Finite Element Method in Form-finding Process for Membrane Structures

Jin Wang, bCheng Yan Chie Master of Civil Engineering, jw942@cornell.edu b Master of Civil Engineering, yc927@cornell.edu

Part 1 Abstract Our project concentrates on the most-widely-used methods for Form-finding analysis of membrane structure: finite Element Methods. Form-finding analysis, in non-linear finite element, of two types of membrane structure is conducted and verified with the aid of ANSYS. The influence of mesh density and self-balanced iterations on accuracy of form-finding is studied. Part 2 Introduction Membrane structure has been rigorously developed in the late twentieth century. Its high peaks and sweeping curved lines, as well as allowing clear open space within the building, create desirable aesthetic values to infrastructures. On top of that, it is a new-form of structure for sustainable development (Shaffer, 1996; Lewis 1998). This construction method carries load mostly in tension, with limited compression and bending. Some well-known papers (K.Ishii, 1995; D.S. Wakefield, 1999; M. Saitoh 2001) in the industry demonstrated remarkable models. As most tension membranes have to be reinforced by interior and perimeter cables. Therefore, some research approach is using compressive rigid member as masts, assembled to the global structure to provide adequate stability. Their focuses are on membrane element, cable elements and compressive membranes which has been recently verified (Talvik, 2001; Li 2004). These are all based on the fundamentals on non-linear continuum mechanics. With an aim mainly focuses on the membrane analysis, several models were built from the process of prestressing to the membranes which allowing them to withstand loads (Crisfield, 1991; Belytschko 2000; Holzapfel 2000). Such form-finding analysis is actually the process to pre-stress the membrane to find the minimum surface area, which can satisfy the boundary conditions and aesthetic requirement. In the other words, stress is equally distributed throughout the membrane. This project is set up to investigate on the form-finding analysis of membrane structure by using finite element methods. This analysis is based on the theory of non-linear finite element. With the help of ANSYS computation, experiments about mesh density and self-balanced iterations are designed in order to find their influence on the accuracy of form-finding. Part 3 Finite element implementation Nonlinear Finite Element Method is used and our approach modified as the ones stated in Gil (2006) and Valdes et al. (2009). The geometric nonlinearity is considered when establishing the equilibrium equation. Therefore, all equilibrium equations are built upon the deformed configurations. As the strain is small compared with the deformation, we assume both membranes and cable are linear elastic. In the first process, form-finding, the membrane structures will undergo large displacement to achieve equilibrium. Membrane structure, illustrated as space triangle, in the coordination system xyz with displacement vector u and element nodal displacement a. Displacement vector u = {u v w}T Element nodal displacements ae = {u1 v1 w1 u2 v2 w2 u3 v3 w3}T

The element shape function matrix N when z is in terms of x and y: 0 N3 0 0 where N1 0 0 N 2 0

N = 0 0

N1 0

0 N1

0 0

N2 0

0 N2

0 0

N3 0

0 N3

N1 = ( x2 y3 -x3 y2 )+(y2 -y3 )x+(x3 -x2 )y N2 = ( x3 y1 -x1 y3 )+(y3 -y1 )x+(x1 -x3 )y N3 = ( x1 y2 -x2 y1 )+(y1 -y2 )x+(x2 -x1 )y

Displacement of arbitrary node: u =Na e Since the relative position between element and the local coordinate could be arbitrary, the triangle element could lie entirely in the xy plane, with its direction in x. When x1 =0, y1 =0, y2 =0 and the area of element is A = x2 y3 2 the shape function can be further , simplified: N1 = x2 y3 -y3 x+(x3 -x2 )y N 2 = y3 x-x3 y N3 = x2 y The equilibrium equation is ET dv= uT pdv+ uT qdA

v j -1

Strain increment for an arbitrary node in the element: = { x y z }T and = L + NL Linear and nonlinear strain increment is L =BL a e and NL = 1 BNL a e = 1 AGa e
2 2

Nodal displacement in each time step a = {u1 v1 w1 u2 v2 w2 u3 v3 w3}T Matrix connecting linear strain and displacement, BL ,
e

0 0 y3 0 0 0 0 0 - y3 1 BL = 0 x3 -x2 0 0 - x3 0 0 x2 0 2 A x3 -x2 - y3 0 - x3 y3 0 x2 0 0 BNL is the matrix connecting nonlinear strain and displacement
u x A= 0 u y v x 0 v y w x 0 w y 0 u y u x 0 v y v x 0 w y w x

Using the equations above, element equibrium equations in local coordinate can be obtained as

y3 0 1 0 G= 2 A x3 -x2 0 0

0 - y3 0 0 x3 -x2 0

0 0 - y3 0 0 x3 -x2

y3 0 0

0 y3 0

0 0 y3 0 0 - x3

0 0 0 x2 0 0

0 0 0 0 x2 0

- x3 0 0 - x3 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 x2

(K

e L

e + K NL ) ae =Re F e

where Linear and nonlinear element stiffness matrix are given by K e = BT DB dv and K e = GT MGdv L L L NL
v v

Element load vector in local coordinate R = N Pdv + N qdA

e T T v A

Element nodal forces in local coordinate F e = BT dv L

v

As

dv=At (where A is area and t is thickness of the element) the above equations can be further
v
v A

e T e illustrated as K L =AtBL DB , K NL = AtG T MG , R e = N T Pdv + N T qdA

Self-weight and external load can be ignored in the form finding process, R e =0. Element stress matrix, M
X 0 0 M = XY 0 0 0 0 0

XY
0 0

X
0 0

XY
0 0

X
0 0

Y
0 0

XY
0

Y
0

XY

0 0 XY 0 0 Y

is the membrane element stress vector. During form-finding, = The transform matrix between local and global coordinate T is

y 0} .

0 0 T = 0 0 0 0

cos (X , x) cos (Y , x) cos (Z , x) Where = cos (X , y ) cos (Y, y ) cos (Z , y) cos ( X , z ) cos (Y, z ) cos ( Z , z )

The element equilibrium equation in global coordinate is:

(K

e L

e + K NL ) U e =Re F e

e T e e T e e T e e e Where K L = T T K NL T , K NL = T K NLT U =T a F = T F ,

Re =

At {0 0 3

p 0 0

p 0 0

p} +

1 { AX qX 3

AY qY

AZ qZ

AX q X

AY qY

AZ qZ

AX q X

AY qY

AZ qZ }

In the above formulae, p is the body force working on membrane element in the global coordinate AX ,

AY , AZ are project of the membrane elements area on YOZXOZXOY plane, respectively and qX , qY , qZ are the element force per unit area in the direction of X, Y and Z. During the form finding, the self-weight and external load can be ignored, q X , qY , qZ are zero.
Part 4 Mathematical Model assumptions 1. Only tensile force is applied to membrane and its associated cable. There is no compression load and flexural resistance. And the membrane and cables are under pinned-pinned conditions. 2. The model remains certain rigidity under slack and wrinkle conditions. 3. Under the tensile stress working condition, the material nonlinear is ignored. The membrane is taken as orthotropic and cable is linear elastic. 4. The model adopts triangle element for membrane and line element for cable. 5. The cables cross-sectional areas remain unchanged and the strain is small. 6. There is no relative displacement between the membrane and its cable throughout the analysis. Part 5 Pre-stressed structural membranes analysis Using ANSYS The analysis in ANSYS Software is based on the nonlinear finite element method. We start the iteration with a 2D plane configuration. By changing the coordinates of the controlled points gradually and conducting equilibrium iterations, the model will reach the desire shape. One of the crucial assumptions is the small elasticity modulus. The virtual value is generally set as one-thousandth or one-ten thousandth of the actual one so that the model can then undergo free deformation. Meanwhile, the internal force of the system remains unchanged. In this way, with the uplift of supporting nodes in the system, the initial 2D plane can be modeled as the non-linear structural membrane. The internal force in final equilibrium condition should equal to the 3

default value. Procedure of ANSYS computation Step 1: Construct the membrane with 2D geometric front, side, top views Step 2: Set the virtual elasticity modulus, normally 3-4 grades lower than the actual levels Step3: Set the element type and its constants, and pre-stress to default values of the models Step 4: Define the structural properties, model and conduct meshing, and set boundary conditions of the model. Step 5: Uplift the nodes on the boundary, and obtain the pre-stressed condition by decreasing temperature. Step 6: Select "FULL" mode and large deformation mode, and start self-equilibrium iteration. Step 7: Reset the elasticity modulus of the membrane to the actual value, and temperature to default value from the result before further loading analysis. Part 6 Numerical Results Example 1: Hyperbolic Paraboloid membrane structure in rhombus plane The surface equation for this problem should be z =f (- x + y ) 2 2 Let a=b=5m f=1m the origin lies at the leftmost node of the rhombus and the vertical distance between the adjacent nodes is 2m Then the surface equation becomes In ANSYS, membrane element shell41is adopted. At the beginning, the followings are set: Elastic modulus E is 3 103 KN m2 , thickness t is 1.2mm, thermal expansion coefficient is 15 and reference temperature is 00 C . During the self-balance iteration: E is 3 106 KN m2 , is 0.015. The initial pre-stress condition could be simulated by lowering the temperature. Using the equation
z= y 2 ( x 5)2 25
2 2

T=

membrane, which is -1oC in our problem. Set the model meshing as 20 sections along the radius direction and set self-balanced iteration times as 40.The meshing and final Mises stress diagrams are as below which the curvature is at minimum.

, we could obtain the change of temperature with regard to the corresponding pre-stress in the E t

Figure 3 Meshing

Figure 4 Mises stress diagram

Table 3-1(In appendix A) shows the comparison between calculated and theoretical value of 15 points along the positive x direction. According to the comparison, the error of our calculation is acceptable, with a maximum error, 1.53%. This also proves the validity of our program in ANSYS.

Example 2: Rotary Catenoid Membrane structure Rotary Catenoid has the following analytic solution

z=-a[ ln (r + r 2 -a 2 )-ln a]+h , r1 r r2

Let a =r1 =5m , h =12m , r2 =27.78m , Then the surface equation becomes z=-5(ln(r+ r 2 -25)-ln 5)+12

Here membrane element shell41is adopted. At the beginning, the followings are set: Elastic modulus E is 3 103 KN m2 , thickness t is 1 mm, thermal expansion coefficient is 15 and reference temperature is 00 C . During the self-balance iteration: E is 3 106 KN m2 , is 0.015. The initial pre-stress condition could be simulated by lowering the temperature. Using the equation

T=

membrane, which is -1oC in our problem. Aside from that, in order to further explore the influence of meshing density and self-balanced iteration, two experiments are designed as indicated below: Set the model meshing as 20 sections along the radius direction and self-balanced iteration times as 100,400 and 800 respectively; Set self-balanced iteration times as 100 and mesh the model into10, 20 and 30 sections along the radius direction respectively. Table 1: Experiments A and B Meshing sections# Iteration times 20 20 20 10 20 30 100 400 800 100 100 100

, we could obtain the change of temperature with regard to the corresponding pre-stress in the E t

# A -1 A -2 A -3 B -1 B -2 B -3

The form-finding results of all the experiments are given in the Appendix B. According to table B-1, B-2 and B-3, the maximum errors for iteration times 100, 400, and 800 are 2.95%, 0.85% and 0.8% accordingly. From the results we could see the trend that the larger the iteration is, the less the maximum error will be. Since the maximum error when iteration for 800 times is acceptably small, 0.8%, our form-finding result could be adopted as final result. According to figure B-4, B-5 and B-6, the denser the meshing is, the more uniform the stresses are distributed and the smoother the surface will be. According to table B-4, B-5 and B-6, the maximum errors for 10,20 and 30 meshing sections are 4.66%, 2.95% and 2.64%, respectively.

Part 6 Conclusions

From the comparison between the experimental result and the analytical solution, our maximum errors in example 1 and example 2 are 1.53% and 0.8%, respectively, which are acceptably small. Therefore, minimum surface with uniformly distributed stresses has been obtained, which means our methods are proved to be correct. Meanwhile we come to the conclusions: the larger the iteration is, the less the maximum error will be; the denser the meshing is, the more uniform the stresses are distributed, and the smoother the surface will be.

Reference: 1. D.S. Wakefield, Engineering analysis of tension structures: theory and practice, Eng. Struct. 21 (1999) 680690. 2. M. Saitoh, A. Okada, Tension and membrane structures, J. IASS 42 (135136) (2001) 1520. 3. H. Berger, Form and function of tensile structures for permanent buildings, Eng. Struct. 21 (1999) 669679. 4. K. Ishii, Membrane Structures in Japan, SPS Publishing Company, Tokio,1995. 5. W.J. Lewis, Lightweight tension membranes: an overview, Civ. Eng. 126 (1998) 171181. 6. R.E. Shaeffer, Tensioned Fabric Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1996. 7. T. Belytschko, W.K. Liu, B. Moran, Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures, Wiley, New York, 2000. 8. M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, volume 1: Essentials, Wiley, New York, 1991. 9. G.A. Holzapfel, Nonlinear Solid Mechanics: A Continuum Approach for Engineering, Wiley, New York, 2000. 10. Jin-Jun Li, Chan Siu-Lai, An integrated analysis of membrane structures with flexible supporting frames, Finite Elements Anal. Des. 40 (2004) 529540. 11. Talvik, Finite element modeling of cable networks with flexible supports, Comput. Struct. 79 (2001) 24432450. 12. Finite element analysis of prestressed structural membranes, Gil, Antonio J , Bonet, Javier ,Finite Elements in Analysis & Design, ISSN 0168-874X, 2006, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp. 683 - 697 13. Nonlinear finite element analysis of orthotropic and prestressed membrane structures, by Valds, J.G; Miquel, J; Oate, E,Finite Elements in Analysis & Design, ISSN 0168-874X, 2009, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp. 395 - 405 14. Hoaward B. Wilson (2003) Advanced Mathematics and Mechanics Applications using MatLab Chapman Hall/CRCSaeed 15. Moaveni (2008) Finite Element Analysis: Theory and Application with ANSYS Third Edition Pearson

APPENDIX A
Table A-1 Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Hyperbolic Paraboloid (Unit: m) # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 X 10.0000 9.6477 9.3210 8.9851 8.6492 8.3130 7.9771 7.6417 7.3073 6.9742 6.6424 6.3120 5.9828 5.6546 5.3271 Y 0.0000 -0.2212e-6 0.9702e-6 0.1604e-5 0.1688e-5 0.1785e-5 0.1921e-5 0.2092e-5 0.2229e-5 0.2262e-5 0.2174e-5 0.1987e-5 0.1742e-5 0.1478e-5 0.1224e-5 Z 1.0000 0.8635 0.7453 0.6329 0.5298 0.4359 0.3514 0.2762 0.2104 0.1538 0.1064 0.0678 0.0380 0.0169 0.0043 Z(Theoretical) 1.0000 0.8641 0.7468 0.6352 0.5327 0.4391 0.3545 0.2792 0.2130 0.1559 0.1079 0.0689 0.0386 0.0171 0.0043 Error (%) 0 0.06 0.20 0.37 0.55 0.73 0.90 1.06 1.21 1.33 1.44 1.51 1.53 1.43 0.62

APPENDIX B
u For Experiment A Table B-1: Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Rotary Catenoid in Experiment A-1(Unit: m) Iteration: 100 times # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X 26.5227 20.2113 16.4005 13.8477 11.2940 10.0217 8.7651 7.5445 6.4101 5.4766 Y 0.3232e-4 0.5092e-4 0.7415e-4 0.7764e-4 0.4593e-4 0.7913e-4 0.2420e-4 0.4137e-4 0.1541e-4 0.1544e-4 Z 0.2426 1.6759 2.7950 3.7188 4.8648 5.5620 6.3776 7.3567 8.5659 10.099 Z(Theoretical) 0.2365 1.6286 2.7154 3.6124 3.6124 5.4027 6.1954 7.1483 8.3279 9.8339 Error (%) 2.57 2.91 2.93 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.94 2.92 2.86 2.70

Table B-2: Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Rotary Catenoid in Experiment A-2(Unit: m) Iteration: 400 times # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X 25.2558 21.4551 17.6333 15.0675 12.4929 9.91852 8.7651 7.4156 6.2827 5.3872 Y 0.8242e-5 0.8497e-4 0.9482e-4 0.2948e-4 0.1953e-4 0.9867e-4 0.2420e-4 0.4637e-4 0.1832e-4 0.15185e-4 Z 0.4893 1.3318 2.3560 3.1895 4.2048 5.5088 6.3776 7.3238 8.5580 10.1180 Z(Theoretical) 0.4859 1.3209 2.3362 3.1624 4.1691 5.4625 6.2778 7.2641 8.4910 10.0449 Error (%) 0.71 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.79 0.73

Table B-3: Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Rotary Catenoid in Experiment A-3(Unit: m) Iteration: 800 times # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X 25.2493 21.4373 17.6018 15.0248 12.4370 9.8482 8.5715 7.3384 6.2173 5.3561 Y 0.8196e-5 0.8992e-4 0.1002e-3 0.3344e-4 0.2073e-4 0.9875e-4 0.2920e-4 0.4870e-4 0.20744e-4 0.1339e-4 Z 0.4904 1.3354 2.3641 3.2029 4.2271 5.5473 6.3817 7.3913 8.6406 10.1913 Z(Theoretical) 0.4872 1.3252 2.7428 3.1775 4.1936 5.5037 6.3322 7.3353 8.5782 10.1239 Error (%) 0.66 0.77 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.73 0.67

Figure B-1: Iteration100 times

Figure B-2 Iteration 400 times

Figure B-3: Iteration 800 times u For Experiment B Set self-balanced iteration times as 100 and mesh the model into10, 20 and 30 sections along the radius direction respectively.

Table B-4Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Rotary Catenoid in Experiment B-1(Unit: m) Meshing section #: 10 times # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X 25.1219 22.4606 19.7877 17.1062 14.4160 11.7222 9.0522 6.5542 Y 0.1140e-3 0.1045e-2 0.5184e-3 0.2690e-3 0.1520e-4 0.4310e-4 0.1720e-3 0.3206e-3 Z 0.5362 1.1359 1.8187 2.6108 3.5555 4.7280 6.2749 805093 Z(Theoretical) 0.5130 1.0858 1.7379 2.4946 3.3974 4.5188 6.0007 8.1532 Error (%) 4.53 4.62 4.65 4.66 4.65 4.63 4.57 4.37

Table B-5Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Rotary Catenoid in Experiment B-2(Unit: m) Meshing section #: 20 # 1 2 3 4 5 X 26.5227 20.2113 16.4005 13.8477 11.2940 Y 0.3232e-4 0.5092e-4 0.7415e-4 0.7764e-4 0.4593e-4 Z 0.2426 1.6759 2.7950 3.7188 4.8648 10 Z(Theoretical) 0.2365 1.6286 2.7154 3.6124 3.6124 Error (%) 2.57 2.91 2.93 2.95 2.95

6 7 8 9 10

10.0217 8.7651 7.5445 6.4101 5.4766

0.7913e-4 0.2420e-4 0.4137e-4 0.1541e-4 0.1544e-4

5.5620 6.3776 7.3567 8.5659 10.099

5.4027 6.1954 7.1483 8.3279 9.8339

2.95 2.94 2.92 2.86 2.70

Table B-6Comparison between calculated and theoretical values for Rotary Catenoid in Experiment B-3(Unit: m) Meshing section #: 30 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X 26.9565 24.4820 22.0015 19.5128 17.0157 14.5094 11.9970 9.4963 7.0950 5.2402 Y 0.9431e-5 0.4534e-4 0.2553e-4 0.6012e-4 0.4571e-4 0.1947e-4 0.9016e-4 0.5050e-4 0.6217e-4 0.4759e-4 Z 0.1570 0.6608 1.2222 1.8571 2.5881 3.4511 4.5066 5.8670 7.7669 10.7008 Z(Theoretical) 0.1539 0.6447 1.1917 1.8103 2.5224 3.3630 4.3910 5.7163 7.5693 10.4562 Error (%) 2.04 2.49 2.56 2.59 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.61 2.34

The final form-finding diagrams are list below.

(a) Meshing

(b) Stress distribution diagram

11

(c) Form-finding result

(d)Form-finding result side view Figure B-4 10 sections Meshing

(a) Meshing

(b) Stress distribution diagram

(c) Form-finding result Figure B-5

(d)Form-finding result side view 20 sections Meshing

12

(a) Meshing

(b) Stress distribution diagram

(c) Form-finding result Figure B-6

(d)Form-finding result side view 30 sections Meshing

13