Minutes of the meeting (13/4/2021)

 Discussed the main differences between the implicit and

explicit solver.
 Went through the validation of the models, mainly different
load rates and energy content
 Dr. Xu stated that its important to justify using the explicit
dynamic solver instead of the static (justify with graph/theory)
 Ghaith to re-check the previous modeling parameters
investigated during the earlier stages of the research (BC,
geometric imperfections etc…) and assess which parameters
have the mose significant effects on the dynamic model.
Explicit vs. Implicit
 Dynamic analysis in ABAQUS solves the following
equation:

= External force acting at every node

= Internal forces exerted on every node
= mass of the structure
= acceleration of the structure
Explicit vs. Implicit
 Two solution schemes:
1) Implicit method:
• Can solve for both static and dynamic equilibrium.
• Uses Backward Euler (implicit integration; i.e.: equations
are coupled) or a modified Newton-Raphson algorithm.
• Unconditionally stable.
• Solves for displacements by inverting the stiffness
matrix (computationally expensive).
• Might not converge if large displacements and
complex contact and nonlinearities are involved.
Explicit vs. Implicit
2) Explicit method:
• Solves dynamic equilibrium only (can be used for
quasi-static analysis however).
• Solves for accelerations by inverting mass matrix.
• Uses central difference method (no iteration)
• Handles nonlinearities and complex contact conditions
robustly.
• Uses lower order elements only; mass matrix is
lumped therefore inversion is trivial.
• Conditionally stable.
Stable Time Limit
o The size of the time increment is very small (~1x10e-6).
o Explicit procedures require many more time increments
than implicit methods for the same problem.
o In order for the solution to be accurate, the chosen
analysis time increment should be less than the stability
limit.
o When solution becomes unstable, the response history
of solution variables (displacement) will oscillate and
solution becomes unbounded.
Stable Time Limit

where is the smallest characteristic length of the

element and is the dilatational wave speed of the
material.
Stable Time Limit


where is the modulus of elasticity and is the density of the

material.
Stable Time Limit
180

160

140

120

100

80

60
Experiment
40 Explicit

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 1: Unstable explicit solution

Quasi-static analysis with ABAQUS/Explicit

o The time period in explicit analysis is an actual physical

quantity corresponding to the duration of the event.
o Application of explicit procedures to model QS events
requires special attention:
o Ensuring inertia effects are not significant.
o Computationally impractical to model the event in its natural
time period.
o Need to increase the speed of the simulation artificially to
obtain an economical solution.
o Two methods to obtain an economic quasi-static solution with
an explicit solver; 1)Load rates and, 2)Mass scaling
Quasi-static Analysis

o Time period = 226 secs; dt = 7.814e-6

o Increments = ~29,000,000
Load Rates
 Artificially reduce the time period of the event by
increasing load rate.
 Since in a static analysis the lowest mode usually
dominates the response, use this value as a lower
bound.
 From the manual:
Load Rates

 Frequency = 4.75 which corresponds to time period = 0.21s

 Set analysis time to 50*time period = 11secs.
Energy Balance In Explicit
Analysis
 Examining the energy content of an explicit
simulation provides another measure to validate the
results.
 Three measures are of interest to QS analysis:
 Internal energy should be equal to external applied
work.
 Kinetic energy should be negligible (5% of IE)
 Etotal should be constant or zero
Energy balance equation

 ALLKE = Kinetic Energy

 ALLVD = Energy dissipated by viscous effects
 ALLFD = Energy dissipated by frictional effects
 ALLWK = External work (external loads + work
done by BC’s).
 ALLIE = Internal energy = ALLSE + ALLAE
+Contact Energy
 ALLSE= strain energy
 ALLAE = artificial energy
Load-Displacement comparison
120

100

80
Base Shear (kN)

60

40 Experiment

V=3

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2: Different Load rates

Energy Balance Comparison
29500000
ALLIE
ALLKE
24500000 ALLAE
ALLWK
ETOTAL

19500000

14500000
Energy (mJ)

9500000

4500000

-500000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (sec)

Figure 3: Energy for moderate load rate

Energy Balance Comparison
24500000
ALLIE
ALLKE
ALLAE
19500000 ALLWK
ETOTAL

14500000
Energy (mJ)

9500000

4500000

-500000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)

Figure 4: Energy for slow load rate

Energy Balance Comparison

1200000

SlowRateKE
1000000
ModerateRateKE

800000
Energy (mJ)

600000

400000

200000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (sec)

Figure 5: Kinetic Energy Comparison

Energy Balance Comparison
150

Cyclic
100
Slow_Rate_Full_Plastic

50
Base Shear (kN)

0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

-50

-100

-150
Displacement (mm)

Figure 6: Cyclic Test Comparison