly for 4 and 6 element
models. The 4 elements mesh error is not presented in the table because the load-deflection
curve obtained was different from the expected. Figure 8 shows the evolution of the results
obtained with this non-linear formulation, where the variation of p with the tangential
displacement u (see Figure7a) is plotted for increasing number of elements.
1.5
2
Yang and Kuo
1.2
Load Limit Points
0.9 Snap-Back Points
P
M = 2 xP 0.6 Present
P YGN 20 elem.
u 0.3
5
w
0.0
A B
50 50
E = 2000 G = E/2 A = 1 I = 1 -0.3
-0.6
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.0
(a) (b) w
Figure 7: Shallow arch: a. Geometric and material properties; b. Equilibrium path.

Form. Element Number time A-B (sec.)
4 6 10 20 20 elem.
AFI 20.37 9.71 3.76 1.30 86.0
YGN 20.79 10.13 4.20 1.72 35.9
YGE 19.82 9.44 3.64 1.89 36.6
PTT --- 14.64 3.55 1.49 54.9
PC1 22.37 6.66 2.57 1.79 125.2
PC2 17.43 7.72 3.26 1.56 169.2
Table 1: Average error and CPU time.
4.2 Lee frame

An L-frame with both ends hinged, as shown in Figure 9a, was analyzed with 4 different
meshes: 6, 8, 10 and 20 finite elements. The finite element models with 6 and 8 elements are
shown in Figure 9b. This structural system is usually refereed to as Lee frame3,9. The reference
results were obtained here using the AFI formulation and employing a very dense mesh of 100
finite elements; the resulting equilibrium path can be seen in Figure 9c.
16
Table 2 shows the CPU time and the average error in the computation of the 4 limit points
(2 load and 2 displacement limit points) obtained by AFI, YGN and PTT formulations. The
CPU time was evaluated from the beginning to the second load limit point, when P = 3.
Again, a Pentium II350/32MB was used for the calculations.
1.5
(a)
(d) (b)
1.0 (c)
(c)
(d)
(b)
0.5
P
0.0
Present - PTT
-0.5 (a) 4 elem. (c) 10 elem.
(b) 6 elem. (d) 20 elem.
-1.0
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
u
Figure 8: Result evolution - PTT.
P 24 48 48 A
1.5
24 96 B
1.0
6 elem. LIMIT POINTS
A P 0.5 AFI 100 elem.:
A (48.791 , 1.856 )
B 24 32 32 32 0.0 B (61.006 , 1.192 )
120
C (50.749 , -0.438 )
C -0.5 C D (58.188 , -0.942 )
A = 6.0
D D
I = 2.0 8 elem. -1.0
E = 720.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
(a) = 0.3 (b) (c) w
Figure 9: Lee frame.
Form. Element Number
06 08 10 20
Error % t (sec.) Error % t (sec.) Error % t (sec.) Error % t (sec.)
AFI 14.63 26.47 7.32 30.60 6.92 40.87 1.87 81.9
YGN 14.49 11.86 7.54 13.40 6.87 16.09 1.68 32.5
PTT 36.22 11.59 16.90 15.38 17.80 18.23 4.26 37.9
Table 2: Error and CPU analysis - AFI, YGN and PTT formulations.
Once more, the average error obtained for AFI and YGN formulations were similar, but the
AFI results showed a higher CPU time; again, a stiff behaviour was observed for the PTT, and
only with 20 elements good results were obtained; convergence problems after the first limit
point were observed for the PC1 and PC2 formulations and the results are not shown in Table
17
2. However, as shown in Figure 10a, PC2 produced better results up to the first limit point
load. In Figure 10b the performance of the YGE formulation for different load increments is
analyzed.
2.0 2.0
YGE
-2
20 elem.
0
1 = 10
0 -3
1.9 1.9 1 = 5 10
-3
01 = 10
0 -4
1 = 10
P 1.8 P 1.8
YGN
PC1 6 elem. AFI 100-2 elem.
0
1.7 1.7 1 = 10
PC2
YGN 20 elem.
AFI 100 elem.
1.6 1.6
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(a) w (b) w
Figure 10: First load limit point results: a. PC2; b. YGE.
4.3 Deep circular arch

The performances of the non-linear formulations are now analyzed studying the behavior
of the hinged circular arch shown in Figure 11a. It is assumed here that the load is displaced a
small distance from the apex node (/50) producing a small load imperfection.
100 Present work

Complete arch
75
YGN 26 elem.
50
25 Imperfect Arch
P P Imperfect arch
E = 2000 0
G = E/2
u 1o L.P. 3o L.P.
A = 10 -25
I=1
w -50 Yang and Kuo 2
Complete arch
/50 -75 YGN 26 elem.
2o L.P.
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
(a) L =100 (b) w (c) .
Figure 11: Hinged deep circular arch imperfect model.
This problem exhibits substantial geometric non-linearity with the equilibrium path
showing a complex looping behavior (see Figure 11b). The arch deformations associated with
first three load limit points are shown in Figure 11c. These figures were obtained employed
18
the YGN formulation and the mesh with 26 finite elements. The results obtained from Yang
and Kuos book2 are used here as reference.
Table 3 gives the values of the limit point loads calculated through the non-linear
formulations here studied. These results were obtained with a mesh of 26 finite elements.
Table 3 also shows the CPU times and the Yang and Kuo limits point load values. Again the
values obtained with the AFI and YGN formulations were close to each other, but CPU time
was rather different; PTT scheme was able to generate the complete load-deflection curve, but
after the first limit point load the results disagree with those reported by Yang and Kuo.
Again, PC2 formulation presents good results up to the first load limit point but due to
convergence problems, this non-linear approach wasnt able to trace the complete equilibrium
path.
Form. 1o L.P. 2o L.P. 3o L.P. 4o L.P.. 5o L.P. 6o L.P. 7o L.P. 8o L.P. 9o L.P. t (sec.)
AFI 5.811 -8.484 16.116 -22.151 38.404 -49.783 64.414 -81.341 103.882 5798
YGN 5.811 -8.483 16.113 -22.152 38.391 -49.790 64.345 -82.189 103.679 1554
PTT 5.856 -8.681 16.869 -23.439 42.359 -56.512 78.582 -101.54 139.447 3535
PC2 5.795 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Ref2. 5.813 -8.498 16.149 -22.162 38.566 -49.896 64.875 -82.42 104.611
Table 3: Error and CPU analysis.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper geometrically non-linear finite element formulations proposed by Alves1,
Yang and Kuo2, and Pacoste and Eriksson3 were studied and implemented in the non-linear
finite element program developed by Silveira5, which includes several options of load
increment and iteration strategies. Special attention was given to the different procedures
available to obtain the stiffness matrix K and internal load vector Fi. Three examples
displaying complex geometrically non-linear behaviour including snap-through and snap-back
characteristics were used to verify the computational performance of these formulations.
Based on these examples, the performance of these non-linear formulations can be
summarized as follows: (i) AFI and YGN, which are based on a updated Lagrangian scheme
and obtain the internal load vector using natural displacements, exhibit virtually identical
results but different CPU time. The complete expression of the Green-Lagrange strain
increments utilized by Alves seems to be unnecessary and perhaps explain this difference; (ii)
YGN showed very good performance in all the problems here analyzed. This formulation also
presents smaller CPU time; (iii) YGE, which obtain the internal load vector through an
external stiffness matrix, displayed a dependence on the average value of the load increment.
However, this technique seems to be more general and can be employed in the analysis of
other types of structures; (iv) PC1 and PC2, that are based on total Lagrangian and co-
rotational approaches, give excellent results but they presented convergence problems in two
examples. CPU time for these formulations was greater than for the others; the authors believe
that additional computational procedures should be used to make these approaches more
19
efficient; (v) PTT, different from PC1 and PC2, was able to trace the whole equilibrium paths.
However, a very dense mesh was necessary in all examples to obtain good results. The linear
interpolations employed and the non-consideration of the rigid body effects may explain the
weak performance of the PTT formulation.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support from USIMINAS, CAPES, and CNPq.
REFERENCES
[1] R.V. Alves, Non-linear elastic instability of space frames, D.Sc. Thesis, COPPE-Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, (1995) (in Portuguese).
[2] Y.B. Yang and S.B Kuo, Theory & analysis of nonlinear framed structures, Prentice Hall,
(1994).
[3] C. Pacoste and A. Eriksson, Beam elements in instability problems, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg., 144, p. 163-197, (1997).
[4] M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures, John Wiley &
Sons, Vol 1, (1991).
[5] R.A.M. Silveira, Analysis of slender structural elements under unilateral contact
constraints, D.Sc. Thesis, Catholic University, PUC-Rio, (1995) (in Portuguese).
[6] P.C. Olsen, Rigid plastic analysis of plane frame structures, Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Engrg., 179, p. 19-30, (1999).
[7] W.S. King, The limit loads of steel semi-rigid frames analyzed with different methods,
Computers & Structures, 51, No 5, p. 475-487, (1994).
[8] M.J. Clarke and G.J. Hancock, A study of incremental-iterative strategies for non-linear
analyses, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 29, 1365-1391, (1990).
[9] K.H. Schweizerhof and P. Wriggers, Consistent linearization for path following methods
in nonlinear FE analysis, Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 59, p. 269-279, (1986).
20

A Comparative Study of Some Non-Linear Formulations For The Analysis of Plane Frames

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

A Comparative Study of Some Non-Linear Formulations For The Analysis of Plane Frames

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME NON-LINEAR FORMULATIONS

Key words: Non-Linear Finite Element Formulations, Incremental-Iterative Solution,

Abstract. This work presents a comparative study of geometrically non-linear formulations

formulations are evaluated by means of several numerical examples.

2 NON-LINEAR METHOD OF SOLUTION

Equation (1) the following relation:

3 NON-LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATIONS

3.1 Alvess formulation1: AFI

Initial configuration: tu and t

No Update total and

Figure 1: Non-linear solution strategy.

3.1.1 Potential energy

3.1.2 K and Fi expressions

Figure 3: Frame element adopted.

Using the geometrical relations showed in Figure 4, is possibly to write:

where the rigid body rotation is given by: = tan -1 [ (v 2 v1 )/ t L] .

defined in global coordinates as:

3.2 Yang and Kuos formulations2: YGN and YGE

Based on Bernoulli-Euler hypothesis, these linear and non-linear components can be

3.2.1 Potential energy

and the increment of V, as:

3.2.2 K and Fi expressions

The total internal forces vector in the equilibrium configuration is calculated

3.3 Pacoste and Erikssons formulations3: PTT, PC1 and PC2

Figure 6: Element formulations: (a) total; (b) co-rotational.

for the local strain is assumed:

3.3.1 Potential energy

3.3.2 K and Fi expressions Total approach: PTT

3.3.3 K and Fi expressions Co-rotational approach: PC1 and PC2

4.1 Circular arch with snap-through and snap-back

Figure 7: Shallow arch: a. Geometric and material properties; b. Equilibrium path.

Table 1: Average error and CPU time.

4.2 Lee frame

Form. Element Number

4.3 Deep circular arch

100 Present work

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen