Stabilized displacement and equilibrium meshfree models

for computation of collapse loads

Canh V. Le
Department of Civil Engineering, International University, VNU HCMC, Vietnam
SUMMARY
This paper describes dual limit analysis formulations based on stabilized displacement and equilibrium
meshfree models. Displacement and stress elds are approximated using moving least squares
technique. A stabilized conforming nodal integration is applied, ensuring that the size of the resulting
optimization problem is kept to a minimum, and that equilibrium only needs to be enforced at the
nodes while numerical instability problems can be eliminated. The resulting optimizations are the cast
in the form of a standard second order cone programming so that solutions can be obtained rapidly.
key words: limit analysis; mesh-free methods; stabilized displacement and equilibrium models;
second order cone programming.
1. INTRODUCTION
The load required to cause collapse of a body or structure can be estimated using either
upper or lower bound theorems. Displacement and stress elds can be approximated by using
nite element method. However, solutions obtained from nite element based computational
limit analysis procedures can be very sensitive to mesh geometry, particularly for problems
which contain strong singularities in the stress and/or displacement elds [1]. It is therefore
worthwhile to explore a range of alternative methods. In recent years so-called meshfree
methods have been developed to provide a exible alternative approach to FEM. Meshfree
methods have been applied successfully to a wide range of computational problems, proving
popular due to its rapid convergence characteristics and its ability to obtain highly accurate
solutions for problems involving stress discontinuities. The EFG method have been developed
for limit analysis of plates [24], and it has been shown that EFG-based limit analysis
procedures can provide accurate solutions with minimal computational eort. Following this
line of research, the main objective of this paper is to develop dual meshfree-based formulations
for limit analysis of plane strain problems.
Once the displacement or stress elds are approximated and the bound theorems applied, the
underlying limit analysis problem becomes a problem of optimization involving either linear or
nonlinear programming. In this paper, both upper and lower bound formulations will be cast
in the form of a second order cone programming so that the resulting optimization problem
can be solved using ecient interior-point solvers.
STABILIZED DISPLACEMENT AND EQUILIBRIUM MESHFREE MODELS 1
2. DUALITY AND BOUNDS IN LIMIT ANALYSIS
Let X denote an appropriate space of a statically admissible stress state, whereas Y is an
appropriate space of a kinematically admissible velocity state. For smooth elds and u,
the classical form of the equilibrium equation can always be transformed to a more precise
variational form as
a(, u) = W
ext
( u), u Y (1)
where the internal work rate a is rewritten as a function of and u
a(, u) =

(L
T
) u d +

t
(n ) u d (2)
and the external work rate W
ext
is
W
ext
( u) =

f u d +

t
g u d (3)
The static principle of limit analysis can be now expressed as
= max

s.t
_
a(, u) =

W
ext
( u), u Y
B, B = { X | ((x)) 0 x }
(4)
in which the so-called yield function () is convex.
Due to the fact that both a and W
ext
are linear functions of u, the equation (4) can be cast
as [5]
= max
B
min
uC
a(, u) (5)
where the set C is dened by C = { u Y | W
ext
( u) = 1}
If expressing the plastic dissipation rate in terms of and u as
W
int
( u) = max
B
a(, u), (6)
the kinematic principle of limit analysis can be written
= min
uC
W
int
( u)
= min
uC
max
B
a(, u) (7)
It is clear from equation (5) and (7) that strong duality holds as
max
B
min
uC
a(, u) = min
uC
max
B
a(, u) (8)
In summary, the exact collapse load multiplier can be obtained by solving one of the following
optimisation problems
= max {

| B : a(, u) =

W
ext
( u), u Y } (9)
= max
B
min
uC
a(, u) (10)
= min
uC
max
B
a(, u) (11)
= min
uC
W
int
( u) (12)
2 CANH V. LE
In any numerical procedure for limit analysis problems, the problem spaces must
be discretised by numerical methods. For the static approach (9) or the kinematic
formulation (12), only one eld need be discretised; that is the stress or displacement eld,
respectively. On the other hand, the mixed formulations (10, 11) require the approximation
of both stress and displacement elds, and therefore mixed nite elements can be used [58].
In the present work, static and kinematic forms, which respectively provide lower and upper
bounds on the actual collapse multiplier, are of particular interest.
3. MESHFREE DISCRETIZATION
3.1. Moving least squares approximation and smoothing technique
Using the moving least squares (MLS) technique [9], the function of the eld variable f
h
(x)
in the domain can be approximated at point x as
f
h
(x) =
n

I=1

I
(x)f
I
(13)
in which

I
(x) = p
T
(x)A
1
(x)B
I
(x) (14)
A(x) =
n

I=1
w
I
(x)p(x
I
)p
T
(x
I
) (15)
B
I
(x) = w
I
(x)p(x
I
) (16)
where n is the number of nodes; p(x) is a set of basis functions; w
I
(x) is a weight function
associated with node I.
The smoothing technique presented in [10] will be adapted in order to stabilize problems
involving rst derivatives as follows

f
h
,
(x
J
) =
1
a
J
_

J
f
h
(x)n

(x) d (17)
where
J
is the boundary of the representative domain
J
.
Now, introducing a moving least squares approximation of the function f
h
, the smoothed
version of f
h
,
can be expressed as

f
h
,
(x
J
) =
n

I=1

I,
(x
J
)f
I
(18)
with

I,
(x
J
) =
1
a
J
_

I
(x)n

(x)d (19)
STABILIZED DISPLACEMENT AND EQUILIBRIUM MESHFREE MODELS 3
3.2. Smoothed upper bound formulation
Using the moving least squares technique, the approximated displacement u
h
(x) can be
expressed as
u
h
(x) =
_
u
h
v
h
_
=
n

I=1

I
(x)
_
u
I
v
I
_
(20)
Hence the upper-bound limit analysis problem for plane strain problems can be formulated as

+
= min
n

J=1

0
A
J

hT
(x
J
)

h
(x
J
)
s.t
_
_
_
F( u
h
) = 1
u
h
= 0 on
u

T

h
(x
J
) = 0 J = 1, 2, . . . , n
(21)
in which
h
ij
is the smoothed value of strains
h
ij
at node J
=
_
_
1 1 0
1 1 0
0 0 1
_
_
; =
_
1 1 0

T
(22)
3.3. Smoothed lower bound formulation
Stress elds can be approximated by

h
(x) =
_
_

h
xx

h
yy

h
xy
_
_
=
n

I=1

I
(x)
_
_

xxI

yyI

xyI
_
_
(23)
With the use of the smoothed value
h
,
equilibrium equation can be rewritten as
A
1

1
+A
2

3
= 0 (24)
A
1

3
+A
2

2
= 0 (25)
where
A
1
=
_
_
. . . . . . . . . . . .

1,x
(x
j
)

2,x
(x
j
) . . .

n,x
(x
j
)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
_
_
nn
(26)
A
2
=
_
_
. . . . . . . . . . . .

1,y
(x
j
)

2,y
(x
j
) . . .

n,y
(x
j
)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
_
_
nn
(27)

1
=
_

xx1
. . .
xxn

T
(28)

2
=
_

yy1
. . .
yyn

T
(29)

3
=
_

xy1
. . .
xyn

T
(30)
4 CANH V. LE
The lower bound limit analysis formulation can now be expressed as

= max
s.t
_
_
_
A
1

1
+A
2

3
= 0
A
1

3
+A
2

2
= 0
B
(31)
4. SOLUTION OF THE DESCRETE PROBLEM
In this section, above described optimization problems will cast in the form of a standard
second-order cone programming so that they can be solved using highly ecient primal-dual
solvers.
4.1. Upper bound programming
If dening a vector of additional variables is introduced as
=
_

1

2
_
=
_


h
xx
(x
J
)


h
yy
(x
J
)

h
xy
(x
J
)
_
(32)
and introducing auxiliary variables t
1
, t
2
, . . . , t
n
, the problem (21) can be cast as a second-
order cone programming (SOCP) problem

+
= min
n

j=1

0
A
j
t
j
s.t
_

_
F( u
h
) = 1
u
h
= 0 on
u

T

h
(x
J
) = 0 J = 1, 2, . . . , n
||||
i
t
i
i = 1, 2, . . . , n
(33)
4.2. Lower bound bound programming
If introducing a vector of additional variables as
=
_

3
_

_
=
_

0
1
2
(
xx

yy
)

xy
_

_
(34)
the von Mises failure criterion for plane strain problems can be rewritten as
B L =
_
R
3
|
1

23

L
2 =

2
2
+
2
3
_
(35)
Hence the lower bound limit analysis formulation can now be expressed as

= max
s.t
_
_
_
A
1

1
+A
2

3
= 0
A
1

3
+A
2

2
= 0

k
L
k
, k = 1, 2, . . . , np
(36)
STABILIZED DISPLACEMENT AND EQUILIBRIUM MESHFREE MODELS 5
where np is the number of yield points.
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
The performance of the limit analysis procedure described will now be tested by examining the
classical plane strain problem, as shown in Figure 1. For a load of 2
0
, the analytical collapse
multiplier is = 2+ = 5.142. The strong discontinuity at the edge of the indentor presents a
severe challenge to many numerical analysis procedures. Problems were setup using MATLAB
and the Mosek version 5.0 optimization solver was used to obtain all solutions.
H
1 1
B
0
2W
Figure 1. Prandtl problem: geometry and loading
Due to symmetry, only half the domain needs to be considered. A rectangular region of
dimensions B = 5 and H = 2 was used and the indentor (or punch) was represented by a
uniform vertical load. Finally, appropriate boundary conditions were imposed, all as indicated
in Figure 2.
0 u
y (v)
0 v u
0 v u
x (u)
Figure 2. Prandtl problem: nodal layout, Voronoi cells and displacement boundary conditions
A convergence study for the clamped square plate is shown in Figure 3. It can be observed
that when increasing the number of nodes the numerical solutions appear to converge towards
the actual solution. While lower bound solutions converge from below, upper bound solutions
converge from above.
6 CANH V. LE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
5.1
5.15
5.2
5.25
5.3
number of nodes

EFG displacement model
EFG equilibrium model
Mean value
Exact solution
Figure 3. Convergence study for the punch problem
Table I compares solutions obtained using the present displacement and equilibrium EFG
models with solutions obtained using FEM simulations. It can be observed that solutions
obtained by using the proposed displacement and equilibrium EFG models are in good
agreement with those obtained previously in the literature. The mean value of bounds obtained
here is equal to 5.1417, which is slightly smaller than the exact solution.
Table I. Prandtl problem: comparison with literature solutions
Approach Authors Collapse multiplier Error (%)
Kinematic Vicente da Silva and Antao [11] 5.264 +2.38
(upper bbound) Sloan & Kleeman [12] 5.210 +1.33
Makrodimopoulos & Martin [13] 5.148 +0.12
Le et al. [14] 5.143 +0.03
Present upper bound 5.146 +0.08
Analytical solution Prandtl [15] 2 +
Mixed formulation Capsoni & Corradi [16] 5.240 +1.91
Static Present lower bound 5.137 -0.09
(lower bound) Makrodimopoulos & Martin [17] 5.141 -0.01
STABILIZED DISPLACEMENT AND EQUILIBRIUM MESHFREE MODELS 7
6. Conclusions
Displacement and equilibrium EFG-based models for limit analysis of plane strain problems
have been proposed. The solutions obtained using the proposed numerical procedures show
good agreement with results available in the literature. Advantages of applying EFG to limit
analysis problems are that problem size is reduced, and accurate solutions can be obtained
using a relatively small number of nodes. The combination of the stabilized conforming
nodal integration technique (SCNI) and second order cone programming (SOCP) optimization
algorithm leads to an ecient and robust method.
REFERENCES
1. C. V. Le, H. Nguyen-Xuan, and H. Nguyen-Dang. Upper and lower bound limit analysis of plates using
FEM and second-order cone programming. Computers and Structures, 88:6573, 2010.
2. C. V. Le, M. Gilbert, and H. Askes. Limit analysis of plates using the EFG method and second-order
cone programming. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 78:15321552, 2009.
3. C. V. Le, M. Gilbert, and H. Askes. Limit analysis of plates and slabs using a meshless equilibrium
formulation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 83:17391758, 2010.
4. C. V. Le, H. Askes, and M. Gilbert. Adaptive Element-Free Galerkin method applied to the limit analysis
of plates. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 199:24872496, 2010.
5. E. Christiansen. Limit analysis of collapse states. Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Elsevier Science
B.V., 1996.
6. E. Anderheggen and H. Knopfel. Finite element limit analysis using linear programming. International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 8:14131431, 1972.
7. E. Christiansen. Computation of limit load. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
17:15471570, 1981.
8. R. Casciaro and L. Cascini. A mixed formulation and mixed nite elements for limit analysis. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 18:211243, 1982.
9. T. Belytschko, Y. Y Lu, and L. Gu. Element-Free Galerkin methods. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 37:229256, 1994.
10. J. S. Chen, C. T. Wu, S. Yoon, and Y. You. A stabilized conforming nodal integration for Galerkin
mesh-free methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50:435466, 2001a.
11. M. Vicente da Silva and A. N. Antao. A non-linear programming method approach for upper bound limit
analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 72:11921218, 2007.
12. S. W. Sloan and P. W. Kleeman. Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous velocity elds. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 127:293314, 1995.
13. A. Makrodimopoulos and C. M. Martin. Upper bound limit analysis using simplex strain elements
and second-order cone programming. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 31:835865, 2006.
14. C.V. Le, H. Nguyen-Xuan, H. Askes, S. Bordas, T. Rabczuk, and H. Nguyen-Vinh. A cell-based smoothed
nite element method for kinematic limit analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 83:16511674, 2010.
15. L. Prandtl. Ueber die haerte plastischer koerper. Nachrichtex der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Gottingen. II. Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse II, 12:7485, 1920.
16. A. Capsoni and L. Corradi. A nite element formulation of the rigid-plastic limit analysis problem.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 40:20632086, 1997.
17. A. Makrodimopoulos and C. M. Martin. Lower bound limit analysis of cohesive-frictional materials using
second-order cone programming. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 66:604
634, 2006.