04 Plenary by Bischoff PDF

Universitt Stuttgart
Fakultt fr Bau undUmweltingenieurwissenschaften
Baustatik und Baudynamik
Modeling of Shells with

Three-dimensional Finite Elements
Manfred Bischoff
Institute of Structural Mechanics

University of Stuttgart
bischoff@ibb.uni-stuttgart.de
1
acknowledgements
Ekkehard Ramm
Kai-Uwe Bletzinger
Thomas Cichosz
Michael Gee
Stefan Hartmann
Wolfgang A. Wall
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)
Leonhard Euler 1707 - 1783
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff

1824 - 1887
Shell Theories / Shell Models
History
membrane and bending action

inextensional deformations
Lord Rayleigh (John W. Strutt)
first shell theory = Kirchhoff-Love theory

This paper is really an attempt to construct a theory
of the vibrations of bells
August E.H. Love, 1888
All you need is Love?
first shell theory = Kirchhoff-Love theory

This paper is really an attempt to construct a theory
of the vibrations of bells
August E.H. Love, 1888
Evolution of Shell Models

fundamental assumptions
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
of material law
- straight
- unstretched
xz 0
yz 0
Reissner-Mindlin, Naghdi

zz 0, zz 0
contradiction
of material law
- straight
- unstretched
xz 0
yz 0
7-parameter formulation

zz 0, zz 0
contradiction
of material law
- straight
- unstretched
xz 0
yz 0
multi-layer, multi-director
10

from classical thin shell theories to 3d-shell models
1888: Kirchhoff-Love theory
membrane and bending effects
middle of 20th century: Reissner/Mindlin/Naghdi
+ transverse shear strains
1968: degenerated solid approach (Ahmad, Irons, Zienkiewicz)
shell theory = semi-discretization of 3d-continuum
1990+: 3d-shell finite elements, solid shells,
surface oriented (continuum shell) elements
Schoop, Simo et al, Bchter and Ramm, Bischoff and Ramm,
Krtzig, Sansour, Betsch, Gruttmann and Stein, Miehe and Seifert,
Hauptmann and Schweizerhof, Brank et al., Wriggers and Eberlein,
Klinkel, Gruttmann and Wagner, and many, many others
since ~40 years parallel development of theories and finite elements
11

the degenerated solid approach
Ahmad, Irons and Zienkiewicz (1968)
1. take a three-dimensional finite element (brick)

2. assign a mid surface and a thickness direction
3. introduce shell assumptions and
refer all variables to mid surface quantities
(displacements, rotations, curvatures, stress resultants)
12
Derivation from 3d-continuum (Naghdi)

geometry of shell-like body
3d-shell Models
13
Derivation from 3d-continuum (Naghdi)

deformation of shell-like body
3d-shell Models
14
7-parameter Shell Model

geometry of shell-like body
displacements
+ 7th parameter for linear transverse normal strain distribution
3d-shell Models
15

linearized strain tensor in three-dimensional space
approximation (semi-discretization)
strain components
+ linear part via 7th parameter
3d-shell Models
16

in-plane strain components
membrane
bending
higher order effects
3d-shell Models
17
Semi-discretization of Shell Continuum

straight cross sections: inherent to theory or discretization?
discretization
(3-dim.)
linear shape functions

+ additional assumptions
dimensional reduction
discretization
(2-dim.)
equivalence of shell theory and degenerated solid approach, Bchter and Ramm (1992)
Solid-like Shell or Shell-like Solid?
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,
Three-dimensional FEM for Shells
22
Shell Analysis with Standard Solid Elements

a nave approach: take a commercial code and go!
pressure load
maximum
displacement
element formulation
include extra displacements
exclude extra displacements
clamped
23

a nave approach: take a commercial code and go!
3.0
displacement

= method of incompatible modes
2.0

= standard Galerkin elements
1.0
0.0
0
100000
200000
d.o.f.
300000
24

one layer of standard Galerkin elements yields wrong results
shell elements
3.0
displacement

= method of incompatible modes
2.0

= standard Galerkin elements
1.0
0.0
0
100000
200000
d.o.f.
300000
25

refinement in transverse direction helps (but is too expensive!)
shell elements
3.0
displacement
2 layers of
standard Galerkin elements
2.0
Poisson thickness locking

(volumetric locking)
1.0
7th parameter in 3d-shell model = incompatible mode

0.0
0
100000
200000
d.o.f.
300000
26
Three-dimensional Analysis of Shells

there are (at least) three different strategies
3d-shell (e.g. 7-parameter formulation)
two-dimensional mesh
director + difference vector
6 (+1) d.o.f. per node
stress resultants
continuum shell (solid shell)
three-dimensional mesh
3 d.o.f. per node (+ internal d.o.f.)
stress resultants
3d-solid (brick)
three-dimensional mesh
3 d.o.f. per node (+ internal d.o.f.)
3d stresses
27
Surface Oriented Formulation
nodes on upper and lower shell surface
nodal displacements instead of difference vector
+ 7th parameter for linear transverse normal strain distribution
3d-shell Models
28
Surface Oriented Formulation

membrane and bending strains
membrane
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
modification of material law required
Asymptotic Analysis
31
first order shear deformation theory (Reissner/Mindlin, Naghdi)
5-parameter model
modification of material law required
Asymptotic Analysis
32
shear deformable shell + thickness change
6-parameter model
asymptotically correct for membrane state
Asymptotic Analysis
33
shear deformable shell + linear thickness change
7-parameter model
asymptotically correct for membrane +bending
Asymptotic Analysis
34
Numerical Experiment (Two-dimensional)

a two-dimensional example: discretization of a beam with 2d-solids
Asymptotic Analysis
35
Numerical Experiment (Two-dimensional)

a two-dimensional example: discretization of a beam with 2d-solids
Asymptotic Analysis
36
Requirements
Requirements
37
Locking Phenomena
3d-shell/continuum shell vs. solid
3d-shell / continuum shell
in-plane shear locking
3d-solid
shear locking
transverse shear locking

membrane locking
(membrane locking)
Poisson thickness locking
volumetric locking
curvature thickness locking
trapezoidal locking
Numerical Efficiency and Locking
38
Comparison: Continuum Shell vs. 3d-solid

differences with respect to finite element technology
and underlying shell theory
continuum shell
3d-solid
stress resultants
stresses
distinct thickness direction
all directions are equal
linear in 3
quadratic in 3
39
Trapezoidal Locking (Curvature Thickness locking)

numerical example: pinched ring
40

numerical example: pinched ring
displacement
1,0E+04
1,0E+04
continuum shell, DSG method
1,0E+03
1,0E+03
1,0E+02
1,0E+02
3d-solid with EAS
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

origin of locking-phenomenon explained geometrically
pure bending of an initially curved element
leads to artificial transverse normal strains and stresses

trapezoidal locking distortion sensitivity
42
Cylindrical Shell Subject to External Pressure

slenderness
shell elements
coarse mesh, 4608 d.o.f.
3d-solid elements
43

slenderness
shell elements
fine mesh, 18816 d.o.f.
3d-solid elements
44

slenderness
shell elements
3d-solid elements
factor 13!
still 70% error!
due to trapezoidal locking
45
Finite Element Technology: Summary

3d-shell, continuum shell, solid shell,
stress resultants allow separate treatment
of membrane and bending terms
anisotropic element technology
(trapezoidal locking)
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
Finite Element Technology: Summary

triangles, tetrahedrons and wedges
A triangle!!
tetrahedrons: hopeless
wedges: may be o.k.
in transverse direction
problem: meshing with hexahedrons
extremely demanding
47
Requirements
Requirements
48
Fundamental Requirement: The Patch Test

one layer of 3d-elements, x = const.
3d-solid
continuum shell, DSG
Consistency and the Patch Test
49

one layer of 3d-elements, x = const., directors skewed
3d-solid
50
Two-dimensional Model Problem

the fundamental dilemma of finite element technology
modeling constant stresses
51
Two-dimensional Model Problem

the fundamental dilemma of finite element technology
or pure bending?
52

one layer of 3d-elements, x = const., directors skewed
continuum shell, no DSG
(trapezoidal locking in bending)
3d-solid
53

same computational results, different scales for visualization
avoiding trapezoidal locking

contradicts satisfaction of
patch test

(trapezoidal locking in bending)
much smaller error

originates from
shell assumptions!?
(known since long,

e.g. R. McNeal text book)
54

curvilinear components of strain tensor
consistency: exactly represent
55
Convergence
mesh refinement by subdivision
56
Convergence
mesh refinement
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
effect from theory

remains
1000
950
effect from element technology

diminishes with mesh refinement
900
850
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
58
Convergence
mesh refinement
1050
effect from theory

remains
1000
950
effect from element technology

diminishes with mesh refinement
900
850
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
quadratic terms ought to be included unless directors are normal

non-satisfaction of patch test harmless when subdivision is used
59
Requirements
Requirements
60
Panel with Skew Hole

distorted elements, skew directors
3d-problems
61

continuum shell elements
continuum shell
no DSG
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
62

continuum shell
no DSG
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
63

continuum shell
no DSG
continuum shell
DSG
3d-problems
64

comparison to brick elements
continuum shell
DSG
3d-solid (brick)
3d-problems
65
Cylinder with Skew Hole

distorted and curved elements, skew directors
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
The Conditioning Problem

condition numbers for classical shell and 3d-shell elements
classical shell:
3d-shell:
Wall, Gee and Ramm (2000)
spectral condition norm
thin shells worse than thick shells
3d-shell elements (
) worse than standard shell elements (
)
72
Significance of Condition Number

error evolution in iterative solvers
error of solution vector x after kth iteration
estimated number of iterations (CG solver)
comparison of three different concepts
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
Eigenvectors (Deformation Modes)
75
Scaled Director Conditioning

scaling of director
a1 ,,a
a2
c a 3 a=3 d=* d
76

scaling of director
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

04 Plenary by Bischoff PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Plenary by Bischoff PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universitt Stuttgart

Fakultt fr Bau undUmweltingenieurwissenschaften

Baustatik und Baudynamik

Modeling of Shells with

Institute of Structural Mechanics

Baustatik und Baudynamik

Baustatik und Baudynamik

Leonhard Euler 1707 - 1783

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff

Shell Theories / Shell Models

membrane and bending action

Lord Rayleigh (John W. Strutt)

first shell theory = Kirchhoff-Love theory

Shell Theories / Shell Models

All you need is Love?

first shell theory = Kirchhoff-Love theory

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Evolution of Shell Models

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Evolution of Shell Models

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Evolution of Shell Models

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Evolution of Shell Models

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Evolution of Shell Models

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Evolution of Shell Models

1. take a three-dimensional finite element (brick)

Shell Theories / Shell Models

Derivation from 3d-continuum (Naghdi)

Derivation from 3d-continuum (Naghdi)

7-parameter Shell Model

+ 7th parameter for linear transverse normal strain distribution

7-parameter Shell Model

+ linear part via 7th parameter

7-parameter Shell Model

Semi-discretization of Shell Continuum

linear shape functions

Solid-like Shell or Shell-like Solid?

Solid-like Shell or Shell-like Solid?

Solid-like Shell or Shell-like Solid?

Solid-like Shell or Shell-like Solid?

Three-dimensional FEM for Shells

Shell Analysis with Standard Solid Elements

Three-dimensional FEM for Shells

Shell Analysis with Standard Solid Elements

include extra displacements

exclude extra displacements

Three-dimensional FEM for Shells

Shell Analysis with Standard Solid Elements

include extra displacements

exclude extra displacements

Three-dimensional FEM for Shells

Shell Analysis with Standard Solid Elements

Poisson thickness locking

7th parameter in 3d-shell model = incompatible mode

Three-dimensional FEM for Shells

Three-dimensional Analysis of Shells

Three-dimensional FEM for Shells

Surface Oriented Formulation

nodes on upper and lower shell surface