Professional Documents
Culture Documents
04 Plenary by Bischoff PDF
04 Plenary by Bischoff PDF
Universitt Stuttgart
Fakultt fr Bau undUmweltingenieurwissenschaften
acknowledgements
Ekkehard Ramm
Kai-Uwe Bletzinger
Thomas Cichosz
Michael Gee
Stefan Hartmann
Wolfgang A. Wall
Universitt Stuttgart
Fakultt fr Bau undUmweltingenieurwissenschaften
outline
evolution of shell models
solid-like shell or shell-like solid element?
locking and finite element technology
how three-dimensional are
3d-shells / continuum shells / solid shells?
History
early attempts
ring models (Euler 1766)
lattice models (J. Bernoulli 1789)
continuous models (Germain,
Navier, Kirchhoff, 19th century)
History
zz = 0, ( zz = 0 )
contradiction
requires modification
of material law
cross sections remain
- straight
- unstretched
- normal to midsurface
xz = 0
yz = 0
Kirchhoff-Love
zz = 0, ( zz = 0 )
contradiction
requires modification
of material law
cross sections remain
- straight
- unstretched
- normal to midsurface
xz 0
yz 0
Reissner-Mindlin, Naghdi
zz 0, zz 0
contradiction
requires modification
of material law
cross sections remain
- straight
- unstretched
- normal to midsurface
xz 0
yz 0
7-parameter formulation
zz 0, zz 0
contradiction
requires modification
of material law
cross sections remain
- straight
- unstretched
- normal to midsurface
xz 0
yz 0
multi-layer, multi-director
10
11
12
3d-shell Models
13
3d-shell Models
14
displacements
3d-shell Models
15
approximation (semi-discretization)
strain components
3d-shell Models
16
membrane
bending
higher order effects
3d-shell Models
17
dimensional reduction
discretization
(2-dim.)
equivalence of shell theory and degenerated solid approach, Bchter and Ramm (1992)
18
Large Strains
metal forming, using 3d-shell elements (7-parameter model)
19
Large Strains
metal forming, using 3d-shell elements (7-parameter model)
3d stress state
contact
20
Large Strains
very thin shell (membrane), 3d-shell elements
21
Motivation
why solid elements instead of 3d-shell elements?
three-dimensional data from CAD
complex structures with stiffeners and intersections
connection of thin and thick regions,
layered shells, damage and fracture,
22
clamped
23
3.0
displacement
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
100000
200000
d.o.f.
300000
24
shell elements
3.0
displacement
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
100000
200000
d.o.f.
300000
25
shell elements
3.0
displacement
2 layers of
standard Galerkin elements
2.0
1.0
100000
200000
d.o.f.
300000
26
27
3d-shell Models
28
bending
higher order
effects
continuum shell formulation
3d-shell Models
29
Requirements
what we expect from finite elements for 3d-modeling of shells
asymptotically correct (thickness 0)
numerically efficient for thin shells (locking-free)
consistent (patch test)
competitive to usual 3d-elements for 3d-problems
required for both 3d-shell elements and solid elements for shells
Requirements
30
A Hierarchy of Models
thin shell theory (Kirchhoff-Love, Koiter)
3-parameter model
Asymptotic Analysis
31
A Hierarchy of Models
first order shear deformation theory (Reissner/Mindlin, Naghdi)
5-parameter model
Asymptotic Analysis
32
A Hierarchy of Models
shear deformable shell + thickness change
6-parameter model
Asymptotic Analysis
33
A Hierarchy of Models
shear deformable shell + linear thickness change
7-parameter model
Asymptotic Analysis
34
Asymptotic Analysis
35
Asymptotic Analysis
36
Requirements
what we expect from finite elements for 3d-modeling of shells
asymptotically correct (thickness 0)
numerically efficient for thin shells (locking-free)
consistent (patch test)
competitive to usual 3d-elements for 3d-problems
required for both 3d-shell elements and solid elements for shells
Requirements
37
Locking Phenomena
3d-shell/continuum shell vs. solid
3d-solid
shear locking
(membrane locking)
volumetric locking
trapezoidal locking
38
continuum shell
3d-solid
stress resultants
stresses
linear in 3
quadratic in 3
39
40
displacement
1,0E+04
1,0E+04
1,0E+03
1,0E+03
1,0E+02
1,0E+02
1,0E+01
1,0E+01
3d-solid
(standard Galerkin)
1,0E+00
1,0E+00
1,0E-01
1,0E-01
11
10
10
100
100
d.o.f.
1000
1000
41
42
3d-solid elements
coarse mesh, 4608 d.o.f.
43
3d-solid elements
coarse mesh, 4608 d.o.f.
44
3d-solid elements
coarse mesh, 4608 d.o.f.
factor 13!
fine mesh, 4608 d.o.f.
still 70% error!
45
3d-solid (brick)
no transverse direction
no distinction of membrane / bending
(usually) suffer from trapezoidal locking
general
effective methods for transverse shear locking available
membrane locking mild when (bi-) linear shape functions are used
46
A triangle!!
tetrahedrons: hopeless
wedges: may be o.k.
in transverse direction
problem: meshing with hexahedrons
extremely demanding
47
Requirements
what we expect from finite elements for 3d-modeling of shells
asymptotically correct (thickness 0)
numerically efficient for thin shells (locking-free)
consistent (patch test)
competitive to usual 3d-elements for 3d-problems
required for both 3d-shell elements and solid elements for shells
Requirements
48
3d-solid
49
3d-solid
50
51
52
3d-solid
53
54
55
Convergence
mesh refinement by subdivision
56
Convergence
mesh refinement
continuum shell, no DSG
3d-solid (reference)
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
57
Convergence
mesh refinement
1050
1000
950
900
850
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
58
Convergence
mesh refinement
1050
1000
950
900
850
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
59
Requirements
what we expect from finite elements for 3d-modeling of shells
asymptotically correct (thickness 0)
numerically efficient for thin shells (locking-free)
consistent (patch test)
competitive to usual 3d-elements for 3d-problems
required for both 3d-shell elements and solid elements for shells
Requirements
60
3d-problems
61
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
62
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
63
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
64
3d-solid (brick)
3d-problems
65
3d-problems
66
continuum shell
no DSG
3d-problems
continuum shell
DSG
67
continuum shell
no DSG
3d-problems
continuum shell
DSG
68
continuum shell
no DSG
3d-problems
continuum shell
DSG
69
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
3d-solid elements
(bricks)
70
continuum shell
standard Galerkin
3d-problems
3d-solid elements
(bricks)
71
classical shell:
3d-shell:
Wall, Gee and Ramm (2000)
spectral condition norm
thin shells worse than thick shells
3d-shell elements (
)
72
Wall, Gee, Ramm, The challenge of a three-dimensional shell formulation the conditioning
problem, Proc. IASS-IACM, Chania, Crete (2000)
73
Eigenvalue Spectrum
shell, 3d-shell and brick
74
75
a1 ,,a
a2
c a 3 a=3 d=* d
76
linear scaling of w
does not influence results
acts like a preconditioner
77
reference configuration
current configuration
78
Improved Eigenvalue
Spectrum
numerical example
no scaling
scaled director
5116 d.o.f.
BiCGstab solver
ILUT preconditioning
(fill-in 30%)
400 load steps
79
Improved Eigenvalue
Spectrum
numerical example
5116 d.o.f.
BiCGstab solver
ILUT preconditioning
(fill-in 30%)
400 load steps
80
Conclusions
3d-shell and continuum shell (solid shell)
mechanical ingredients identical
stress resultants
flexible and most efficient finite element technology
neglecting higher order terms bad for 3d-applications
best for 3d-analysis of real shells
3d-solids
usually suffer from trapezoidal locking
(curvature thickness locking)
pass all patch tests (consistent)
higher order terms naturally included
best for thick-thin combinations
3d-modeling of Shells
81