Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AUTODYN
Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics
ρ0 V0 m
ρ= = Mass
V V
∂σ ∂σ
xx + xy ∂ σ xz
x=
ρ && +
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂σ ∂σ ∂σ
yx yy yz
ρ &&
y= + + Momentum
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂σ ∂σ
zx zy ∂ σ zz
ρ &&z = + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
1
e& =
ρ
(
σ xx ε& xx + σ yy ε& yy + σ zz ε& zz + 2 σ xy ε& xy + 2 σ yz ε& yz + 2 σ zx ε& zx ) Energy
Theory Manual
Revision 4.3
www.century-dynamics.com
AUTODYN is a trademark of Century Dynamics, Inc.
© Copyright 2005 Century Dynamics Inc. All Rights Reserved
autodyn.support@century-dynamics.com
www.century-dynamics.com
www.ansys.com
Table of Contents
3
Table of Contents
4
Table of Contents
5
Table of Contents
6
Table of Contents
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 223
7
Variable Notation
Variable Notation
Variable(s) Meaning
D detonation velocity
E Young’s modulus
8
Variable Notation
fx , fy , fz force components
G shear modulus
h shell thickness
I, J, K subgrid indices
9
Variable Notation
k sublayer index
K bulk modulus
m mass
mp nodal mass
p pressure
q artificial viscosity
ra centroid of triangle
10
Variable Notation
S specific entropy
T temperature
Tθ hoop stress
Tφ meridional stress
Tdam , K dam , G dam values of yield strength, bulk modulus and shear modulus after
cumulative damage to material
t time
U shock velocity
u particle velocity
ux , uy , uz velocity components
V volume
V0 initial volume
v specific volume
11
Variable Notation
W work done
Y yield stress
z z-coordinate
Z sublayer coordinate
α material porosity
Γ Gruneisen gamma
γ adiabatic exponent
εθ hoop strain
εφ meridional strain
12
Variable Notation
ε eff
p
effective plastic strain
ε xx , ε yy , ε zz (ε θθ ), ε xy , ε yz , ε zx strain tensor
η ρ / ρ0
θ1 , θ2 , θ3 strain deviators in directions of principal axes
µ compression ( ρ / ρ 0 - 1 )
µf coefficient of friction
ν Poisson’s ratio
ρ density
ρ0 initial density
σθ hoop stress
σφ meridional stress
s xx , s yy , s zz ( s qq ), s xy , s yz , s zx stress tensor
φ meridional angle
13
Variable Notation
χφ meridional curvature = 1/ R φ
ψ flow porosity
14
Variable Notation
15
Chapter 1. Overview
Chapter 1. Overview
1. Introduction
The AUTODYN™ software for non-linear dynamics was first released by Century Dynamics
in 1986 with the introduction of AUTODYN-2D. In 1991, AUTODYN-3D, the three-
dimensional analog to AUTODYN-2D was introduced. The AUTODYN programs are
general-purpose engineering software packages that use finite difference, finite volume, and
finite element techniques to solve a wide variety of non-linear problems in solid, fluid and gas
dynamics. This type of program is sometimes referred to as a “hydrocode”. The phenomena
to be studied with such a program can be characterized as highly time dependent with both
geometric non-linearities (e.g. large strains and deformations) and material non-linearities
(e.g. plasticity, failure, strain-hardening and softening, multiphase equations of state).
A wide variety of industries, research laboratories and educational institutions actively use
AUTODYN. Typical applications for AUTODYN include:
Defense
Impact/Penetration
Armor and anti-armor systems
Kinetic energy and chemical energy devices
Underwater shock and explosions
Aerospace
Bird strike
Material forming
Impact, explosion and shock loadings
Space debris impact
Petrochemical
Gas and dust explosions
Accident simulation
Fluid sloshing
17
Chapter 1. Overview
Well perforation
Nuclear
De-commissioning
Pipe break and whip
Jet and missile impingement
Fluid-structure interaction
Transport
Explosions in vehicles and tunnels
Crashworthiness
Occupant dynamics
Safety
Education
Solid, fluid and gas dynamics
Study of stress and shock waves
Constitutive model development
Material response
AUTODYN was one of the first engineering codes available on a PC as well as to use a
menu-driven, interactive graphics environment. AUTODYN now runs on PC’s, workstations
and supercomputers. A unique and powerful analysis environment is provided by
AUTODYN’s integrated pre- and post-processing capabilities coupled with interactive
visualization.
2. Theory Overview
The various numerical processors available in AUTODYN generally use a coupled finite
difference/finite volume approach similar to that described by Cowler and Hancock (1979).
This scheme allows alternative numerical processors to be selectively used to model
different components/regimes of a problem. Individual structured meshes operated on by
these different numerical processors can be coupled together in space and time to efficiently
compute structural, fluid, or gas dynamics problems including coupled problems (e.g. fluid-
structure, gas-structure, structure-structure, etc.).
• Euler processors for modeling fluids, gases, and large distortion. These processors
include first-order and second-order accurate schemes.
18
Chapter 1. Overview
At present, all the above processors use explicit time integration. Libraries of material data
are included for solids, liquids, and gases (including high explosives and detonation
products).
Compared to the Eulerian approach, discussed below, the Lagrange formulation tends to be
faster computationally as no transport of material through the mesh needs to be calculated.
Moreover, material interfaces, free surfaces, and history dependent material behavior are
generally easier to follow in the Lagrange framework. The major disadvantage of Lagrange
is that if excessive material movement occurs, the numerical mesh may become highly
distorted leading to an inaccurate and inefficient solution. Further, this may ultimately lead to
a termination of the calculation. Rezoning the numerical mesh by remapping the distorted
solution onto a more regular mesh is one approach to alleviate the mesh distortion problem.
AUTODYN provides this capability through an interactive rezoner that allows the Lagrange
processor to successfully model many problems that would normally require an Eulerian
solution (Itoh & Cowler 1987). Other techniques, such as erosion, are also standardly
available in AUTODYN and can be used to further extend the Lagrange formulation to highly
distorted phenomenon.
Because of its inherent efficiency, the Lagrange processor is typically used whenever the
deformations and boundary conditions permit. However, large deformations and true fluid
and gas dynamics are generally more practically handled with an Eulerian approach.
19
Chapter 1. Overview
In the Euler processors a control volume method is used to solve the equations that govern
conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. The integral and discrete forms of these
equations are expressed in conservation form to obtain accurate, stable solutions. Terms
producing changes in conserved variables are divided into two groups: Lagrangian or
transport (convective). A two-step numerical procedure is used to solve the finite-difference
equations. In the first step, the Lagrange step, the Lagrangian form of the equations are
updated or advanced one time interval (time step). In the second step, the Euler step, the
updated variables are mapped onto the Euler mesh. Multiple materials are handled either
through a volume fraction technique or an interface technique originally developed by
Youngs (1982). All variables are cell centered. This more readily allows arbitrary shaped
control volumes to be formed at the interface between Euler and Lagrange grids, facilitating
the computation of fluid-structure or gas-structure interaction problems.
An Euler formulation is ideally suited to handling large deformations and fluid flow. However,
it is more difficult to track free surfaces, material interfaces, and history dependent material
behavior. Care must also be taken to limit the numerical diffusion associated with the
material convection from cell to cell.
The promise of the ALE technique is that the freedom in dynamically defining the mesh
configuration should allow a combination of the best features of both Lagrange and Euler.
However, free surfaces and material interfaces are still required to behave strictly as
Lagrange. Consequently, only internal vertices can benefit from ALE rezoning (exception:
nodes on planes can also be treated as ALE). The ALE processor can reduce and
sometimes eliminate the need for Lagrange rezoning, but this processor cannot always be
substituted in place of a “pure” multi-material Euler processor for large flow problems.
20
Chapter 1. Overview
Other structural elements as of this writing, are planned but not yet implemented.
• Joined Lagrange grids - This is a node to node type of contact. Joined Lagrange nodes
move according to the stress contributions from all surrounding elements.
• Joined Euler grids - This is also a node to node type of contact. Joined Euler faces allow
material to flow from one independent mesh to another.
• Impact/Slide interfaces - Lagrange grids can impact and slide along any Lagrange
surface. This surface can be dynamically redefined as the surface changes through
erosion. Erosion is a technique wherein Lagrange cells are transformed into free mass
points not connected to the original mesh. These free nodes can further interact with
other bodies or the original body from which they were eroded. This very powerful
feature allows the study of impact interaction problems including deep penetrations in the
low to hypervelocity range using a Lagrange technique. Lagrange, ALE, Shell, and SPH
grids can interact with each other through the impact/slide interface logic.
• Euler-Lagrange coupling - Euler and Lagrange grids interact in a very general and
powerful way. A Lagrange interface may “cut” through the fixed Euler mesh in an
arbitrary manner. The Euler cells intersected by the Lagrange interface define a stress
profile for the Lagrange boundary vertices. In return, the Lagrange interface defines a
geometric constraint to the flow of material in the Euler grid. AUTODYN recognizes that
the Euler cells adjacent to a Lagrangian boundary may be partially covered by the
Lagrangian grid and that their control volumes and face areas may be continually
changing. In a large displacement problem, an Euler cell that was originally not covered
may become completely covered by a Lagrange mesh as the Lagrange mesh moves
over it. Similarly, an Euler cell may become “uncovered”. As the Lagrange mesh moves
across the interacting Euler mesh, Euler control volumes can become very small, tending
to 0 when completely covered. To maintain stability, AUTODYN automatically and
dynamically combines (clumps) a small control volume (cell) with its larger neighbors to
form a single larger control volume. Similarly, when a cell becomes uncovered enough to
be independent it can be “unclumped”.
The Euler-Lagrange coupling feature is a very powerful feature for modeling fluid-structure
and gas-structure interaction problems. This extends to blast and explosion effects and
interactions on structures.
21
Chapter 1. Overview
3. Summary
AUTODYN encompasses several different numerical techniques and a wide range of
material modeling capabilities to provide a powerful system for solving non-linear dynamics
problems. Moreover, AUTODYN is a fully integrated program including pre-processor and
post-processor together with the analysis engine in a single program. An interactive, menu-
driven environment allows the user to setup, analyze, and display results from the same
environment. Graphics are displayed during every phase of the analysis including during the
calculation as the problem progresses.
The following pages of this publication provide details on the various numerical techniques
used within AUTODYN as well as the background and fundamentals of material modeling.
22
Chapter 2. Reserved
Chapter 2. Reserved
23
Chapter 2. Reserved
24
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
There have been many schemes developed since the major expansion of hydrocode
development in the 1960’s but the finite difference scheme used in the 2D Lagrange
processor of AUTODYN is based on that developed by Wilkins (1964), although differing in
some important details. Although many other schemes have been developed since that time
many of these use the Wilkins method as their basis.
2. Governing Equations
The partial differential equations to be solved express the conservation of mass, momentum
and energy in Lagrangian coordinates. These, together with a material model (see Chapter
11) and a set of initial and boundary conditions, define the complete solution of the problem.
The equations are written below for both planar and axial symmetry. In axial symmetry the x-
axis is the axis of symmetry and in all the equations a dot denotes time differentiation.
25
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
Subscripts “θ” or “t” denote the direction perpendicular to the (x, y) plane (“t” is used in the
AUTODYN software where Greek letters cannot be written while “θ” is used in the text where
it is the more conventional symbol).
Material associated with a Lagrangian zone stays with that zone under any deformation.
Thus a Lagrangian grid moves and distorts with the material it models and conservation of
mass is automatically satisfied. The density at any time can be determined from the current
volume of the zone and its initial mass.
ρ0 V0 m
ρ= = (3.1)
V V
The partial differential equations which express the conservation of momentum relate the
acceleration to the stress tensor σij
∂ σ xx ∂ σ xy
ρ &&
x= +
∂x ∂y
(3.2)
∂ σ xy ∂ σ yy
ρ &&
y= +
∂x ∂y
∂σ xx ∂σ xy σ xy
ρ &&
x= + +
∂x ∂y y
(3.3)
∂σ xy ∂ σ yy σ yy − σ θθ
ρ &&
y= + +
∂x ∂y y
The stress tensor is separated into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric component
(see Section 11.3 for a full discussion on this)
σ xx = − ( p + q ) + sxx
σ yy = − ( p + q ) + syy
(3.4)
σ θθ = − ( p + q ) + sθθ
σ xy = sxx
The negative sign for the hydrostatic pressure p follows from the usual notation that stresses
are positive in tension and negative in compression (the opposite to that for pressure). In the
actual equations solved the hydrostatic pressure p is augmented by a pseudo-viscous
pressure q which will be discussed more fully in Section 3.6 on nodal forces.
26
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
The strain tensor εij is determined from the relation between the strain rates and the
velocities ( x& , y& )
∂ x&
ε& xx =
∂x
∂ y&
ε& yy =
∂y
ε& θθ = 0 in planesymmetry (3.5)
y&
ε& θθ = in axial symmetry
y
1 ∂ x& ∂ y&
ε& xy = +
2 ∂y ∂x
and these strain rates are related to the rate of change of volume by
&
V
= ε& xx + ε& yy + ε& θθ (3.6)
V
For elastic behavior of a material we may derive from equation (3.6) and Hooke’s Law
relations between the deviatoric stress rates and the strain rates
1V&
s& xx = 2 G ε& xx −
3 V
1V&
s& yy = 2 G ε& yy −
3 V (3.7)
1V&
s& θθ = 2 G ε& θθ −
3 V
s& xy = 2 G ε& xy
The deviatoric variables will also be adjusted for other real effects, such as rigid body
rotations, plastic flow, damage and failure as described below and more fully in Chapter 11
on “Material Modeling”.
The pressure p is related to the density ρ and specific internal energy e through an equation
of state
p = f ( ρ, e ) (3.8)
27
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
of the forms described in Chapter 11. This must be solved simultaneously with the equation
expressing conservation of energy
1
e& = ( σ xx ε& xx + σ yy ε& yy + σ θθ ε& θθ + 2 σ xy ε& xy ) (3.9)
ρ
3. Lagrange Subgrids
As indicated above a specific region of interest is covered by a set (or grid) of quadrilateral
zones or cells on which the flow and state variables (position, velocity, pressure etc.) are
defined. This region, or subgrid, if followed within a Lagrangian coordinate system is known
as a Lagrange subgrid and it may form a part of a set of regions or subgrids, some of which
may be treated with different solution techniques (e.g. Euler, Shell, ALE, SPH). A subgrid is
a group of cells (or zones) which is rectangular in index space (I, J space). The cells are
organized in columns (I-lines) from I = 1 (minimum I) to IMAX (maximum I) and from J = 1
(minimum J) to JMAX (maximum J). Each cell within the subgrid has four corner nodes
forming a generalized quadrilateral. The index space of each subgrid is independent of any
of the other subgrids defined in the problem. Figure 3-2 depicts example subgrids. Note that
while the index space of the subgrid is rectangular the physical location of the subgrid in x-y
space is not necessarily rectangular. Indeed complex geometries can be defined by using
techniques to join two or more nodes which are separated in the I, J index space; see, for
example, the middle and right-hand subgrids in Figure 3-2.
Each subgrid node is identified by its unique (I, J) index as shown in Figure 3-3 while each
zone interior is defined by a unique (I, J) index which is identified with the “upper-rightmost”
(in (I, J) space) node of the zone.
The partial differential equations shown in the above section are replaced by finite difference
equations, based on the cells of the subgrid, and these difference equations are solved to
update the solution in successive timesteps. Following Wilkins, an explicit central difference
scheme is used. There are however some differences in the details of the method used,
28
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
primarily resulting from the need to deal with subgrid interactions, such as Euler-Lagrange
coupling.
I-1, J I, J
J I, J
The series of calculations that are carried out in each incremental timestep (or cycle) in a
Lagrange subgrid are shown schematically in Figure 3-4 below. Starting at the bottom of the
figure the boundary and/or interactive forces are updated and combined with the forces for
inner zones computed during the previous time cycle. Then for all non-interactive Lagrangian
nodes the accelerations, velocities and positions are computed from the momentum
equation and a further integration. From these values the new zonal volumes and strain
rates may be calculated. With the use of a material model together with the energy equation
the zonal pressures, stresses and energies may be calculated, providing forces for use at
the start of the next integration cycle. Details of these steps in the calculation are given in the
following sections. For the coupling of Lagrangian subgrids to other subgrids there are
additional calculations, that are used to compute the interactive forces, and these are
discussed in Chapter 10.
29
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
Direct Calculation
Nodal forces
x, y
x& , y&
x, &&
&& y
p, e, ρ
σ,T, m
30
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
The accuracy of integration and the allowable time step of integration can be severely
degraded if the zonal deformation becomes too severe. The time step of integration is
readily accessible for inspection by the user who can examine the grid and seek to
ameliorate the situation by rezoning any area of severe grid deformation (see Figure 3-6 for
example). If the region of severe deformation lies in areas which are no longer of concern,
zones may be discarded by an automatic numerical process known in AUTODYN as
erosion. Rezoning is discussed fully below in Section 3.12 while erosion is discussed in
Section 11.7.
Problems can occur with the above convention for boundary zones where, for example, state
variables (e.g. pressure) may be defined on zone boundaries (i.e. at nodes). These zones
have to be treated as special cases to ensure consistency and accuracy.
31
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
The quadrilateral is divided into two triangles and the area of these triangles can be
calculated from the cross products of the vectors shown in Figure 3-7. The areas are
1
Aa =
2
[( x1 − x 4 )( y 2 − y 4 ) − ( x 2 − x 4 )( y1 − y 4 )]
(3.10)
1
A b = [( x 3 − x 2 )( y 4 − y 2 ) − ( x 4 − x 2 )( y 3 − y 2 )]
2
(x1, y1)
(x2, y2 )
Aa
Ab
V = Aa + Ab
1 (3.11)
[
V = ( x1 − x 3 ) ( y 2 − y 4 ) − ( x 2 − x 4 ) ( y1 − y 3 )
2
]
For axial symmetry the volume of the zone is calculated from the volumes of the two toroids
generated by rotating the two triangles about the axis of symmetry. The volume of each
toroid is equal to the triangular area times 2πr where r is the radius of the centroid of the
triangle. Thus the total volume of the zone in axial symmetry is
32
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
2π
V=
3
[ A a ( y1 + y 2 + y 4 ) + A b ( y2 + y3 + y 4 )] (3.12)
Note that in AUTODYN, the π term is dropped for grid cells so if you examine the volume of
a cell the value obtained will be that computed by equation (3.12) divided by π.
Since the mass in a Lagrangian zone remains constant the density is then calculated from
these volumes and the initial mass within the cell using
m
ρ= (3.13)
V
The initial zone mass is computed at the start of the calculation from the zone volumes,
calculated with the above equations and the inputted initial density.
∂f ∂f f + fk − 1
A ≈∫ dA = ∫ f dy ≈ ∑ k ( y k − y k −1 )
∂x V ∂x S k
2
(3.14)
∂f ∂f f + fk − 1
A ≈∫ dA = ∫ f dx ≈ ∑ k ( x k − x k −1 )
∂y V ∂y S k
2
where the index k runs from 1 to N, summing over the N corners of the zone and fk is the
value of the function f at the kth corner (so N = 3 if the zone is split into triangles as in Figure
3-7 and in equations (3.10), or N = 4 if a quadrilateral zone is considered). The sums can be
reduced to the form (with N = 4)
∂f 1
A
∂x
≈
2
[ ]
(f1 − f3 ) ( y2 − y 4 ) − ( f2 − f4 ) (y1 − y3 )
(3.15)
∂f 1
A
∂y 2
[
≈ − ( f1 − f3 ) ( x 2 − x 4 ) − ( f2 − f4 ) ( x1 − x 3 ) ]
Note that if f = x in the first equation of this pair it is identical to the expression for the area
of the quadrilateral derived in equation (3.11). However applying these equations with f = x&
and f = y& gives the approximations for the strain rates.
33
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
∂ x& 1
A
∂x
=
2
[
(x& 1 − x& 3 ) ( y2 − y 4 ) − ( x& 2 − x& 4 ) (y1 − y3 ) ]
∂ y& 1
A
∂x
=
2
[
(y& 1 − y& 3 ) ( y2 − y 4 ) − ( y& 2 − y& 4 ) (y1 − y3 ) ]
(3.16)
∂ x& 1
A
∂y 2
[
= − ( x& 1 − x& 3 ) ( x 2 − x 4 ) − ( x& 2 − x& 4 ) ( x1 − x 3 ) ]
∂ y& 1
A
∂y 2
[
= − ( y& 1 − y& 3 ) ( x 2 − x 4 ) − ( y& 2 − y& 4 ) ( x1 − x 3 ) ]
The change of zonal area from time tn to tn+1 is given by
∂ x& ∂ y&
∆ A = A + A ∆t (3.17)
∂x ∂y
1 n
A n +1 2 =
2
[
A + A n +1 ]
(3.18)
∂ x& 1 ∂ x&
= n +1 2 A ∂x
∂x A
1
ε& xx = [(x& 1 − x& 3 )(y 2 − y 4 )−(x& 2 − x& 4 )(y1 − y 3 )]
2A n +1 2
1
ε& yy =− [(y& 1 − y& 3 )(x 2 −x 4 )−(y& 2 − y& 4 )(x 1 −x 3 )]
2A n +1 2
(3.19)
1
ε& xy = [(x& 1 − x& 3 )(x 2 −x 4 )−(x& 2 − x& 4 )(x 1 −x 3 )]
2A n +1 2
1
+ n +1 2 [(y& 1 − y& 3 )(y 2 − y 4 )−(y& 2 − y& 4 )(y1 − y 3 )]
2A
&
V ∆A
= ε& xx + ε& yy = n +1 2 (3.20)
V A ∆t
34
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
&
V
ε& θθ = − ε& xx − ε& yy (3.21)
V
If Va is the volume of the toroid formed by rotating the triangle Aa in Figure 3-7, then
Va = 2 π ra A a (3.22)
where
1
ra = ( y1 + y 2 + y 4 )
3
∆ Va = 2 π ran +1 2 ∆ A a + 2 π A an +1 2 ∆ ra (3.23)
∆t
∆ ra = ( y& 1 + y& 2 + y& 4 ) (3.24)
3
while ∆Aa has already been defined in equations (3.16) and (3.17) and can be expressed as
[ ]
∆ A a = ( ε& xx ) a + ( ε& yy ) a A an +1 2 ∆ t (3.25)
where
1
A an +1 2 ( ε& xx ) a = [x& ( y − y 4 ) + x& 2 ( y 4 − y 1 ) + x& 4 ( y 1 − y 2 )
2 1 2
]
(3.26)
1
[
A an +1 2 ( ε& yy ) a = − y& 1 ( x 2 − x 4 ) + y& 2 ( x 4 − x 1 ) + y& 4 ( x 1 − x 2 )
2
]
The expressions (3.24) and (3.26) can be inserted into equation (3.23) to give a relation for
∆Va in terms of the nodal velocities and nodal positions of the area Aa.
35
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
1
A nb +1 2 ( ε& xx ) b = [ x&
2 3 ( y 4 − y 2 ) + x& 4 ( y 2 − y 3 ) + x& 2 ( y 3 − y 4 ) ]
(3.27)
1
A nb +1 2 ( ε& yy ) b = −
2
[ y& 3 ( x 4 − x 2 ) + y& 4 ( x 2 − x 3 ) + y& 2 ( x 3 − x 4 ) ]
and
∆t
∆ rb = ( y& 2 + y& 3 + y& 4 ) (3.28)
3
& ∆t
∆ V = ∆ Va + ∆ Vb = V (3.29)
V n +1 = V n + ∆ V
1
V n +1 2 = ( V n + V n +1 ) (3.30)
2
V& V&
= n +1 2
V V
36
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
n +1 2
n +1 1V&
s = s n
+ 2 G ∆ t ε& xx − + δ nxx
3 V
xx xx
n +1 1V& n +1 2
s yy = s n
yy + 2 G ∆ t ε yy −
& + δ yy
n
(3.31)
3 V
n +1 n +1 n +1
s θθ = − s xx − s yy
n +1 n +1 2
s xy = s xy
n
+ 2 G ∆ t ε& xy + δ nxy
The deviatoric stresses are tested to determine whether plastic yielding has taken place, and
this is described fully in Section 11.3. If yielding has occurred the deviators are scaled down
so that the resultant lies exactly on the yield surface.
∆ t ∂ y& ∂ x&
sin φ = + (3.32)
2 ∂ x ∂ y
where the partial derivatives are determined as in the previous section in equation (3.16).
The stress rotation can be achieved by adding the following terms to the stress deviator
tensor sij
δ xx =
1
2
[ ]
s xx − s yy ( cos 2φ − 1) − s xy sin 2φ
δ yy = − δ xx (3.33)
δ xy =
1
2
[ ]
s xx − s yy sin 2φ + s xy cos(2φ − 1 )
2 sin φ
sin 2φ =
( 1 + sin 2 φ)
(3.34)
2 sin 2 φ
cos 2φ − 1 = −
( 1 + sin 2 φ)
37
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
sin 2 2φ + cos2 2φ = 1
which ensures that the second invariant of the stress deviator tensor is not changed during
the rotation.
[
∆ e z = s xx ε& xx + s yy ε& yy + s θθ ε& θθ + 2 s xy ε& xy ] mV ∆ t (3.35)
The new value of the hydrostatic pressure p is obtained from the simultaneous solution of
the equation of state
p = f ( ρ, e ) (3.36)
p n +1 + p n ∆ V n +1
e n +1 = e n + ∆ e zn +1 2 − + q n +1 2 (3.37)
2 m
Equation (3.37) includes the effect of the pseudo-viscous pressure components which are
included to both capture shocks and damp oscillations behind shocks (these will be
discussed in the next section) and the updated stress tensor is finally
σ xx = − p − q + s xx
σ yy = − p − q + s yy
(3.38)
σ θθ = − p − q + s θθ
σ xy = s xy
6. Nodal Forces
Once the updated stress tensor has been calculated the final phase of the computational
cycle is to evaluate the nodal forces, which consist of several types. In addition to the forces
on internal nodes there are the boundary or external forces to consider. There are also the
pseudo-viscous forces mentioned in the previous section and finally additional forces are
included in the finite difference formulation to inhibit possible mesh deformations which have
no physical significance (anti-tangling and hourglass forces). These types will be considered
separately below.
38
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
∂σ xx ∂σ xy
ρ &&
x= +
∂x ∂y
(3.39)
∂σ xy ∂σ yy
ρ &&
y= +
∂x ∂y
x and &&
where && y are the x and y components of acceleration. To derive an expression for the
acceleration at the nodes, multiply the above equations by dx dy, and by means of Green’s
theorem obtain the line integrals around the contour shown in Figure 3-8 for the node 1.
y
J+1
2 1
J
3 4 J-1
I-1 I I+1
x
4
x∑
&&
m 1
k =1 4
[
= ∫ σ xx dy − σ xy dx
2S
]
4
(3.40)
m 1
[
y& ∑ = ∫ σ xy dy − σ yy dx
k =1 4 2S
]
where the summation of masses indicates a contribution of mass (the shaded regions) from
each of the zones surrounding the node 1. Evaluating these integrals with the simplest
approximations the contributions from the bottom-left zone on each of its nodes can be
shown to be (if Fx k denotes the force component in the x direction at node k).
39
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
Fx1 =
1
2
[σ xx ( y 4 − y 2 ) − σ xy ( x 4 − x 2 ) ]
Fy1 =
1
2
[σ xy ( y 4 − y 2 ) − σ yy (x 4 − x 2 ) ]
Fx 2 =
1
2
[σ xx ( y1 − y 3 ) − σ xy (x1 − x 3 ) ]
(3.41)
Fy 2 =
1
2
[σ xy ( y1 − y 3 ) − σ yy (x1 − x 3 ) ]
Fx 3 = − Fx1
Fy 3 = − Fy1
Fx 4 = − Fx 2
Fy 4 = − Fy 2
The total force on node 1 will be the sum of the separate contributions from the four zones
surrounding node 1. Clearly the sum of the Fx k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4) is zero, as is the sum of Fy k
(k = 1, 2, 3, 4) so that the net force that a zone exerts on its own nodes is zero, a necessary
condition for momentum conservation.
∂σ xx ∂σ xy σ xx
ρ &&
x= + +
∂x ∂y y
(3.42)
∂σ xy ∂ σ yy σ yy − σ θθ
y=
ρ && + +
∂x ∂y y
If the above equations are multiplied by 2 π y dx dy and integrated over a similar area to that
indicated in Figure 3-8, as was done for planar symmetry, the equations become
m ∂ σ xx ∂ σ xy
x∑
&& = ∫∫ + π y dx dy + ∫∫ σ xy π dx dy
4 ∂x ∂y
(3.43)
m ∂ σ xy ∂ σ yy
y∑ =
&& ∫∫ + π y dx dy + ∫∫ ( σ yy − σ θθ ) π dx dy
4 ∂x ∂y
40
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
1
y= ( y1 + y 2 + y3 + y 4 ) (3.44)
2
π σ xy A
fxA = (3.45)
2y
f yA =
[σ yy ]
− σ θθ A
(3.46)
4y
then the force contributions at the nodes k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4), fx k and fy k , can be expressed in
terms of the forces for planar symmetry, Fx k and Fy k , given in equations (3.47)
Using the results of equations (3.40) it is seen that the sum of fx k is zero, thus ensuring
momentum conservation, while the sum of fy k can be shown to be equal to -2 π A σθθ, which
is the self-contribution of the zone due to the internal hoop stress.
Assume that the boundary is along the Jth mesh line as illustrated in Figure 3-9 and that a
pressure p = P(t) acts on the boundary. In AUTODYN the function P(t) can be a constant
pressure, a pressure which is a triangular pulse or one of several other options. For the
quadrilateral 1-2-3-4 the force acting on the boundary face 1-2 is P times the length of the
side 1-2 acting normal to the side 1-2. In planar symmetry this force is divided equally
41
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
between the two nodes 1 and 2. In the case of axial symmetry the x component is divided
equally between the two nodes but the division of the y component is radially weighted.
y
P(t) P(t)
2 1
J
J-1
3 4
I-1 I I+1
1
Fbx1 = ( y 2 − y1 ) P
2
1
Fby1 = ( x 2 − x1 ) P (3.48)
2
Fbx 2 = Fbx1
Fby 2 = Fby1
In the case of axial symmetry, if the corresponding forces are denoted by lower case f as in
the previous section, then
fbx1 = π ( y1 + y 2 ) Fbx1
fbx 2 = π ( y1 + y 2 ) Fbx 2
(3.49)
fby1 = 2 π y1 Fby1
fby 2 = 2 π y 2 Fby 2
The forces in equations (3.48) and (3.49) must be added to the forces calculated in
equations (3.41) and (3.47) respectively.
42
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
The actual terms in AUTODYN are added to the hydrostatic pressure p in the energy and
momentum equations and are
V&
2
V& &
V
q = ρ C Q d − C L c for <0
V V V
(3.50)
&
V
=0 for >0
V
where CQ and CL are constants, ρ is the current local density, d is a typical length (here
defined to be the area of the zone divided by the longest diagonal of the zone), c is the local
sound speed and V & V is the volume change already defined in Section 3.2. Note that the
pseudo-viscous term is only added when the flow is compressing since such terms are not
necessary, and would prove excessively dispersive, if they were added to rarefying flows.
In order to avoid such hourglassing from happening a set of corrective forces are added to
& ,Y
the solution. These are proportional to the velocity ( X & ) where
43
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
1 2 1 2
3 4 3 4
Damping forces to oppose this movement are added to the forces at each corner of the
zone. The actual forces included in AUTODYN are, for planar symmetry,
44
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
CH m X &
Fx1 = −
16 ∆t
C mY &
Fy1 = − H
(3.52)
16 ∆t
Fx 2 = − Fx 3 = Fx 4 = − Fx1
Fy 2 = − Fy 3 = Fy 4 = − Fy1
where CH is a constant between 0 and 1. It should not be too large since this is a pseudo-
force and the default value of 0.05 is usually found to give satisfactory results.
In the case of axial symmetry, if the forces required are denoted by fx k , fy k as in previous
sections, then
fx k = Fx k k = 1, 2, 3, 4
2 y1
fy 1 = Fy1
( y1 + y 3 )
2 y2
fy 2 = − Fy1 (3.53)
( y2 + y 4 )
2 y3
fy 3 = Fy1
( y1 + y 3 )
2 y4
fy 1 = − Fy1
( y2 + y 4 )
If the zone is on the axis, i.e. either (y2 + y4) = 0 or (y1 + y3) = 0, the y components of the
hourglass inhibiting force are set to zero.
The change in specific internal energy of the zone due to the addition of these forces is
∆t 4 4
∆ e = − ∑ fx k x k + ∑f yk yk (3.54)
m k =1 k =1
in the case of axial symmetry and where the functions fx k are replaced by Fx k in the case of
planar symmetry.
45
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
It is not possible to envisage a situation where two of the nodes form re-entrant
configurations simultaneously without the mesh becoming degenerate and the calculation
being terminated. We only need, therefore to consider one such configuration from Figure
3-12 as a typical example. This is shown in (a) where the quadrilateral 1-2-3-4 becomes re-
entrant by node 1 moving to the other side of the diagonal 2-4.
1
2
Normal Configuration
3 4
1 1 1
2 2 2
1 2 3 4
3 3
4 4 4 3
(a) (b) (c) (d)
As previously discussed in equation (3.4.1) the area of the triangle Aa is computed from the
relation
1
Aa =
2
[
( x 1 − x 4 )( y 2 − y 4 ) − ( x 2 − x 4 )( y1 − y 4 ) ] (3.55)
In the normal situation as illustrated in Figure 3-12 this gives a positive value for the area
and no anti-tangling force is required. However in the geometry illustrated in Figure 3-12(a)
the value of the area computed from equation (3.6.17) will be negative and this fact can be
46
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
used to define resistive forces to inhibit the tangling. The additional forces added in
AUTODYN-2D are in planar symmetry
CT A a m (y 2 − y 4 )
Fx1 =
2 ∆t 2 d 2
C T A a m (x 2 − x 4 )
Fy1 = −
2 ∆t 2 d 2
1
Fx 2 = − F
2 x1 (3.56)
1
Fy 2 = − Fy1
2
1
Fx 4 = − Fx1
2
1
Fy 4 = − Fy1
2
where
d 2 = ( x2 − x4 ) +(y )
2 2
2 − y4
In axial symmetry the forces are identical to those in equations (3.56) with the exceptions
y 2 Fy1
Fy 2 = −
(y 2 + y4 )
(3.57)
y 4 Fy1
Fy 4 = −
(y 2 + y4 )
The magnitude of these inhibiting forces is governed by the constant CT which must be less
than unity. In practice it is chosen to be nearer 0.1 and a large value should not be chosen if
at all possible since these forces do not conserve angular momentum. These forces produce
a change in the internal energy of the zone equal to that defined in equation (3.54) but with k
= 1, 2 and 4 only. This value must also be added to the zonal internal energy.
In reality any of the nodes 1, 2, 3 or 4 may be the re-entrant node and the triad (1, 2, 4) in
the equations above will be changed to the appropriate triad (2, 3, 1), (3, 4, 2) or (4, 1, 2)
dependent upon the recognition of a triangle of negative area.
47
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
Fx
x=
&& + gx
mp
(3.58)
Fy
y=
&& + gy
mp
where gx, gy are the components of gravitational acceleration and mp is the mass attributed
to the node, which is taken to be the sum of the masses of the surrounding quadrants of the
neighboring zones. Each quadrant is assumed to have one quarter of the mass of the
relevant zone so mp is equal to one quarter of the sum of the four surrounding cell masses.
With the accelerations at time n determined, the velocities at time n +1 2 are found from
and finally x and y are updated to time n+1 by integrating the velocities
x n +1 = x n + x& n +1 2 ∆t n +1 2
(3.60)
y n +1 = y n + y& n +1 2 ∆t n +1 2
When the dynamic relaxation option is used the equations normally used to determine
velocities (see equations (3.59)) are modified as follows
48
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
where the static damping, Rd, is input by the user. The value of Rd for critical damping of the
lowest mode is
2 ∆t T
Rd = (3.62)
1 + 2 π ∆t T
where T is the period of the lowest mode of vibration of the system (or a close approximation
to it). Usually
2 ∆t
∆t << T ⇒ R d ≈ (3.63)
T
8. Boundary Conditions
In the integrations performed above in equations (3.59) and (3.60) it is necessary to take
note and incorporate whatever boundary conditions and constraints have been defined or
become operative during the process of solution. For example, the material in the
Lagrangian subgrid currently being updated may have collided with another subgrid so that
there are impact conditions or slide conditions to impose on the interface between the two
subgrids. These conditions will be discussed fully in Chapter 10. However there are other
external boundary conditions which can be specified at the beginning of the calculation and
which do not involve interaction with other subgrids and these conditions are discussed
below.
49
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
• adjustments to y if necessary to ensure that (in axial symmetry) grid points originally on
the axis remain on the axis whilst points originally off axis remain off axis
The imposition of any of these constraints will cause adjustments to the velocities and these
adjustments will in turn change the total momentum of the system. The impulse on the
system and the work done on the system are calculated and accumulated in order to check
energy and momentum conservation. If the new constrained velocities are x& n+1
B
2
, y& n+1
B
2
then
the x and y impulses due to the constraints are equal to
For a one-dimensional wave traveling in the direction of increasing x, the conditions on the
rearward facing characteristic are
dx
dp − ρ c du = 0 on = −c (3.66)
dt
50
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
where ρc is the acoustic impedance (ρ is the local density and c is the local sound speed)
and dp and du are the changes of pressure and velocity normal to the wave along the
characteristic. Since it is assumed that no wave energy is being propagated back in the
direction of decreasing x the error in applying the condition in (3.66) on a non-characteristic
direction is in general small and in AUTODYN it is applied on the transmitting boundary in
the form
[
p = p ref + u N − u ref ][ ρ c ] boundary
(3.67)
where uN is the component of mean velocity normal to the boundary and [ρc]boundary is
normally the value of ρc in the boundary cell at time n. The values of pref and uref are
reference values set at input and are normally zero. In that case equation (3.67) becomes
p = ρc uN (3.68)
which is exact for a plane elastic longitudinal wave propagating in an infinite elastic medium
(and shows the limitation of the method when applied to shocks of large magnitude).
ux =
1
2
[
u x1 + u x 2 ]
uy =
1
2
[ ]
u y1 + u y 2 (3.69)
uN =−
[ u (y − y ) + u (x
x 2 1 y 1 − x2 ) ]
1
[ (y 2 − y1 )2 + ( x1 − x 2 )2 ] 2
9. Timestep
Since the numerical algorithm used in AUTODYN is an explicit scheme there is a maximum
time step of integration which must be observed if the numerical solution obtained is to be a
reasonable representation of the true solution (see e.g. Richtmeyer (1957), Richtmeyer &
Morton (1967)). The value of this time step depends on several parameters of the numerical
method and solution so the local time step ensuring stability is calculated for each mesh
point. The minimum value of all these local values is multiplied by a safety factor (currently a
default value of 2/3 is built into the code) and this is chosen as the time step for the next
update.
In a Lagrangian mesh the time step must satisfy the CFL or Courant condition
51
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
d
∆t ≤ (3.70)
c
where d is a typical length of a zone (defined as the area of the zone divided by the longer
diagonal of the zone) and c is the local sound speed. This ensures that a disturbance does
not propagate across a zone in a single time step.
The inclusion of the pseudo-viscous stresses discussed in Section 3.6 impose further
restrictions on the time step in order to ensure stability. Von Neumann and Richtmeyer
(1950) showed that the inclusion of the quadratic q-term required a stability condition
1
∆t 2 ≤ (3.71)
&
2 V
4 CQ
V
d
∆t 3 ≤ (3.72)
2 CL c
& V is the
The constants CQ and CL are the constants introduced in equation (3.6.12) and V
modulus of the rate of change of volume.
Finally, the time step chosen is
The minimum value of ∆t must be found for all zones and this value will be used for all zones
for the next time step of integration.
52
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
11. Rezoning
As stated in the introduction to this chapter an inherent disadvantage of a grid based
Lagrangian formulation is that the initial mesh may become highly distorted during the
calculation and lead to significant loss of accuracy and unacceptably small time steps of
integration. In order to continue the calculation it is sometimes necessary, or desirable, to
rezone the grid and in AUTODYN-2D this can be done using a powerful interactive
capability. Full rezoning, which involves the remapping of the current solution onto a new
numerical mesh may be invoked when one or more of the following conditions occurs during
a calculation.
• A zone has become degenerate
• A particular zone or group of zones has become very small resulting in a very small
timestep
• The flow solution has reached the physical boundary of the initially defined mesh and it is
desired to extend the mesh further by adding zones
Rezoning is carried out in two stages and users are referred to the Rezone Tutorial. First the
new mesh geometry is defined (both physically in (x, y) space and in (I, J) space). Then the
remap phase maps the old zonal quantities onto the new zones. After the remap a summary
of the volume, mass, momentum and energy conservation is given and if this should prove
unsatisfactory then it is recommended that the rezone be modified and the remap repeated.
Note that if parts of the mesh are discarded during the rezone phase then the conservation
summary will naturally show intentional losses of volume, mass, momentum and energy.
In the following description of the rezoning procedure the new mesh is defined by the index
parameters (I, J) while the old mesh has the corresponding index parameters (K, L). The
physical variables on the new grid FI, J are determined from the corresponding variables FK, L
on the old mesh by the relation
where f(I, J, K, L) is the fraction of the old zone (K, L) intersecting the new zone (I, J) and the
summation is over all old zones which intersect the new zone (I, J). However the momenta
at the nodes and the cell masses are first calculated by considering quarter cells instead of
complete cells to ensure better conservation. The remaining cell variables including total
energy are remapped using equation (3.74), while velocities are determined by dividing
momenta by the relevant grid masses. This allows the kinetic energy to be determined and
this is subtracted from the total energy to give the internal energy of the cell.
53
Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D
As the remap proceeds a new cell gets progressively filled with material and physical
variables from overlapping cells on the old mesh and the fraction of the new cell covered
(FVTOT) is continually being updated. If FVTOT exceeds unity during the scan over cells of
the old mesh no further overlapping cells are sought and the process moves on to
remapping onto the next cell of the new mesh. At the end of the remapping process all
physical quantities in this cell are scaled down by the final value of FVTOT. If at the end of
the remapping there are cells with values of FVTOT less than unity the cell has not been
fully covered by old cells. For such cells the final value of FVTOT is compared with the value
of the “rezone volume cutoff”. This parameter, FVCUT has a default value of 0.9 but can be
changed by the user by choosing the “Cutoff” option in the Rezone menu.
FVTOT is then compared with FVCUT and three possible situations arise
• FVCUT < FVTOT < 1 all physical quantities are scaled up by 1/FVTOT
• 1 - FVCUT < FVTOT < FVCUT the remap is rejected and an error message is
displayed giving the position of the cell causing
rejection
It is recommended that the user study the AUTODYN Rezone Tutorial for further information
and advice on using the interactive capabilities of the Rezone facility.
54
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
Steel Projectile
Aluminium
Target
55
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
The Lagrange coordinate system can accurately follow particle histories, and therefore
accurately define material interfaces and also follow stress histories of material in elastic-
plastic flow. Materials are defined on a structured (I, J, K) numerical mesh of six sided brick-
type (hexahedral) elements and the eight vertices, or nodes, of the mesh move with the
material flow velocity. Material stays within the element in which it originally lay. As with the
2D version it is undesirable to choose a mesh geometry in which any of the aspect ratios of
one side of the element to another side becomes excessive.
2. Governing Equations
The partial differential equations to be solved express the conservation of mass, momentum
and energy in Lagrangian coordinates. These, together with a material model (see Chapter
11) and a set of initial and boundary conditions, define the complete solution of the problem.
Material associated with a Lagrangian zone stays with that zone under any deformation.
Thus a Lagrangian grid moves and distorts with the material it models and conservation of
mass is automatically satisfied. The density at any time can be determined from the current
volume of the zone and its initial mass
ρ0 V0 m
ρ= = (4.1)
V V
The partial differential equations which express the conservation of momentum relate the
acceleration to the stress tensor σij
∂ σ xx ∂ σ xy ∂ σ xz
ρ &&
x= + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ σ yx ∂ σ yy ∂ σ yz
ρ &&
y= + + (4.2)
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ σ zx ∂ σ zy ∂ σ zz
ρ &&z = + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
The stress tensor is separated into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric component
(see Section 11.3 for a full discussion on this).
56
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
σ xx = − ( p + q ) + s xx
σ yy = − ( p + q ) + s yy
σ zz = − ( p + q ) + s zz
(4.3)
σ xy = s xy
σ yz = s yz
σ zx = s zx
The negative sign for the hydrostatic pressure p follows from the usual notation that stresses
are positive in tension and negative in compression (the opposite to that for pressure). In the
actual equations solved the hydrostatic pressure p is augmented by a pseudo-viscous force
q which will be discussed more fully in Section 6 on nodal forces.
The strain tensor εij is determined from the relation between the strain rates and the
velocities ( x& , y& , z& ) .
∂ x&
ε& xx =
∂x
∂ y&
ε& yy =
∂y
∂ z&
ε& zz =
∂z
(4.4)
1 ∂ x& ∂ y&
ε& xy = +
2 ∂ y ∂ x
1 ∂ y& ∂ z&
ε& yz = +
2 ∂ z ∂ y
1 ∂ z& ∂ x&
ε& zx = +
2 ∂x ∂z
and these strain rates are related to the rate of change of volume by:
&
V
= ε& xx + ε& yy + ε& zz (4.5)
V
For elastic behavior of a material we may derive from equation (4.5) and Hooke’s Law
relations between the deviatoric stress rates and the strain rates
57
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
1V&
s& xx = 2G ε& xx −
3 V
1V&
s& yy = 2G ε& yy −
3 V
1V& (4.6)
s& zz = 2G ε& zz −
3 V
s& xy = 2G ε& xy
s& yz = 2G ε& yz
s& zx = 2G ε& zx
The deviatoric variables will also be adjusted for other real effects, such as rigid body
rotations, plastic flow, damage and failure as described below and more fully in Chapter 11
on “Material Modeling”.
The pressure p is related to the density ρ and specific internal energy e through an equation
of state
p = f (ρ, e) (4.7)
of the forms described in Chapter 11. This must be solved simultaneously with the equation
expressing conservation of energy
1
e& =
ρ
(
σ xx ε& xx + σ yy ε& yy + σ zz ε& zz + 2 σ xy ε& xy + 2 σ yz ε& yz + 2 σ zx ε& zx ) (4.8)
3. Lagrange Subgrids
As indicated above a specific region of interest is covered by a set (or grid) of brick shaped
zones, elements or cells on which the flow and state variables (position, velocity, pressure
etc.) are defined. This region, or subgrid, if followed within a Lagrangian coordinate system
is known as a Lagrange subgrid and it may form a part of a set of regions or subgrids,
some of which may be treated with different solution techniques (e.g. Shell, ALE). A subgrid
is a group of cells (or zones) which is regular in index space (I, J, K space) although it may
form an irregular volume in (x, y, z) space. The cells are organized in columns I = 1 to IMAX,
J = 1 to JMAX and K = 1 to KMAX. Each brick element within the subgrid has eight corner
nodes forming in (x, y, z) space a generalized hexahedral shape with, in general, non-planar
faces (this is discussed more fully in Section 6). The index space of each subgrid is
independent of any of the other subgrids defined in the problem.
58
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
.Each subgrid node is identified by its unique (I, J, K) index as shown in Figure 4-2 while
each zone interior is defined by a unique (I, J, K) index which is identified with the “upper-
rightmost” (in (I, J, K) space) node of the zone.
The partial differential equations shown in the above section are replaced by finite difference
equations, based on the cells of the subgrid, and these difference equations are solved to
update the solution by successive timesteps. Following Wilkins, an explicit central difference
scheme is used. There are however some differences in the details of the methods used in
AUTODYN-3D, primarily resulting from the need to deal with subgrid interactions.
I-1, J, K I, J, K
K A
B
J
I-1, J-1, K-1 I, J-1, K-1
I
59
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
Direct Calculation
Nodal forces
An eighth of the mass of each zone can be associated with each node of the zone. Thus, if
required, the mass associated with a node is one eighth of the sum of the masses of the
eight zones surrounding the node.
x, y, z
x& , y& , z&
x, &&y, &&z
&&
p, e, ρ
σ, m, T
60
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
4 2 4 2 4 2
3 3 3
1 (a) 1 (b) 1 (c)
The logical coordinates in (I, J, K) space are defined as (ξ, η, ζ) and a coordinate
transformation is performed to transform into the logical space. A generalized trilinear
interpolation is used in which ξ, η and ζ are the interpolation variables, which vary between 0
and 1 in a given cell (see Figure 4-6). If x is the physical coordinate, the relationship
between the physical and logical position within any given cell, (see Figure 4-6) can be
written
61
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
8 7
8 7 (0, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
5
6 5 6
(0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 1)
3 4 3
4 (0, 1, 0) (1, 1, 0)
z 2 1 2
y 1 ζ (0, 0, 0) (1, 0, 0)
η
x
ξ
[
x = x 1 (1 − ξ)(1 − η) + x 2 ξ (1 − η) + x 3 ξ η + x 4 (1 − ξ) η (1 − ζ) ] (4.9)
+ [x (1 − ξ)(1 − η) + x ξ (1 − η) + x
5 6 7 ξ η + x8 (1 − ξ) η]ζ
where x1 , x2 , ....., x8 are the eight vertices of the hexahedral element.
1 1 1
∂ (x, y, z)
V= ∫ ∫ ∫ ∂ (ξ, η, ζ) dξ dη dζ
0 0 0
(4.10)
∂ (x, y, z)
where is the Jacobian of the transformation.
∂ ( ξ, η, ζ)
Carrying out the integration in equation (4.10) an expression for the volume in terms of the
coordinates of the cell can be derived as
1
V= ∑ Cij x i, j
3 i, j
i = 1, 2, 3 ; j = 1K8 (4.11)
62
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
This can be written in several ways but the form programmed in AUTODYN-3D is
1 8
V= ∑ Cxj x j
12 j =1
(4.12)
where
C x1 = − y 2 (z 3 − z 6 + z 4 − z 5 ) + y3 ( z 2 − z 4 ) + y 4 (z 2 − z 5 + z 3 − z8 )
− y 5 ( z 2 − z 4 + z 6 − z8 ) − y 6 (z 2 − z 5 ) + y8 (z 4 − z 5 )
C x2 = y1 (z 3 − z 6 + z 4 − z 5 ) − y 3 ( z1 − z 6 + z 4 − z 7 ) − y 4 ( z1 − z3 )
+ y 5 ( z1 − z 6 ) + y 6 (z1 − z 3 + z 5 − z 7 ) − y 7 ( z 3 − z 6 )
C x3 = − y1 ( z 2 − z 4 ) + y 2 ( z1 − z 6 + z 4 − z 7 ) − y 4 ( z1 − z8 + z 2 − z 7 )
+ y 6 ( z 2 − z 7 ) + y 7 ( z 2 − z 4 + z 6 − z8 ) − y8 ( z 4 − z 7 )
C x 4 = − y1 (z 2 − z 5 + z 3 − z8 ) + y 2 ( z1 − z 3 ) + y 3 ( z1 − z8 + z 2 − z 7 )
(4.13)
− y 5 ( z1 − z8 ) + y 7 ( z 3 − z8 ) − y8 (z1 − z 3 + z 5 − z 7 )
C x5 = y1 (z 2 − z 4 + z 6 − z 8 ) + y 2 (z1 − z 6 ) + y 4 (z1 − z 8 )
− y 6 (z1 − z8 + z 2 − z 7 ) − y 7 (z 6 − z 8 ) + y8 (z1 − z 6 + z 4 − z 7 )
C x6 = y1 (z 2 − z 5 ) − y 2 (z1 − z 3 + z 5 − z 7 ) − y 3 (z 2 − z 7 )
+ y 5 (z1 − z8 + z 2 − z 7 ) − y 7 (z 2 − z 5 + z 3 − z8 ) + y 8 (z 5 − z 7 )
C x 7 = y 2 (z 3 − z 6 ) − y 3 (z 2 − z 4 + z 6 − z8 ) − y 4 (z 3 − z8 )
+ y 5 (z 6 − z8 ) + y 6 (z 2 − z 5 + z 3 − z8 ) − y8 (z 3 − z 6 + z 4 − z 5 )
C x8 = − y1 (z 4 − z 5 ) + y 3 (z 4 − z 7 ) + y 4 (z1 − z 3 + z 5 − z 7 )
− y 5 ( z1 − z 6 + z 4 − z 7 ) − y 6 ( z 5 − z 7 ) + y 7 ( z 3 − z 6 + z 4 − z 5 )
63
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
Since the mass within a Lagrangian element remains constant throughout the calculation the
density is then calculated from the volume and the initial mass within the element using
m
ρ= (4.14)
V
The initial mass in the element is calculated at the start of the calculation from the initial
cuboidal volumes, calculated with the above equations, based on the initial grid and the
initial density.
∂ fi
∫ ∂x
V i
dV = ∫ fi n • i dS
S
(4.15)
The surface integrals are evaluated by dividing the element surfaces into triangles based on
each node (note that this procedure will cover the surface twice when summed over all eight
nodes). The velocity associated with a given triangle is taken as the average of the velocities
defined at the nodes of the triangle and the surface area vectors are taken to point out of the
zone surface. The scalar product of the area vector with the direction vector multiplied by the
average velocity gives the velocity flux through the surface in the required direction. It follows
that, changing from integrals to sums over the nodes, and setting f = x& , using the notation
of Figure 4-7
8 I-1, J, K 7 I, J, K
I-1, J-1, K
5 6 I, J-1, K
64
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
∂ x& 1 8
= ∑ [ x& AB (A × B) • i + x& CA (C × A) • i + x& BC (B × C) • i]
∂ x 4 V n =1
(4.16)
1
x& AB = ( x& 1 + x& 2 + x& 4 )
3
1
x& CA = ( x& 1 + x& 4 + x& 5 ) (4.17)
3
1
x& BC = ( x& 1 + x& 2 + x& 5 )
3
(A × B) • i = ( y 4 − y1 )(z 2 − z1 ) − ( y 2 − y1 )( z 4 − z1 ) (4.18)
(B × C) • i = ( y 2 − y1 )(z 5 − z1 ) − ( y 5 − y1 )( z 2 − z1 ) (4.20)
The expressions in equations (4.17) to (4.20) have to be evaluated for nodes 2 to 8 and
summed in equation (4.16).
In a similar manner
∂ x& 1 8
= ∑ [ x& AB (A × B) • j + x& CA (C × A) • j + x& BC (B × C) • j]
∂ y 4 V n =1
(4.21)
where
(A × B) • j = (z 4 − z1 )( x 2 − x1 ) − ( z 2 − z1 )( x 4 − x1 ) (4.22)
(B × C) • j = (z 2 − z1 )( x 5 − x1 ) − (z 5 − z1 )( x 2 − x1 ) (4.24)
Again equations (4.17) and (4.22) to (4.24) have to be evaluated for nodes 2 to 8 and all
summed in equation (4.21).
65
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
∂ x& 1 8
= ∑ [ x& AB (A × B) • k + x& CA (C × A) • k + x& BC (B × C) • k]
∂ z 4 V n =1
(4.25)
where
(A × B) • k = ( x 4 − x1 )( y 2 − y1 ) − ( x 2 − x1 )( y 4 − y1 ) (4.26)
(C × A) • k = (x 5 − x1 )( y 4 − y1 ) − ( x 4 − x1 )(y 5 − y1 ) (4.27)
(B × C) • k = ( x 2 − x1 )(y5 − y1 ) − (x 5 − x1 )( y 2 − y1 ) (4.28)
Equations (4.17) and (4.26) to (4.28) are evaluated for the remaining nodes 2 to 8 and all the
terms summed in equation (4.25).
The remaining velocity derivatives required to calculate the components of strain are
determined by replacing x& in the above equations by y& and then by z& , e.g. to calculate
∂ y& ∂ x the equations (4.16) to (4.20) for ∂ x& ∂ x are used but replacing all references to x&
by the corresponding y& . A similar procedure is used for the other remaining derivatives.
&
V
= ε& xx + ε& yy + ε& zz
V
(4.29)
∂ x& ∂ y& ∂ z&
= + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
66
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
n +1 2
n +1
1V &
s xx =s n
xx + 2 G ∆t ε& xx − + δ nxx
3 V
n +1 2
n +1
1V &
s yy =s n
yy + 2 G ∆t ε& yy − + δ yy
n
3 V
n +1 2
1V & (4.30)
n +1
s zz =s n
zz + 2 G ∆t ε& zz − + δ zz
n
3 V
n +1 n +1 2
s xy = s xy
n
+ 2 G ∆t ε& xy + δ xy
n
n +1
s yz = s yz
n
+ 2 G ∆t ε& nyz+1 2 + δ nyz
n +1 n +1 2
s zx = s zx
n
+ 2 G ∆t ε& zx + δ zx
n
The deviatoric stresses are tested to determine whether plastic yielding has taken place, and
this is described fully in Section 11.3. If yielding has occurred the deviators are scaled down
so that the resultant lies exactly on the yield surface.
δ xx = − 2 ω z σ xy + 2 ω y σ zx
δ yy = 2 ω z σ xy − 2 ω x σ yz
δ zz = 2 ω x σ yz − 2 ω y σ zx
= − δ yy − δ xx (4.31)
( )
δ xy = ω z σ xx − σ yy + ω y σ yz − ω x σ zx
δ yz = ω x (σ yy − σ zz )+ω z σ zx − ω y σ xy
δ zx = ω y ( σ zz − σ xx ) + ω x σ xy − ω z σ yz
where
67
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
1 ∂ z& ∂ y&
ωx = − ∆t
2 ∂y ∂z
1 ∂ x& ∂ z&
ωy = − ∆t (4.32)
2 ∂ z ∂ x
1 ∂ y& ∂ x&
ωz = − ∆t
2 ∂ x ∂ y
The deviatoric stresses are tested to determine whether plastic yielding has taken place and
this is described fully in section 11.3. If yielding has occurred the deviators are scaled down
so that the resultant lies exactly on the yield surface.
[
∆e z = s xx ε& xx + s yy ε& yy + s zz ε& zz + 2s xy ε& xy + 2s yz ε& yz + 2s zx ε& zx ] mV ∆t (4.33)
The new value of the hydrostatic pressure p is obtained from the simultaneous solution of
the equation of state
p = f (ρ, e) (4.34)
p n +1 + p n ∆V n +1
e n +1 = e n + ∆e zn +1 2 − + q n +1 2 (4.35)
2 m
Equation (4.35) includes the effect of the pseudo-viscous pressure components which are
included to both capture shocks and damp oscillations behind shocks (these will be
discussed in the next section).
σ xx =−( p+q )+ s xx
σ yy =−( p+q )+ s yy
σ zz =−( p+q )+ s zz
(4.36)
σ xy =s xy
σ yz =s yz
σ zx =s zx
68
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
(Note: the output variables for σxx, σyy, and σzz in AUTODYN-3D do not include the q(artificial
viscosity) term as shown in equation 4.36. For simplicity of expressing the nodal force
equations below it is included in the total stress tensor as above.)
6. Nodal Forces
Once the updated stress tensor has been calculated the final phase of the computational
cycle is the evaluation of the nodal forces, which consist of several types. In addition to the
forces on internal nodes there are the boundary or external forces to consider. There are
also the pseudo-viscous forces mentioned in the previous section and finally additional
hourglass forces are included in the finite difference formulation to inhibit possible mesh
deformations which have no physical significance.
∂ σ xx ∂ σ xy ∂ σ xz
ρ &&
x= + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ σ yx ∂ σ yy ∂ σ yz
y=
ρ && + + (4.37)
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ σ zx ∂ σ zy ∂ σ zz
ρ &&z = + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
These equations are multiplied by dV and by means of Green’s Theorem we can derive
surface integrals around the octahedron surrounding the relevant node (see Figure 4-8
below). As stated earlier, the mass associated with a node is
1 8
mp = ∑ mn
8 n =1
(4.38)
69
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
z
y D
4
F 1
x C
0
E
D 3
6
2
B
C 5
0
E
A
z
D
y
B
7
F
8
C
K
J E
0
x
A
Octahedron
I B
70
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
∂ Fxx 1 8
∂x 4 n =1
(
= ∑ ( σ xx ) n × A n ) (4.40)
where An is the area of projection of the octahedral face in element n onto the plane x = 0
∂ Fxy ∂ Fzx
Similar expressions can be found for and .
∂y ∂z
The contribution from element 1 to the force on node 0 in the notation of Figure 4-8 is
1
4
[
( σ xx )1 ( y F − y E )( z D − z E ) − ( z F − z E )( y D − y E ) + ]
1
4
( )[
σ xy ( z F − z E )( x D − x E ) − ( x F − x E )( z D − z E ) +
1
] (4.41)
1
4
[
( σ zx )1 ( x F − x E )( y D − y E ) − ( y F − y E )( x D − x E ) ]
The total force on node 0 will be the sum of the separate contributions from the eight
elements surrounding the node.
1
4
( ) [( y
σ xy
1 F ]
− y E )( z D − z E ) − ( z F − z E )( y D − y E ) +
1
4
( ) [( z
σ yy
1 F ]
− z E )( x D − x E ) − ( x F − x E )( z D − z E ) + (4.43)
1
4
( ) [( x
σ yz
1 F − x E )( y D − y E ) − ( y F − y E )( x D − x E ) ]
Again the expressions will be summed over all eight elements to obtain the total y
component of force for the node.
71
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
1
4
[ ]
(σ zx )1 ( y F − y E )(z D − z E ) − (z F − z E )( y D − y E ) +
1
4
( )[ 1
]
σ yz ( z F − z E )( x D − x E ) − ( x F − x E )( z D − z E ) + (4.45)
1
4
[ ]
(σ zz )1 ( x F − x E )( y D − y E ) − ( y F − y E )( x D − x E )
Again the expressions will be summed over all eight elements to obtain the total z
component of force for the node.
D
2 G
F 1
0
P(t) E
3
4
B
72
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
The boundary forces on each of the four points 0, D, E and G due to the external pressure
are therefore
1
Fx1 = P[( y E − y 0 )( z D − z 0 )−( y D − y 0 )( z E − z 0 )]
4
1
Fy1 = P[( z E − z 0 )( x D − x0 )−( z D − z 0 )( x E − x0 )] (4.46)
4
1
Fz1 = P[( x E − x0 )( y D − y 0 )−( x D − x0 )( y E − y 0 )]
4
The forces in equations (4.46) must be added to the forces computed in the previous section
when determining the accelerations of boundary points.
The actual terms in AUTODYN-3D are added to the hydrostatic pressure p in the energy and
momentum equations and are
V&
2
V& V&
q = ρ C Q d − C L c d for <0
V V V
(4.47)
V&
=0 for > 0
V
where CQ and CL are constants, ρ is the current local density, d is a typical length (here
defined to be the volume of the zone divided by the square of the longest diagonal of the
zone and scaled to give 2D/3D compatibility for square and cubic elements), c is the local
sound speed and V & V is the volume change already defined in Section 4.2. Note that the
pseudo-viscous term is only added when the flow is compressing since such terms are not
necessary, and would prove excessively dispersive, if they were added to rarefying flows.
73
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
1 2 1 2
3 4 3 4
74
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
&
X B = x& 1 + x& 2 − x& 3 − x& 4 − x& 5 − x& 6 + x& 7 + x& 8
(4.48)
& = x& − x& − x&
X + x& 4 − x& 5 + x& 6 + x& 7 − x& 8
C 1 2 3
& ,Y
with similar expressions for Y & ,Y& ,Y
& and Z& , Z& Z& , Z& being formed by replacing
A B C D A B C D
x& 1 , etc. by y& 1 or z& 1 etc. Then, if
A H = CH ρ c V2 3 (4.49)
where CH is a constant and c is the local soundspeed, the damping forces added to the
forces at each corner of the element are
& +X
Fx1 = − A H X A B [
& +X
& +X
C
&
D ]
Fx 2 = − A H [− X& + X& − X& − X& ]
A B C D
with analogous expressions being used for the y and z components of the damping force.
Note that
∑F
n =1
xn =0 (4.51)
75
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
so that the addition of these forces does not affect the momentum balance.
The change in specific internal energy of the zone due to the addition of these forces is
∆t 8
∆e = ∑ ( Fxn x& n + Fzn z& n + Fzn z& n ) (4.52)
m n =1
After the nodal forces (including the inhibitive forces aimed at avoiding hourglassing) have
been computed the nodal accelerations are derived by equating acceleration to force divided
by mass. Therefore the accelerations are
Fx
x=
&& + gx
mp
Fy
y=
&& + gy (4.53)
mp
Fz
&&z = + gz
mp
where gx, gy, gz are the components of gravitational acceleration and mp is the mass
attributed to the node, which is equal to one eighth of the sum of the eight surrounding cell
masses.
Once the accelerations have been calculated at time n the velocity x& n +1 2 and nodal
positions xn and x n +1 2 can be calculated by
x n +1 = x n + x& n +1 2 ∆t n +1 2 (4.55)
1 n +1
x n +1 2 =
2
( x + xn ) (4.56)
and similar expressions hold for the determination of y& n +1 2 , z& n +1 2 , y n +1 , z n +1 , y n +1 2 and z n +1 2 .
76
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
When the dynamic relaxation option is used the equations normally used to determine
velocities (see equations (4.54)) are modified as follows
where the static damping, Rd, is input by the user. The value of Rd for critical damping of the
lowest mode is
2 ∆t T
Rd = (4.58)
1 + 2 π ∆t T
where T is the period of the lowest mode of vibration of the system (or a close approximation
to it). Usually
2 ∆t
∆t << T ⇒ R d ≈ (4.59)
T
8. Boundary Conditions
In the integrations performed above in equations (4.54) and (4.55) and the corresponding
equations for y and z it is necessary to take note and incorporate whatever boundary
conditions and constraints have been defined or become operative during the process of
77
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
solution. For example, the material in the Lagrangian subgrid currently being updated may
have collided with another subgrid so that there are impact conditions or slide conditions to
impose on the interface between the two subgrids. These conditions will be discussed fully in
Chapter 10. However there are other external boundary conditions which can be specified at
the beginning of the calculation and which do not involve interaction with other subgrids and
these conditions are discussed below.
The imposition of any of these constraints will cause adjustments to the velocities and these
adjustments will in turn change the total momentum of the system. The impulse on the
system and the work done on the system are calculated and accumulated in order to check
energy and momentum conservation. If the new constrained velocities are x& n+1
B
2
, y& n+1
B
2
and
z& n+1
B
2
then the x, y and z impulses due to the constraints are equal to:
78
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
For a one-dimensional wave traveling in the direction of increasing x the conditions on the
forward facing characteristic are
dx
dp − ρ c du on =−c (4.62)
dt
where ρc is the acoustic impedance (ρ is the local density and c is the local sound speed)
and dp and du are the changes of pressure and velocity normal to the wave along the
characteristic. Since it is assumed that no wave energy is being propagated back in the
direction of decreasing x the error in applying the condition in (4.62) on a non-characteristic
direction is in general small and in AUTODYN it is applied on the transmitting boundary in
the form
where uN is the component of mean velocity normal to the boundary and [ρc]boundary is
normally the value of rc in the boundary cell at time n. The values of pref and uref are
reference values set at input and are normally zero. In that case equation (4.63) becomes
p = ρc uN (4.64)
which is exact for a plane elastic longitudinal wave propagating in an infinite medium (and
shows the limitation of the method when applied to shocks of large magnitude).
(
Given the velocity components u x k , u y k , u z k ) at the boundary nodes (x k , y k , z k ) , k = 1, 2,
3, 4 of the boundary cell, uN is determined from
u N = − P1 u x − P2 u y − P3 u z (4.65)
where the direction cosines of the normal to the transmitting face are
79
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
1
P1 =
d
[
(y1 − y3 )(z2 − z 4 ) − (z1 − z3 )( y 2 − y 4 ) ]
1
[ ]
P2 = (z1 − z 3 )( x 2 − x 4 ) − ( x1 − x 3 )( z 2 − z 4 )
d
1
[
P3 = ( x1 − x 3 )( y 2 − y 4 ) − ( y1 − y3 )( x 2 − x 4 )
d
] (4.66)
where
d = ( P12 + P2 2 + P32 )
12
and
1
ux =
4
[ u x1 + u x 2 + u x 3 + u x 4 ]
1
[
u y = u y1 + u y 2 + u y 3 + u y 4
4
] (4.67)
1
u z = [ u z1 + u z 2 + u z 3 + u z 4 ]
4
9. Time-step
Since the numerical algorithm used in AUTODYN is an explicit scheme there is a maximum
time step of integration which must be observed if the numerical solution obtained is to be a
reasonable representation of the true solution. (see e.g. Richtmeyer (1957), Richtmeyer &
Morton (1967)). The value of this time step depends on several parameters of the numerical
method and solution so the local time step ensuring stability is calculated for each mesh
point. The minimum value of all these local values is multiplied by a safety factor (currently a
default value of 2/3 is built into the code) and this is chosen as the time step for the next
update.
In a Lagrangian mesh the time step must satisfy the CFL or Courant condition
d
∆t ≤ (4.68)
c
where d is a typical length of a zone (defined as the volume of the zone divided by the
square of the longest diagonal of the zone and scaled by 2 3 ) and c is the local sound
80
Chapter 4. Lagrange Processor in 3D
speed. This ensures that a disturbance does not propagate across a zone in a single time
step.
1
∆t 2 ≤ (4.69)
&
2 V
4 CQ
V
d
∆t 3 ≤ (4.70)
2 CL c
& V is the
The constants CQ and CL are the constants introduced in equation (4.6.8) and V
modulus of the rate of change of volume.
The minimum value of ∆t must be found for all zones for the next time step of integration.
For each zone the running sums of mass, volume, energy (internal, kinetic and specific
distortional energy) and momentum (both x, y and z components) are determined and
stored. Periodically these sums can be examined and, if desired, printed out for each subgrid
and as an overall total. Clearly errors within the calculational algorithm, the introduction of
pseudo-forces and other palliatives will preclude the absolute conservation of mass,
momentum and energy but the errors must not be unacceptably large if the solution is to
have credibility. By default AUTODYN allows errors of up to 5% before warnings are given to
the user.
81
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
82
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
interior of materials and cells will continue to contain only a single material (i.e. there will be
no mixed cells). The ALE processor can reduce and sometimes eliminate the need for
Lagrange rezoning and allow a calculation to be continued to later times than would be
possible using a pure Lagrange processor. However, currently the ALE processor cannot
always be substituted in place of a pure multi-material Euler processor for large-distortion,
large-flow problems.
2. Governing Equations
Since the ALE algorithm is an extension of the Lagrange technique the partial differential
equations to be solved express the conservation of mass, momentum and energy in
Lagrangian coordinates. These, together with a material model (see Chapter 11) and a set of
initial and boundary conditions, define the complete solution of the problem. These
equations have been described fully in Chapters 3 (2D) and 4 (3D) and readers should refer
to those chapters before reading further. The material associated with a Lagrangian zone
stays with that zone under any deformation but will be advected from one zone to an
adjoining zone if the computational mesh is redefined in the ALE processor. Thus while the
density at any time can be determined from the current volume of the zone and its current
mass
m
ρ= (5.1)
V
this is not the same equation as (3.1) or (4.1) since m is a variable function in equation (5.1)
whereas it is a constant (the initial zone mass) in the two earlier equations. To make this
chapter easier to follow the governing equations for 3D flow are listed below briefly. The
analogous equations in 2D can be obtained from Chapter 3.
The partial differential equations which express the conservation of momentum relate the
acceleration to the stress tensor σij and in three dimensions may be written, in Cartesian
coordinates as used in AUTODYN-3D, as
∂ σ xx ∂ σ xy ∂ σ xz
ρ &&
x= + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ σ yx ∂ σ yy ∂ σ yz
ρ &&
y= + + (5.2)
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ σ zx ∂ σ zy ∂ σ zz
ρ &&z = + +
∂x ∂y ∂z
The 3D stress tensor is separated into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric
component s (see Section 11.3 for a full discussion on this)
83
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
σ xx = − ( p + q ) + s xx
σ yy = − ( p + q ) + s yy
σ zz = − ( p + q ) + s zz
(5.3)
σ xy = s xy
σ yz = s yz
σ zx = s zx
The negative sign for the hydrostatic pressure p follows from the usual notation that stresses
are positive in tension and negative in compression (the opposite to that for pressure). In the
actual equations solved the hydrostatic pressure p is augmented by a pseudo-viscous force
q which is discussed more fully in Section 4.6 on nodal forces.
The strain tensor εij in 3D is determined from the relation between the strain rates and the
velocities ( x& , y& , z& )
∂ x&
ε& xx =
∂x
∂ y&
ε& yy =
∂y
∂ z&
ε& zz =
∂z
(5.4)
1 ∂ x& ∂ y&
ε& xy = +
2 ∂ y ∂ x
1 ∂ y& ∂ z&
ε& yz = +
2 ∂ z ∂ y
1 ∂ z& ∂ x&
ε& zx = +
2 ∂x ∂z
and these strain rates are related to the rate of change of volume by
&
V
= ε& xx + ε& yy + ε& zz (5.5)
V
For 3D elastic behavior of a material we may derive from equation (5.5) and Hooke’s Law
relations between the deviatoric stress rates and deviatoric strain rates
84
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
1V&
s& xx = 2G ε& xx −
3 V
1V&
s& yy = 2G ε& yy −
3 V
1V& (5.6)
s& zz = 2G ε& zz −
3 V
s& xy = 2G ε& xy
s& yz = 2G ε& yz
s& zx = 2G ε& zx
The deviatoric variables will also be adjusted for other real effects, such as rigid body
rotations, plastic flow, damage and failure as described in Chapters 3 and 4 and more fully in
Chapter 11 on “Material Modeling”.
The pressure p is related to the density ρ and specific internal energy e through an equation
of state
p = f (ρ, e) (5.7)
of the forms described in Chapter 11. This must be solved simultaneously with the equation
expressing conservation of energy
1
e& =
ρ
(
σ xx ε& xx + σ yy ε& yy + σ zz ε& zz + 2 σ xy ε& xy + 2 σ yz ε& yz + 2 σ zx ε& zx ) (5.8)
3. ALE Subgrids
In AUTODYN an ALE subgrid is identical to a Lagrange subgrid in initial definition and
subsequent calculation except for the addition of a possible rezoning phase during each
computational cycle. Thus a subgrid is a group of cells (3D) or zones (2D) which is regular in
(I, J, K) (3D) or (I, J) (2D) space although it may form an irregular volume in real space. For
further details of Lagrange subgrids readers should refer to Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of this
manual. Complex geometries can be built up from multiple subgrids in a manner similar to
that described in the earlier chapters for pure Lagrange subgrids. In the case of ALE
subgrids they can be interfaced with other ALE subgrids, Lagrange or Shell subgrids but the
interfaces between all the subgrids currently must be Lagrangian.
In 2D each subgrid node is identified by its unique (I, J) index as shown in Figure 5-1(a)
while each zone interior is defined by a unique (I, J) index which is identified with the “upper-
rightmost” (in (I, J) space) node of the zone. In 3D each subgrid node is identified by its
unique (I, J, K) index as shown in Figure 5-1(b) while each zone interior is defined by a
unique (I, J, K) index which is identified with the “upper-rightmost” (in (I, J, K) space) node of
the zone.
85
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
I-1, J I, J I-1, J, K I, J, K
86
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
Direct Calculation
4. ALE Methodology
When large distortions are not expected throughout a calculation a purely Lagrangian
approach, allowing the computational grid to move with the material, will provide acceptable
solutions. However in many problems large fluid motions can, if calculated with a purely
Lagrange processor, lead to Lagrangian cells of extreme aspect ratios, to degenerate cells
which have turned inside out and regions of cells which are completely chaotic in real space
although in index space they remain structured. These effects can often be ameliorated by
moving the vertices of the computational grid relative to the fluid in order to maintain a
reasonable (not necessarily ideal) mesh structure in real space. However whenever a grid
vertex is moved relative to the fluid there must be an exchange of material among the cells
surrounding the vertex. This is carried out in the ALE computational step by treating the
exchange as an advective flux.
As stated earlier there is a wide range of rezoning options built into both AUTODYN-2D and
AUTODYN-3D. This is made possible by determining a set of grid vertex velocities uG over
the calculational mesh which will constrain the grid motion in the required manner. For
example, if the grid velocity field computed before entering the ALE calculational step is uL,
then if uG is set equal to uL the calculation will be purely Lagrangian. If uG is set identically
zero everywhere then the calculation will be purely Eulerian. In practice the chosen grid
velocity field will lie somewhere between these two extremes. This is achieved by modifying
the relative velocity, uREL = uG - uL by means of a relaxation factor (see the ALE Tutorial).
This relaxation parameter has a value (defined on input by the user) between 0.0 and 1.0. If
not predefined then, by default, it is set equal to 1.0 which will result in the node being
moved completely to its newly defined ALE position. For values less than 1.0 the node will
be moved that fraction of the distance from its current position to its new ALE position.
87
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
ALE rezoning will be most accurate and efficient when the remapping phase does not
involve large advective fluxes (i.e. there should not be large differences between current
vertex and constrained positions). The timestep constraint imposed during ALE
computations will automatically ensure that the advective fluxes are not too large (see
section 5.11). However, this does mean that the calculations will be more expensive than an
equivalent calculation using the Lagrange processor. It is also important to remember that
there is also a measure of diffusion, which occurs because of the advection.
• Flow averaged: Flow averaging is useful in maintaining good spacing of grid lines in the
direction of flow. An octagon is connected around each (I, J) vertex by joining the eight
surrounding vertices. The velocity vector at (I, J) intersects this octagon at two points and
the vertex (I, J) is moved to the midpoint of these intersections.
• Equal spacing in X: The x-coordinate of each vertex (I, J) is moved to the average
position of its four neighbors. The y-coordinate is unchanged.
• Equally spaced I: Each vertex is moved to a point equidistant between adjacent I-lines.
• Equally spaced (I, J): Each vertex is moved to the midpoint between adjacent I-lines and
J-lines
• User defined: The user may define motion constraints using the subroutine EXALE
There are similar constraints in the 3D processor but the addition of space parameter Z,
index parameter K and greater sophistication for the equipotential option increases the
number of possible constraints to 23.
88
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
We recommend that you use the Lagrange, Euler and Equipotential motion constraints.
6. Regrid Phase in 2D
During the regrid phase of the ALE processor the vertices are moved to the chosen
constrained positions (one of the above options), allowing for the relaxation factor, and the
relative velocities are determined. If the grid velocity vector is
u G = ( u G ( I, J ), v G ( I, J )) (5.9)
Then, relative to the positions of the nodes (x(I, J) , y(I, J))n at the beginning of the ALE step,
the new positions of the constrained grid nodes are
(5.11)
y(I, J ) = y(I, J ) + v G ( I, J ) ∆t
n +1 n
However, in order to evaluate the advective fluxes of material properties into the cells of the
new grid it is necessary to determine the positions that the cells would have had if the
rezoning was not taking place. These potential Lagrange coordinates, denoted by (xp(I, J),
yp(I, J)) can be determined relative to the constrained grid
x p ( I, J ) = x( I, J ) − ℜu REL ( I, J ) ∆t
n +1 n +1
(5.12)
y p ( I, J ) = y( I, J ) − ℜv REL ( I, J ) ∆t
n +1 n +1
89
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
I, J + 1
1
2
P2 P1
I -1 , J I, J I + 1, J
P3 P4
3 4
I, J - 1
Note that in AUTODYN the π term is omitted for grid cells so if the volume of a cell is
examined the value obtained will be that computed by equation (5.15) divided by π.
90
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
Note also that this volume swept out by the uppermost face of the center cell will be equal in
magnitude but of opposite sign to the volume swept out by the lowermost face of the cell
immediately above it. Thus total volume will be conserved.
7. Advective phase in 2D
Associated with each swept-out volume at each face there are fluxes of mass, momentum
and energy. For example, the mass crossing the uppermost face of the cell (I, J) might be
computed as the product of the volume (in planar symmetry) calculated in equation (5.14)
times the average fluid density of the cells (I, J) and (I, J+1) located on either side of the face
in question. Unfortunately this so-called “centered differencing” leads to numerical
instabilities. To avoid this instability AUTODYN uses “donor cell” or “upwind differencing”
which is stable but introduces some diffusion. This means that, in the above example, the
density associated with the flux would be equal to the density in the cell (I, J) when the flux is
leaving the cell (I, J) and equal to the density in the cell (I, J+1) if the flux is entering the cell
(I, J). The density is denoted ρL.
We denote by 2FJG the shaded volume in Figure 5-3, the volume swept-out by the face
between the cells (I, J) and (I, J+1) (i.e. J becoming greater). Similarly the volume swept out
by the face between the cells (I, J) and (I, J-1) is defined as 2FJL (i.e. J becoming less). The
remaining two volumes are defined in a similar manner as 2FIL and 2FIG. In addition we
define aJG = sign (FJG) i.e.
a JG = + 1 if FJG > 0
(5.16)
a JG = − 1 if FJG < 0
with similar definitions for aJL, aIG, and aIL.
§1. Mass
The mass in the constrained cell (I, J) is given by
m ( I, J ) = m(I, J ) + FJG (1 + a JG ) ρ L ( I, J + 1)
n +1 n
+ FIL (1 + a IL ) ρ L (I − 1, J )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) ρ L ( I, J − 1) (5.17)
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) ρ L (I + 1, J )
[ ]
+ FJG (1 − a JG ) + FIL (1 − a IL ) + FJL (1 − a JL ) + FIG (1 − a IG ) ρ L (I, J )
91
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
1
u av ( I, J ) =
4
[ u L (I, J) + u L (I − 1, J) + u L (I − 1, J − 1) + u L (I, J − 1)]
(5.18)
1
v av ( I, J ) = [ v L ( I, J ) + v L (I − 1, J ) + v L (I − 1, J − 1) + v L ( I, J − 1)]
4
Advection of energy can involve either internal energy or total energy as a user invoked
option. If the choice is total energy then the specific total energy I(I, J) is determined as
1
I (I, J ) = e (I, J ) +
2
[u av 2 (I, J) + v av 2 (I, J)] (5.19)
+ FIL (1 + a IL ) (ρI ) L (I − 1, J )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) (ρI ) L (I, J − 1)
(5.20)
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) (ρI ) L (I + 1, J )
+ {FJG (1 − a JG ) + FIL (1 − a IL )
+ FJL (1 − a JL ) + FIG (1 − a IG )} (ρI ) L (I, J )
A similar expression holds for the advection of internal energy by replacing I by e in the
above equation.
From equation (5.8) we define the cell momenta as
umom ( I, J ) = ρ L ( I, J ) u av ( I, J )
(5.21)
vmom ( I, J ) = ρ L ( I, J ) v av ( I, J )
Then as for the mass and total energy we may determine the change in cell momenta as
+ FIL (1 + a IL ) umom ( I − 1, J )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) umom (I, J − 1)
(5.22)
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) umom ( I + 1, J )
+ {FJG (1 − a JG ) + FIL (1 − a IL )
+ FJL (1 − a JL ) + FIG (1 − a IG )} umom (I, J )
and
92
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
+ FIL (1 + a IL ) vmom ( I − 1, J )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) vmom ( I, J − 1)
(5.23)
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) vmom ( I + 1, J )
+ {FJG (1 − a JG ) + FIL (1 − a IL )
+ FJL (1 − a JL ) + FIG (1 − a IG )} vmom ( I, J )
93
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
8. Regrid Phase in 3D
In a similar manner to that described in the section for the 2D ALE processor, during the
regrid phase in 3D the vertices are moved to the chosen constrained positions (allowing for
the relaxation factor) and the relative velocities are determined. If the grid velocity vector is
u G = ( u G ( I, J, K ), v G (I, J, K ), w G ( I, J, K )) (5.27)
Then, relative to the positions of the nodes (x(I, J, K), y(I, J, K), z(I, J, K))n at the beginning of
the ALE step, the new positions of the constrained grid nodes are
x( I , J , K ) = x(I, J , K ) + u G (I, J , K ) ∆t
n +1 n
z( I, J, K ) = z(I, J, K ) + w G ( I, J, K ) ∆t
n +1 n
However, in order to evaluate the advective fluxes of material properties into the cells of the
new grid it is necessary to determine the positions that the cells would have had if the
rezoning was not taking place. These coordinates, denoted by (xp(I, J, K), yp(I, J, K),
zp(I, J, K)) can be determined relative to the constrained grid
x p ( I, J, K ) = x( I , J , K ) − ℜu REL ( I, J, K ) ∆t
n +1 n +1
y p ( I, J, K ) = y(I, J, K ) − ℜv REL ( I, J, K ) ∆t
n +1 n +1
(5.30)
94
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
P1
1
2
P2
4
P4
3
P3
9. Advective Phase in 3D
As in the 2D processor, associated with each swept-out volume at each face there are fluxes
of mass, momentum and energy. For example, the mass crossing any face of the cell
(I, J, K) might be computed as the product of the volume calculated in Chapter 4.4 times the
average fluid density of the cells on either side of the face in question. Unfortunately this so-
called “centered differencing” leads to numerical instabilities. To avoid this instability
AUTODYN uses “donor cell” or “upwind differencing” which is stable but introduces some
diffusion. This means that the density associated with the flux would be equal to the density
in the cell (I, J, K) when the flux is leaving the cell (I, J, K) but equal to the density in the
neighboring cell if the flux is coming from that cell. The density is denoted as ρL.
We develop the notation used in the 2D ALE section in order to construct equations for the
advection of flow variables. Let 2FIG, be the volume swept-out by the face between the cells
95
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
(I, J K) and (I+1, J, K) (i.e. I becoming greater). Similarly the volume swept out by the face
between the cells (I, J, K) and (I-1, J, K) is defined as 2FIL (i.e. I becoming less ). The
remaining four volumes are defined in a similar manner as 2FJL, 2FJG, 2FKL and 2FKG. In
addition we define aIG = sign (FIG) i.e.
a IG = + 1 if FIG > 0
(5.31)
a IG = − 1 if FIG < 0
with similar definitions for aIL, aIG, aJL, aKG and aKL.
§1. Mass
The mass in the constrained cell (I, J, K) is then given by
m ( I, J , K ) = m( I, J, K ) + FIL (1 + a IL ) ρ L (I − 1, J, K )
n +1 n
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) ρ L ( I + 1, J, K )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) ρ L (I, J − 1, K )
+ FJG (1 + a JG ) ρ L (I, J + 1, K )
(5.32)
+ FKL (1 + a KL ) ρ L (I, J, K − 1)
+ FKG (1 + a KG ) ρ L (I, J, K + 1)
+{FIL (1 − a IL ) + FIG (1 − a IG ) + FJL (1 − a JL )
+ FJG (1 − a JG ) + FKL (1 − a KL ) + FKG (1 − a KG )} ρ L (I, J, K )
96
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
1
u av (I, J, K ) = {u L ( I, J, K ) + u L (I − 1, J, K ) + u L (I, J − 1, K )
8
+ u L ( I − 1, J − 1, K ) + u L ( I, J, K − 1) + u L ( I − 1, J, K − 1)
+ u L ( I, J − 1, K − 1) + u L (I − 1, J − 1, K − 1)}
1
v av (I, J, K ) = {v L ( I, J, K ) + v L ( I − 1, J, K ) + v L (I, J − 1, K )
8
+ v L ( I − 1, J − 1, K ) + v L ( I, J, K − 1) + v L ( I − 1, J, K − 1) (5.33)
+ v L (I, J − 1, K − 1) + v L (I − 1, J − 1, K − 1)}
1
w av (I, J, K ) = {w L (I, J, K ) + w L (I − 1, J, K ) + w L (I, J − 1, K )
8
+ w L (I − 1, J − 1, K ) + w L ( I, J, K − 1) + w L ( I − 1, J, K − 1)
+ w L (I, J − 1, K − 1) + w L ( I − 1, J − 1, K − 1)}
Advection of energy can involve either internal energy or total energy as a user invoked
option. If the choice is total energy then the specific total energy I(I, J) is determined as
1
I (I, J, K ) = e ( I, J, K ) +
2
[ u av 2 ( I, J, K ) + v av 2 (I, J, K ) + w av 2 (I, J, K )] (5.34)
m( I, J, K ) I ( I, J, K ) = m( I, J, K ) I (I, J, K )
n +1 n +1 n n
+ FIL (1 + a IL ) (ρI ) L ( I − 1, J, K )
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) (ρI ) L ( I + 1, J, K )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) (ρI ) L (I, J − 1, K )
+ FJG (1 + a JG ) (ρI ) L (I, J + 1, K )
(5.35)
+ FKL (1 + a KL ) (ρI ) L (I, J, K − 1)
+ FKG (1 + a KG ) (ρI ) L (I, J, K + 1)
+ {FIL (1 − a IL ) + FIG (1 − a IG )
+ FJL (1 − a JL ) + FJG (1 − a JG )
+ FKL (1 − a KL ) + FKG (1 − a KG )} (ρI ) L ( I, J, K )
A similar expression holds for the advection of internal energy by replacing ρI by e in the
above equation.
From equation (5.31) we define the cell momenta as
97
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
umom ( I, J, K ) = ρ L ( I, J, K ) u av (I, J , K )
vmom ( I, J, K ) = ρ L ( I, J, K ) v av (I, J , K ) (5.36)
wmom ( I, J, K ) = ρ L (I, J, K ) w av (I, J, K )
Then as for the mass and total energy we may determine the change in cell momenta as
+ FIG (1 + a IG ) umom (I + 1, J, K )
+ FJL (1 + a JL ) umom ( I, J − 1, K )
+ FJG (1 + a JG ) umom ( I, J + 1, K )
+ FKL (1 + a KL ) umom ( I, J, K − 1) (5.37)
+ FKG (1 + a KG ) umom ( I, J, K + 1)
+ {FIL (1 − a IL ) + FIG (1 − a IG )
+ FJL (1 − a JL ) + FJG (1 − a JG )
+ FKL (1 − a KL ) + FKG (1 − a KG )} umom ( I, J, K )
and similar expressions for the change in v momentum and w momentum.
8
+ m(I + 1, J + 1, K ) + m( I, J + 1, K + 1) (5.38)
+ m( I + 1, J, K + 1) + m( I, J + 1, K + 1)
+ m(I + 1, J + 1, K + 1)}
The momentum at the vertex is defined as the vertex velocity times the vertex mass, i.e. the
original vertex “u momentum” at the vertex (I, J, K) is mp (I, J, K) uL (I, J, K). This momentum
is increased by contributions from the changes in momentum in the four cells surrounding
the vertex. We therefore obtain for the updated vertex velocity at the vertex (I, J, K)
98
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
1
u ( I, J , K ) {m p ( I, J, K ) u L ( I, J, K )
n +1
=
m p (I, J, K )
n +1
1
+ {∆um( I, J, K ) + ∆um(I + 1, J, K ) + ∆um( I, J + 1, K )
8
+ ∆um(I + 1, J + 1, K ) + ∆um( I, J, K + 1) (5.39)
+ ∆um(I + 1, J, K + 1) + ∆um(I, J + 1, K + 1)
+ ∆um(I + 1, J + 1, K + 1)} n +1}
and similar expressions for v(I, J, K)n + 1 and w(I, J, K)n + 1.
The velocity field is then examined to determine whether any velocity constraints from
external boundary conditions have been violated. This has been discussed in Chapter 4.8 of
this Manual.
11. Time-step
Since the numerical algorithm used in AUTODYN is an explicit scheme there is a maximum
time step of integration which must be observed if the numerical solution obtained is to be a
reasonable representation of the true solution. (See e.g. Richtmeyer (1957), Richtmeyer &
Morton (1967)). The value of this time step depends on several parameters of the numerical
method and solution so the local time step ensuring stability is calculated for each mesh
point. The minimum value of all these local values is multiplied by a safety factor (currently a
default value of 2/3 is built into the code) and this is chosen as the time step for the next
update.
99
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
In an ALE subgrid the time step must satisfy the CFL or Courant condition, assuming
Euler type advection;
d
∆t ≤ (5.40)
c+ u
where d is a typical length of a zone (defined as the volume of the zone divided by the
square of the longest diagonal of the zone and scaled by 2 3 ) and c is the local sound
speed and |u| is the flow speed. This ensures that a disturbance does not propagate across
a zone in a single time step.
For regions involving high material velocities it has been found useful to add an additional
safety factor to the timestep calculation that gives more flexibility when using Euler-FCT ALE
and SPH subgrids. The safety factor can be reduced to improve stability and has the effect
of reducing the timestep as flow velocities increase.
For ALE, Euler and SPH processors, the stability timestep criterion presented in equation
5.40 is modified to:
∆t = d / ( c + (|u|/kn) ) (5.40a)
The default value for kn is 1.0, so if the user makes no changes, behavior will be the same
as equation (5.40). Values of less than 1.0 can improve stability where advection flow
velocities are high. Also, the need to use the existing maximum velocity cutoff option to
control non-physical large velocities may be obviated by use of the kn safety factor.
The inclusion of the pseudo-viscous stresses, discussed fully in Section 4.6, impose further
restrictions on the time step in order to ensure stability. Von Neumann and Richtmeyer
(1950) showed that the inclusion of the quadratic q-term required a stability condition
1
∆t 2 ≤ (5.41)
&
2 V
4 CQ
V
The inclusion of the linear q-term imposed a stability condition
d
∆t 3 ≤ (5.42)
2 CL c
100
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
& V is the
The constants CQ and CL are the constants introduced in equation (4.47) and V
modulus of the rate of change of volume.
The minimum value of ∆t must be found for all zones for the next time step of integration.
101
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
102
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
• A line initially normal to the midsurface of the shell remains straight and normal to the
deformed midsurface as the shell deforms (i.e. transverse shear is neglected).
• The density of the shell is assumed to remain constant so there is no volume change
during deformation of the shell. As a consequence, significant changes in the shell
thickness can occur during plastic deformation.
The computational cycle is illustrated graphically in Figure 6-1. Knowing the displacements,
new strains can be calculated from which the stresses may be determined, taking into
account the possibility of the shell yielding plastically. Bending moments can then be
calculated, nodal forces determined, accelerations obtained as force/mass and the
equations of motion integrated to obtain velocities and displacements for the start of the next
cycle. This is entirely similar to the cycle for Lagrangian subgrids described in Chapter 3.
The finite difference equations used in the shell processor apply to shells of arbitrary shape
in either planar or axial symmetry and include full bending theory. The equations are solved
explicitly and have a stability time-step governed only by the length of the shell segments.
The shell processor may also be used in a mode whereby it represents a membrane. When
this option is used the bending behavior is not included and a uniform stress distribution
through the thickness is assumed.
103
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
Incremental Stress-
Strain Relations and
Yield Condition
Strain-Displacement Integration of
Equations Stresses Over Shell
Kirchoff Equations Thickness
Equations of
Motion Equilibrium
Equations
Nodal Forces
2. Governing Equations
The shell formulation is applicable to both planar and axial symmetry and the nomenclature
for these geometries are shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 respectively.
In Figure 6-2 the arc length along the shell is denoted by s and the normal at the point “s”
makes an angle φ with the x-axis. Consider an infinitesimal length δs, at (s, φ). Then the
radius of curvature Rφ is given by
δs
Rφ = (6.1)
δφ
104
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
105
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
In the case of axial symmetry the system is described by the curvilinear coordinate system
(s, θ, φ) as shown in Figure 6-3. If we consider an infinitesimal segment of length δs at (s, θ,
φ), the radii of curvature are given by
y
Rθ =
sin φ
(6.2)
δs
Rφ =
δφ
The midsurface strain increments and curvatures are given by (see Figure 6-4)
∆ ( δs )
∆ε φm =
δs
δφ
χφ =
δs
δy (6.4)
∆ε θm =
y
sin φ
χθ =
y
106
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 illustrate, for planar and axial symmetry, the internal forces acting
on a deformed shell element of length δs, subject to a biaxial state of stress. In Figure 6-5,
Nθ and Nφ are the hoop and in-plane forces per unit length acting along the principal axes,
Mθ and Mφ are the bending moments and Qφ is the transverse shear force. In planar
symmetry the θ-related functions are absent.
107
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
&& = f xi + f xe
mx
(6.5)
&& = f yi + f ye
my
where
• m is the mass of the shell per unit length
In planar symmetry
∂A
f xi =
∂s
(6.6)
∂B
f yi =
∂s
108
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
1 ∂ (y A )
f xi =
y ∂s
(6.7)
1 ∂ (y B ) N θ
f yi = −
y ∂s y
where
A = N φ sin φ + Q φ cos φ
(6.8)
B = N φ cos φ − Q φ sin φ
The equation for conservation of angular momentum is used to determine the shear force
per unit length Qφ. When the effect of rotational inertia is neglected (it involves factors of
higher order in the shell thickness) the resultant equation is, in planar geometry
∂M φ
Qφ = (6.9)
∂s
∂M φ
Qφ =
∂s
(
+ Mφ − Mθ ) cosy φ (6.10)
The stresses and bending moments are related to the principal stresses through
h2
Nφ = ∫σ
−h 2
φ ( z) dz (6.11)
h2
Mφ = ∫ zσ
−h 2
φ ( z) dz (6.12)
h2
Nθ = ∫σ
−h 2
θ ( z) dz (6.13)
h2
Mθ = ∫ zσ
−h 2
θ ( z) dz (6.14)
109
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
where σφ (z), σθ (z) are the principal stresses at a distance z from the mid-surface of the
shell.
3. Shell Subgrids
A shell subgrid is composed of a set of linear segments joined at nodes and conforms to
the organization of (I, J) index-space used for other types of subgrids in AUTODYN-2D by
being considered as a grid with a single column (I = 1) and with JMAX rows where JMAX is
the number of nodes.
The variables carried through from one time step to the next are those defined at the mid
surface of the linear segment, some at the midpoint of the segment and some at the nodes
(see below). However calculation of the forces Nθ and Nφ, and bending moments Mθ and Mφ
require the integration of stresses through the shell thickness. In order to be able to carry out
such integrations the concept of sublayer stresses is introduced. The integrals (6.11) to
(6.14) are evaluated by Gaussian integration of a predefined order (the default value in
AUTODYN-2D is 3) which therefore fixes the number of integration stations or sublayers at
which the stresses are to be defined.
Once the midsurface strains and curvatures have been evaluated (see equations (6.1), (6.2)
and (6.4)) the strain increments can be obtained in each of the sublayers across the shell
thickness at both nodes and segment centers using the relations (6.3). The stresses are
then updated in each sublayer using the material constitutive relations (see Chapter 11 ) and
finally the mid-surface stress resultants and bending moments are obtained by integration
using equations (6.11) to (6.14).
Shell subgrids can be joined together but the end nodes can only be connected to each
other with a free-hinged joint. However, shells can be overlapped or combined with a
Lagrange subgrid to give rigidity (see Figure 6-6).
110
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
Joined Nodes
J
J+½ J+1
J-½
J-1
Segments ( N φ , N θ , ε φ , ε θ , φ, δs)
Middle Surface
111
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
Strains and curvatures of the midsurface are evaluated using a finite difference
representation of equations (6.4)
[(
( δs )J +1 2 = ∆x J +1 2 ) (
2
+ ∆y J +1 2 )]
2 12
(6.15)
∆t
( ∆ε ) = [∆x ∆x& J +1 2 + ∆y J +1 2 ∆y& J +1 2 ] (6.16)
[(δs)J +1 2 ]
φ J +1 2 2 J +1 2
( ∆ε θ )J +1 2 = [ J +1 J ]
∆t y& + y&
in axial symmetry
[ y J +1 + y J ] (6.17)
( ∆ε θ )J +1 2 = 0 in planar symmetry
where
∆x J +1 2 = x J +1 − x J
(6.18)
∆x& J +1 2 = x& J +1 − x& J
∆y J +1 2 = y J +1 − y J
(6.19)
∆y& J +1 2 = y& J +1 − y& J
112
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
d d ∂φ
dt
( )
χφ =
dt ∂s
(6.20)
where, since the angle φ of a shell segment is defined by its linear slope, the change in
angle ∆φ is equal to the change in the angle between two segments as shown in Figure 6-8.
The angle ∆φ can be evaluated in terms of the vector dot and cross products of the two line
segments, expressed by the vectors a and b.
sin Df b×a
tan Df = = (6.21)
cos Df b•a
so
b×a −1 c
∆φ = tan −1 = tan (6.22)
b•a d
J ∆φ
J+1
b
a
J-1
c d& − c& d ∆t
( ∆χ ) = 2 (6.23)
φ J
[
c + d 1 2 (δs) J −1 2 + (δs) J +1 2
2
]
where the time derivatives of the cross and dot products are
113
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
sin φ
χθ = (6.25)
y
∆t d y&
∆χ θ = χ& θ ∆t = (sin φ) − sin φ (6.26)
y dt y
d
∆x& − ∆x d ε m
dt
( )
φ
(sin φ) = (6.27)
dt [
1 2 (δs) J +1 2 + (δs) J −1 2 ]
A constant angle boundary condition fixes the angle of the dummy segment to the
prescribed angle throughout the calculation (see Figure 6-9). This is usually used with a zero
velocity constraint on the end node to effect a clamped boundary condition.
114
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
∆χ φ = − ν ∆χ θ (6.28)
5. Stresses
As stated earlier the constitutive relations for a thin shell are formulated on the assumption
that the stress component normal to the shell surface is small and can be neglected. Then a
biaxial state of stress exists in every layer within the shell with the principal directions along
the curvilinear coordinates of the mid-surface. With this assumption large inelastic
deformations are analyzed by material constitutive relations in a similar way to the method
used for materials in a triaxial state of stress (see Chapter 11, Section 3 for a full description
of the approach).
For a biaxial stress system the von Mises yield condition reduces to (see equation 11.84)
( )
f σ φ , σθ , Y = σφ2 − σφ σθ + σθ2 − Y2 ≤ 0 (6.29)
where Y is the yield stress in uniaxial tension and σφ and σθ are the principal stress
components on the mid-surface. Elastic stress increments are applied using Hooke’s Law
E
(σ ') [ ]
n +1
φ = σ φn + 2 ∆ε φ + ν ∆ε θ (6.30)
1 − ν
E
(σ ')θ
n +1
= σ θn + [
2 ∆ε θ + ν ∆ε φ
1 − ν
] (6.31)
If the incremented stresses σ φ ′ and σ θ ′ violate the yield condition (6.29) they must be
reduced to values σ φ and σ θ such that the new state of stress lies on the yield surface
115
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
given by the equality sign in equation (6.5.1). This is done by decomposing the strain
increments into elastic and plastic strain increment components
∆ε φ = ∆ε φe + ∆ε φp
(6.32)
∆ε θ = ∆ε θe + ∆ε θp
The elastic increments must satisfy equations (6.30) and (6.31) while the plastic increments
are obtained from the theory of plastic potential
(
∆ε φp = λ 2 σ φ − σ θ )
(6.33)
∆ε θp = λ (2 σ θ −σ )
φ
One mode of failure for the shell included in the current version of AUTODYN is based on
the effective plastic strain. At each cycle in which the yield criterion (6.29) is violated, and
the procedure outlined above is carried out, an increment of effective plastic strain is
computed as follows
∆ε eff
p
=
1
3G
([
f + Y2 ]12
−Y ) (6.34)
where f is given in equation (6.29) and G is the shear modulus. The effective plastic strain is
the integrated value of these increments during the calculation and if it should exceed a
predefined limit local failure of the shell is assumed to have occurred.
The stress resultants and bending moments are obtained by integration of the principal
stresses through the shell thickness at mid segments (for stress resultants) and at nodes (for
bending moments).
It is not possible to define the stress distributions through the shell analytically since elasto-
plastic behavior is included in the formulation. Therefore, in order to evaluate the integrals in
equations (6.11) to (6.14), the stresses are determined at a finite number of sublayers
through the thickness of the shell and the integrals determined by Gaussian quadrature. The
equations (6.11) to (6.14) are replaced by sums
116
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
N φ = ∑ σ φ k Wk (6.35)
k =1
M φ = ∑ z k σ φk Wk (6.36)
k =1
N θ = ∑ σ θ k Wk (6.37)
k =1
M θ = ∑ z k σ θk Wk (6.38)
k =1
where
• k is the sublayer index
The default values of thickness and weighting factors in AUTODYN are defined for 3 stations
through the thickness.
Note that if only one integration station is defined in evaluating the integrals both bending
moments will be identically zero (and hence the transverse shear resultant will be zero) and
the result will be a membrane solution to the shell equations.
7. Nodal Forces
The shell internal forces are expressed in terms of the stress resultants Nφ and Nθ and the
transverse shear resultant Qφ.. The latter function is defined as
dM φ
Qφ = (6.39)
ds
dM φ
Qφ =
ds
(
+ Mφ − Mθ ) cosy φ (6.40)
117
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
in axial symmetry.
If we consider the two adjacent shell segments in Figure 6-10 then equation (6.39) can be
approximated at the center of the segment (J, J + 1) by
( )
Qφ =
[( M )
φ J +1 − Mφ( )] J
(6.41)
J +1 2
(δs) J +1 2
In the case of axial symmetry equation (6.40) is approximated by
(Q ) =
[( M )
φ J +1 ( )]
− Mφ
J
+
( )
1 M φ J − (M θ ) J
+
Mφ ( ) J +1
− ( M θ ) J +1
cos φ (6.42)
φ J +1 2
(δs) J +1 2 2
yJ y J +1
To derive the force necessary to accelerate a node in terms of the stress resultants at the
mid-segment positions of the two adjacent shell segments the equations of motion are
integrated from the mid-point of one segment to the mid-point of the next. Consider the three
consecutive nodes on the two segments shown in Figure 6-10. We integrate equations
(6.2.5) using (6.2.6) and (6.2.7).
(δs)J+½
J+1
J J+½
J-½
J-1
∫ ρ h &&x ds = F i
x + Fxe
(6.43)
∫ ρ h &&y ds = F i
y + Fye
118
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
∂A
Fxi = ∫ ds
∂s
(6.44)
∂B
Fyi = ∫ ds
∂s
with
A = N φ sin φ + Q φ cos φ
(6.45)
B = N φ cos φ − Q φ sin φ
where P is the normal stress and S is the shear stress due to external sources. The sign
convention for P and S applied to the segment (J, J+1) is that a positive value for P will push
the shell to the left for someone traveling from node J to node J+1, while a positive S will
push the shell in the direction from J to J+1. Note that currently in AUTODYN-2D, S is
identically zero since most fluid-structure interaction problems have such large Reynold’s
Numbers that fluid viscosity effects are negligible, and therefore only normal external
pressure forces can be applied.
1
2
( )
m J −1 2 + m J +1 2 &&x J = Fxi + Fxe
(6.47)
1
2
( )
m J −1 2 + m J +1 2 &&y J = Fyi + Fye
Fxi = A J +1 2 − A J −1 2
(6.48)
Fyi = B J +1 2 − B J −1 2
Considering the forces exerted by a shell segment on its nodal endpoints it follows that
for the segment (J, J+1)
119
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
(F ) i
x J = A J +1 2 (6.49)
(F ) i
x J = B J +1 2 (6.50)
(F ) i
x J +1 = − A J +1 2 (6.51)
(F ) i
y
J +1
= − B J +1 2 (6.52)
Note that
(F ) + (F )
i
x J
i
x J +1 =0
(F ) + (F )
i
y
J
i
y
J +1
=0
The external force exerted by boundary stresses on the shell segment (J, J+1) is taken
simply as
and this force is divided equally between the two nodes so that
1 e
(F ) e
x J = F
2 x
(6.54)
1 e
(F ) e
x J +1 = F
2 x
(6.55)
(F ) e
y
J
=
1 e
F
2 y
(6.56)
120
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
(F )
e
y
J +1
=
1 e
F
2 y
(6.57)
∫ ρ h &&x 2 π y ds = F i
x + Fxe (6.58)
∫ ρ h &&y 2 π y ds = F i
y + Fye (6.59)
1 ∂( y A )
Fxi = ∫ 2 π y ds (6.60)
y ∂s
1 ∂( y B) N
Fyi = ∫
θ
− 2 π y ds (6.61)
y ∂s y
[
Fxe = ∫ S sin φ − P cos φ 2 π y ds ] (6.62)
[
Fye = ∫ S cos φ + P sin φ 2 π y ds ] (6.63)
dB B cosφ − N θ
Fyi = ∫ + 2 π y ds (6.64)
ds y
and the accelerations x and y removed from under the integral signs. The integrals are then,
as in planar symmetry, evaluated as half the mass of each of the two adjoining segments.
After some manipulation the integrals for Fxi and Fyi can be evaluated to give the following
expressions for the force contribution of segment (J, J+1) to node J.
121
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
(F ) ( )A
*
i
x J = 2 π y J +1 2 J +1 2 (6.65)
( δs) J +1 2 B J +1 2 cos φ − N θ
( )
Fyi
J
= 2 π y J B J +1 2 +
2
y J +1 2
(6.66)
where
y J +1 − y J
cos φ =
(δs) J +1 2
x J +1 − x J
sin φ = (6.67)
(δs) J +1 2
y J +1 + y J
y J +1 2 =
2
(y 2
+ y J +1 2 )
(y ) = (y
* J
(6.68)
+ y J +1 )
J +1 2
J
Similarly the forces exerted on node (J + 1) by the segment (J, J+1) can be shown to be
(F ) ( )A
*
i
x J +1 = − 2 π y J +1 2 J +1 2 (6.69)
(
( δs) J +1 2 BJ +1 2 cos φ − N θ )
(F ) i
y
J +1
= − 2 π y J +1 B J + 1 2 +
2 y J +1 2
(6.70)
The sum of the internal forces exerted by a shell segment on its two nodes are
(F ) + (F )
i
x J
i
x J +1 =0 (6.71)
(F ) + (F )
i
y
J
i
y
J +1
= − 2 π N θ ( δs) J +1 2 (6.72)
122
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
The radial forces sum to a good approximation to the hoop force so, as in planar symmetry,
momentum is conserved.
The external forces exerted by the boundary stresses on the shell segment (J, J+1) are
approximated simply by
and these forces are distributed between the two nodes J and J+1 in a weighted manner as
1 e
(F )
e
x J = F
2 x
(6.75)
1 e
(F )
e
x J +1 = F
2 x
(6.76)
(F )
e
y
J
=
yJ
( y J + y J +1 )
Fye (6.77)
y J +1
(F )
e
y J +1 =
(y J + y J +1 )
Fye (6.78)
8. Boundary Conditions
Once the forces at the shell nodes have been determined the accelerations of the nodes are
given by nodal force divided by nodal mass in the same way as described for Lagrange
subgrids in Chapter 3. In a similar manner the boundary constraints described for Lagrange
subgrids are also applicable to shell subgrids. However in addition a shell subgrid can have
additional constraints applied to the end segments, e.g. free end or clamped end. The
condition for a free end has been described in Section 6.4 (see equation (6.4.14)). If a
clamped end is required then a zero velocity condition can be imposed on the relevant node
together with a constant angle constraint, as detailed in Section 6.4.
123
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
• adjustments to y if necessary to ensure that (in axial symmetry) grid points originally on
the axis remain on the axis while points originally off axis remain off axis.
The imposition of any of these constraints will cause adjustments to the velocities and these
adjustments will in turn change the total momentum of the system. The impulse on the
system and the work done on the system are calculated and accumulated in order to check
energy and momentum conservation. If the new constrained velocities are x& nB+1 2 , y& nB+1 2 then
the x and y impulses due to the constraints are equal to
9. Time Step
The stability requirement of the explicit time integration of the finite difference representation
of the thin shell equations of motion is governed by the usual limitation that the time step of
124
Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D
integration must be less than the time for a wave to travel the length of the shortest shell
segment, i.e.
δs
∆t 1 ≤ Min (6.81)
c
12
E
c= (6.82)
ρ (1 − ν )
2
δs δs
∆t 2 ≤ Min (6.83)
c h
which should be less restrictive than ∆t1 as the length is usually longer than the segment
thickness.
Finally the chosen time step is
∆t = k Min [ ∆t 1 , ∆t 2 ] (6.84)
125
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
This chapter describes a finite element procedure of AUTODYN3D for transient analysis of
plates and shells in three-dimensional space. Because of the emphasis on speed, the
Belytschko-Tsay element (Belytschko, T, et. al. (1984), the bilinear four-node quadrilateral
shell elements with one quadrature point and an hourglass control, is adopted. Modifications
to the original formulation presented later by Belytschko and others (Belytschko, T, et. al.
(1992)) are also considered.
The report is organized as follows. In section 2, Mindlin plate theory is described, starting
with the basic assumptions, geometry and kinematics. Section 3 describes the finite-element
implementations of the Belytschko-Tsay shell element based upon Mindlin theory and a
corotational formulation in explicit time integration. Section 4 is treats nonlinear hourglass
control.
It should be noted that three different coordinate systems are employed in the following
sections: the global Cartesian coordinate system that is fixed in space; the local corotational
coordinate system that rotate with material; the local principal inertia coordinate system
where the Euler equations for rigid-body rotations are solved.
Consider a flat plate, with a local coordinate system ( x$ , y$ , z$ ), placed in the global Cartesian
coordinate system ( X, Y, Z ), Fig.1. Thickness is specified as h ( − h / 2 ≤ z$ ≤ h / 2 ). When
the plate deforms, the rate of deformation may be measured by the local strain rate tensor,
which requires calculating the derivatives of velocity vector with respect to ( x$ , y$ , z$ ).
Plate theory assumes that one dimension (thickness) of the body is very small as compared
to the other two dimensions. This assumption leads us to the difficulty that the derivative with
respect to that particular direction z$ cannot be evaluated.
The first assumption allows us to introduce three new independent variables, the angular
velocities ( θ$ x , θ$ y , θ$ z ), which are constant through thickness. The velocity of an arbitrary point
126
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
in the shell is, therefore, defined by the velocity ( u$ xm , u$ my , u$ zm ) and the angular velocities
( θ$ x , θ$ y , θ$ z ) of the midplane
u$ x = u$ xm + z$ θ$ y , (7.1a)
u$ = u$ m − z$ θ$ ,
y y x (7.1b)
u$ z = u$ zm (7.1c)
θ$ x , θ$ y = constant in the z$ direction
(7.1d)
The second terms in the right-hand side of Eq.(7.1a) and Eq.(7.1b) express that the point is
on a plane z$ -distance away from the midplane. The quantities with the hat ‘^’ are called
local variables expressed in terms of the local base vectors. These vectors are defined in the
next section.
The local strain rate tensor d$ is defined by
∂ u$
d$ xx = x (7.2a)
∂ x$
∂ u$ y
d$ yy = (7.2b)
∂ y$
1 ∂ u$ ∂ u$ y
d$xy = x + (7.2c)
2 ∂ y$ ∂ x$
1 ∂ u$ y ∂ u$z
d$yz = + (7.2d)
2 ∂ z$ ∂ y$
1 ∂ u$ ∂ u$
d$zx = z + x (7.2e)
2 ∂ x$ ∂ z$
By substituting Eqs.(7.1) into Eq.(7.2) we obtain the strain rates, which include no
differentiation concerning to z$ .
∂ u$ m ∂θ$ y
d$ xx = x + z$ (7.3a)
∂ x$ ∂ x$
∂ u$ y
m
∂θ$
d$ yy = − z$ x (7.3b)
∂ y$ ∂ y$
m $ $
$d = 1 ∂ u$ x + ∂ u y + z$ ∂θ y − ∂θ x
$m
∂ y$ (7.3c)
∂ x$
xy
2 ∂ y$ ∂ x$
127
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
1 ∂ u$ m
d$ yz = z − θ$ x (7.3d)
2 ∂ y$
1 ∂ u$ m
d$zx = z + θ$y (7.3e)
2 ∂ x$
You may notice that one component d$ zz of the strain rates is absent in Eqs.(7.3), which is
supplemented by the second assumption. For elastic material the stress-strain relation is
defined as,
ε$ xx =
1
E
[σ$ xx (
− ν σ$ yy + σ$ zz )] (7.4a)
ε$ yy =
1
E
[ σ$ yy (
− ν σ$ yy + σ$ zz )] (7.4b)
ε$ zz =
1
E
[ σ$ zz (
− ν σ$ xx + σ$ yy )] (7.4c)
E
σ$ yy =
1 − ν2
(
νε$ xx + ε$ yy ) (7.5b)
The strain increments ∆ε$ xx and ∆ε$ yy are obtained by integrating d$ xx and d$ yy in time,
respectively. The three components of the strain rates, Eq.(7.3a,b,c), are evaluated at a set
of Gauss points through the thickness.
The incremental normal stresses are computed by plane-stress constitutive equations,
E
∆σ$ xx =
1 − ν2
(
∆ε$ xx + ν∆ε$ yy )
E
∆σ$ yy =
1 − ν2
(
ν∆ε$ xx + ∆ε$ yy ) (7.8a)
∆σ$ zz = 0
128
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
The above stresses must be evaluated at same integration points as the strain rates.
As the material time-derivative of the Cauchy stress, σ & , does not satisfy the criterion of
objectivity under a rigid rotation, the Jaumann rate of the Cauchy stress, σ & ( J ) , defined by
Eq.(7.9), is utilized generally by the Lagrange processor in the global Cartesian coordinate
system.
σ& ( J ) = σ& − ωσ + σω (7.9)
where, ω is the spin tensor. The second and third terms are added to the stress rate σ & with
a view to considering rotation corrections
In this section we define another coordinate system, the corotational coordinate system that
rotates rigidly with the material body. The stress rate evaluated in this system automatically
satisfies the criterion of the objectivity under a rigid rotation. We can, therefore, directly
compute the left-hand side of Eq.(7.9).
The corotational coordinate system ( x$ , y$ , z$ ) is constructed as shown in Fig.1. The midpoints
of the sides are connected by lines, rac and rbd , where rac = ra − rc , and rbd = rb − rd . The
unit vector e$3 is assumed to be the normal to the vector rac and rbd ,
129
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
The matrix AL⇒G transforms an arbitrary local vector1 p$ to the corresponding global vector
p as follows
p = AL⇒G p$ (7.14a)
In components form,
p x e$ 11 e$ 21 e$ 31 p$ x
p y = e$ 12 e$ 22 e$ 32 p$ y
$
p z e13 e$ 23 e$ 33 p$ z
(7.14b)
Note that the midplane integration point is located at the element center (ξ, η) = (0,0) . At
this point the values of the shape functions and p are simply
1
A global vector is a vector defined in the global Cartesian coordinates, similarly a vector defined in
the local corotational coordinates is termed as a local vector.
130
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
1
N1 = N 2 = N 3 = N 4 =
4
(7.18)
1
p(0,0) = ( p1 + p2 + p3 + p 4 )
4
And the derivatives of the shape functions are given by
∂ N1 1 ∂ N1 1
=− =−
∂ξ 4 ∂η 4
∂N 2 1 ∂N 2 1
= =−
∂ξ 4 ∂η 4
(7.19)
∂N 3 1 ∂N 3 1
= =
∂ξ 4 ∂η 4
∂N 4 1 ∂N 4 1
=− =
∂ξ 4 ∂η 4
Replacing p with the local velocity ( u$ xm , u$ my , u$ zm ) and the local angular velocities ( θ$ x , θ$ y ) of
the midplane, one obtains
u$ xm = u$ x1 N 1 + u$ x 2 N 2 + u$ x 3 N 3 + u$ x 4 N 4
u$ ym = u$ y1 N 1 + u$ y 2 N 2 + u$ y 3 N 3 + u$ y 4 N 4
u$ zm = u$ z1 N 1 + u$ z 2 N 2 + u$ z 3 N 3 + u$ z 4 N 4 (7.20)
θ$ x = θ$ x1 N 1 + θ$ x 2 N 2 + θ$ x 3 N 3 + θ$ x 4 N 4
θ$ y = θ$ y1 N 1 + θ$ y 2 N 2 + θ$ y 3 N 3 + θ$ y 4 N 4
131
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
1 ∂N I $
d$ zx = u$ zI + θ yI N I (7.21e)
2 ∂ x$
Thus, computation of strain rates involves the evaluation of the derivatives of the shape
functions with respect to the local coordinates ( x$ , y$ ) at the midplane integration point,
(ξ, η) = (0,0) . For instance the term u$ xI ∂ N I / ∂ x$ in Eq.(7.21a) is written fully as
∂N I ∂N ∂N 2
u$ xI = u$ x1 1 + u$ x 2
∂ x$ ∂ x$ ξ = η= 0 ∂ x$ ξ = η= 0
∂N 3 ∂N 4
+ u$ x 3 + u$ x 4 (7.22)
∂ x$ ξ = η= 0 ∂ x$ ξ = η= 0
In general the following B matrix must be calculated to obtain the strain rates at the
integration point ξ = η = 0 .
∂ N1 ∂N 2 ∂N 3 ∂N 4
Bx$ 1 Bx$ 2 Bx$ 3 Bx$ 4 ∂ x$ ∂ x$ ∂ x$ ∂ x$
B= =
By$ 1 By$ 2 By$ 3 By$ 4 ∂ N1 ∂N 2 ∂N 3 ∂N 4
∂ y$ ∂ y$ ∂ y$ ∂ y$ ξ = η= 0
(7.23)
In two dimensions the local coordinates ( x$ , y$ ) are related to the natural coordinates ( ξ , η )
using the Jacobi matrix[J]
∂ ∂ξ ∂ ∂ x$
= [ J ] (7.24)
∂ ∂η ∂ ∂ y$
where,
∂ x$ ∂ξ ∂ y$ ∂ξ
[ J] = . (7.25)
∂ x$ ∂η ∂ y$ ∂η
The derivatives of N1 may be derived as follows. Putting N1 into Eq.(7.26) one obtains
∂ N1 ∂ x$ 1 ∂ y$ ∂η − ∂ y$ ∂ξ ∂ N1 ∂ξ
=
∂ N1 ∂ y$ det[ J ] − ∂ x$ ∂η ∂ x$ ∂η ∂ N1 ∂η (7.27)
132
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
When the above equations is evaluated at the origin of the natural coordinates ξ = η = 0 ,
the expressions for the derivatives become simple. The gradients of the local coordinates in
terms of the natural coordinates at ξ = η = 0 are obtained from Eq.(7.15) and Eq.(7.19).
∂ x$ 1
= ( − x$ 1 + x$ 2 + x$ 3 − x$ 4 ),
∂ξ ξ = η= 0 4
∂ y$ 1
= ( − y$ 1 + y$ 2 + y$ 3 − y$ 4 ),
∂ξ ξ = η= 0 4
∂ x$ 1
= ( − x$ 1 − x$ 2 + x$ 3 + x$ 4 ),
∂η ξ = η= 0 4
∂ y$ 1
= ( − y$ 1 − y$ 2 + y$ 3 + y$ 4 ).
∂η ξ = η= 0 4
(7.28)
Gauss integration with J × K quadrature points gives
1 1 J K
A = ∫ dS = ∫ ∫ det[ J ]dξdη = ∑ ∑ det[ J(ξ j , ηk )]w k w j (7.29)
−1 −1
S j=1 k =1
where, A is an element area and w j are the weight factors. Accordingly the Jacobian with
one quadrature point (J=K=1) yields
The strain rates Eq.(7.21) are given in terms of B matrix components as follows
133
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
(
d$ xx = Bx$ 1 u$ x13 + Bx$ 2 u$ x 24 + z$ Bx$ 1θ$ y13 + B x$ 2 θ$ y 24 )
d$ yy = By$ 1 u$ y13 + By$ 2 u$ y 24 − z$ ( B y$ 1 θ$ x13 + By$ 2 θ$ x 24 )
d$ xy = By$ 1 u$ x13 + By$ 2 u$ x 24 + Bx$ 1 u$ y13 + Bx$ 2 u$ y 24
(
− z$ By$ 1θ$ y13 + By$ 2 θ$ y 24 − Bx$ 1θ$ x13 − Bx$ 2 θ$ x 24 )
1
(
d$ yz = By$ 1 u$ z13 + By$ 2 u$ z 24 − θ$ x1 + θ$ x 2 + θ$ x 3 + θ$ x 4
4
) (7.33)
2z γ
κ$ cxy =
A
(
z$ B y$ 1 u$ y 24 + By$ 2 u$ y13 − Bx$ 1 u$ x 24 − Bx$ 2 u$ x13 )
where,
z γ = γ I z$ I = γ 1z$ 1 + γ 2 z$ 2 + γ 3 z$ 3 + γ 4 z$ 4 (7.35)
γI =
1
4
[
h I − BxI$ ( x$ 12 + x$ 34 ) − ByI$ ( y$ 12 + y$ 34 ) ] (7.36)
and couples them with the respective components ( d$ xx , d$ yy , d$ xy ) of the strain rates,
Eq.(7.33).
The three components ( d$ xx , d$ yy , d$ xy ) of the strain rates, Eq.(7.33) together with Eq.(7.34),
are evaluated at a selected number of quadrature points through thickness, while the
components ( d$ yz , d$ zx ) are computed only once for each element. The stresses σ
$ (αβj) in the j-
the sublayer (j=1,2,..J) of the plate are updated from their old values σ
$ (αβj) old in terms of the
strain rates which are integrated in time.
134
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
( n$ ) [ σ$ ]
h/2
xx , n$ yy , n$ xy = ∫ ( j)
xx , σ$ (yyj) , σ$ (xyj) dz$
−h/2 (7.39)
and
( q$ , q$ ) = ∫ [ σ$ ]
h/2
x y
( j)
zx , σ$ (yzj) dz$ (7.40)
−h/2
( m$ ) [ σ$ ]
h/2
xx ,m $ xy = − ∫
$ yy , m ( j)
xx , σ$ (yyj) , σ$ (xyj) zdz
$ $
− h/2 (7.41)
where z$ = 0 is taken as the middle plane of the element and h is the total thickness.
These forces and moments may be approximated numerically as
J J J
n$ xx ≈ h ∑ w j σ$ (xxj) , n$ yy ≈ h ∑ w j σ$ (yyj) , n$ xy ≈ h ∑ w j σ$ (xyj)
j=1 j=1 j=1
J
$ xy ≈ − h 2 ∑ ξ j w j σ$ (xyj)
m
j=1
(
F$ xI = A BxI$ n$ xx + ByI$ n$ xy + f$xIH )
135
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
(
F$ yI = A ByI$ n$ yy + BxI$ n$ xy + f$yIH )
(
F$ zI = Aκ BxI$ q$ x + ByI$ q$ y ) + f$ H
zI (7.39)
$
M xI = A( B m$ +B m
yI
$
$ − κm$ )+m
yy
$ xI
$ xy
1
4 yz
H
xI
$
M yI = A( − B m
$ −B m
xI
$
$ )+m
$ + κm xx
$ yI
$ xy
1
4 zx
H
yI
$ =0
M zI
where ( f$xIH , f$yIH , f$zIH , m $ HyI ) are the hourglass forces, κ is the shear correction factor (=5/6).
$ HxI , m
136
Chapter 7. Thin Shell Processor in 3D
137
Chapter 8. Reserved
Chapter 8. Reserved
Chapter 9. Reserved
138
Chapter 10. Reserved
139
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
AUTODYN utilizes the differential equations governing unsteady material dynamic motion
express the local conservation of mass, momentum and energy. In order to obtain a
complete solution, in addition to appropriate initial and boundary conditions, it is necessary
to define a further relation between the flow variables. This can be found from a material
model which relates stress to deformation and internal energy (or temperature). In most
cases, the stress tensor may be separated into a uniform hydrostatic pressure (all three
normal stresses equal) and a stress deviatoric tensor associated with the resistance of the
material to shear distortion (as is the case for most materials in AUTODYN). Then the
relation between the hydrostatic pressure, the local density (or specific volume) and local
specific energy (or temperature) is known as an equation of state.
The equation of state can be determined from knowledge of the thermodynamic properties of
the material and ideally should not require dynamic data to build up the relationship.
However, in practice, the only practical way of obtaining data on the behavior of the material
at high strain rates is to carry out well-characterized dynamic experiments. It is important to
recognize that, since the relationship is required for use in a numerical code, an analytic
form is chosen to facilitate solution. Such an analytic form is at best an approximation to the
true relationship. Further, the equation of state may be given in extensive tabular form and in
that case the analytic form chosen can be considered as an interpolation relationship.
Disregarding the above effects then, at each instant and each point in a fluid, there is a
definite state of thermodynamic equilibrium defined by:
p hydrostatic pressure
ρ density
ρ0 initial density
v specific volume = 1/ρ
v0 initial specific volume = 1/ρ0
µ compression = ρ/ρ0 − 1
e specific internal energy
S specific entropy
140
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
i specific enthalpy = e + pv
T temperature
It is well known from thermodynamics that only two of the parameters p, T, v, e and S are
independent. Therefore, in order to maintain maximum consistency with the form of
equations of motion we are using, we will normally seek equations of state in the form p = f
(v, e) although other forms have been derived in the past.
The internal energy gained by a small region of the material during a change from one state
(or time) to another is the heat (or energy) input into the region plus the work done on the
region by the action of the external pressure forces. This can be expressed in the relation
de = TdS − p dV (11.1)
If the energy input is known in a predefined way (as might be the case for high explosives)
this relation can be written
de = δQ − p dV (11.2)
Neglecting heat conduction and viscosity implies that, if there is no external source of energy
δQ as a particle (or region) of the material moves about, the specific entropy of the moving
particle remains constant, i.e. the changes in state at the particle are adiabatic or
isentropic. However, as we shall see later, the specific entropy of a particle can change if it
is overrun by a discontinuity such as a shock. There are several situations of interest to
AUTODYN users where δQ will be non-zero, such as high explosive detonations, nuclear
energy releases in reactor accidents, phase changes etc. However these will not change the
basic relationships between the thermodynamic parameters.
Among further thermodynamic relations which may prove useful or relevant in later sections
are:
1 ∂v
3α = (11.3)
v ∂T p
∂i ∂S
Cp = = T (11.4)
∂T p ∂T p
141
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
∂p ∂p
c2 = = − v2 (11.5)
∂ρ s ∂v s
∂p ∂p
c 2 = v 2 p − (11.6)
∂e v ∂v e
∂p 3αc 2 ∂ ln T
Γ = v = = − (11.7)
∂e v Jc p ∂ ln v s
∂p
K = − v = ρc 2 (11.8)
∂v s
∂ ln p c2
γ = − = (11.9)
∂ ln v s pv
The ideal equation of state would cover all regions in the phase plane (see Figure 11-1):
• the solid phase
• with options for polymorphic phase changes and for material strength
• the liquid phase with data on the melt locus where solid changes to liquid
• the two-phase liquid-vapor coexistence region with definition of the saturation curve
142
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
• and finally the vapor region at high temperatures and high expansions
The two-phase states should cover both the liquid-vapor regions at high temperatures and
positive pressures and the cavitated states where gaseous bubbles can form in a liquid
when the pressure falls below a reference state and the temperature is also low. Clearly to
determine a single analytic relationship to encompass all these greatly different regions of
phase space would be impossible and many approaches have been made in the past to
provide analytic fits which are valid only in limited regions of the values of internal energy
and volume i.e. in (e, v) space. Some of these will be described in the next Section.
Again historically, because many of the early problems considered in hydrocodes were of
materials deformed by strong dynamic impact (or shocks), the forms of early equations of
state concentrated on material behavior on or near the region of states which the material
may reach if it is shocked from its initial state. The locus in the pressure/volume (p, v) plane
of all states achievable by shocking the material from an initial state (p0, v0) is known as the
shock Hugoniot. The relationship in regions neighboring the Hugoniot is achieved by
analytic expansion involving the Gruneisen Gamma (see next section).
143
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The experimental fact is that for most solids and many liquids, that do not undergo a phase
change, the values on the shock Hugoniot for shock velocity U and material velocity behind
the shock up can be adequately fitted to a straight line
U = c0 + s up (11.10)
This is the case even up to shock velocities around twice the initial sound speed c0 and
shock pressures of order 100 Gpa (1 Mbar). For materials where a linear fit is not adequate
a quadratic form in up has sometimes been used or at other times piecewise linear or
piecewise quadratic (U, up) forms have been used.
It has been generally found that for most high explosives of interest the measured detonation
velocity D is a linear function of the loading density ρ0 of the form
D = D0 + A ρ0 (11.11)
144
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
− v ∂T
Γ ( v) = (11.12)
T ∂v s
Γ ( v) dv
[ln T] (
T( v ) v
T v0 )
=−∫ (11.13)
v0 v
T v n = g ( S) (11.14)
where g(S) is a function of entropy and so is constant along an adiabat. Thus for any point
(p, v, T) if the adiabat is dropped back to the reference curve on which T is known and
values (T1, v1) are determined, then
T v n = T1 v 1 n (11.15)
However this assumes that the adiabats can be calculated in a material with zero material
strength and in many cases this procedure is neither convenient nor relevant. A different
procedure is used in AUTODYN where the temperature is integrated up at each timestep
together with the other flow variables. Since its derivation is carried out for a full stress
tensor the details are delayed until the end of Section 3. The formulation can however be
simplified for a pure hydrodynamic material of zero shear strength.
As stated in the previous section material stresses are considered by separating out the
stress tensor into two components, a stress associated with a uniform hydrostatic pressure
(all three normal stresses equal) plus a stress associated with the resistance of the material
to shear distortion. The first component will be discussed in this section while the second will
be discussed in Section 11.3.
145
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium it was shown in Section 1 that the local hydrostatic
pressure p, the specific volume v and the specific energy e could be related through an
equation of state p = f (v, e). In general the form of this equation can take many forms,
analytic or tabular. However in practice only certain forms are practicable since it is
necessary in hydrocodes at each timestep to solve the equation of state simultaneously with
the energy equation
de + p dv = 0 (11.16)
having solved the mass and momentum conservation equations for velocity and density.
p = A ( v) + B ( v) ρ 0 e (11.17)
i.e. for constant v the pressure varies linearly with the internal energy e.
With this formulation the simultaneous solution of energy equation and equation of state in
AUTODYN may be written
∆v
e n +1 = e n − ( p n + p n +1 ) (11.18)
2
p n +1 = A n +1 + B n +1 ρ 0 e n +1 (11.19)
∆v
e n +1 = e n − ( p n + A n + 1 + B n +1 ρ 0 e n +1 ) (11.20)
2
n ∆v n n +1
e − 2 ( p + A )
e n +1 = (11.21)
∆v n +1
1 + 2 B ρ 0
146
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
Materials may also get into states of density less than normal because they are subjected to
very large energy inputs and become hot. In hypervelocity impact problems the shock
energy itself may be sufficient to melt or vaporize the material. Deriving equations of state to
cover all these different scenarios is a skilled process but much effort has been expended by
many workers on this general problem. Consequently several different forms of equation of
state have been developed and each has advantages and disadvantages. Some of these will
be discussed as each form of equation of state is introduced.
pv = RT (11.22)
where the constant R may be taken to be the universal gas constant R0 divided by the
effective molecular weight of the particular gas.
In an ideal gas the internal energy is a function of the temperature alone and if the gas is
polytropic the internal energy is simply proportional to temperature and this may be written
as
e = cv T (11.23)
where the constant cv is the specific heat at constant volume. This leads to the entropic
equation of state
p v γ = f ( S) (11.24)
147
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
where S is specific entropy and the adiabatic exponent γ is a constant (equal to 1 + R / cv).
Thus, since entropy is constant on an adiabat and the specific entropy of a particle remains
constant except when it is overrun by a shock, it follows that the equation of state for a gas
which has uniform initial conditions may be written as
p = ( γ − 1) ρ e (11.26)
This form of equation has much to commend it for its simplicity and ease of computation.
This is known as the “IDEAL GAS” equation of state in AUTODYN and only the value of γ
need be supplied by the user.
In order to avoid complications with problems with multiple materials where initial small
pressures in the gas would generate small unwanted velocities the equation is modified for
use in AUTODYN as
p = ( γ − 1) ρ e + p shift (11.27)
where pshift is a small initial pressure defined to give a zero starting pressure. The reference
density may be reduced during a calculation in order to overcome potential numerical
problems as the compression tends to minus one (if this is done the compression is
recalculated before the calculation is restarted). Clearly this form of equation of state does
not allow negative values of pressure to occur and the two numerical palliatives will lead to
some errors at very large expansions. Solutions with this simple equation of state should
therefore be viewed critically when run to very long times or very large expansions.
p = Kµ (11.28)
where µ = (ρ/ρ0) - 1, and K is the material bulk modulus. This form of equation of state is of
use only for fairly small compressions and should not be used if it is considered that large
compressions may occur. The AUTODYN user is prompted to supply the reference density
(ρ0) and the material bulk modulus K.
148
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
p = f ( e , v) (11.29)
∂p ∂p
dp = dv + de (11.30)
∂v e ∂e v
Integration of equation (11.30) allows the pressure to be expressed in terms of the volume v
and energy e relative to the pressure at a reference volume v0 and reference energy e0
n v ,e e,v
∂p ∂p
∫p dp = v ∫,e ∂v dv + e ∫,v ∂e de (11.31)
0 0 0 0 0 e v
The integration of equation (11.31) can be performed along any path desired and it is
convenient to integrate first at constant energy from v0 to v, and then at constant volume
from e0 to e, giving
v ,e0 e,v
∂p ∂p
p = p0 + ∫
v 0 ,e o
dv + ∫ de
∂v e ,v
∂e
(11.32)
e 0 v
∂p
Γ = v
∂e v
and if it assumed that Γ is a function of volume (or density) only then the second integral of
equation (11.32) can be evaluated
∂p Γ ( v)
∫ ∂e de =
v
[
e − e0 ] (11.33)
v
The first integral in equation (11.32) is a function only of volume and the reference energy
e0. If the reference state is denoted by er then equation (11.32), together with equation
(11.33) becomes
Γ ( v)
p = p r ( v) +
v
[
e − e r ( v) ] (11.34)
149
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
since
v ,e 0
∂p
∫
v 0 ,e 0
dv = p r ( v) − p 0
∂v e
(11.35)
Equation (11.34) is generally known as the Mie-Gruneisen form of equation of state. Note
that this form of equation is of the form where p varies linearly with e at constant v. It is thus
immediately soluble for p or e so is extremely suitable for solving with the energy equation
as discussed earlier in this section.
The functions pr (v), er (v) are assumed to be known functions of v on some reference curve.
Possible reference curves include:
• the shock Hugoniot
• a standard adiabat e.g. the adiabat through the initial state (p0, v0) or, in the case of high
explosives, the Chapman-Jouget adiabat (qv).
• the isobar p = 0
• the curve e = 0
• some composite curve of one or more of the above curves to cover the complete range
of interest of v
Use of this form of equation and various reference curves will result in several variants of
equations of state and some of these will now be described.
p = A 1 µ + A 2 µ 2 + A 3 µ 3 + ( B 0 + B1 µ ) ρ 0 e (11.36)
150
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
p = T1 µ + T2 µ 2 + B 0 ρ 0 e (11.37)
If A3 is identically zero then the form of equation of state for the compressive phase has been
referred to as the Simple 2-D equation of state and has had extensive use in the past. Note
that as written the reference curve is e = 0 on which curve
p r = A 1 µ + A 2 µ 2 + A 3 µ 3 for µ > 0
p r = T1 µ + T2 µ for µ < 0 (11.38)
ρ
where µ = −1
ρ0
However by redefining the coefficients Ai, i = 1,2,3 the reference curve can be redefined as
one of the possible variants mentioned above e.g. the shock Hugoniot (see below) for the
compressive range µ > 0 and some extrapolated curve from the shock into the expansive
phase µ < 0.
The validity of this equation depends upon the ability to represent the variation of pressure
at e = 0 (or some other reference curve) as a simple polynomial in µ of no more than three
terms. This is probably true as long as the range in density variation (and hence range in µ)
is not too large. Note that in equation (11.36)
B 0 + B1 µ
Γ ( v) = (11.39)
1+ µ
U = c0 + sup (11.43)
151
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
p = p H + Γ ρ (e − e H ) (11.44)
ρ 0 c 0 2 µ (1 + µ )
pH = (11.45)
[1 − ( s − 1) µ]2
1 pH µ
eH = (11.46)
2 ρ0 1 + µ
Note that for s > 1 this formulation gives a limiting value of the compression as the pressure
tends to infinity. The denominator of equation (11.45) becomes zero and the pressure
therefore becomes infinite for
1 - (s - 1) µ = 0 (11.47)
giving a maximum density of ρ = s ρ0 (s - 1). However long before this regime is approached
the assumption of constant Γ ρ is probably not valid. Furthermore the assumption of a linear
variation between the shock velocity U and the particle velocity up does not hold for too large a
compression. At high shock strengths some nonlinearity in this relationship is apparent,
particularly for non-metallics. To cater for this nonlinearity in AUTODYN the input calls for the
definition of two linear fits to the shock velocity - particle velocity relationship; one holding at low
shock compressions defined by v > VB and one at high shock compressions defined by v < VE.
The region between VE and VB is covered by a smooth interpolation between the two linear
relationships. See the adjoining Figure 11-2 and equations (11.48) below.
152
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
U1 = c1 +s1 u p U 2 =c 2 +s 2 u p
U = U1 for v ≥ VB U=U 2 for v ≤ VE (11.48)
U = U1 +
(U 2 −U1 )(v−VB) for VE<v<VB
(VE−VB)
This form of equation of state should cover most materials. Data for this equation of state
can be found in various references (e.g. van Thiel 1967; Kohn 1969) and several of the
AUTODYN material libraries.
With the introduction of version 4, the shock equation of state has been further enhanced to
optionally include a quadratic shock velocity, particle velocity relation of the form:
2
U s = C 0 + S1 u p + S 2 u p (11.43a)
The input parameter, S2, can be set to a non-zero value to better fit highly non-linear Us-up
material data
153
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
NOTE: In some cases when using this form of equation of state in Euler subgrids and mixed
cells with materials of widely differing compressibilities advantage may be taken of the fact
that the region of the equation of state plane covered by the materials of lower
compressibility is a narrow band lying close to the shock Hugoniot, i.e. the extrapolation from
the reference curve relationship will be small. The potential errors produced by using the
reference curve to simplify iterations to a common pressure in multiple material components
may be less than the errors resulting from ill-conditioned iterations using the full equations of
state. It is suggested therefore that, if it is found that the iterative process is becoming
increasingly difficult, the Shock EOS for the less compressible components be used with Γ =
0, i.e. the equation of state simplified to
p = p H ( µ)
The lack of energy dependence in this equation will lead to a much simpler iteration.
p = A 1 µ + A 2 µ 2 + ( B1 + B 2 µ ) ρ 0 e (11.49)
then expansion of this equation into the region of negative values of µ may lead to disaster
in some cases.
If we consider the case B1 = B2 so that Γ = B1 = constant then the adiabats are of the form
p = k 0 + k 1 µ + k 2 µ 2 + g ( S) v − ( Γ +1) (11.50)
where the constants k0, k1, and k2 are functions of A1, A2 and Γ and the constant of
integration g (S) is a function of entropy and constant and unique on each adiabat.
Therefore, for some adiabats, expansion into states of tension (µ < 0) can result in minimum
pressures less than a realistic fracture strength. (see Figure 11-3). Various palliatives have
been tried in the past. One version has been to replace the quadratic term A2 µ2 by A2 µ µ
so that in tension the energy-independent part of the pressure is calculated as
p = A1 µ − A 2 µ 2 (11.51)
However this leads to a discontinuity in the first derivative of the sound speed on the adiabat
as µ goes through zero. A better (or at least safer) approximation is to set the quadratic term
to zero if µ < 0.
154
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
p = H ρ (e − e s )
(11.52)
where H = γ − 1 ≅ 0.4
Hence an equation of state for an expansion phase for a material hot enough to expand into
a gaseous form will require a function for the Gruneisen Gamma which will fall from Γ0, its
value at normal density, to H at large expansions. Formulations below, such as Tillotson and
Puff will include functions with this kind of behavior.
155
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
only the “low pressure” region. For the derivation of an equation of state for the “high
pressure” region analytic forms provide best fit interpolations between Thomas-Fermi-Dirac
data at high pressures (above 50 Mbar) and experimental data at low pressures. The
formulation is claimed to be accurate to within 5% of the Hugoniot pressure and to within
10% of the isentrope pressures. It is therefore a very useful form of equation of state to use
for general hypervelocity impact problems.
It is desirable, or even necessary, to ensure that the formulations in each region provide
continuous values of the pressure and its first derivatives at the boundaries between
contiguous regions. This is true for the boundary between Regions I and II at v = v0 but if es/
156
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
is set equal to es difficulties may arise at the boundary between Regions II and IV at volumes
slightly greater than v0. To avoid this problem Region III is defined by setting
es ' = es + k ev (11.53)
(where ev is the vaporization energy at zero pressure determined, like the boiling point
energy es, from thermodynamic data) and Region III lies between Regions II and IV where es
< e < es/. In this region the pressure is calculated as a mean between that calculated for
Regions II and IV. The constant k is determined empirically to ensure a well behaved
solution and in practice satisfactory solutions have been obtained with values of k in the
range of zero to one fifth.
ρ
η=
ρ0
µ = η−1
e
ω0 = 1 +
e 0 η2
The user in AUTODYN is prompted for the reference density ρref (or ρ0 in the equations
below) and the constants in the Tillotson equation of state viz. a, b, A, B, α, β, e0, es, and es/
For Region I (µ ≥ 0) the pressure p1 is given by a Mie-Gruneisen equation of state but since
the formulation is to be valid for a very large range of pressure the Gruneisen Gamma is a
function of both v and e, not just a function of v alone. The constants fit the low pressure
shock data but they are adjusted to fit the asymptotic Thomas-Fermi behavior for the
variation of pressure at maximum compressions (like a monatomic gas). The formulation for
Region II is as for Region I with a slight modification to one term to avoid difficulties as µ
goes increasingly negative. In Region IV the formulation is chosen to give the correct
behavior both at high pressure/normal density and for very large expansion (where it must
converge to an ideal gas behavior). With these constraints the different formulations are:
For Region I (µ ≥ 0)
157
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
b
p1 = a + ηρ 0 e+Aµ+Bµ 2 (11.54)
ω0
the pressure p2 is given by the same formulation as that for Region I except that B = 0, i.e.
b
p1 = a + ηρ 0 e+Aµ (11.55)
ω0
(p 4 − p 2 )( e − e s )
p3 = p2 + (11.56)
(e s ' − es )
bηρ 0 e 2
p 4 =a ηρ 0 e+ +Aµe βx e −αx (11.57)
ω0
where x = 1 - 1 / η.
158
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
For Region I (µ ≥ 0)
p 1 = ( A 1 µ + A 2 µ 2 + A 3 µ 3 )(1 − Γ µ 2) + Γ ρ e (11.58)
p 2 = ( T1 µ + T2 µ 2 )(1 − Γ µ 2) + Γ ρ e (11.59)
[ ][ { (
p 3 = ρ H + (Γ0 − H ) η1 2 e − e s 1 − exp N ( η − 1) η 2 )}] (11.60)
where N = A1 / ρ0 Γ es.
Note that unlike the Tillotson formulation, there is no interpolative region between Regions II
and III.
159
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
This equation of state should be used with some other form which will cover the region of
compressed states (Shock or Polynomial, say). In this way the whole (p, v) plane will be
covered.
Γ (v )
p = p r (v ) +
v
( e − e r ( v )) (11.61)
where in this case pr (v), er (v) and Γr (v) are the tabulated functions along the saturation
curve and are determined for a specific value of v by interpolation within the tabular entries.
It is assumed that on the liquid side of the saturation curve Tr, er and Γr vary quadratically
with vr along the curve and that pr may be obtained from a relationship of the form
A1
log p r = + B1 (11.62)
Tr
On the vapor side of the saturation curve er and Γr are taken to vary linearly with Tr, and vr
and Tr are assumed to be related by
A2
log v r = + B2 (11.63)
Tr
160
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
v = α v g + (1 − α ) v l (11.64)
e = α e g + (1 − α ) e l (11.65)
where α is the mass fraction of vapor in the liquid-vapor mixture and vg, vl, eg and el are the
specific volumes and internal energies of the saturated liquid and vapor at the saturated
vapor pressure p and temperature T, i.e. they are conditions on the saturation curve.
Eliminating α from equations (11.64) and (11.65) gives
(v − v ) = (e − e )
g g
(11.66)
(v − v ) (e − e )
g l g l
Data on the saturation curve for water has been extracted from Morgan’s paper and included
as a standard option in AUTODYN. For any other material the user will have to supply the
required saturation curve data using subroutine EXTAB. The comments in EXTAB (in
USRSUB) explain how to use this subroutine.
The library is in a different format to the other AUTODYN material libraries; it cannot be
added to or modified by the user, and is found at the end of the material library list after
161
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
ZERARM. Materials for use with the Sesame equation of state should only be retrieved from
the library rather than added under the Add/Mod option.
The Sesame EOS has been extensively used for aluminium hypervelocity impact simulations
at Century Dynamics (European Space Agency(ESA) CR(p) 4218, copies available from
ESA/ESTEC or Century Dynamics). This work used the Lagrange and SPH processors. Use
of this EOS with the Euler processor is as yet unproven.
In general, our experience suggests that the Sesame tables cannot be used as a black box.
The tables contain data for specific ranges in pressure, density, temperature space for each
material. Results should be interrogated thoroughly to ensure that simulated material states
are consistent with those expected for a particular application.
It is clear that, unless the user can be certain from the outset that material strength effects
are not important (because the materials of interest are gases, fluids with no shear strength
or the stress levels in the system under study will always be so high that the strength of the
materials could only produce a minor perturbation and may be discounted), the problem
should be calculated as one with materials of finite shear strength in order to obtain a
realistic solution.
162
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
It is always possible to choose a rotated set of coordinate axes so that the shear stresses at
a given point are zero. Any three orthogonal axes that satisfy this condition are called
principal axes for the given point. The stresses in the directions of the principal axes on
surfaces normal to these axes are called principal stresses and are usually denoted by σ1,
σ2, and σ3 and the shear stresses are
σ12 = σ 23 = σ 31 = 0 (11.67)
A perfectly elastic material has a linear relationship between stress and strain and Hooke’s
law relates the stress at a point to the strain at the point. In terms of an incremental strain
resulting in an incremental stress this may be written as
V&
σ& i = λ + 2 G ε& i i = 1, 2, 3 (11.68)
V
Here λ and G are the Lamé constants (G is used here instead of the usual unsubscripted µ
in order to avoid confusion with its use in equations of state and to be consistent with notation
in other strength models described below) and ε1, ε2, ε3 are the strain rates in the directions of
the principal axes, and V is the volume. The dot describes a time derivative along a particle
path i.e. a Lagrangian formulation. Hooke’s Law in this way gives natural strains i.e. the
strain of an element is referred to the current configuration and not to the original
configuration.
Each of the stresses is broken into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric component s
where p is defined as the (negative) mean of the three principal stresses.
1
p=−
3
( σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 ) (11.69)
then
σ i = − p + si
i = 1, 2, 3 (11.70)
σ& i = − p& + &si
The negative sign for the hydrostatic pressure p follows from the usual notation that stresses
are positive in tension and negative in compression (the opposite to that for pressure).
163
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
As with the stresses the strain components are defined as the sum of a mean normal strain ε
and deviatoric strain components θ1, θ2 and θ3 where
1
ε= (ε + ε 2 + ε 3 )
3 1
(11.71)
ε i = ε + θi
i = 1, 2, 3 (11.72)
ε& = ε& + θ&
i i
&
V
ε& 1 + ε& 2 + ε& 3 = (11.73)
V
and
&
V
ε& = (11.75)
3V
&
V
&si = 2 G ε& i − i = 1, 2, 3 (11.76)
3V
p = Kµ (11.77)
where
2 G
K = λ + = bulk modulus (11.78)
3
and
164
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
s1 + s2 + s3 = 0 (11.80)
which may be interpreted as stating that the deviatoric components of the stresses do not
contribute to the average (hydrostatic) pressure but only to distortion of the volume.
(σ 1 − σ 2 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) + (σ 3 − σ1 ) = 2 Y 2
2 2 2
(11.81)
where Y is the yield strength in simple tension. This can be also written as
(s
1 − s2 ) + ( s2 − s3 ) + ( s3 − s1 ) = 2 Y2
2 2 2
(11.82)
which, with
s1 + s2 + s3 = 0
may be reduced to
2 Y2
s + s2
1
2 2
+ s3 = 2
(11.83)
3
Thus the onset of yielding, i.e. of plastic flow, is purely a function of the deviatoric stresses
(distortion) and does not depend upon the value of the local hydrostatic pressure unless the
yield stress Y itself is a function of pressure (as is the case for some of the strength models
discussed later).
165
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The left hand side of equation (11.81) is proportional to the elastic energy of distortion per
unit volume or the energy required to change shape as opposed to the energy that causes a
volume change. The expression states therefore that plastic flow begins when the elastic
distortion energy reaches a limiting value {Y2 / 6G} and that this energy remains constant
during the plastic flow when plastic work (i.e. irrecoverable work) will be done. In (σ1, σ2, σ3)
space equation (11.81) describes the surface of a straight circular cylinder whose axis is
equally inclined to the σ1, σ2, σ3 system of coordinates as shown in Figure 11-6. The radius
of the cylinder is (2Y / 3)½ . The relationship s1 + s2 + s3 = 0 defines a plane, known as the
octahedral plane, through the axes of the principal stresses whose normal is the axis of the
cylinder and the intersection of this plane with the cylinder results in a circle. If the stress
deviators s1, s2, s3 give a point inside the circle, the material is within its elastic limit. Note
that in Shell subgrids σ3 = 0 and the analogue of equation (11.81) is
σ12 − σ1 σ 2 + σ 2 2 (11.84)
and this is an ellipse in the (σ1, σ2) plane with its major axes inclined at 45° to the (σ1, σ2)
axes.
166
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
( 2 3)12
Y
(11.85)
(s1
2
+ s2 2 + s32 )
12
By adjusting the stresses perpendicular to the yield circle only the plastic components of the
stresses are affected. It has been assumed in the above arguments and in the Figure 11-6
that the yield strength Y is constant. However the effects of work hardening can be
considered by making Y a function of strain energy. Y may also be made a function of
temperature (or energy) whereby the effects of thermal softening or even melting can be
incorporated into the calculation, e.g. Y can be reduced to zero in the case of melting. In the
latter case the stress deviators will automatically be set to, and remain, zero and the only
remaining stress will be the pressure p resulting in a purely hydrodynamic flow.
If the application of these concepts to one - dimensional strain for a perfectly plastic material
is considered we see from Figure 11-7 that the stress deviator, -s1, has a maximum value
2Y/3 for all strains beyond the elastic limit point A and the total stress σ = -p + s1 has a two-
fold structure, an initial elastic section up to the elastic limit point and a plastic loading curve
from the elastic limit point onwards. In the negative pressure region the hydrostatic
component is limited to p = -Y / 3 so that the magnitude of the total tensile stress is Y
consistent with the original assumption for Y in the Von Mises criterion.
167
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
If we consider the complete history of loading and unloading for elastic-plastic material
response we obtain a stress-strain relationship similar to that in Figure 11-8. The material
initially loads elastically up to the point A and then continues to load plastically up to the
point B of maximum loading. It then unloads elastically to the point C where again the stress
deviators will lie outside the yield surface and further unloading will cause plastic
deformation. When the loading - unloading stress has decreased to zero the material will
168
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
have suffered the permanent deformation represented by OD and any subsequent loading
will start from the point D. As stated above, the elastic loading wave runs ahead of the
plastic loading wave for loading pressures below that of the point Z and similarly the elastic
release wave propagates from the rear of the loading pulse ahead of the plastic release
wave and overtakes the slower plastic loading wave. This results in a greater (or more
rapid) attenuation of the peak stress than would have been the case for a pure
hydrodynamic wave.
169
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
70
60 Elastic unloading
50
Stress Txx (kBar)
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Distance (cm)
120 T =2.0us
Shock loading
100 T =3.0us
T =5.0us
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Distance (cm)
170
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
approximately ideal way many show some departures, known as the Bauschinger effect
(Cochran & Guinan 1976), from the ideal unloading and reverse loading curves. The
Bauschinger effect has been attributed to several causes, such as dislocation interactions,
formation of slip bands, twinning etc. In an attempt to model this effect in a pragmatic way
the Steinberg-Guinan model (described later) introduced a variable shear modulus. However
for many problems models using a constant shear modulus give reasonable results.
The method by which these values are calculated is given below for the case of a 2D
element, in AUTODYN-2D.
The equations are, of course, modified for different element types (e.g. 2D shell elements)
and for AUTODYN-3D.
The plane which makes equal angles with each of the principal directions is called the
octahedral plane, as shown in Figure 11-6. The shear stress on this plane is given by
2J 2
τ oct = (11.86)
3
1 2
J2 =
2
(
σ xx + σ 2yy + σ θθ
2
+ 2σ 2xy)
(11.87)
1
6
[
= ( σ 1 − σ 2 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) + (σ 3 − σ 1 )
2 2 2
]
where σ ij is the total stress tensor in the ij direction. Directions xx, yy, θθ and xy are global
axes directions and 1, 2 and 3 are the principal stress directions.
The Von Mises yield criterion states that yielding begins when the octahedral shearing
reaches a critical value defined by
171
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
2
τ oct = k (11.88)
3
f (J 2 ) = J 2 − k 2 = 0 (11.89)
σ1 = σ y , σ 2 = σ 3 = 0 (11.90)
Substituting these values in the above equations gives the uniaxial yield stress as
σ y = 3k = 3J 2 (11.91)
In AUTODYN at each cycle the stress state is checked against the yield criterion and if the
yield criterion is exceeded an increment of effective plastic strain is computed as follows
3J 2 − σ y
∆ε eff
p
= (11.92)
3G
The effective plastic strain is the integrated value of these increments during the
calculation
ε eff
p
= ∫ ∆ε eff
p
dt (11.93)
∆ε eff
p
ε& eff
p
= (11.94)
∆t
where ∆t is the current timestep and the incremental effective geometric strain is given
by
where
[
∆ε eff = ∆t 23 (ε& 2xx + ε& 2yy + ε& θθ
2
]
+ ε& 2xy ) 2 (11.96)
172
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
where ε ij is the total strain tensor in the ij direction which includes elastic and plastic
components.
The instantaneous effective/geometric strain is calculated directly from the principal strain
components
2
[ (ε + ε 22 + ε 32 ) + 5(ε 1 ε 2 + ε 2 ε 3 + ε 3 ε 1 ) − 3ε 12 ]
12
ε eff = 2
1
2
(11.97)
3
This value can therefore increase and decrease upon loading and unloading. This is in
contrast to the effective plastic strain and incremental effective strains which are always
monitonically increasing.
The effective strains for a 3D brick element in AUTODYN-3D are given by the analogous
equations
[
∆ε eff = ∆t 23 (ε& 2xx + ε& 2yy + ε& zz
2
]
+ ε& 2xy + ε& 2yz + ε& 2zx ) 2 (11.98)
2
( [
ε 12 + ε 22 + ε 32 ) + 5(ε 1 ε 2 + ε 2 ε 3 + ε 3 ε 1 ) − 3( ε 12 ) ]
12
ε eff = 2
+ ε 223 + ε 31
2
(11.99)
3
173
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
maximum of 10, to define the material strength curve. In tension (negative values of p) such
materials have little tensile strength and this is modeled by dropping the curve for Y(p)
rapidly to zero as p goes negative to give a realistic value for the limiting tensile strength.
Note that although the yield stress is pressure dependent the flow rule is volume
independent (see equation (11.80)) i.e. of the Prandtl-Reuss type. Scaling back the stress
deviators to the yield surface takes place in the plane s1 + s2 + s3 = 0 and normal to the circle
formed by the intersection of the yield surface with this plane. This however is not the normal
to the yield surface in the three-dimensional (σ1, σ2, σ3) space. This “non-associated” flow
avoids the problem of shear induced dilatancy in soils and while theoretically it is possible to
obtain unstable non-unique solutions it has been shown (Bleich,1970) that this is an unlikely
occurrence and to date computational results have not indicated any uniqueness problems.
[ ][ ][
Y = A + B ε p n 1 + C log ε p * 1 − TH m ] (11.100)
where
εp = effective plastic strain
εp* = normalized effective plastic strain rate
TH = homologous temperature = (T - Troom) / (Tmelt - Troom )
174
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The expression in the first set of brackets gives the stress as a function of strain when εp* =
1.0sec -1 and TH = 0 (i.e. for laboratory experiments at room temperature). The constant A is
the basic yield stress at low strains while B and n represent the effect of strain hardening.
The expressions in the second and third sets of brackets represent the effects of strain rate
and temperature, respectively. In particular the latter relationship models the thermal
softening so that the yield stress drops to zero at the melting temperature Tmelt. The
constants in these expressions were obtained by Johnson and Cook empirically by means of
dynamic Hopkinson bar tensile tests over a range of temperatures and other tests and
checked by calculations of Taylor tests of impacting metal cylinders on rigid metal targets
which provided strain rates in excess of 105 sec-1 and strains in excess of 2.0.
Constants A, B, C, n, m and Tmelt for many ballistic materials of interest are available in the
AUTODYN material library.
[
Y = Y0 + C 2 ε exp − C 3 T + C 4 T log ε& ] (11.101)
[ ]
Y = Y0 + C1 exp − C 3 T + C 4 T log ε& + C 5 ε n (11.102)
175
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
where
ε = effective plastic strain
ε = normalized effective plastic strain rate
T = temperature (degrees K)
The constants Y0, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and n for OFHC copper and Armco iron are in the
AUTODYN library.
They have therefore produced expressions for the shear modulus and yield strength as
functions of effective plastic strain, pressure and internal energy (temperature) and
constants for 14 metals. They have demonstrated that, using this model, their computer
calculations have successfully reproduced measured stress and free-surface-velocity versus
time data for a number of shock wave experiments.
The constitutive relations for shear modulus G and yield stress Y for high strain rates are:
G ′p p GT′
G = G0 1 + 1 3 + (T − 300) (11.103)
G0 η G0
Y p′ p G ′
Y = Y0 1 + 1 3 + T (t − 300)(1 + βε )n (11.104)
Y0 η G0
176
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
and the primed parameters with the subscripts p and T are derivatives of that parameter with
respect to pressure and temperature at the reference state (T = 300 K, p = 0, ε = 0). The
subscript zero also refers to values of G and Y at the reference state.
The values of these parameters for the 14 metals are all in the AUTODYN library.
With the introduction of version 4, the Steinberg-Guinan Strength model has been enhanced
to include a melt temperature model. This prevents problems with unphysical shear modulii
which have been observed previously. The melt temperature is based on ambient melt
temperature and current density. The melt temperature has been added to all materials in
the STEINB material library. The melting temperature is set high for updated models
containing Steinberg-Guinan material.
Damaged (0<D<1.0)
σ D* = σ I* − D(σ I* − σ F* )
Fractured (D=1.0)
[ ( )
σ F* = MIN B (P * ) 1 − C ln ε * σ FMAX
m
]
Pressure, P
177
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
Plastic ∆ε eff
D=∑
p
Fracture ε Tpp
Strain
ε Tp = D1 (P * + T * )
D2
Pressure, P
Assume that the stress tensor σi and internal energy e are state functions of the strain εj and
the temperature T. In differential form changes in the stress and internal energy may be
written
∂σ ∂σ
dσi = i dεν + i dT (11.105)
∂ε ν ε k ≠ν,T ∂T e
178
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
∂e ∂e
de = dε ν + dT (11.106)
∂ε ν ε k ≠ν,T ∂T ε
Where repeated Greek suffices in products implies summation over all components.
Consider equation (11.104) when all stress components are held constant, and write
∂σ i ∂σ i ∂ε ν
= − (11.107)
∂T ε ∂ε ν ε k ≠ ν ∂T σ
∂ε i
The term is the linear thermal expansivity βi in the i direction at constant stress and
∂T σ
∂σi
is the matrix Cij of isothermal mechanical modulii, which may be functions of
∂ε j ε k ≠ j,T
strain and temperature. Then equation (11.104) may be written as
If we consider the entropy density S the change in this variable can be written in incremental
form as
∂S ∂S
dS = dε ν + dT (11.109)
∂ε ν ε k ≠ν ,T ∂T ε
de = T ds + v σ v dε v (11.110)
where v is the specific volume, we can expand the change in specific energy by equation
(11.105) so that dS can also be expressed as
1 ∂e 1 ∂e v
dS = dε ν + dT − σνdε ν (11.111)
T ∂ε ν ε T ∂T ε T
k ≠ ν ,T
If we compare the coefficients of dεν and dT in equations (11.108) and (11.110), compute
and equate the two cross derivatives of S we obtain
∂e ∂σ
= vσ j − T i (11.112)
∂ε j ∂T
179
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
∂e
If we also note that is the specific heat at constant strain (or volume) Cv we obtain
∂T ε
from equation (11.105)
∂σν
C v dT = de − vσν − T dε (11.113)
∂T ν
But also, because de - v σν dεν equals dQ, the heat added, we obtain from equations
(11.107) and (11.112),
dQ
dT = − vT( C νλ β λ ) dε ν (11.114)
Cv
For an isotropic material all the βi are equal to one third of the volume coefficient of
1 ∂v
expansion α which was defined in equation (11.3) as . If furthermore KT is the
v ∂T σ
∂p
isothermal bulk modulus, equal to -v , where p is the hydrostatic pressure, then we may
∂v T
write the sum in equation (11.113) as follows.
C iλ β λ = K T α (11.115)
dQ TK T α
dT = − dV (11.116)
Cv Cv
However this equation omits the effects of irreversible processes, i.e. the additional heat
produced by yielding. We assume that the heat due to plastic yielding is equal to the
irreversible work done dW which may be evaluated incrementally as
dW = v s λ dθ λ p − q dv (11.117)
where q is the artificial viscosity, and θP is the plastic strain deviator tensor. The final
expression for the temperature increment is therefore
dQ K α S dθ p
dT = − T T dv + v λ λ − qdv (11.118)
Cv Cv Cv
p = A( v) + B( v) ρ 0 e (11.119)
180
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
which is the normal form of equation of state used in AUTODYN then KT α/ Cv = B(v) ρ0 and
equation (11.117) becomes
dQ vS dθ p qdv
dT = − B( v)ρ 0 Tdv + λ λ − (11.120)
Cv Cv Cv
This is the form used in AUTODYN to compute the change in temperature. It is only
implemented for the following forms of equation of state only: Linear, Polynomial, Ideal gas,
Shock, Tillotson, and Puff.
Early modeling of porous materials (Salvadori et al 1960) used what was called the
“snowplough” model. In this case the porous material was assumed to compact to its solid
density at zero stress and after compaction to be incompressible. Using this model the
impulse of impact was assumed to be spread uniformly over the entire volume of compacted
material. A later development (Rempel et al 1966) allowed the region of compacted material
to have the hydrodynamic equation of state of the solid density material (such as those
described in Section 11.2) improving the modeling of the energy-absorbing characteristics of
the porous region. Other developments (Fowles & Curran 1962) indicated that if the porous
material had material strength, i.e. it was able to support an appreciable elastic stress before
compaction occurred, its shock attenuation capabilities were greatly enhanced.
This is the concept underlying the current models of ductile porous solids. The material is
visualized as solid material which contains a population of microscopic cells. separated by
cell walls, which give the material its initial distension. When stressed the initial elastic
compression is assumed to be due to elastic buckling of the cell walls and the plastic flow to
be due to plastic deformation of these cell walls. Material with low initial porosity have fewer
cells and thicker cell walls so that the stress required to cause buckling and subsequent
deformation of the cell walls will be greater. Once some plastic flow has taken place, even if
181
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
the fully compacted density hasn’t been reached, unloading to zero stress will be elastic (as
will subsequent reloading until again the plastic limit is reached). This phenomenological
behavior is illustrated in the neighboring Figure 11-13.
AUTODYN has a variant of this methodology implemented in the current versions of the
code; one where the plastic compaction path is defined as a piecewise linear path. This will
be described more fully below.
This model, therefore, can only be expected to give reasonable results if either the energy
increase per se is small (because the maximum stress levels are not large compared to the
pressure at which the porous material crushes to solid, or the initial porosity is small) or the
value of Gruneisen Gamma is small so that the pressure enhancement due to the deposited
energy is small. For concrete Γ ≅ 0.1 to 0.3 (Matuska, 1984) and the initial distension is
small in order to retain strength. Provided that maximum stress levels are not too large,
calculations with this model should give not unreasonable results. For other porous materials
182
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
the user is warned to consider the data and expected stress levels carefully before using the
model.
(a)
Pressure P
5
Plastic Compaction Path Solid
4 Soundspeed cs
(b)
Pressure P
3
2
1
Porosity α
1.0 αi α B
Pmin
Failure
Density ρ
(c)
ρs = ρref 5
4
Failure 2
1
ρ0
Porosity α
1.0 αi αB
183
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
ρref or ρs reference or solid density; that is the density at zero pressure of the
fully compacted solid
cpor bulk sound speed of the porous material
cs bulk sound speed of the solid, fully compacted material
ρ1 to ρ10 up to ten density, pressure pairs defining a piecewise-linear plastic
p1 to p10 compaction path
ρ0 the initial density which is defined when the material is filled into
the subgrid
Using this model, a material initially compacts from ρ = ρ0 along an elastic path defined by
the differential equation
dp
= c init 2 (11.121)
dρ
until the pressure reaches the plastic yield stress defined by the value of the pressure in the
first (ρ, p) pairs. Subsequent loading takes place along the plastic compaction path until the
material is fully compacted, at which time further compression takes place according to the
linear relationship
p = c s 2 (ρ − ρ ref ) (11.122)
As the material compacts, elastic / unloading uses a bulk sound speed interpolated between
cp and cs
α − α 1
(
c int = c por + c s − c por )
1 − α1
(11.123)
where
α = ρref / ρ current porosity (porosity is the reciprocal of compaction)
α1 = ρref / ρ1 starting porosity
and the path is always computed from the differential equation (11.121). The relationship
between the pressure and porosity can be seen in Figure 11-14b, whilst that between
density and porosity is shown in Figure 11-14c.
184
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
If failure occurs due to say reaching the hydrodynamic pressure limit pmin the density and
compaction can decrease as shown in the figures. This simulates the tensile separation or
cracking of the material. Should subsequent compressive loading occur the pressure will
only decrease after these cracks have closed up.
It is important when using the model to ensure that the input data is such that the elastic
loading line from the initial density intersects the plastic compaction curve at the intended
position.
It should be noted that the soundspeed output by AUTODYN represents the combined
effects of the bulk soundspeed given above and that due to the presence of strength. Thus if
strength is being used the soundspeed will be:
4G
c= cint
2
+ (11.124)
3ρ
Herrmann’s P-α model is a phenomenological approach to devising a model which gives the
correct behavior at high stresses but at the same time it provides a reasonably detailed
description of the compaction process at low stress levels. The principal assumption is that
the specific internal energy is the same for a porous material as for the same material at
solid density at identical conditions of pressure and temperature. Then the parameter α is
introduced denoting the porosity, defined by
v
α= (11.125)
vs
where v is the specific volume of the porous material and vs is the specific volume of the
material in the solid state and at the same pressure and temperature (note that vs is only
equal to 1 / ρref at zero pressure). α becomes unity when the material compacts to a solid. If
the equation of state of the solid material, neglecting shear strength effects, is given by
p = f ( v , e) (11.126)
as discussed in Section 2, then the equation of state of the porous material is simply
v
p = f , e (11.127)
α
185
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
where f (x, y) is the same function in both equations (11.126) and (11.127). This function
can be any of the equations of state which describe the compressed state of material, i.e.
Linear, Polynomial and Shock (but not those describing the expanded state).
In order to complete the material description the porosity α must be specified as a function of
the thermodynamic state of the material, say,
α = g ( p , e) (11.128)
There is not enough data usually available to determine the function g(p, e ) completely but
fortunately most problems of interest involve shock compaction of the porous material, i.e.
the region of interest lies on or near the Hugoniot. On the Hugoniot, pressure and internal
energy are related by the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions so therefore along the Hugoniot
equation (11.127 ) can be expressed as
α = g ( p) (11.129)
with the variation with energy implicitly assumed. It is assumed that equation (11.128)
remains valid in the neighborhood of the Hugoniot (tacitly assuming that the compaction
strength is insensitive to the small changes in temperature in extrapolating small distances
from the Hugoniot).
The general behavior of the compacting porous material has been described earlier and the
(P-α) model is constructed to reproduce this behavior. The P-α variation to provide this
performance is shown schematically in Figure 11-15. The material yields elastically up to a
pressure pe and subsequent yield is plastic until the material is fully compacted at a
pressure ps. As described earlier, intermediate unloading and reloading is elastic up to the
plastic loading curve.
The choice of a suitable function g (p) is somewhat arbitrary as long as it satisfies certain
simple analytic properties enumerated by Herrmann in his original paper, and several forms
have been used by different researchers. A simple form (Butcher & Karnes 1968) found
adequate for porous iron is a quadratic form
2
ps − p
(
α = 1+ αp − 1 )
ps − pe
(11.130)
but cubic and exponential forms have also been proposed and the parameters adjusted to fit
experimental data. In AUTODYN, the exponent 2 in equation (11.129) can be any value to
allow for more flexibility in the fitting procedure. The parameters αp, ps and pe are defined in
Figure 11-15.
186
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
1 v
p = f , e (11.131)
α α
where the factor 1 / α was included to allow for their argument that the pressure in the
porous material is more nearly 1 / α times the average pressure in the matrix material. It is
this form of the model that has been implemented in AUTODYN. A rate-dependent form has
been proposed by Butcher (1970) but in all these variants the parameters have to be
determined from experimental data and this procedure is far from simple.
4. Orthotropic Materials
In previous sections discussion has been restricted to the behavior of isotropic materials.
However there is at times a need to consider the treatment of materials where the properties
187
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
of materials are not identical in all directions (e.g. laminates, fiber reinforced materials etc.).
The methodology used in Section 3 whereby the total stress was divided into a
compressional component (the hydrostatic pressure p) and distortional components (the
stress deviators) with the change in the two components independently integrated in time.
Such a methodology is not appropriate in anisotropic materials and instead the stress
components are considered explicitly in the updating of stresses and strains from one time-
step to the next. Therefore there is no p = f(v, e) functional relationship used in this
approach. However the separation of the stress components into a hydrostatic pressure
(defined as before as the mean of the principal stresses) plus stress deviators is used as for
isotropic materials when plastic yielding occurs, the stress deviators being scaled down to
ensure that the stresses remain on the yield surface. The present formulation is only
implemented in AUTODYN for materials in Lagrange / ALE subgrids.
where
[ S] = stiffness matrix
[ ε& ] = strain rate vector
∆t = time step
1 / E1 −ν12 / E 1 −ν31 / E 3 0
−ν / E 1 / E2 −ν23 / E 2 0
[ S] −1 =
12 1
(11.133)
−ν31 / E 3 −ν23 / E 2 1 / E3 0
0 0 0 1 / 2G 12
ε& 11 σ11
ε& σ
[ ε&] = 22 and [ σ] = 22 (11.134)
ε& 33 σ33
ε& σ
12 12
188
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
where
and where νij is defined as the transverse strain in the j-direction when the material is
stressed in the i-direction, i.e.:
εj
ν ij = −
εi
Note that
E
νij = ν ji i
Ej
The shear modulus G12 is input for the strength model used in conjunction with this equation
of state (any strength model with a constant or strain dependent yield stress can be used).
The initial orientation of the principal anisotropic material axes may be defined in one of
three ways:
• X-Y space:The first principal axis is parallel to the X-axis
• Polar space The first principal axis for each cell is in the
direction of the line drawn from the polar origin to
the center of the cell.
• I-J space The first principal axis for each cell is defined to be in the
direction of increasing I for that cell.
The second principal axis is defined to be orthogonal to the first principal axis in the (X, Y)
plane, while the third principal axis is defined to be orthogonal to the other two axes. In all
three cases a rotation angle β can be specified. If the value specified is non-zero the first
and second principal axes are rotated anti-clockwise through this angle.
There are, of course, restrictions on the elastic constants that can be used for an orthotropic
material and these restrictions are more complex than those for an isotropic material. These
restrictions stem from the fact that the sum of work done by all stress components must be
positive in order to avoid the creation of energy. The first condition is that the elastic
constants should be positive:
189
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
β β
1 - ν12 ν21 - ν31 ν13 - ν23 ν32 - 2 ν21 ν32 ν13 > 0 (11.136)
ν21 < ( E 2 E1 )
12
ν32 < ( E 3 E 2 )
12
(11.137)
ν13 < ( E1 E 2 )
12
Whenever the elastic constants in an AUTODYN-2D model are defined or redefined the
three conditions above are tested and the user is informed if any of them are violated.
is tested against 2Y2 / 3 to determine whether yielding has occurred. If it has then the plastic
flow is treated in an isotropic manner with the stress deviators for the cell scaled so that the
material state is dropped back normal to the yield surface. All subsequent flow of the yielded
material is treated in an isotropic manner. Users of this model should not normally compute
190
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
solutions to the point where this post-yielding regime occurs in a significant fraction of the
total volume of the anisotropic material since it clearly no longer models the anisotropy of the
material in a realistic manner
.
The discussion in Section 3 indicated how plastic yielding arose from the inability of real
materials to support arbitrarily large shear stresses. The separation of the flow into separate
elastic and plastic flow regimes was described, together with the criteria for recognizing the
switch between one regime and the other. In a similar manner real materials are not able to
withstand tensile stresses which exceed the material’s local tensile strength. The
computation of the dynamic motion of materials assuming that they always remain
continuous, even if the predicted local stresses reach very large negative values, will lead to
unphysical solutions. Some model has to be constructed to recognize when tensile limits are
reached, to modify the computation to deal with this and to describe the properties of the
material after this formulation has been applied.
• Directional failure These models can be used to model failure initiation which is
directionally dependent. They are therefore very appropriate for different failure modes
such as spalling, plugging, delamination, petalling and discing. They are only
implemented currently for Lagrange / ALE subgrids. They cannot be used for Euler
subgrids since it is not possible to accurately track principal directions in Euler cells and
they are currently not available in Shell subgrids.
191
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
Post-failure response of materials is isotropic for all of the above failure models. Following
failure, the failed material in that cell can no longer sustain any shear stress or any negative
pressures except in the case of the hydrodynamic tensile limit model, where it is assumed
that the material “reheals”, i.e. while the material pressure is set to zero in the cell for that
time step it is assumed that the material can sustain negative pressures down to the
hydrodynamic tensile limits in subsequent flow (it may of course reach that limit again and
the failure process will be repeated).
Note that in Euler subgrids material(s) in a cell which has failed have their volumes adjusted
and void created to satisfy the zero pressure criterion. These materials may be transported
into neighboring cells in the following time-step. They will not carry with them any knowledge
of the failure in the previous time-step and in the donor cell (other than the values of
pressure, volume etc. arising from the failure). The criterion for failure in the recipient cells
will test on the updated pressure etc. within those cells without knowledge of past histories.
While some of the different models can be used in all types of subgrids, others are
implemented in only specific types of subgrids. The current range of applicability is indicated
below:
192
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
the internal energy is recomputed and the material is assumed to have rehealed so that
negative pressures may occur in the next time-step but limited again by the hydrodynamic
tensile limit. This model is very simple to apply and allows calculations to proceed for long
periods of time with tensile waves propagating around the system. It can be used to model
spalling or cavitation. It avoids catastrophic failure and grossly unrealistic solutions occurring
but its very simplicity means that it can only be a rough approximation to reality and users
should treat the solutions with care and avoid drawing conclusions from details within the
spalled or cavitated regions.
The principal directions are defined by the principal stresses so that the shear stress 12, on
the principal plane, is zero. The maximum shear stress lies on planes at 45 degrees to the
principal directions. Failure is initiated if the maximum tensile principal stress, or the
maximum shear stress, exceed their specified limits.
193
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The principal directions are defined by the principal strains so that the shear strain 12, on the
principal plane, is zero. The maximum shear strains lie on planes at 45 degrees to the
principal directions. Failure is initiated if the maximum tensile principal strain, or the
maximum shear strain, exceed their specified limits.
Note that the principal strain angle will coincide with the principal stress angle only as long
as the cell remains elastic. If any plastic flow has taken place in the material within the cell
any subsequent value for the principal strain angle will not necessarily be the same as the
principal strain angle.
The principal directions are defined by the principal stresses so that the shear stress 12, on
the principal plane, is zero. The maximum shear stress lies on planes at 45 degrees to the
principal directions. In this option the tensile strains and the shear strains are calculated on
the principal stress directions, and these will only be principal strain directions if the material
in the cell has remained elastic.
Failure is initiated if any one of the maximum tensile principal stress, or tensile strain on the
principal stress direction, or the maximum shear stress or strain exceeds its specified limit.
194
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The initial “principal” material direction is defined by the user through the input parameters
(5) to (8) and as detailed in Figure 11-16 in the previous section.
Failure is initiated if any of the “principal” material stresses exceed their respective specified
tensile failure stress limits. For shear failures the shear stress on planes parallel to the
“principal” directions are checked against the maximum shear stress 12.
The initial “principal” material direction is defined by the user through the input parameters
(5) to (8) and as detailed in Figure 11-16 in the previous section.
Failure is initiated if any of the “principal” material strains exceeds the respective specified
limit. For shear failures the shear strain on planes parallel to the “principal” directions are
checked against the maximum shear strain 12.
195
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The initial “principal” material direction is defined by the user through the input parameters
(9) to (12) and as detailed in Figure 11-16 in the previous section.
Failure is initiated if any of the “principal” material stresses or strains exceed their respective
failure levels. For shear failures the values of the shear stress and strain on planes parallel
to the “principal” directions are checked against the inputted maximum shear stress and
strain.
These models allow different tensile and shear failure stresses and/or strains for each of the
four “principal” directions. Following failure in a cell, if the stress or strain reaches the user-
specified limiting value, the following occurs:
1. the “principal” material stress in the direction of failure is set to zero.
2. the shear modulus G is set to zero.
3. the shear stress σ12 is set to zero.
4. the average stress (i.e. pressure) is recomputed, using the normal calculation
Post-failure behavior is effectually isotropic as for all the other failure models:
1. the orthotropic elastic incremental stress-strain relations are applied.
2. the average stress (pressure) is recomputed, using the calculation above
3. if the cell is in compression the “principal “ stresses are set equal to the average
stress (pressure) i.e. σii = -p
4. if the cell is in tension all “principal” stresses, and therefore the average stress
(pressure), are set to zero, i.e. σii = -p = 0
196
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
To model the progressive crushing and subsequent weakening of ceramic materials the
model computes a “damage” factor which is usually related to the amount of straining the
material is subjected to. This damage factor is used to reduce the elastic moduli and yield
strength of the material as the calculation proceeds. In the standard model damage is
represented by a parameter D which is zero for all plastic deformation for which the effective
plastic strain is less than a value EPS1. When the strain reaches EPS1 the damage
parameter D increases linearly with strain up to a maximum value Dmax (<1) at a value of the
effective plastic strain EPS2, as shown in Figure 11-17 below.
Damage
1.0
Dmax
Thus
197
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
EPS − EPS1
D = D max (11.138)
EPS2 − EPS1
If a different damage function is required this can be programmed by the user by means of
the user subroutine EXDAM.
To describe the progressive crushing of a material the damage function is used to reduce
the material’s strength. Fully damaged material has some residual strength in compression
but none in tension. The current value of the damage factor D is used to modify the bulk
modulus, shear modulus and yield strength of the material.
Ydam = Y (1 − D) (11.139)
D
Ydam = Y 1 − (11.140)
D max
1.0
p>0
p<0
1 - Dmax
Dmax Damage
198
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
b) The bulk modulus and shear modulus are unaffected in compression, while in tension
they are progressively reduced to zero when damage is complete. In tension therefore they
are both reduced by the factor (1 - D/Dmax) as shown graphically in Figure 11-19 below.
For a more detailed account of the use of this type of model see Persson (1990).
Kdam / K
Gdam / G
p>0
1.0
p<0
Dmax Damage
199
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
Example of a bullet impact onto glass using the Johnson-Holmquist model, Principal Stress
Failure and Crack Softening
• The instantaneous failure models can give rise to very mesh sensitive results.
The crack softening model aims to improve these two aspects of the post-failure response
modeling of brittle materials and is implemented as follows:
• Failure initiation is based on any of the standard tensile failure models. i.e. Hydro,
Principal Stress/Strain, Material Stress/Strain discussed above.
• On failure initiation, the current maximum principal tensile stress in the cell is stored as
variable FAIL.STRES.
• A linear softening slope (variable SOFT.SLOPE) is then defined to reduce the maximum
possible principal tensile stress in the material as a function of crack strain. This
softening slope is defined as a function of the local cell size and a material parameter,
the fracture energy Gf. (Note that the fracture energy is related to the fracture toughness
through the relationship K = EG f ).
• After failure initiation, a maximum principal tensile stress failure surface is defined to limit
the maximum principal tensile stress in the cell and an associated flow surface is used to
accumulate the crack strain.
• Rankine plasticity is used to return trial elastic stresses to the failure surface and calculate
the increments in crack strain. The method of return to the yield surface is specified by
the user through the Global, Material, Options menu. The options are described in detail
below. The fully associative option is traditionally used with this model. However,
200
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
experience at Century Dynamics indicates that this leads to excessive bulking in the
material. The “Associative in π-space” option is therefore the current default.
There are currently three options in relation to the crack softening plastic return algorithm:
The tensile cracking softening algorithm originates from quasi-static numerical analysis and
the associative (Bulking) type return algorithm would normally be used in such applications.
Experience at Century Dynamics however indicates that this option can lead to excessive
bulking of the material. The default option of associative in pi-space has therefore been
chosen. The options are shown described in the two figures below:
Meridional Plane:
Associative flow
in Meridional Yield Surface (Strength model)
Plane (Option)
Non-associative flow in
Meridional Plane (Default)
Pressure
σ2 σ3
201
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
• The variable DAMAGE is used to monitor the level of crack strain in each cell in relation
to the strain at failure defined by the softening slope. The damage is defined to be 0.0 for
an intact cell and 1.0 for a fully failed cell.
• The variable DAMAGE is used to monitor the level of crack strain in each cell in relation
to the strain at failure defined by the softening slope. The damage is defined to be 0.0 for
an intact cell and 1.0 for a fully failed cell.
σ
Lf t2
Slope =
2G f
Area = Gf/L
εTotal Fracture
ε
Figure 11-20 Crack Softening Basics
Crack softening can be used in conjunction with any solid equation of state and strength
model. After tensile failure initiation it should be noted that the equation of state is effectively
linear. Crack softening is currently only available for the Lagrange, ALE and SPH subgrids.
A post processing option has been included to improve the visualization of cracked and
damaged regions of a subgrid. The Cracked plot option is a variation on the Material Status
plot that allows the user to define a level of damage at which to plot a cell as failed. The plot
type is accessed through the Matplot, Cracked option.
203
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
subroutine EXFAIL. Note that the user-subroutine EXFAIL is called for all failure models,
except “None”. The pre-defined options can therefore be modified if required.
6. Erosion criteria
Although AUTODYN can calculate with both Lagrangian and Eulerian subgrids it may
sometimes be the case that materials have to be defined on Lagrangian subgrids even
though it is clear that these materials will be subjected to very large distortions arising from
gross motion of the Lagrange grid. For example a ballistic projectile re-entering the
atmosphere will suffer gross distortion of the outer layers because of re-entry heating and
the material there will become gaseous and be stripped off. An accurate calculation of this
scenario should allow for the ablation of these outer layers. Target and projectile material in
hypervelocity impact problems will be subject to gross distortion and again an accurate
calculation of this problem should follow the material as it “splashes”. In both examples
calculations on an Euler subgrid suffer unless an accurate interface tracking routine is used
and so the user defines the problem on a Lagrange subgrid.
During the subsequent calculation some of these Lagrangian cells can become grossly
distorted and, unless some remedial action is taken, can seriously impair the progress of the
calculation. Therefore procedures have been incorporated into AUTODYN (both 2-D and 3-
D) to remove such Lagrangian cells from the calculation if a pre-defined strain (either
instantaneous geometric strain, incremental geometric strain or effective plastic
strain ) exceeds a specified limit. When a cell is removed from the calculation process in this
way the mass within the cell can either be discarded or distributed to the corner nodes of the
cell. If the mass is retained, conservation of inertia and spatial continuity of inertia are
maintained. However the compressive strength and internal energy of the material within the
cell are lost whether or not the mass is retained.
If the retained inertia option is used and the four (2-D), or eight (3-D), cells around a
particular node are discarded the node becomes a free node. Free nodes are automatically
added to the arrays of slave nodes used in the impact-slide logic in AUTODYN and thus
interact with both sides of an impact-slide boundary.
This discard procedure is known as erosion. However it is important to note that, in general,
this is not true modeling of a physical phenomena (although it could be if calculating the
ablation occurring at the surface of a re-entry body) but a numerical palliative introduced to
overcome the problems associated with the mesh distortions caused by gross motions of a
Lagrangian grid. Because of the losses of internal energy, strength and (possibly) mass,
care must be taken in using this option and erosion strain limits chosen wisely so that cells
204
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
are not discarded (eroded) until they are severely deformed and their compressive strength
and/or mass are not likely to affect the overall results. In general users are recommended to
use limiting values as high as practicable in the absence of any experimental evidence to
check by, but inexperienced users are urged to perform calculations with different values of
the erosion strain limits to determine the effect of this algorithm on their particular problems.
Figure 11-21 below (taken from Hayhurst et al 1994) illustrates clearly the effect of the
values of the limiting erosion strains on the final crater dimensions in a hypervelocity impact
problem. In this problem maximum erosion strains of 300% or higher are appropriate but it
should be noted that these were geometric strains and different values might be more
appropriate if effective plastic strains were being tested.
User selection of an erosion model is made through a pop-up window offering four options:
205
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The “Global, Interact, Inertia” option allows the user to specify whether or not nodes are
retained after erosion.
7. High explosives
High explosives are chemical substances which, when subjected to suitable stimuli, react
chemically to give a very rapid (of order microseconds) release of energy. In the
hydrodynamic theory of detonation this very rapid time interval is shrunk to zero and a
detonation wave is assumed to be a discontinuity which propagates through the unreacted
material instantaneously liberating energy and transforming the explosive into detonating
products. The normal Rankine-Hugoniot relations, expressing the conservation of mass,
momentum and energy across the discontinuity may be used to relate the hydrodynamic
variables across the reaction zone. The only difference between the Rankine-Hugoniot
equations for a shock wave in a chemically inert material and those for a detonation wave is the
inclusion of a chemical energy term in the energy conservation equation.
206
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
Detonation velocity → D
In the notation of Figure 11-22 above the Rankine-Hugoniot equations may be written as;
(p - p 0 )
D2 = v02 (11.141)
(v 0 - v)
u 2 = (p - p 0 ) (v 0 - v) (11.142)
1
e - e0 = Q +
2
(p + p 0 )( v 0 − v) (11.143)
For a given initial pressure p0 , initial density ρ0 = 1/v0 and detonation velocity D the first of
the above equations describes a straight line in the (p, v) plane, known as the Rayleigh line,
defining the locus of all (p, v) states consistent with the prescribed detonation velocity and
conservation of mass and momentum. The third equation is a purely thermodynamic
equation which defines in the (p, v) plane a concave downward curve, known as the
Hugoniot curve, which is the locus of all (p, v) states attainable from (p0, v0) by a
discontinuous transition with energy conservation. The Hugoniot curve for a shock wave in
inert material passes through the point (p0, v0) but for a detonation wave the exothermic
energy term Q in the energy conservation equation results in the Hugoniot curve being
displaced upwards in the (p, v) plane. The points of intersection of the Rayleigh line with the
Hugoniot curve define states consistent with all the conservation relations and the prescribed
propagation velocity (see Figure 11-23).
207
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
From Figure 11-23 it is seen that the CJ hypothesis corresponds to tangency of the Rayleigh
line with the Hugoniot curve. If we denote conditions at the tangent point, known as the CJ
point, by suffix 1 this provides a fourth condition;
− dp 1
= ( p 1 − p 0 )( v 1 − v 0 ) (11.144)
dv 1 H
where suffix H indicates differentiation along the Hugoniot curve. Differentiation of equation
(11.8.3) and use of the first law of thermodynamics show that the entropy S has a turning
208
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
point at (p1, v1) and a second differentiation shows it to be a minimum. Hence the Hugoniot
curve and the adiabat through (p1 , v1 ) are also tangential so that at the CJ point
dp 1 ∂p − γ p1
= 1 = (11.145)
dv 1 H ∂v 1 S v1
where
− ∂ ln p 1
γ =
∂ ln v 1 S
is the adiabatic exponent evaluated at the CJ point (and does not necessarily retain the
same numerical value at any other state point). If p0 is neglected in comparison with p1 (there
is usually a factor of order 105 between them) then from manipulation of the above equations
we can obtain,
v1 γ
= (11.146)
v0 γ + 1
ρ0 D 2
p1 = = ( γ + 1) ρ 0 u 1 2 (11.147)
γ +1
2
D
e1 = Q + (11.148)
γ + 1
where Q = Q + e0. Thus the CJ pressure can be related to the measured detonation velocity
through a single parameter.
Because the detonation wave is assumed to be infinitesimally thin and the detonation
process to be instantaneous we are concerned only with changes of state from the CJ point
in the (p, v) plane. The detonation products may either be subjected to increasing pressure
209
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
from shocks or compression waves or they may decrease in pressure through adiabatic
expansion. Following expansion they may suffer an increase in pressure from subsequent
compression waves or shocks. However because the detonation products are very hot it is
difficult to change their entropy significantly so both for pressures above and below the CJ
pressure the achievable states lie close to the adiabat passing through the CJ point ( known
usually as the CJ adiabat). Therefore an equation of state of a Gruneisen form and based on
the CJ adiabat as the reference curve promises to be a good representation of the behavior
of the detonation products. Attention has been therefore concentrated on developing good
analytic forms for the CJ adiabat.
ln p
CJ point
Av-γ
ln v
p = A v −γ (11.149)
p = A v −γ (11.150)
with γ assumed to be constant. The adiabat is a straight line in the (ln p, ln v) plane as
shown in Figure 11-24. This relation was shown to be true at the CJ point (see equations
(11.146) to (11.148)) so the assumption of ideal gas behavior extends the region of
application into pressures neighboring the CJ state. It has been shown experimentally that
the ideal gas assumption gives a reasonable description of the true behavior for shock
compression up to about twice the CJ pressure and for adiabatic expansion from the CJ
state down to about half the CJ pressure for an explosive whose prescribed initial density is
close to its ultimate density. If it is known that the region of interest in the detonation
products remains near the CJ state then the simplicity of this form of equation of state has
210
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
much to recommend it, particularly for exploratory calculations. The values of γ at the CJ
point (γ1 in our notation, or γ CJ as it is often written) for many explosives of interest lie in the
interval 2.7 < γ 1 < 2.8, so a value within this region is a reasonable value to use. The value γ
= 3 has been often used since this value leads to great simplicity in obtaining analytic
solutions to one-dimensional problems. A major failing of this form of equation of state is
that, from the above equations taking Q constant
D 2 = 2 ( γ − 1) Q (11.151)
p = Av − γ + Bv − (1 + ω ) (11.152)
where A, γ, and ω are constants and B is a function of entropy, differing for each adiabat.
The value of γ is no longer that at the CJ point (but will not differ greatly from it) but at low
pressures the second term is dominant and models the behavior of gases at large
expansions - see Figure 11-25. The e (p, v) relation corresponding to the above form of
adiabat is usually written as
( )
e − e r ( v r ) = βv r p − p r ( v r ) (11.153)
211
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
p = Av − γ + Bv − (1 + ω ) + Ce − rv (11.154)
where C and r are constants chosen to fit the additional data. An equation containing a
similar exponential term, justified by solid state theory, was investigated by Jones during the
1939-45 War. The energy is still determined from the equation (11.153).
212
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
The Wilkins form of equation is capable of predicting the motion correctly until the pressure
in the products falls below about 5 kbar but then becomes insufficiently energetic. To fit this
data it was proposed (Lee 1968) that the reference adiabat should be further modified by
replacing the first term (the power law term) in the Wilkins equation by a second exponential
term to give
ω − r1v ω − r2 v ωe
p = C1 1 − e + C2 1 − e + (11.156)
r1 v r2 v v
This form is known as the “Jones - Wilkins - Lee” (JWL) equation of state and is currently in
favor for hydrodynamic calculations of detonation product expansions to pressures down to
1 kbar. The values of the constants C1, r1, C2, r2, B and ω for many common explosives have
been determined from dynamic experiments and are available to AUTODYN users in a
provided material library. The values of these constants should be considered as a set of
interdependent parameters and one constant cannot be changed unilaterally without
considering the effect of this change on the other parameters. Care must be taken in using
this form if pressures go significantly above the CJ value since the exponential terms can
give an unrealistic behavior at high pressures. Some workers have modified the form of
equation to merge into a straight line adiabat above the CJ point, determining the constants
for the extrapolation by ensuring continuity in conditions at the CJ point.
213
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
These have been successful in providing satisfactory criteria in simple geometries but have
not been so successful for more complex problems. In these problems above the initiation
threshold and in normal studies of the detonation of high explosives it is assumed that the
shock wave is strong enough to give complete detonation of the explosive and an
instantaneous transition to the CJ state. The detonation wave is assumed to travel at the
prescribed detonation velocity D and its path from the predefined initiation point can be
214
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
determined a priori. More complicated models of initiation and growth of detonation have
been developed in an attempt to explain the wealth of experimental results. An early model
was the Forest fire model (Mader & Forest 1976) while a later and more successful model
was the Lee-Tarver model (Lee & Tarver 1980). The latter model has been implemented in
AUTODYN.
215
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
arrival time at a point such as B it is necessary to determine the distance OX, together with
the distance YB, the distance from B along its tangent to the obstacle and also the arc length
XY along the obstacle Values of YB and XY vary for all points in the “shadow zone”. Thus
determination of the arrival times of all points in the “shadow zone” would require very
extensive and time-consuming calculations and a simpler method is used in AUTODYN.
BT(X1) = O1 X1 / D
BT(X2) = O1 O2 / D + O2 X2 / D
BT(X3) = Min [ O1 X3 ; O1 O2 + O2 X3 ]/ D = O1 X3 / D
(even though X3 is within the region of influence of O2 )
216
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
217
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
218
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
obstacles, corners, etc. Cell detonation times, which are indicated as negative numbers, can
be seen through contour plots of variable ALPHA.
In previous versions this had to be done with judicious use of multiple detonation points with
limited ranges of applications. The limiting of the range of application for a detonation point
is now no longer needed and has been removed from the options.
If you are using the direct path option, detonation nodes, lines and circles need not lie within
the grid for detonations to develop. For example, a detonation point can be specified at the
origin for a grid generated with a wedge predef (which has an inner radius greater than
zero). However, detonation points must lie within the grid if the indirect path option is used.
For the wedge predef, using the indirect path option, no detonation will occur unless the
detonation point is placed within the first radial cell of the grid.
One further limitation of the indirect path option is that paths cannot be computed through
multiple subgrids. If a detonation point is placed in one subgrid, the detonation from this
point cannot propagate to another subgrid. If this is required, you must place one or more
detonation points in the second subgrid with the appropriate initiation times required to
achieve the required detonation.
219
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
considerable time. In such cases the fine details of the detonation within the explosive
charge are of little significance. The chemical energy can be added to the initial values of the
cell values of the explosive material and the starting conditions evaluated with the material
still at rest and at its initial density. Since the Hugoniot and CJ adiabat are very close to one
another in the (p, v) plane the starting conditions are very close to the point P on the
adjoining figure (i.e. the point (pP ,v0 )). Hence the “constant volume” terminology.
220
Chapter 11. Material Modeling
∂F
= I (1 − F) µ r + G (1 − F) F y p z
x x
(11.157)
∂t
ρ
µ= −1 (11.158)
ρ0
F was the reaction ratio (ratio of the mass of the gaseous explosive to the total mass of the
explosive), p was the pressure in the explosive and I, x, r, G, y, and z were constants. In this
model r = 4, so the ignition term depended on the fourth power of the compression of the
explosive.
In a later model (Tarver, Hallquist & Erickson 1985) an additional term was added to overcome
the deficiencies of the earlier model in matching data for very short shock pulse initiation. In this
model, which is implemented in AUTODYN, there is a three fold process of ignition, growth and
completion and the reaction rate is given by:
∂F
= I (1 − F) (µ − a ) + G 1 (1 − F) F d p y + G 2 (1 − F) F g p z
b x e e
(11.159)
∂t
In AUTODYN the Lee-Tarver equation of state is used to model both the detonation and
expansion of high explosives. In version 3, the solid inert explosive is modeled using a shock
equation of state and the gaseous expansion products modeled with the JWL equation of
state with the reaction rate given by equation (11.159). With the introduction of version 4, the
Lee-Tarver ignition and growth model of explosive initiation in AUTODYN has been updated
to allow use of either a Shock EOS or a JWL EOS to model the unreacted explosive.
221
References
222
References
References
Amsden, A A, Ruppel, H M, & Hirt, C W (1980). “SALE: A Simplified ALE program for fluid
flow at all speeds”, Los Alamos Report LA-8095, 1980
Amsden, A A, & Ruppel, H M, (1981). “SALE-3D: A Simplified ALE program for calculating
three-dimensional fluid flow”, Los Alamos Report LA-8905, 1981
Belytschko, T, et. al. (1984). “Explicit algorithms for the nonlinear dynamics of shells”,
Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 42, 225-251.
Belytschko, T, et. al. (1992). “Advances in one-point quadrature shell elements”, Comp.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 1992, 93-107.
Brodie & Hormuth (1966). “The PUFF-66 Computer Program”, AFWL-TR-66-48, Air Force
Weapons Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, May 1966
Butcher, B M, & Karnes, C H (1968). Sandia Labs. Res Rep. SC-RR-67-3040, Sandia
Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, April 1968
Carroll, M M, & Holt, A C (1972). “Static and Dynamic Pore Collapse Relations for Ductile
Porous Materials.” J. Appl.Phys., 43, 4, pp1626 et seq., 1972
Case, J, & Chilvers, A H (1971). “Strength of Materials and Structures”, Arnold, 1971
Cochran, S G, & Guinan, M W (1976). “Bauschinger Effect in Uranium”, LLNL Rep. UCID-
17105, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1976
223
References
Cowler, M S & Hancock, S L (1979). “Dynamic fluid-structure analysis of shells using the
PISCES 2DELK computer code.” 5th Int. Conf. On Structural Dynamics in Reactor
Technology, 1979 Paper B1/6
Forest, C A (1978). “Burning and Detonation”, Los Alamos Rep. LA-7245, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, July 1978
Fowles, G R, & Curran, D G (1962). AFSWC -TDR- 62-22, Air Force Special Weapons
Center, 1962
Hancock, S (1979). “Soil and Rock Strength Models”, PISCES-2DELK Application Note
78-14, Physics International, August 1979
Hallquist, J O, (1982) “A theoretical manual for DYNA3D”, LLNL Report UCID-19401, June
1982
Harlow, F H & Amsden, A A. (1971) “A Numerical Fluid Dynamics Calculation Method for all
Flow Speeds”. J. Comp. Phys. 8 pp197-213
Held, M (1984). “Critical Area for the Initiation of High Explosive Charges”, pp 555 et seq,
Shock Waves in Condensed Matter, Elsevier, 1984
Herrmann, W (1969). “Constitutive Equation for the Dynamic Compaction of Ductile Porous
Materials”, J. Appl. Phys., 40, 6, pp 2490-2499, May 1969
224
References
Itoh, M & Cowler, M S (1987). “An interactive Lagrangian approach to two dimensional
penetration analysis.” 9th Int. Conf. On Structural Dynamics in Reactor Technology,
1987 Paper B2/5.
Johnson, G R, & Cook, W H (1983). “A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals Subjected to
Large Strains, High Strain Rates and High Temperatures”, Proc. Seventh Int. Nat.
Symposium on Ballistics, April 1983
Morgan, K (1973). “An Expansion Equation of State Subroutine”, Comp. Phys. Comm., pp
64-68, 5, North-Holland, 1973
Persson, A (1990). “CM1 - A simple Model for the Dynamic Deformation and Failure
Properties of Brittle Materials”. Dynamic Research AB., Sweden, 1990
225
References
Ramsay, J B, & Popolato, A (1965). “Analysis of Shock Wave and Initiation Data for Solid
Explosives”, pp 233 et seq, Proc 4th Symposium on Detonation, October 1965
Richtmyer, R. D. & Morton, K. W. (1967), “Difference Methods for Initial Value Problems”,
2nd edition, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1967
Salvadori, M G, Skalak, R, & Weidlinger P (1960). J. Eng. Mech. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc.
Civil Engrs., EM2, pp 2447 et seq, 1960
Skidmore, I C (1965). “An Introduction to Shock Waves in Solids” pp 131-147, Appl. Mat.
Res., July 1965
Skidmore, I C (1967). “The Physics of Detonation”, pp 239-257, Sci. Prog., 55, Oxford,
1967
Tarver, C M, Hallquist, J O, & Erickson, L M (1985). “Modeling Short Pulse Duration Shock
Initiation of Solid Explosives”, pp 65 et seq, Proc. 8th Symposium on Detonation,
July 1985
Van Leer, B (1977). “Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme. IV. A new
Approach to Numerical Convection”, J. Comp. Phys. 23, pp 276-299, 1977
Van Leer, B (1979). “Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme. V. A Second
Order Sequel to Godunov’s Method”, J. Comp. Phys. 32, pp 101-136, 1979
226
References
van Thiel, (1967). General ed., “Compendium of Shock Wave Data”, UCRL 508, Vols. 1 &
2, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1968
von Mises, R (1928). Z. Angew Math. u. Mech., 8, [English Translation: UCRL Trans. 872]
Walker, F E, & Wasley, R J (1969). “Critical Energy for Shock Initiation of Heterogeneous
Explosives”, pp 9 et seq, Explosivestoffe, 17, 9, 1969
Walsh, J M, Rice, M H, McQueen, R G, & Yarger, F L (1957) Phys. Rev., 108, 196, 1957
Zukas, J A (1990). “High Velocity Impact Dynamics”, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990
227
References
INDEX
coordinates, corotational (shell) ..................132
A Courant condition ........................................103
Courant condition for time step (lagrange)....53
ablation ....................................................... 207 Courant condition for time step (Lagrange) ..83
acceleration, nodal ....................................... 49 crack softening ............................................205
acoustic impedance................................ 52, 82 crushing, progressive ..................................203
adiabatic exponent ..................................... 145 cumulative damage model . See failure models
ALE advection ........................................ 94, 99 curvature terms, added to strain rates (shell)
ALE computational cycle .............................. 90 ................................................................137
ALE governing equations ............................. 86
ALE methodology ......................................... 90 D
ALE Processor in 2D and 3D ....................... 85
axial symmetry solution for shell nodal forces damage factor .............................................203
............................................................... 124 damage function..........................................203
damage function, user subroutine for .........204
B damping, static ..............................................49
deformation, Lagrange mesh ........................31
B matrix, shell ..................................... 135, 137 density ...........................................................65
Bauschinger effect...................................... 180 detonation....................................................148
Belytschko-Tsay shell element................... 129 detonation curve, Hugoniot diagram for......212
blow-off ....................................................... 147 detonation velocity ......................................148
boundary conditions, 2D Lagrange ........ 50–53 detonation wave, discontinuities across........210
boundary conditions, 3D Lagrange .............. 80 detonation, burn on compression model.....222
boundary zones ............................................ 32 detonation, burn on time model.............219–22
brittle materials ........................................... 181 detonation, constant volume burn ...............223
bulk failure models............. See failure models detonation, initiation and growth .................223
bulk modulus .............................................. 145 detonation, initiation of ................................218
burn on compression, detonation model .... 222 deviatoric, stress-strain relations...................27
burn on time, detonation model............ 219–22 distortion, excessive......................................47
burn, constant volume detonation model ... 223 distortional energy, change in .......................38
dumping, hourglass.................................44, 76
C dumping, static ..............................................79
dynamic relaxation ..................................50, 79
Cartesian coordinates, shell ....................... 132
cell coordinates, as programmed in
AUTODYN-3D.......................................... 64 E
cell surface in 3D space ............................... 62 effective geometric strain, incremental .......176
cell volume.................................................... 64 effective plastic strain..................................176
centering of variables, shell............. See shell, effective plastic strain rate...........................176
centering of variables effective strains, calculation of ....................175
ceramics, inelastic behavior of ................... 202 elastic flow region........................................166
CFL condition ............................................. 103 elastic limit...................................................169
Chapman-Jouget (CJ) hypothesis.............. 212 elastic-plastic material response .................173
complex materials....................................... 147 energy conservation eq...........................28, 59
concrete, inelastic behavior of.................... 202 energy conservation, testing, errors........54, 84
Convention for zones and nodes.................. 66 energy equation, solution of ........................149
Conventions equation of state............................. 28, 59, 143
indexing .................................................... 89 equation of state, hydrodynamic .................149
coordinate system, Lagrange-2D ................. 25 equation of state, solution of .......................149
coordinate system, Lagrange-3D ................. 57
229
Index
230
References
231
Index
232
References
U Z
User defined erosion criteria ...................... 210 Zerilli-Armstrong model .. See strength models
user defined strength model........ See strength zonal area, change of....................................34
models zone areas, computation of...........................32
zone volumes ................................................32
zones convention ....................................29, 60
V
variables notation table............................. 9–15
233
Table of Figures
Table of Figures
Figure 3-1 Lagrangian Mesh Distortion ................................................................................. 25
Figure 3-2 Examples of Lagrangian Subgrids ....................................................................... 28
Figure 3-3 (I, J) Convention for Zones and Nodes ................................................................ 29
Figure 3-4 Lagrange Computation Cycle .............................................................................. 30
Figure 3-5 Location of Variables ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-6 Typical Rezone Procedure................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-7 Computation of Zonal Areas ................................................................................ 32
Figure 3-8 Determination of Internal Forces.......................................................................... 39
Figure 3-9 Determination of Boundary Forces ...................................................................... 42
Figure 3-10 Zone Distortion with No Change of Strain or Stress .......................................... 44
Figure 3-11 Region of Hourglass Distortion .......................................................................... 44
Figure 3-12 Typical Lagrangian Mesh Tangling .................................................................... 46
Figure 4-1 Oblique Impact of a Steel Projectile on an Aluminum Target .............................. 55
Figure 4-2 (I, J, K) Convention for Zones and Nodes............................................................ 59
Figure 4-3 Lagrange Computation Cycle .............................................................................. 60
Figure 4-4 Location of Variables ........................................................................................... 61
Figure 4-5 Surfaces Defined by Four Cell Nodes.................................................................. 61
Figure 4-6 Relationship between Computational Cell in the Physical (x,y,z) Space to the Unit
Cube in (ξ, η, ζ) Space.................................................................................................. 62
Figure 4-7 (I, J, K) Convention for Zones and Nodes............................................................ 64
Figure 4-8 Determination of Nodal Forces in Three Dimensions .......................................... 70
Figure 4-9 Surface of Integration for a Boundary Force........................................................ 72
Figure 4-10 2D Zone Distortion with No Change of Strain or Stress................................... 74
Figure 4-11 3D Hourglass Distortion .................................................................................... 74
Figure 5-1 Convention for Zones and Nodes in 2D and 3D Geometries............................... 86
Figure 5-2 ALE Computation Cycle....................................................................................... 87
Figure 5-3 Potential Lagrange and constrained grids ........................................................... 90
Figure 5-4 Face of a three-dimensional cell in potential Lagrange and constrained grids .... 95
Figure 6-1 Computational Cycle for Shells.......................................................................... 104
Figure 6-2 Nomenclature for a Thin Shell in Planar Symmetry ........................................... 105
Figure 6-3 Nomenclature for a Thin Shell in Axial Symmetry.............................................. 105
Figure 6-4 Internal Forces on a Shell Element in Planar Symmetry ................................... 107
Figure 6-5 Internal Forces on a Shell Element in Axial Symmetry ...................................... 108
Figure 6-6 Interaction of One or more Shell Subgrids......................................................... 111
Figure 6-7 Representation of Shell Elements and Centering of Dependent Variables ....... 111
Figure 6-8 Angle between Two Line Segments .................................................................. 113
Figure 6-9 Constant Angle Constraint at an End Node ....................................................... 115
Figure 6-10 Nodal Force Calculation on Two Adjacent Segments...................................... 118
234
Table of Figures
235