8.11.

Unstable Structures
A structure can become unstable when a load reaches its buckling value or when
nonlinear material becomes unstable. It is more common in slender structures than in
bulky structures. The instability could be global (such as a snap-through of a plate) or
local (such as failure of a stiffener). Instability problems usually pose convergence
difficulties and therefore require the application of special nonlinear techniques.
You can apply the following techniques to solve instability problems:
Nonlinear stabilization
A tool for dealing with local instabilities as well as global instability. You can
use it together with nearly any other nonlinear solution technique, such as line
search and automatic time stepping (although not with the arc-length method).
Arc-length method
This method can circumvent global instability when forces are applied. More
importantly, it can simulate the negative slope portion of a load-vs.-
displacement curve.
Running a static problem as a "slow dynamic" analysis
This method is not strictly a different technique; rather, you use a dynamic
effect to prevent divergence. This method is not especially easy to use because
the analysis type changes, so you must input mass, apply a damping factor if
necessary, and use proper time-integration parameters. ANSYS, Inc. therefore
recommends trying nonlinear stabilization or the arc-length method first.
Alternative methods are available to help achieve convergence. For example, you
could apply displacements instead of forces, if applicable. Or, you could apply
artificial small stiffness to the unstable degrees of freedom. These stiffnesses could be
either permanent or activated/removed at some load step by applying the stiffness
using the control element COMBIN37. However, such methods may be unreliable,
impractical, or simply not applicable.
8.11.1. Using Nonlinear Stabilization
Convergence difficulty due to an unstable problem is usually the result of a large
displacement for smaller load increments. Nonlinear stabilization can be understood
as adding an artificial damper or dashpot element at each node of an element that
supports this technique.
To better conceptualize the artificial dashpot element, think of it as having two nodes:
one is the node of the FE model that you create, the other is fixed on the ground. The
program calculates the damping force such that it is proportional to the relative
pseudo velocity of the two nodes of the artificial element, which is equal to the
velocity of the node belonging to the FE model.
The pseudo velocity is calculated as a displacement increment divided by the time
increment of the substep. Therefore, any DOF that tends to be unstable has a large
displacement increment causing a large damping (stabilization) force; this force, in
turn, reduces the displacements at the DOF so that stabilization is achieved.
For the DOFs that are stable, the dashpot elements have little effect on the results
because the displacements and the stabilization forces are small relative to the
physical forces.
The coefficient used to calculate the damping (stabilization) force is the damping
factor. Although it has the same physical meaning and unit as physical damping, it is
purely numerical in nonlinear stabilization. The program calculates a damping factor
based on the energy dissipation ratio that you specify, or you can input the damping
factor value directly.
8.11.1.1. Input for Stabilization
The only command necessary for using nonlinear stabilization is STABILIZE. The
command activates or deactivates stabilization from one load step to another, or after
a multiframe restart during a load step.
The program assumes that the first substep of a load step is stable and calculates the
basic properties of the artificial dashpot elements based on this substep. Therefore, the
program does not apply stabilization for the first substep unless you specify that it
should do so (via the command's SubStpOpt option).
The following topics describe how to use the STABILIZE command in a nonlinear
analysis:
Controlling the Stabilization Force
Applying a Constant or Reduced Stabilization Force
Using the Options for the First Substep
Setting the Limit Coefficient for Checking Stabilization Forces
8.11.1.1.1. Controlling the Stabilization Force
Two methods are available for controlling the stabilization force:
Applying an energy dissipation ratio (STABILIZE,,ENERGY,,,)
Applying a damping factor (STABILIZE,,DAMPING,,,)
Energy Dissipation Ratio
The energy dissipation ratio is the ratio of work done by stabilization forces to
element potential energy.
The energy dissipation ratio should be between 0 and 1. Because the value is used
with predicted energies, the program allows an input value greater than 1, but use it
with caution. The greater the value of the energy ratio or damping factor, the greater
the stabilization force (assuming that the specified number of substeps and time
remain unchanged) so that the system has a stiffer response.
The specified value should be large enough to circumvent the divergence, but small
enough to avoid excessive stiffness. The ideal value is fully dependent on the specific
problem, the time of the load step, and the number of substeps.
You may need a few tries to determine the best value. Generally, use a smaller value
for local instability and a larger value for global instability. The smaller value should
be used for solid elements and the larger value should be used for shell, beam, and
link elements. Use a smaller value if the specified time for a load step is small and a
larger value if the specified time for a load step is large.
With the energy dissipation method, the program calculates the damping factor (based
on the input energy dissipation ratio) during the first substep after the command
executes. The program uses the calculated damping factor by predicting the element
potential energy and stabilization energy at the end of the load step based on the data
of the current substep, then setting the energy dissipation ratio equal to or smaller than
the specified value. This prediction could be inaccurate when the problem is highly
nonlinear. It is a good practice to examine the energies after the solution has
completed because the energy dissipation ratio of the solution could be greater than
the ratio initially specified via the STABILIZE command.
Damping Factor
The numerical damping factor is the value that the program uses to calculate
stabilization forces for all subsequent substeps. The damping factor is highly
dependent on the element size, shape, material, and other factors including the size of
the load step and time used in the load step. The damping factor therefore varies from
element to element.
During a run using the energy dissipation method, the program calculates the damping
factor and reports an element volume weighted average value in the .out file. The
value reported provides a reference value for you to specify if you want to apply a
damping factor as the stabilization control in a subsequent run. When you input a
damping factor as the stabilization control, the program uses that value
for all applicable elements; therefore, the results can differ from those of a run where
you use the energy dissipation method exclusively.
The value used as a damping factor can usually have a much wider range of variance
than the value used for the energy dissipation ratio (which can only change from 0 to
1 in most analyses). If it becomes apparent that your analysis is too sensitive to the
energy dissipation ratio value, try using the damping factor.
8.11.1.1.2. Applying a Constant or Reduced Stabilization Force
When stabilization is active, the program can apply the stabilization force in two
ways: constant (STABILIZE,CONSTANT) or reduced (STABILIZE,REDUCE).
The constant option keeps the damping factor(calculated or input) unchanged during
each substep of a load step. The reduced option reduces the damping factor linearly to
zero at the end of the load step.
Although the constant option works well in most cases, some stabilization forces
usually remain at the end of the load step. Unless the stabilization forces are very
small, convergence difficulties may occur if stabilization is deactivated in the next
load step. It may be difficult to converge for the first substep of the following load
step because the stabilization forces suddenly becomes zero. In such a case, use the
reduced option for the previous load step.
Example
Convergence difficulties when using the constant option can occur in an analysis of
creep phenomena, where the load is usually applied quickly in the first load step, but
no new load is applied at the second load step (which usually has a very long time
span). The stabilization forces could be large at the end of the first load step because
the time is short and pseudo velocity is high at the first load step. In this case, if
stabilization is needed for the first load step, the reduced option is best. The second
load step is usually stable so that stabilization is unnecessary.
8.11.1.1.3. Using the Options for the First Substep
When stabilization is active, you can activate artificial dashpot elements
(STABILIZE) for the first substep of a load step.
In most analyses, stabilization is unnecessary because the structure is initially stable,
so the first substep should converge if the substep size is reasonable.
When SubStpOpt = NO, the program calculates all necessary data for stabilization
more accurately and achieves convergence more easily; therefore, ANSYS, Inc.
recommends using this option whenever possible.
Convergence Problems at the First Substep
There are some situations where convergence is an issue at the first substep. For such
cases, you can specify substep option (STABILIZE,,,,SubStpOpt) MINTIME or
ANYTIME.
The MINTIME option activates stabilization only when the time increment reaches
the minimum time increment and the analysis still has not converged. Use this option
for the first load step only.
The ANYTIME option activates stabilization for any time increment tried for the first
substep. Use this option for any load step other than the first load step where constant
stabilization is active (STABILIZE,CONSTANT).
The program uses the damping factor calculated at the previous load step to calculate
the stabilization forces for the first substep. If no such value is available, the program
assumes a deformation mode for the first substep and calculate a damping factor for
the first substep. In either case, the program recalculates the damping factor after a
successful convergence based on the solution of the first substep and uses the new
value for all subsequent substeps.
Use caution with either substep option and check the final result to verify that the
stabilization forces and energies are not excessive.
Example
Specify SubStpOpt = ANYTIME for the current load step after you have applied a
constant stabilization force (STABILIZE,CONSTANT) in the previous load step and
the first substep did not converge, yet the current load step also requires stabilization.
This option is especially useful if you do not want to rerun the previous load step
using the reduced method (STABILIZE,REDUCE).
8.11.1.1.4. Setting the Limit Coefficient for Checking Stabilization Forces
When the L2-norm of the stabilization force exceeds the product of the L2-norm of
the internal force and the stabilization force coefficient, the program issues a message
displaying both the stabilization force norm and the internal force norm. The message
indicates that the stabilization force may be too large. In such cases, verify the results
carefully, and consider adjusting the stabilization force by updating either the energy-
dissipation ratio (STABILIZE,,ENERGY) or the damping factor
(STABILIZE,,DAMPING).
If you want to change the stabilization force limit coefficient (by default 0.2, or 20
percent), issue a STABILIZE,,,,,FORCELIMIT command. (To omit a stabilization
force check, specify a value of 0.)
The program checks the norms (and reports them if necessary) only after a substep
has converged. The stabilization force check has no effect on convergence.
8.11.1.2. Checking Results After Applying Stabilization
Stabilization can help with convergence problems, but it can also affect accuracy if
the stabilization energy or forces are too large. Although the program automatically
reports the stabilization force norms and compares them to internal force norms, it is
still very important to check the stabilization energy and forces to determine whether
or not they are excessive.
Stabilization energy, the work done by stabilization forces, should be compared to
element potential energy. The energies can be output in the .OUT file (via
the OUTPR command). You can also access the energies as follows:
In POST1, via PRENERGY, PRESOL, PLESOL, and ETABLE commands.
In POST26 by ENERSOL and ESOL commands.
If the stabilization energy (which could be larger than that specified via
the STABILIZE command) is much less than the potential energy (for example,
within a 1.0 percent tolerance), the result should be acceptable and there should be no
need to check the stabilization forces further.
When stabilization energy is large, check the stabilization forces at each DOF for all
substeps. If the stabilization forces are much smaller than the applied loads and
reaction forces (for example, within a 0.5 percent tolerance), the results are still
acceptable. Such a case could occur when an elastic system is loaded first, then
unloaded significantly. It is possible that the final element potential energy is small
and stabilization energy is relatively large, but all stabilization forces are small.
Currently, stabilization forces are accessible in the .OUT file (via OUTPR ).
Even when both stabilization energy and forces are too large, the results could still be
valid. Such a scenario is possible when a large part of an elastic structure undergoes
large rigid body motion (as in a snap-through simulation). In such a case, the
stabilization energy could be large as well as the stabilization force for some DOFs at
some substeps, but the results could still be acceptably accurate. Nevertheless,
consider the results along with other support data and use your own discretion.
8.11.1.3. Tips for Using Stabilization
You can use nonlinear stabilization to achieve convergence in an analysis of unstable
nonlinear problems such as post-buckling, snap-through simulation, and analyses
where material is unstable. Although you can activate nonlinear stabilization at the
beginning of the solution, it is more efficient and accurate in most cases to activate
stabilization in a multiframe restart.
If you wish to activate stabilization after a restart, do not restart from the last
converged substep. Rather, restart from the next-to-last converged substep or at some
other substep prior to the last converged substep. (The program needs one substep to
prepare the data for stabilization.)
Because it is usually impossible to know when a system will become unstable during
loading before an analysis starts, run the nonlinear analysis as usual while saving
restart files for at least the last two converged substeps. If the analysis fails to
converge because of instability, restart the analysis with stabilization activated from
the next-to-last converged substep or at some other substep prior to the last converged
substep. (The program needs one substep to prepare the data for stabilization.)
If the behavior of a problem is well known from a previous analysis and the structure
loses stability very soon after you begin to apply loads, you can activate stabilization
at the beginning of the analysis.
Be aware that when stabilization is active, the results could vary if the number of
substeps changes. The behavior occurs because the pseudo velocity is different, which
in turn causes different stabilization forces. The more stable the system, the less
significant the difference.
If restarting from a different substep, using a damping factor
(STABILIZE,,DAMPING) can yield more consistent results because the energy
prediction may be different from substep to substep, which may necessitate quite
different damping factors.
Deactivating Stabilization
Each time that stabilization is deactivated (STABILIZE,OFF), the stabilization forces
change suddenly, which may cause convergence problems. Before completely
deactivating stabilization in such cases, use the reduced method of stabilization
(STABILIZE,REDUCE) and specify the damping factor used for the previous load
step.
Example
Assume that load step 1 is unstable but solvable with stabilization. Load step 2 is
stable and requires no stabilization, yet does not converge if you deactivate
stabilization (STABILIZE,OFF). In this scenario, you can add a pseudo load step
(STABILIZE,REDUCE,DAMPING,VALUE). The damping factor should be the
value from load step 1. Do not apply any new loads. This technique should help with
convergence.
8.11.2. Using the Arc-Length Method
The arc-length method (ARCLEN and ARCTRM) is another way to solve unstable
problems. The method is restricted to static analyses with proportional (ramped) loads
only and cannot be used with rate-dependent materials, such as viscoelastic,
viscoplastic, and creep materials. The arc-length method cannot be used with tabular
loads.
The program calculates the reference arc-length radius from the load (or
displacement) increment of the first iteration of the first substep, using the following
formula:

where NSBSTP is the number of substeps specified via the NSUBST command.
When choosing the number of substeps, consider that more substeps result in a longer
solution time. Ideally, you want the minimum number of substeps required to produce
an optimally efficient solution. You might have to make an educated guess of the
desired number of substeps, and adjust and re-analyze as needed.
When the arc-length method is active, do not use line search (LNSRCH), the
predictor (PRED), adaptive descent (NROPT,,,ON), automatic time stepping
(AUTOTS, TIME, DELTIM), or time-integration effects (TIMINT). Likewise, do
not try to base convergence on displacement (CNVTOL,U); instead, use the force
criteria (CNVTOL,F).
To help minimize the solution time, the maximum number of equilibrium iterations in
a single substep (NEQIT) should be less than or equal to 15.
If an arc-length solution fails to converge within the prescribed maximum number of
iterations (NEQIT), the program automatically bisects and continue the analysis.
Bisection continues until a converged solution is obtained or until the minimum arc-
length radius is used. (The minimum radius is defined by NSBSTP (NSUBST)
and MINARC (ARCLEN).
In general, you cannot use this method to obtain a solution at a specified load or
displacement value because the value changes (along the spherical arc) as equilibrium
is achieved. Figure 8.4 illustrates how the specified load is used only as a starting
point. The actual load at convergence is somewhat less. Similarly, it can be difficult to
determine a value of limiting load or deflection within some known tolerance when
using the arc-length method in a nonlinear buckling analysis. Generally, you must
adjust the reference arc-length radius (NSUBST) by trial-and-error to obtain a
solution at the limit point. It may be more convenient to use standard Newton-
Raphson iterations with bisection (AUTOTS) to determine values of nonlinear
buckling loads.
Avoid using the JCG solver (EQSLV) with the arc-length method. The arc-length
procedure can result in a negative definite stiffness matrix (negative pivot), which can
cause a solution failure with the solver.
You can freely switch from the Newton-Raphson iteration method to the arc-length
method at the start of any load step. However, to switch from arc-length to Newton-
Raphson iterations, you must terminate the analysis and restart, deactivating the arc-
length method in the first load step of the restart (ARCLEN,OFF).
An arc-length solution terminates under these conditions:
When limits defined by the ARCTRM or NCNV commands are reached
When the solution converges at the applied load
When you use an abort file (Jobname.ABT)
See the Basic Analysis Guide for information about termination and restart
procedures.
Use the load-deflection curve as a guide for evaluating and adjusting your analysis to
help you achieve the desired results. It is usually good practice to graph your load-
deflection curve (using POST26 commands) with every analysis.
Often, an unsuccessful arc-length analysis can be traced to an arc-length radius that is
either too large or too small. Driftback (where the analysis retraces its steps along the
load-deflection curve) is a typical difficulty caused by using a too large or too small
arc-length radius. To better understand this problem, examine the load-deflection
curve; you can then adjust the arc-length radius size and range as needed
(NSUBST and ARCLEN).
The total arc-length load factor (SOLU,,ALLF) can be either positive or negative.
Similarly, TIME, which in an arc-length analysis is related to the total arc-length load
factor, can also be either positive or negative. Negative values of ALLF
or TIME indicate that the arc-length feature is applying load in the reverse direction in
order to maintain stability in the structure. Negative ALLF or TIME values are
commonly seen in various snap-through analyses.
8.11.2.1. Checking Arc-Length Results
When reading arc-length results into the database for POST1 postprocessing (SET),
always reference the desired results data set by its load step and substep number
(LSTEP and SBSTEP) or by its data set number (NSET).
Do not reference results by a TIME value, because TIME in an arc-length analysis is
not always monotonically increasing. (A single value of TIME might reference more
than one solution.) Additionally, the program cannot correctly interpret
negative TIME values (which might be encountered in a snap-through analysis).
If TIME becomes negative, define an appropriate variable range
(/XRANGE or /YRANGE) before creating any POST26 graphs.
8.11.3. Nonlinear Stabilization vs. the Arc-Length Method
You can use nonlinear stabilization for both local and global instability with few
limitations related to compatibility with other algorithms and materials. However,
nonlinear stabilization cannot detect the negative-slope portion of a load-vs.-
displacement curve problem with global instability (if any).
Although the results obtained before the negative slope portion of the problem are
always correct, the results for the substeps after the negative-slope portion are also
correct if the materials are not deformation-history-dependent. (Consider the results
to be questionable if the materials are deformation-history-dependent.)
The arc-length method can detect the negative-slope portion of a load-vs.-
displacement curve, but it cannot solve problems with local instability and material
softening. Other limitations exist, related mostly to compatibility with certain
algorithms and materials.
To help you understand when to use either method, the following table compares both
methods and their applications:
Nonlinear Stabilization vs. Arc-Length
Analysis Problem Nonlinear Stabilization Arc-
Length
Local instability or local
buckling
Yes No
Global instability or global
buckling
Yes Yes
Negative slope of load-vs.-
displacement curve
Cannot detect this part of the curve, but other
parts can be simulated for deformation-history-
independent materials, and the preceding part can
be simulated for deformation- history-dependent
materials
Yes
Rate-dependent materials
and creep
Yes No
Line search Yes No
Substep predictor
(PRED,ON)
Yes (1) No
Automatic time stepping Yes Different
algorithm
Displacements as load Yes No
Activate/deactivate from
load step to load step, or
within a load step
Yes Limited
Linear solver use No restrictions Restricted
Time at converged substep Positive Positive or
negative
1. Solid elements only.

Release 14.0 - 2011 SAS IP, Inc. All rights reserved.