AdvFem Meshfree 2016class PDF

LS-DYNA ® Advanced FEM and Meshfree Methods
for Solid and Structural Analyses

– Manufacturing Applications
Wei Hu* whu@lstc.com

LS-DYNA© Training Class C. T. Wu ctwu@lstc.com
Jun. 15th- 16th, 2016 Yong Guo yguo@lstc.com
Detroit Bo Ren boren@lstc.com
Youcai Wu ycwu@lstc.com
Download links of class material:

http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymous/outgoing/whu/Class/AdvFem_Meshfree_2016Class.pdf
http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymous/outgoing/whu/Class/AdvFem_Meshfree_2016Workshop.pdf
http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymous/outgoing/whu/Class/AdvFem_Meshfree_2016Workshop_Input.zip
Methods for Solid and Structural Analyses in LS-DYNA®
Rubber Materials: FEM, EFG, MEFEM, SPG
Foam materials: FEM, SPH, EFG, SPG
Metal materials: FEM, SPH, EFG, MEFEM, Adaptive FEM/EFG, SPG
Ductile material failure: FEM, SPG
Brittle and quasi-brittle material fracture: FEM, SPH, EFG, SPG, Peridynamics
E.O.S. materials and high speed applications: ALE, SPH, SPG
Shells and fracture: FEM, EFG, XFEM

Soil: ALE, SPH, SPG
Discrete materials: Discrete element method (DEM)
Composites and Unit cell analysis: FEM, EFG, SPG
2
Advanced FEM/Meshfree methods in LS-DYNA® for
Solids and Structures Analysis
Macromechanics
EFG for shells EFG for solids (foam)

(metal, fabric,….)
Adaptive EFG for shells Adaptive FEM/EFG for solids
(metal) (metal)
XFEM for shells
Cohesive EFG for solids Multi-scale (bridging)
(metal, brittle)
(brittle &semi-brittle)
ME-FEM for solids (rubber)
SPG for solids SAMG Multi-grid solver

(metal, form, soil, composite ..)
H-XFEM for shells Bond-based Peridynamics

(metal, composite) (glass, composite)
Micromechanics Nanomechanics
SPG for shell/solid shell
(metal, brittle, composite…)
Peridynamics for shells
(metal, brittle, composite …) Periodic Unit Cell method Poly-crystal DDD (single crystal)
Fusion Particle method Discrete Dislocation Dynamics
3
LS-DYNA Current Practice for Manufacturing Applications
Metal Forming: EFG & Adaptivity
o Sheet forming
• EFG shell ELFORM=41,42 (*SECTION_SHELL_EFG)
• ADPOPT=1,2,4 (*CONTROL_ADAPTIVITY)
o Bulk forming
• EFG solid ELFORM=41,42 (*SECTION_SOLID_EFG)
• ME-FEM solid ELFORM=43 (*SECTION_SOLID)
• ADPOPT=7 (*CONTROL_ADAPTIVITY)
o Hot forming: Thermal-mechanical coupling
o Spring back analysis
o Explicit/Implicit analysis
Machining and Jointing: Adaptivity & SPG
o Cutting / Riveting / Drilling

• Adaptivity: No material failure; Non-physical based Material separation
• SPG solid ELFORM=47 (*SECTION_SOLID_SPG):
Brittle & Ductile material failure; Physical based material separation
o Welding (FSW)
• Adaptivity: No material fusion
• SPG: Fusion particle method (residual-based homogenization with numerical stabilization,
under development)
4
Course Outline
1. Introduction and Overview

2. Workshop I
3. EFG, SPG and MEFEM in Solids/Structures and Their Keywords
4. Workshop II
5. Standard 3D Adaptive FEM/EFG and Its Keywords
6. Workshop III
7. Advanced 3D Adaptive EFG and Its Keyword
8. Workshop IV
9. EFG, XFEM, SPG and Peri-Dynamics Failure Analyses and Keywords
10. Conclusions, Q&A
5
1. Introduction and Overview
What is the Meshfree/Meshless/Particle Method ?
No mesh is needed for the construction of shape functions;

shape functions are constructed from sets of particles
Meshfree shape function
7
Meshfree/Particle Application Range
“Meshfree Solution looking for problems”
F Elastic Fluid Equation of State ρ

E.B.C. P
Solid Fluid Gas
Material
Strength
Metal Forming
Incompressible fluid
SPG Extrusion Particle FEM
MEFEMForging Conservative Element
Foam packing Airbag
Peridynamics Adaptive Eulerian FEM
EFG Compressible fluid Particle Airbag
Crashworthiness
ALE
Fracture
Discrete ElementSloshing
Hydroplaning
Bird strike SPG
Splashing
Explosion
SPH
Penetration
Momentum
8
Classification of Particle Methods
Implicit Meshfree Galerkin

RKPM, EFG, Particle Finite Element (PFEM), …
Continuum
Meshfree Collocation
Explicit SPH, Finite point, …
Particle Hydrocode
Meshfree Galerkin
Method RKPM, EFG, PFEM, SPG,
Peridynamics, …
Molecular Dynamics
Discrete
Lattice Boltzmann, DEM, …
9
History and Research Trend
Meshfree Method
Meshfree Collocation Method
Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) [Monaghan 1977]
Finite Point Method [Onate et al.1996]
Peridynamics [Silling 1998]
Meshfree Galerkin Method

Element Free Galerkin (EFG) [Belytschko et al. 1994]
Reproducing Kernel Particle Method (RKPM) [Liu et al. 1995]
Partition of Unity Method [Babuska and Melenk 1995]
HP-Clouds [Duarte and Oden 1996]
Free-Mesh Method [Yagawa et al. 1996]
Natural Element Method [Sukumar et al.1998]
Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin Meshfree Method(MLPG) [Atluri et al.1998]
Local Boundary Integral Equation (LBIE) [Atluri et al. 1998]
Finite Sphere Method [Bathe 1998], Particle Finite Element Method [Idelsohn et al. 2004]
Smoothed Particle Galerkin (SPG) method [Wu et al. 2013]
Meshfree least square method, …

(FEM, Control Volume, BEM …) + Meshfree Method
Coupled FEM/Meshfree Method [Wu et al. 2001]
Extended FEM Method [Belytschko et al. 1999]
Meshfree-enriched FEM (MEFEM) [Wu et al. 2011]
10
Computational Challenges
Advantages of Using Meshfree Method

Large material distortion, e.g., crashworthiness, hyper-velocity impact
Interfaces, moving boundaries, free surface, e.g., FSI
Adaptive procedure, e.g., forging and extrusion
Multiple-scale phenomenon, e.g., shear band
Moving discontinuities, e.g., material failure, crack propagation
Immersed Structures, e.g., reinforced composites
Disadvantages of Using Meshfree Method

High CPU and memory in implicit/explicit analysis (EFG, MEFEM, SPG)
Complicated in parallel (EFG)
Tensile instability and low-energy mode (SPH)
Difficult essential boundary condition treatment (SPH)
Does not pass Patch Test (most mesh-free methods);
11
Tensile Instability in SPH
FEM SPH
12
Low Energy Mode in SPH
EFG SPH
13
Computational Trade-off in Mesfree/Particle Methods
Feasibility
High CPU and Memory Better computer capacity
Large deformation,
Tensile instability Accurate integration rule
Material separation, …
Low-energy mode Adapivity
Boundary effect Implicit Trade-off
Dispersed waves Parallelization
Accuracy, Convergence
Stability
14
Overview on Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics ( SPH )
Basic SPH Equation of Motion

Strong Form Weak Form
dρ i mj β
dρ ∂vβ = ρi ∑ ( )
vi − v βj Wij ,β
= −ρ β ∞ dt j ρj
v(x) = Tu = ∫ wa (x − s)u(s)ds
dt ∂x −∞
ρ i = ∑ m jWij
dvα 1 ∂σ αβ Kernel approximation j
=− dviα σ iαβ σ j
αβ
dt ρ ∂x β = −∑ m j ( 2 + 2 )Wij ,β
dt j ρi ρj
dE σ αβ ∂vα dviα mj
=− = −∑ ( σ iαβ ± σ αβ
j )Wij ,β
dt ρ ∂x β dt j ρi ρ j
dEi σ iαβ
dt
= 2
ρi
∑ m (vα − vα )W
j
j i j ij ,β
in LS-DYNA
15
SPH Applications
Spinning Test Liquid Shifting Test
16
Overview on Element Free Galerkin Method (EFG)
NP
u (x) = ∑ wa[n] (x − xI ) u( xI )∆xI
h
I =1 Moving Least-Squares approximation

or Reproducing Kernel approximation
6444444474444444 8
-1
wa[n] (x − x I ) = H T[n](0)M [n] (x)H [n] (x - xI ) wa (x − x I )
14444 4244444 3 14243
n−th order completeness weighting function
[n]
w (x J ) ≠ δIJ
aI
A−T MA−1∆d&& + A−T KA−1∆d = −A−T R • More neighboring nodes

• Accurate and convergent
• Stable and no low-energy mode
∑w [n]
a ( x − xI ) = 1, x ∈ Ω • More integration points
I • Adaptivity to handle severe deformation
• CPU and memory demanding
17
Overview on Smoothed Particle Galerkin Method (SPG)
u ( X ) ≈ ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) uˆ ( X ) dΩ + ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) ∇uˆ ( X ) ⋅ (Y - X ) dΩ
Ω Ω
1
∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) ∇ (2) uˆ ( X ) ⋅( 2 ) (Y - X ) dΩ
(2)
+
2! Ω
∫ (∫
= uˆ ( X ) Ψ% (Y ; X ) dΩ + ∇uˆ ( X ) Ψ% (Y ; X )(Y ) dΩ − X
Ω Ω ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) dΩ )
Ω
2  1 
+ ∇ (2)uˆ ( X ) ⋅( )  ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X )(Y - X ) dΩ 
(2)
 2! Ω 
2  1 
= uˆ ( X ) ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) dΩ + ∇ (2)uˆ ( X ) ⋅( )  ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X )(Y - X ) dΩ 
(2)
Ω
 2! Ω 
( 2)
= uˆ ( X ) + ∇ uˆ ( X ) ⋅ η ( X )
(2 )
• More neighboring nodes
• Convergent
-T −1
(
A MA U&& = A-T f ext − f int ) • Stable and no low-energy mode
• Particle integration
• Can handle severe deformation
• CPU demanding; Under intensive
development
18
Meshfree Kernels
EFG
Lagrangian Kernel:
SPH 1.Support is defined in the initial configuration
2.Support covers the same set of material points throughout time
EFG 3.Neighbor searching only once
SPH Eulerian Kernel:
SPG 1.Support is defined in the current configuration
2.Support covers the different material points throughout time
3.Neighbor searching regularly
EFG Updated Lagrangian or Semi-Lagrangian Kernel:
SPG 1.Support is defined in the current configuration
2.Support covers about the same number of material points throughout time
3.Neighbor searching regularly
19
SPH Lagrangian Kernel and Eulerian Kernel
Eulerian Kernel Lagrangian Kernel
Zero-energy mode Zero-energy mode

Tensile instability Can not handle severe deformation
Time step drops in several orders
20
SPG Updated Lagrangian Kernel and Eulerian Kernel
Vz
Updated Lagrangian
No zero-energy mode; Capable to handle severe deformation; Time step drops slightly
Eulerian
t=0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
No zero-energy mode; Time step does not drop; Tensile instability

21
Spatial Domain Integration
Integration Cell or Background Element

“ Valid within Lagrangain description “
Ωe
non-overlapping
Ωe
‘mesh’
Usually in solid and structure ! SPH and SPG nodal

Only needed in initialization phase ! integration
• Define the physical domain Ωe

and various contact conditions
• Provide the mass computation EFG stress point
• Impose boundary conditions integration
• Create stress points
22
Comparison of SPH, EFG and SPG
SPH EFG SPG

Explicit Lagrangian Collocative Explicit/implicit Explicit
method Full/Semi-
Full/Semi-Lagrangian
Lagrangian Galerkin
Galerkin method
method
Impact/penetration Manufacturing Impact/penetration
compressible flow Crashworthiness Crashworthiness
2D and 3D 2D, 3D and shell 3D
Efficient Accurate Accurate

Handle free surface fluid flow Adaptive Handle material failure
Difficult Boundary condition Slow No adaptive (currently)
Tension instability
Low energy mode Under intensive development
23
When Should EFG be Considered in the Analysis ? (1)
Uniform Compression with Rigid Shell Impactor
Rigid shell
Result: EFG is same as FEM
Adding 20% viscous contact damping

(VDC=20.) to reduce oscillation in contact.
24
FEM EFG
25
Non-uniform Compression with Half Rigid Solid Impactor
Half Rigid solid Result: EFG advances further
FEM EFG
26
What is the EFG Limitation in Large Deformation Analysis?
Negative Volume in EFG ?

“Beyond Lagrangian Description ! ”
x = φ ( X , t) •Is continuously differentiable

•Is one-to-one
dx = F ⋅ dX
•J>0
J = det( F ) •F is invertible
Lagrangian
No material overlapping
No gap
No negative volume
27
EFG Negative Volume due to Lagrangain kernel
Ω0 Particle
Stress point Ωt
J>0
What will be the worst ?

— As bad as FEM !
28
Beyond Finite Strain Problems
adaptivity
Global Refinement
FEM/Mesh-free adaptivity
Severe material deformation

SPG (Updated Lagrangian Kernel)
Introduce damage EFG, SPG (Updated

Material separation Lagrangian Kernel or Eulerian Kernel)
Local Refinement
Strong discontinuity XFEM, SPG (Eulerian Kernel)
29
2. Workshop I
3. Standard EFG, SPG and MEFEM in
Solids/Structures and the Keywords
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG (1)
Card 1
Variable SECID ELFORM
Type I I
ELFORM EQ.41: EFG formulation

EQ.42: for 4-noded EFG or adaptive EFG
Card 2 and Card 3 define only for the EFG option
Variable DX DY DZ ISPLINE IDILA IEBT IDIM TOLDEF
Type F F F I I I I F
Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
Variable IPS STIME IKEN SF MID IBR DS ECUT
Type I ForF Fracture
I Analysis
F I & Other
I Features
F F
Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, 1,
1
32
Normalized dilation parameters (normalized support size) in X, Y and Z directions

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
1.0 ≤ DX, DY, DZ ≤ 2.0 is recommended

CPU time increases with support size
Some Guidelines for DX, DY and DZ

Regular ‘mesh’ Irregular ‘mesh’
Foam 1.0~1.2 1.0~1.2
Metal 1.2~1.4 1.0~1.2
Fluid or E.Q.S. 1.4~1.6 1.2~1.4
33
EFG kernel function

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
ISPLINE EQ.0: Cubic spline function (default) (with base function 1, x, y, z)

EQ.1: Quadratic spline function
EQ.2: Cubic spline function (circular shape)
EQ.10 Cubic spline function with bilinear basses function (1, x, y, z, xy, yz, xz)
Cubic B-spline
ISPLINE=2
Only DX is active
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
ISPLINE: other values
5, 41
1.1, , ,
34
Choice for the dilation parameter
Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
IDILA EQ.0: Maximum distance based on background elements (default)

EQ.1: Maximum distance based on surrounding nodes
I
rxI = d if IDILA=0
y rxI = d / 2 if IDILA=1
x
d
X-support in computation = rxI ·DX
35
Essential boundary condition treatment

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
IEBT EQ. 1: Full transformation

EQ.–1: (w/o transformation) (default)
EQ. 2: Mixed transformation
EQ. 3: Coupled FEM/EFG (most efficient)
= Smoothed Finite Element Method (SFEM)
Wu et. al. IJNME (2014); Comp. Mech. (2014)
EQ. 4: Fast transformation
EQ.–4: (w/o transformation)
EQ. 5: Fluid particle (trial version)
EQ. 7: Maximum Entropy approximation
Mixed transformation is equivalent to Full transformation with improved efficiency.
36
MLS Approximation in EFG (1)
1.Define a local approximation of a given function u(x) in the neighborhood

of x=s by a set of basis functions
u( x )
uh(x,s)
wa ( x − s )
x=s
Quadratic B-spline x
n
Ls u( x ) ≡ u ( x, s ) = ∑ ( s )i bi[ n ] ( x ) ≡H [n] ( s )b [n] ( x )
h T
i =1
T
H [n] ( s ) = [1, s, L, ( s ) n ] [n]: n-th order basis function
T θ θ
(in multi - dimensional H [n] ( x ) = [1, x, y , r cos , r sin , L])
2 2
n
Ls u( x ) ≡ u ( x, s ) = ∑ ( x-s )i bi[ n ] ( x ) ≡H [n] ( x-s )b [n] ( x )
h T
i =1
37
2. Minimization of weighted L2 norm
J ( u h (x)) = ∫ [u h (x, s) - u(s)] 2 wa (x - s)ds

Ω
n
where u h ( x, s ) = ∑ bi[ n ] ( x )( x − s )i
i =1
n
∂J ( x )
0 = [n] = 2 ∫ [u (x, s) - u(s)]wa (x − s)∑ (x - s) j db [j n ] ( x )ds; i = 1,L n
h
∂bi ( x ) Ω
j =1
3. The corresponding stationary condition is
∫H
[n] [n] T
(x - s)[ H (x - s)b [n] (x) - u(s)]wa (x − s)ds = 0
Ω
b [n] (x) = M [n] ( x )∫ H [n] (x - s)u(s)wa (x − s)ds

-1
Ω
where M [n] ( x ) = H [n] (x - s)H [n] T (x - s)w (x − s)ds
∫ Ω
a Moment matrix
38
4. The local approximation is
) ) ) )
u h (x, s) = H [ n ] (x - s)M [n] ( x) ∫ H [n] (x - s )u(s )wa (x − s )ds
T -1
5. The global approximation u h (x) = ∫ u(s)wa ds can be obtained by setting

Ω
s = x in the local approximation
[n] T ) ) ) )
h
∴ u ( x) = H ( 0) M [n] -1
( x) ∫ H [n] (x - s )u(s )wa (x − s )ds ≡ ∫ u(s)wa[n] (x − s)ds
Ω Ω
6. Compare to the original approximation u h (x) = ∫ u(s)wa (x − s)ds

Ω
T -1
wa[n] (x − s) = H [n] ( 0 ) M [n] ( x )H [n] (x - s)wa (x − s)ds Modified weighting function
1424 3 1424 3 14243
( 1×n ) ( n×n ) (n×1)
39
1-st order MLS Shape Functions
∑Ψ ( x ) = 1, x ∈ Ω
I
I ∑Ψ ( x ) = 1, x ∈ Ω
I
I
40
EFG Fast Transformation Method
4, -4
• Momentum equation ∫ δv ⋅ρ v&dΩ = − ∫ ∇δv : σ dΩ + ∫ δv ⋅ bdΩ + ∫ δv ⋅ τdΓ

Ω Ω Ω Γ
ρ v& = ∇ x ⋅ σ + b
mI v& I = −∑ ∇ xΦI ( x s ) ⋅ σ sVs
I
• Continuity equation ρ& s = − ρ s ∑ v I ⋅ ∇ xΦI ( x s )
ρ& = − ρ ∇ x v I
r ( xI , t ) u Ωh ( x ) = ∑ΦI[n] ( x ) ⋅ ∑Ψˆ J[m] ( x I ) x J ≡ ∑Ψ I[m] ( x ) x I

I ∈Ω J ∈Ω I ∈Ω
x∈Ω x∈Ω
Particle
Stress point
41
EFG Modified Maximum Entropy Method (1)
7
Local MAXENT (Ortiz and Arroyo, 2006, Wu et al, 2009; 2011))

N 2 N
(MAXENT ) maximize H ( p ) = β ( x )∑ pi xi − x + ∑ pi log pi
i =1 i =1
subject to pi ≥ 0, i = 1,..., N
N
∑p
i =1
i =1
N
∑p
i =1
i ( xi − x ) = 0
— for β ∈ [0,+∞ ) , H(p) is continuous and strictly convex in solution (well-

behaved mass matrix, monotonicity, variation diminishing …)
— less dependent
— difficult to decide β
42
EFG Modified Maximum Entropy Method (2)
N
Define the partition function Z : Z ( x, λ ) ≡ ∑ φi ( x )e λ⋅( x - xi ) / ri
i =1 • Non-negative approximation
where φi ( x ) is the kernel function at node i • Smoothness in irregular nodes
ri is the support size of kernel at node i • Less dependence
• Kronecker-Delta at boundary
The unique solution of MAXENT is proven to be

φi ( x )e f ( x, λ )
i
pi ( x, λ ) = ∀pi ≥ 0, i = 1,..., N
Z ( x, λ )
N
satisfying ∑p
i =1
i =1
N
∑p
i =1
i ( xi − x ) = 0
where f i ( x, λ ) = λ ⋅ [( x − xi ) / ri ]
— Implicit solve (3~5 iterations)
43
Domain integration method

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
IDIM EQ. 1: Local boundary condition method

EQ. 2: Two-points Guass integration (default)
EQ.-1: Stabilized EFG method (apply to 8-noded, 6-noded and combination of them)
EQ.-2: Fractured EFG method (apply to 4-noded & smp only)
IDIM= 1 for compressible materials
IDIM= 2 for compressible and nearly incompressible materials
IDIM=-1 applicable for both compressible/incompressible materials (very fast in 8-noded cell)
Γl
Ωl ζ ξ
xl
η ΓL
ΩL
xL
44
Different EFG Integration Cell (Background Element)
Tetrahedron Element in FEM
1. 4-noded constant stress (#10)
2. 10-noded 5-stress points (#16)
3. 4-noded nodal pressure for bulk forming(#13)
Background Element in EFG
EFG solid
EFG shell
45
Stabilized EFG Method (1)

Default -1
The Stabilized EFG Method (for 8-noded cells)

Is a one-point integration scheme + gradient type hourglass control.
Assumed strain method for nearly incompressible materials.
Designed especially for foam and rubber materials.
The speed is between FEM reduced integration element (#1) and full
integration element (#2)
A switch to full integration (rubber) or Semi-Lagrangian kernel (foam) is allowed
in large deformation range.
Available in SMP explicit and MPP explicit.
46
Deformation tolerance for the activation of Semi-Lagrangian kernel
Card 2 Type F F F I I I I F
Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 1 1 0.01
TOLDEF TODELF < 1.0

= 0.0 : Lagrangian kernel
> 0.0 : Semi-Lagrangian kernel
< 0.0 : Eulerian kernel
Time control for the activation of Full integration or Semi-Lagrangian kernel
Card 3 Variable IGL STIME IKEN

Type I F I
Default 0 1.e+20 0
47
Stabilized EFG Method (3): Rubber Bushing Analysis
Mooney-Rivlin Rubber
Poisson’s =0.4995
Stabilized EFG explicit analysis
Switched to full integration at t=100
Completion at t=150
CPU comparison at t=50

Methods S-FEM(#1) F-FEM(#2) EFG S-EFG
CPU 1.0 4.1 5.4~12.9 2.6
48
Deformation tolerance for the activation of Semi-Lagrangian kernel or Eulerian kernel

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
TOLDEF TODELF < 1.0

= 0.0 : Lagrangian kernel
> 0.0 : Semi-Lagrangian kernel
< 0.0 : Eulerian kernel
The larger number of the TODELF , the earlier activation of Semi-Lagrangian

or Eulerian kenrel and more CPU time is expected.
Semi-Lagrangian kernel is suggested in foam materials.
Eulerian kernel (SMP only) is suggested in fluid and E.O.S. materials.
Mass scaling is NOT supported in Eulerian kernel.
49
Foam Compression Simulation
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 4, ,0.01
EFG EFG
FEM
Semi-Lagrangian Kernel
50
Dummy with Side Impact (1)
Hyper-elastic Jacket
Foam Ribs
Total 84583 nodes
15966 EFG nodes
Copyright © by GM
FEM 51
Dummy with Side Impact (2)
FEM/Meshfree
Internal Energy (Ribs) Internal Energy (Jacket)

52
Crashworthiness: ODB Model (1)
Aluminum Cover
Honeycomb Bumper
Copyright © by GM
53
Crashworthiness: ODB Model (2)
Impact Force
FEM
FEM + high
viscosity
FEM/Meshfree(movie)
FEM/Meshfree
54
Brain Injury Simulation
Visco-hyperelastic Material
FEM/Meshfree
DOT/NHTSA
SIMon model
55
Variational Formulation (1)
The strong form of the initial-boundary-value problem is stated as follows:
Given bi ( x ), hi ( x ), g i ( x ), ui0 ( X ),vi0 ( X ),find ui ( X ,t) such that they satisfy

ρu&&i = σ ij , j + bi in Ω
with boundary conditions
σ ij n = hi on Γ xhi
ui = g i on Γ xgi
and initial conditions
ui ( X ,0) = ui0 ( X )
u&i ( X ,0) = vi0 ( X )
56
The (Bubnov-) Galerkin weak form of the problem is stated as follows:
Given bi ( x ), hi ( x ), g i ( x ), ui0 ( X ),vi0 ( X ),

find ui ( X ,t) ∈ H g1 ( H g1 = { v : v ∈ H 1 ( Ω ), vi = g i on Γ xgi }
such that for all δui ( X ,t) ∈ H 01 ( H 01 = { v : v ∈ H 1 ( Ω ),vi = 0 on Γ xgi }
the follwoing equation is satisfied
∫Ω δu ρu&& dΩ + ∫Ω δu
x
i i
x
σ ij dΩ − ∫ δui bi dΩ −
i,j
Ωx ∫Γ x
hi
δui hi dΓ = 0
with
ui ( X ,0) = ui0 ( X )
u&i ( X ,0) = vi0 ( X )
H 1 : ∫ ( u ,x )2 dΩ < ∞ Sobolev space of degree one

Ωx
57
Linearized updated Lagrangian equation
∫Ω δu ρu&& dΩ + ∫Ω δu
x
i i
x
i,j σ ij dΩ − ∫ δui bi dΩ −
Ωx ∫Γ x
hi
δui hi dΓ = 0
→
∫Ω δu ρ∆a dΩ + ∫Ω δε C
x
i i
x
ij ijkl ∆ε kl dΩ + ∫ δui , jTijkl ∆uk ,l dΩ − ∫ δui ∆bi dΩ −
Ωx Ωx ∫Γ x
hi
δui ∆hi dΓ = −δu T R
∫Ω X
δui ρ 0 ∆ai dΩ Lumped mass is different from FEM
where Cijkl = Cijkl

a lg ∗
− Cijkl
∗ 1
Cijkl = −σ ijδ kl + ( σ ilδ jk + σ jl δ ik + σ ik δ jl + σ jk δ il )
2
Tijkl = δ ikσ jl
NP
u (x) = ∑ wa[n] (x − xI ) u ( xI )∆xI
I =1
58
Lagrangian and Eulerian Kernel (1)
Material velocity
Lagrangian Kernel :
NP NP NP
u( X ,t) = ∑ wa[n] ( X ; X − X I )u I ∆X I = ∑ H [ n ] (0 ) M [ n ] ( X ) H [ n ] ( X − X I ) wa ( X − X I )∆X I u I ≡ ∑ ΨI ( X )u I
T −1
I =1 I =1 I =1
∂ui ( X ,t )
vi ( X ,t ) = [X] = ∑Ψ I X ( X )d&iI ( t )
∂t I
Eulerian Kernel :
NP NP NP
u( x ,t) = ∑ w ( x ; x − x I )u I ∆xI = ∑ H
[n]
a
[ n ]T
(0 ) M [ n ]−1
( x ) H ( x − x I ) wa ( x − x I )∆xI u I ≡ ∑ ΨI ( x )u I
[n]
I =1 I =1 I =1
∂ui ( x, t ) ∂ui ( x , t ) ∂ui ( x , t )

vi ( x, t ) = [X] = [ x] + v j ( x, t )
∂t ∂t ∂x j
144 2443
x
c b A
∂Ψ ( x; h(t)) ∂ΨIx ( x , t )
= ∑[ I x &
[ x ] ξ iI (t ) + ΨI ( x )ξ iI (t ) +v j ( x , t ) ξ iI (t )]
I ∂t ∂x j
⇒ v = ( 1 − A )−1 ( b + c ) ⇒ v& = u
&&
59
Lagrangian and Eulerian Kernel (2)
Spatial derivatives of the Lagrangian kernel

Path-dependent materials: the spatial derivative of material shape functions is needed
−1
∂Ψ I X ( X ) ∂Ψ I X ( X ) −1 ∂x  ∂Ψ IX ( X ) 
= F ji ( x( X ,t )) F −1 = = ∑ d I ⊗ + I
∂xi ( X ,t ) ∂X i ∂X  I ∂X 
∫Ω f ( x )dΩ = Ω∫ f ( x( X ,t ) )J ( X ,t )dΩ , J = det( F )

x X
60
*SECTION_SHELL_EFG (1)
Card 1
Variable SECID ELFORM SHRF NIP PROPT …
Type F F F I F
Default
ELFORM EQ. 41: EFG shell (local projection)

EQ. 42: EFG shell (iso-parametric mapping)
EQ. 43: EFG 2D plane strain
EQ. 44: EFG 2D axisymmetric (y-axis of symmetry)
Card 3 define only for the EFG option

Variable DX DY ISPLINE IDILA IEBT IDIM
Type F F I I I I
Default 1.1 1.1 0 0 1 2
*SECTION_SHELL_EFG
6, 41
1.1, 1.1, , , 4, 1,
61
DX, DY, ISPLINE same as in *SECTION_SOLID_EFG

IDILA: not available
Essential boundary condition treatment

Type F F I I I I
Default 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2
IEBT EQ. 1: Full transformation (default)

EQ.–1: (w/o transformation)
EQ. 3: Coupled FEM/EFG = Smoothed Finite Element Method (SFEM)
Wu et. al. IJNME (2014); Comp. Mech. (2014)
62

Type F F I I I I
Default 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 0
ELFORM = 41
IDIM EQ.1: first-kind Local boundary condition method
EQ.2: Gauss integration (default)
ELFORM = 42
IDIM EQ.1: first-kind Local boundary condition method (default)
EQ.2: second-kind Local boundary condition method
ELFORM = 41 is more suitable for crashworthiness analysis

ELFORM = 42 is more suitable for metal forming analysis
63
Meshfree Shell Surface (1)
ELFORM = 41: Global Approach
Meshfree Shell Surface Representation
E 0 := {X mid ∈ R 3 X mid (ξ, η) = φ (ξ, η )}
Surface parameterization based on FE mesh + MLS [Krysl and Belystchko 1996]
Lagrange polynomials + MLS [Noguchi et al. 2000]
3D RKPM with extra constraints [Chen and Wu 2001]
Angle-based triangular flattening [Sheffer and Sturler, 2001] + MLS
N 3
minimize F (α ) = ∑∑ (αij − φij )2 wij η
i =1 j =1
subject to g i,(1)j ≡ αij ≥ ε2 > 0, for i = 1...N,

j = 1...3, and some ε2 > 0 ξ
M
Projection
Advantage: Handle complex manifold surface; Conforming shape functions

Disadvantage: Requires multiple parametric domains for spherical & cylindrical structures
64
Meshfree Shell Surface (2)
ELFORM = 42: Local Approach
zI ẑi
yI ŷi
M-plane nM
I J xI I M-plane
x̂i
K J K nM +1
cos -1 ( nM , nM +1 ) ≤ θCritical
Z,w
Y,v Advantage: Handle complex geometry
Disadvantage: Non-conforming shape functions
ΨI ( X J ) ≠Ψ I ( X J )
X,u M − plane N − plane
Remedy: (Area-weighed) smoothing

NIE
Ψ I ( X J ) • ANIE NP
Ψ% I ( X J ) = ∑ ⇒ ∑ Ψ% I ( X )X iIN = X iN ∀ X ∈ E 0 / plate
IE =1 ∑ ANIE I =1
where
NIE is the number of surrounding projected planes evaluated at X J
65
Constructed Meshfree Surface
Meshfree Global Approach Meshfree Global Approach

Meshfree Local Approach Meshfree Local Approach
Meshfree Local Approach
66
Meshfree Shell Formulation (1)
• First-order shear deformable shell theory with 5/6 –parameter approach

  h h 
B :=  x ∈ R 3 x (ξ ,η ,ζ , t ) = φ (ξ ,η , t ) + ζV3 (ξ ,η , t ) with ζ ∈ − ,+  
  2 2 
∆V3 = −V2 ∆α + V1∆β
NP NP
ς
xI ( x ) ≈ ∑Ψ I (ξ ,η )x ref
I + ∑Ψ I (ξ ,η ) V3 I ; V3 I = x Itop − x Ibottom
I =1 I =1 2
• A co-rotational coordinate system is embedded at each in-plane integration

zone and defined by the convected coordinates η s s
ẑ ŷ ẑ ŷ V3 V2
Two approximations for local velocity x̂ s
V1 x̂ ξ
z y
NP
~ NP
~ t α& 
vˆ i = ∑Ψ I vˆ iI + ζ ∑Ψ I I [− V2iI V1iI ] &I  ; V3in +1 = Rij ( Δθ )V3in x
I =1 I =1 2  βI 
θˆ& 
~ t I  ˆ& 
xI
NP NP
~
vˆ i = ∑Ψ I vˆ iI + ζ ∑Ψ I θ yI  with | v3 ⋅ zˆ |< 0.01 (Belytschko’s element)
I =1 I =1 2 
0
 
67
• Lagrangian smoothed strains in co-rotational system [Chen and Wu 1998]

~ ~ ~
ε m = ∑ BIm d I
~ ε b = ζ ∑ BIb d I
~ ε s = ∑ BIs d I
~
I I I Γ l
~ 1 ~ ~ ζ ξ
BIm ( xl ) =
Al ∫ Γl
B̂Im ⋅ ndΓ ∑ Ψ I ( X )WJ = 0
∇ ΩXl
l
J =1 X ηL
~ 1 Ω Γ
∫ ~ ~
∑ ΨI ( X ) = 0
b
BIb ( xl ) = B̂ ⋅ ndΓ
I where ∇ L L
Al Γl
I =1
~ 1
BIs ( x L ) =
AL ∫ ΓL
B̂Is ⋅ ndΓ ~ ~
∑ Ψ I ( X ) X iI2 = X i
∇
I =1
1
ε~ij1 ( X L ) = ∫ ε ij dΩ
h h
l
AL ΩL
ς
(t I θ1IV1 Ii + t I θ2IV2 Ii ) ] n j + [Ψ I (ξ ,η ) ς (t I θ1IV1 Ij + t I θ2IV2 Ij )] ni dΓ
NP
−1
=
2 AL
∑∫
I =1 Γ L
{[Ψ I (ξ ,η )
2 2
68
• Internal nodal force
~ T ~T ~T
f Iint = ∫ BIm ⋅Φ ⋅ σ̂dΩ + ∫ ζBIb ⋅Φ ⋅ σ̂dΩ + ∫ BIs ⋅Φ ⋅ σ̂dΩ
Ω Ω Ω
• Equilibrium Equation
(K L + K N )Δd = f t + Δt − Φ t
NP
K L = ∑ ([ BI0 (ζ L ) + BI1 (ζ L ) ]TεT CTε [ BJ0 (ζ L ) + BJ1 (ζ L ) ] AL
T T
L =1
NP
K N = ∑ ([ BNI (ζ L ) + BNI1 (ζ L )]TεT STε [ BNJ0 (ζ L ) + BNJ1 (ζ L )] AL
T T
0
L =1
NP
Φ = ∑ ([ BI0 (ζ L ) + BI1 (ζ L ) ]TεT σ ′AL
T T
L =1
69
Crushing Tube using Meshfree Shell
FEM Meshfree
70
Complex Channel Forming
Adaptivity
71
S-Rail Forming
8000 4-noded
Shell elements
72
Full Car Test (1)
Decomposition on 8 processors
Total nodes 285879
Total solid elements 2969
Total shell elements 269107
EFG solid: foam bumper
EFG shell: front hood
Normalized MPP CPU Time
’s
No. of CPU’ 1 2 4 8 16
Full FEM 1.00 0.66 0.33 0.19 0.11
Coupled FE/EFG 1.08 0.72 0.37 0.22 0.15
Clusters of HP RX2600 (2 1.5 MHz CPU’s per node)

OS: HP-UX 11.23
LS-DYNA: double precision MPP 971
73
Full Car Test (2)
74
Smoothed particle Galerkin (SPG) Method
Main Features
Is a pure particle integration method without integration cell.
Has explicit/implicit versions. Currently implemented by explicit method.
Has thermal-mechanics coupling (currently only in SMP).
Improves the low-energy modes due to rank deficiency in nodal.
Is related to residual-based Galerkin meshfree method.
Can be related to non-local or gradient types inelasticity.
NO stabilization control parameters.
Stability analysis via Variational Multi-scale analysis.
Frist-order convergence in energy norm.
Is capable to provide a physical-based failure analysis.
Released in R8.0.
75
*SECTION_SOLID_SPG (1)
Card 1
Type I I
ELFORM EQ.47: SPG formulation
Card 2 and Card 3 define only for the SPG option

Variable DX DY DZ ISPLINE KERNEL LSCALE SMSTE SUKTIME
P
Type F F F I I I F F
Default 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 0 Reserved 15 Reserved
Variable
Type For Failure Analysis & Other Features

Default
*SECTION_SOLID_SPG
5, 47
1.6, 1.6, 1.6, , 1, , ,
76
Option of kernels in the analysis

P
KERNEL EQ. 0: Updated Lagrangian Kernel

EQ. 1: Eulerian Kernel
Some Guidelines KERNEL
Material Note
Updated Solids No failure

Lagrangian (Rubber-like, Foam, …) Less shear deformation
Solids Failure analysis

Eulerian
EOS, Solid fluid Extreme deformation
77
Interval of time step to conduct displacement regularization

P
Time to switch from updated Lagrangian kernel to Eulerian kernel

P
*SECTION_SOLID_SPG
5, 47
1.6, 1.6, 1.6, , 1, , 20, 0.15
78
Residual-based Meshfree Galerkin Principle
u ( X ) ≈ ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) uˆ ( X ) dΩ + ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) ∇uˆ ( X ) ⋅ (Y - X ) dΩ Displacement approximation

Ω Ω
1
∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) ∇ (2)uˆ ( X ) ⋅( 2 ) (Y - X ) dΩ
(2)
+
2! Ω
∫ Ω
(∫
= uˆ ( X ) Ψ% (Y ; X ) dΩ + ∇uˆ ( X ) Ψ% (Y ; X )(Y ) dΩ − X
Ω ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) dΩ )
Ω
2  1 
+ ∇ (2)uˆ ( X ) ⋅( )  ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X )(Y - X ) dΩ 
(2)
 2! Ω 
1 
= uˆ ( X ) ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X ) dΩ + ∇ (2)uˆ ( X ) ⋅( 2 )  ∫ Ψ% (Y ; X )(Y - X ) dΩ 
(2)
Ω
 2! Ω 
= uˆ ( X ) + ∇ (2 ) uˆ ( X ) ⋅( 2 ) η ( X ) Gradient type nonlocal strain
a h (uˆ , δuˆ ) = l (δuˆ ) ∀δuˆ ∈ V h
( ) ( )
(2)
a h ( uˆ , δ uˆ ) = ∫ δ ( ∇ s uˆ ) : C : ( ∇ s uˆ ) d Ω + ∫ δ ∇ uˆ : C : ∇ uˆ d Ω
Ω Ω
(2)
h
= astan ( uˆ , δ uˆ ) + astab
h
( uˆ , δ uˆ )
h
astab ( ) ( )
(2)
( uˆ , δ uˆ ) = ∫ δ ∇ uˆ : C : ∇ uˆ d Ω
Ω
(2)
(2) 1
∇ uˆ =
2
( ∇η : uˆ∇ (2) + ∇ (2)uˆ : η∇ ) Wu et. al submitted to J.
Comput. Physics. (2014)
l (δ uˆ ) = ∫ δ uˆ ⋅ fd Ω + ∫ δ uˆ ⋅ td Γ − ∫ δ∇( ) uˆ : η ⋅ fd Ω
Ω ΓN
2
Ω
( )
79
Well-defined Mathematical Property
Coercivity
2 s  s 22 (2) 2

uˆ 1 ≤ c1 ∇ uˆ ≤ c1  ∇ uˆ + ∇ uˆ 
0
 0 0
c1
≤
γ min ( C )
( h
astan ( uˆ , uˆ ) + astab
h
( uˆ , uˆ ) )
= c2 a h ( uˆ , uˆ ) , c1 , c2 > 0, uˆ ∈V h
Continuity
a h ( uˆ , vˆ ) ≤ ∫
Ω
s s
( ) ( )
( ∇ uˆ ) : C : ( ∇ vˆ ) d Ω + ∫ Ω
(2) (2)
∇ uˆ : C : ∇ vˆ d Ω

≤ γ ( C ) ( ∫ εˆ ( uˆ ) d Ω ) + ( ∫ εˆ ( vˆ ) d Ω )
2 1/ 2 2 1/ 2
max
 Ω 0 Ω 0
1/ 2 1/ 2

+ c ( ∫ h∇εˆ ( uˆ ) d Ω ) + ( ∫ h∇εˆ ( vˆ ) d Ω )
2 2
3 
Ω 0 Ω 0

≤ γ max ( C ) c4 { uˆ 1 vˆ 1} ≤ c5 uˆ 1 vˆ 1 , c3 ,c4 ,c5 > 0 ∀uˆ , vˆ ∈V h
Unique solution !
80
Error Estimation via VMS (Variational Multi-scale Method)
( ) (
a h v h , u h + a h v h , u b = l v h ∀v h ∈V h ) ( ) coarse-scale equation
ah (v b
, uh ) + a (v h b
, ub ) = l (v ) ∀v
b b
∈ Bh fine-scale equation
NP
{
B h (Ω ) := v b : v b ∈ H 1 , v b = 0 on Γ } global residual-free fine-scale space
~
u h ( x ) = ∑ Ψ J ( x )uˆ J
J =1
NP NP
~
= ∑ Ψ J ( x )∑ Ψ K ( x J )u
~
K
 BP ~ b ( x ) = Ψ b ( x )u
BP
ub ≈  ∑ (φ I ( x ) − Ψ I ( x ))u ∑ ~ b ( x ), ∀x ∈ Z b
J =1 K =1
I I I I I I I
NP NP
~  I =1  I =1
= ∑∑ Ψ K ( x J )Ψ J ( x )u
~
K
K =1 J =1
NP
= ∑ φ K ( x )u
~
K
K =1
~
bT ~ −1 ~ T ~ ~
u = u + u = Ψ K  − K K R + R  + Ψ b K −1 R
h  h b T −1
 
( ) (h
a h u − u h , u − u h = a h u − u h , u − u h + astab u − uh , u − uh ) ( )
≤ u−u h 2 2
+h ∆ u−u ( h
) 2
Error estimation
e e
in energy-norm
≤ c( µ ,λ )h 2 u 2,Ω + c~( µ ,λ )h 2 u 2,Ω ≤ c( µ ,λ )h 2 u 2,Ω
2 2 2
81
Nonlinear SPG Implementation
Implicit formulation
∆δΠ = ∫ δε ij Cijkl ∆ε kl dΩ + ∫ δui , jTijkl ∆u k ,l dΩ − ∫ δui ∆f i dΩ − ∫ δui ∆ti dΓ
Ωx Ωx Ωx ΓN
~ ~
δU T K nv+1 ∆U ( ) v +1
n +1
~
= δU T Rnv+1
~
U = A -1U
NP
AIJ = φ J ( X I )I = ∑ Ψ K ( X I )Ψ J ( X K )I
K =1
A-T K nv+1 A −1 (∆U )n+1 = A-T Rnv+1

v +1
Explicit dynamic formulation

(
A-T MA−1U&& = A-T f ext − f int )
Corresponding coordinate system
(
MU&& = A-T f ext − f int ) in SPG computation
NP NP
M I
RS
= ∑ M IJ = ∑ AIK
−T −1
M KM AML
J J
dρ I NP
dt
~
& ( )
= − ρ I ∇ ⋅ uI = − ρ I ∑ u ~& ⋅Ψ ( x )
J J ,x I
J =1
Currently implemented in LS-DYNA© 82

2D Prandtl’s Punch Problem
dy
Effective Plastic Strain
•Quasi static
•Elastic-plastic
Direct nodal integration method (DNI)
SCNI method (Chen et al. IJNME 2001)
SPG
83
2D Bushing problem
L
a1
a2 L = 1.5
dy
a1 = 2.5
Core
a2 = 1.0 DNI
Metal
•Quasi static
•Elastic-plastic
SCNI
Present
SPG
84
Taylor Bar Impact (1)
Bottom
view
Progressive deformation with EPS
t=0.004 0.012 0.020 0.028

∆t=1.76×10-5 1.72×10-5 1.66×10-5 1.66×10-5
85
Taylor Bar Impact (2)
FEM SPG
EPS EPS
Temperature Temperature
86
Plate Impact with Updated Lagrangian Kernel (1)
Ball: rigid, R=5.0

Plate: R=20.0, thickness=5.0
Particles: 25721, updated
Lagrangian
Elastic perfectly-plastic material:
ρ0=7.85×10-3
E=6.9x104
v=0.3
σy=200.0
Vz=-600.0
87
Plate Impact with Updated Lagrangian Kernel (2)
Bottom view
t=0.04 t=0.02
∆t=7.44×10-6 ∆t=7.47×10-6
t=0.08
∆t=7.39×10-6
88
Meshfree-enriched Finite Element Method (MEFEM)
Standard displacement-based low-order Lagrange elements
• Attractive due to simplicity and economy in element formulation

• Mathematically and numerically well-established
• Volumetric locking in incompressible regime
• Shear locking in bending-dominated problems when coarse mesh is adopted
Non-physical locking
modes in elastic Q1 element
eigenvalue analysis
89
Existing Numerical Techniques
Find u h ∈V h ⊂ H 01 (Ω ) such that A ( uh , v h ) = l (v h ) ∀v h ∈V h
(P) A(u h ,v h ) = 2μ ∫Ω ε (u h ) : ε (v h )dΩ + λ ∫Ω (∇ ⋅ u h )(∇ ⋅ v h )dΩ

l (v h ) = ∫Ω f ⋅ v h dΩ + ∫Γ t ⋅ v h dΓ
N
In near-incompressible regime ∇ ⋅ u h → 0 as λ → ∞ ( or v → 0 .5 )
Divergence-free condition ∇ ⋅ u h = 0
FEM Meshfree
Reduced/selective integration Pseudo-divergence-free interpolation

Reduced integration and hourglass control Pressure projection
Taylor expansion method B-bar
Mixed formulation Mixed formulation
Assumed/Enhanced strain method
Non-conforming element
F-bar
Pressure projection method;
Average nodal pressure element
90
Meshfree-enriched Finite Element Method (MEFEM)
Has explicit/implicit versions.

Is a Hybrid element: meshfree bubble enriched 5-noded tetrahedral element.
Is a smoothed strain displacement-based Galerkin FEM method.
Is equivalent to a low-order inf-sup stable mixed formulation.
Surpasses the inf-sup deficiency through multi-scale analysis.
Suitable for rubber-like materials.
Currently needs a special mesh re-partitioning scheme for 4-noded elements.
91
*SECTION_SOLID
Card 1
Type I I
ELFORM EQ.43: Meshfree-enriched finite element formulation
*SECTION_SOLID
5, 43
92
Meshfree-enriched Bilinear Element (1)
Goal: ∇ ⋅ uh ( ξ gi ) Qe → 0 as λ → ∞ ∀Qe ∈ M h , i = 1,2,3,4
Integration point
.
 5 5

Fe : Qe → Qe , x = Fe (ξ ) = F , F ( e
1
e
2
) =  ∑ xiΨ i (ξ ,η ), ∑ y Ψ
i i (ξ, η ) for all ξ ∈ Qe
 i =1 i =1 
{ [ ] 2
V h (Ω ) = u h : u h ∈ H 01 , u h Qe = u h o Fe , u h ∈ P1 (Qe ) for all Qe ∈ M h
−1
}
where P1 (Qe ) = span{Ψi , i = 1,L5} denotes the space contains a set of basis functions in Q e
93
Meshfree-enriched Bilinear Element (2)
Sukuma IJNME (2004); Arroyo and Ortiz IJNME (2006)

Wu et al. IJNME (2011)
94
Area-weighted Strain Smoothing
% uh = 1
ε% h = ∇
Am ∫
Ωm
∇u h d Ω
∂Ω = ∪ b mb
1
~
εh = (ε (ξ g1 ,η g1 )det (J1 ) + ε (ξ g 2 ,η g 2 )det (J 2 )) Am =
det( J 2e1 ) + det( J 3e1 ) + det( J1e 2 ) + det( J 4e 2 )
2 Am 2
det ( J1 ) + det ( J 2 ) det ( GF G x )1 + det ( GF G x )2
T T e1 e1 e2 e2
det ( GF G xT ) + det ( GF G xT ) + det ( GF G xT ) + det ( GF G xT )
Am = = = 2 3 1 4
2 2 2
 1 
∇% ⋅ u = tr ( ε% ) = tr 
h h
∫Ω ∇ u h
d Ω 
 Am m 
1
= ∫ tr ( ∇u h ) d Ω The resulting element formulation
Am mΩ
1
=
Am ∫Ωm
∇ ⋅ uh d Ω • Is divergence-free in incompressible limit
• Contains no spurious zero energy mode
∇ ⋅ uh ( ξ g1 ) det ( J1 ) + ∇ ⋅ uh ( ξ g 2 ) det ( J 2 )
= • Passes patch test in compressible case
det ( J1 ) + det ( J 2 )
=0
95
Mathematical Properties
Find uh ∈V h such that
Ah ( u h , v h ) = l ( v h ) ∀v h ∈V h
( ) (
Ah ( uh , v h ) = ∫ CΠ h ε ( uh ) : Π h ε ( v h ) d Ω
Ω
)
Theorem 1
The Jacobian of the reference mapping for meshfree-enriched finite element is bijective .
Theorem 2
The smoothed gradients of the meshfree-enriched triangular elements satisfy the
integration constraint and the resultant element formulation passes the patch test.
Theorem 3
The modified bilinear form Ah ( ⋅, ⋅) is bounded on V h × V h , i.e., there exists a
positive constant such that
( )
Ah u h , v h ≤ Cb u h
1
vh
1
∀ u h , v h ∈V h
Theorem 4
The modified bilinear form Ah ( ⋅, ⋅) is coercive on V h × V h , i.e., there exists a
positive constant such that
(
Ah v , vh h
)≥ C c v h 2
1
∀ v h ∈V h
Wu and Hu CMAME (2011); Wu et al. IJNME (2012); Wu and Hu CM (2012)
96
Convergence in Incompressible Limit
Theorem 5: inf-sup condition Find ( u , p ) ∈V × P

h h h h
such that
 _______

A ( u , v ) + B  div v
h h h
, p h  = l ( v h ) ∀ v h ∈V h
Find uh ∈V h such that  
(M)  _______h h  1
Ah ( uh ,v h ) = l ( v h ) ∀v h ∈V h B  div u , q  − B ( p h , q h ) = 0 ∀ q h ∈ P h
(R)   λ
( ) (
Ah ( uh , v h ) = ∫ CΠ h ε ( uh ) : Π h ε ( v h ) d Ω )
Ω
Subject to a stability condition between the

(
A ( uh , v h ) = 2µ ∫ Π h ε ( uh ) : Π h ε ( v h ) d Ω
Ω
) ( )
displacement space and an implicit B ( p, q ) = ∫ pqd Ω Saddle point
Ω
pressure space induced by problem of penalized
_______
__________ div u = tr Π h ε ( uh )
h
( ) Stokes equation
p = −λ trΠ h ε ( u
h
( h
) ) = −λ div ( u h
) in h
{
P h = q h : q h ∈ L20 ( Ω ) ,q h Ωm ∈ P0 ( Ωm ) ∀ Ωm ∈ M h }
{
L20 ( Ω ) = q ∈ L2 ( Ω ) , ∫ Ω
qd Ω = 0 }
discrete inf-sup condition for bilinear function B div u h , q h 
_______
 
 
1 h
λ ~ε (v h ) 0 ≤
________
∫ q div ( v ) d Ω
h h
βλ
q
0
Ω
infh sup ≥ βλ
ε% ( v h ) qh
h
q ∈P \{0} v h ∈V h \{0}
0 0
97
Extension to Triangular and Tetrahedral Elements
Fe (ξ ,η )
98
2D Rubber Tube Inflation (1)
GMF-GI NICE-T3 ME-Tri-AW 99

100
(a) semi-uniform discretization (b) random discretization

Deformation plot using ME-Tri-AW in nearly-incompressible case: initial (dash lines);
analytical (thick red lines); numerical (thick blue lines)
101
2D RubberBushing (1)
102
2D RubberBushing (2)
103
2D RubberPunch (1)
104
2D RubberPunch (2)
105
Particle-reinforced Rubber Composite
Displacement-based Displacement-based
meshfree Galerkin method meshfree Galerkin method ME-FEM
with pressure smoothing 106
4. Workshop II
5. Standard 3D Adaptive EFG and Its
Keywords
Adaptive Methods for Manufacturing Simulations
Reasons for Adaptivity

High accuracy requirement
Surface representation, High gradient
Residual stress effects the crash result
Multi-stage analysis involving moving-boundary
Typical applications:
Hot Forging/Extrusion, Cold forming
Machining, Riveting, Rolling, Tapping
Current Numerical Limitations

R-adaptivity for solids
H-adaptivity is limited to shell structures
Failure analysis is limited to metal cutting problems

Do not apply to rubber-like materials
109
Riveting (Self-Piercing) Analysis (1)
Tool
Rigid
Working Pieces (to

be connected)
Rigid
•EFG Implicit solver

•Multiple-part adaptivity
110
111
IVT=2 IVT=1
112
Frictional Self-Riveting Simulation
Tool
Adaptive Parts
113
Complex Forming
• MPP Implicit solver

• Local adaptivity
114
Squeezing

• Deformable tools
Work piece
Top tool
115
Metal Cutting Analysis

v=30m/s
116
Friction Stir Welding Analysis (1)

Temperature Distribution 117

Friction Stir Welding Analysis (2)
118
Forming with Sharp Tool
119
Piercing
Rigid
• EFG Implicit solver
• Forming_..._Mortar Contact Working piece
• Metal
• No material failure (treated as solid fluid)
Piercing force
120
Main Features
An explicit/implicit solver coupled with thermal analysis.

Using 4-noded integration cell.
Automatic switch from 6/8-noded cell to 4-noded cell.
A second-order interpolation scheme for state variable transfer.
Pressure smoothing to improve accuracy.
Including global/local adaptive refinements.
Interactive adaptivity for efficiency as well as accuracy.
A special surface reconstruction algorithm for metal cutting analysis.
Available for multiple adaptive parts.
Manual remeshing and mesh editing.
Available in SMP and MPP.
121
Card 1
Type I I
42

EQ.42: for 4-noded adaptive EFG
Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
Variable IGL STIME IKEN SF MID IBR DS ECUT
Type I For
F Fracture
I FAnalysis
I & Other
I Features
F F
Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, 1,
1
122
Essential Boundary Conditions

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 1 1 0.01
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE
IEBT EQ. 1: Full transformation (default) ….
EQ.–1: (w/o transformation) *CONTROL_REMESHING
EQ. 2: Mixed transformation ….
EQ. 3: Coupled FEM/EFG *SECTION_SOLID_EFG
EQ. 4: Fast transformation 5, 41
EQ.–4: (w/o transformation) 1.2, 1.2, 1.2, , , 3, 2,
EQ. 5: Fluid particle (trial version) 1
EQ. 7: Modified Maximum Entropy approximation *PART
Workpiece
IDIM EQ. 1: Local boundary condition method 100, 4, , , , ,2(ADPORT)
EQ.-1: Stabilized EFG method (apply to 8-noded, 6-noded and combination of them)
123

Default 3
Displacement approximation
 KP
 ∑ Φ [m]
L ( x )d iL ; ∀ x ∈ Ω FEM ⊂ R d
h  L
xL ∈ΩFEM
ui ( x ) ≈ ui ( x ) =  NP MP
 ∑ wa ( x ; x − x I )d iI + ∑ ΦL[m] ( x )d iL ; ∀ x ∈ ΩMeshfree ⊂ R d
[n]
 x ∈Ω I 144 42444 3 L 14243

 I Meshfree x L ∈ Γ Interface
Completeness condition
NP MP
∑w I
a
[n]
( x ; x − x I )x x + i
1I
j
2I ∑Φ J
[m]
J ( x ; x − x J )x1i J x 2j J = x1i x 2j , i + j = 0 ,K , n
x I ∈Ω Meshfree x J ∈Γ Interface
NP MP
or H
[n]
(0 ) = ∑w I
[n]
a ( x ; x − x I )H [n]
( x − xI ) + ∑ΦJ
[m]
J ( x ; x − x J )H [ n ] ( x − x J )
x I ∈Ω Meshfree x J ∈Γ Interface
Interface Constraint
~
Ψ I (x) = 0 ∀ {I : supp(Ψ I ) ∩ Γ Interface ≠ 0}
~
x ∈ Γ Interface
124
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE (1)
Variable ADPFERQ ADPTOL ADPORT MAXLVL TBIRTH TDEATH LCADP IOFLAG

Card 1 Type F F I I F F I I
Default none 1.e20 1 3 0.0 1.e20 0 0
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE
0.1, ,7, , 0.0, 0.8
*PART
,,,
, , , , , , 2 (ADPORT),
125
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE (2)
Variable ADPSIZE ADPASS IREFLAG ADPENE ADPTH MEMORY ORIENT MAXEL
Card 2 Type F I I F F I I I
Default 0 0 0.0 inactive inactive 0 inactive
Adapene = 0 (Global refinement) :

• Segment based contact (SOFT=2 in *CONTACT) is
recommended
Adapene >0 (Local refinement):

• Support shell/solid rigid/deformable tool and multiple adaptive
parts.
Global Refinement
• Support surface_to_surface contact types (SMP & MPP)
FORMING_..._MORTAR (recommended)
Standard and AUTOMATIC
• ADPENE represents a distance from the tooling surface within
which the adapted mesh refinement of the adaptive part is
influenced by the radius of curvature of the tooling surface.
• This feature is currently unavailable in SOFT = 2 in *CONTACT.
Local Refinement
126
Self-Riveting Simulation
Temperature Contour
127
*CONTROL_REMESHING
Variable RMIN RMAX VF_LOSS MFRAC DT_MIN ICURVE CID SEGANG

Type F F F F F I I F
Default 1.0 0.0 0.0 4 0
RMAX = 3~5 RMIN *CONTROL_REMESHING

1.2, 4.8, , , , 4
128
*CONTROL_CONTACT
Variable SLSFAC RWPNAL ISLCHK SHLTHK PENOPT THKCHG ORIEN ENMASS

Card 1 Type F F I I I I I I
Default .1 none 0 1 1 O 1 0
SLSFAC: Scale factor for sliding interface penalties (1.0~6.0 recommended in adaptivity)
SHLTHK: Shell thickness in contact (also in *CONTACT_)

= 1 thickness is considered but rigid bodies are excluded
(*CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE)
= 2 thickness is considered including the rigid bodies
(*CONTACT_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE) offset 0.5*shell thickness
PENOPT: Penalty stiffness value (4 or 5 are recommended for high gradients)

= 4: use slave node value, area or mass weighted.
= 5: proportional to shell thickness
129
*CONTACT_...
Variable SOFT SOFSCL LCIDAB MAXPAR SBOPT DEPTH BSORT FRCFRQ

Optional Type F F I I I I I I
Card A
Default 0 0.1 0 1.025 0.0 2 10-100 1
SOFT: Soft constraint option:

EQ.0: penalty formulation
Supported in local adaptivity
EQ.1: soft constraint formulation
EQ.2: segment-based contact Preferred in global adaptivity
EQ.4: constraint approach for FORMING contact option
BSORT: Number of cycles between bucket sorts.
Preferred contact types in adaptivity:
*CONTACT_(AUTOMATIC)_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE
*CONTACT_(FORMING/AUTOMATIC)_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_MORTAR
130
*CONSTRAINED_GLOBAL or LOCAL
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.2, 1.2, 1.2, , , 7, 2,
*CONTROL_REMESHING
2.0, 5.0
*CONSTRAINED_LOCAL
…
10410 nodes
2769 nodes EFG Adaptive EFG

131
Implicit Time Step Size
*CONTROL_IMPLICIT_AUTO
Variable IAUTO ITEOPT ITEWIN DTMIN DTMAX DTEXP KFAIL KCYCLE

Card 1 Type I I I F F F
Default 0 11 5 DT/1000. DT*10.0 NONE
IAUTO: Automatic time step control flag

EQ. 0: constant time step size
EQ. 1: automatically adjusted time step
DTMAX: Maxmium allowable time step size
*CONTROL_IMPLICIT_GENERAL
Variable IMFLAG DT0 IMFORM NSBS IGS CNSTN FORM ZERO_V

Card 1 Type I F I I I I I I
Default 0 NONE 2 1 2 0 0 0
DT0: Initial time step size for implicit analysis
132
*CONTROL_IMPLICIT_SOLUTION
Variable NSOLVR ILIMIT MAXRE DCTOL ECTOL RCTOL LSTOL ABSTOL

F
Card 1
Type I I I F F F F F
Default 2 11 15 0.001 0.01 1.-E+10 0.90 1.e-10
IIMIT: Iteration limit between automatic stiffness reformations
MAXREF: Stiffness reformation limit per time step
133
*INTERFACE_SPRINGBACK_LSDYNA
Variable PSID NSHV

Card 1 Type I I *CONTROL_IMPLICIT_INERTIA_RELIEF
1, 1.0
Default none none
*CONTROL_IMPLICIT_SOLUTION
2, 1 (ILIMIT: Stiffness reformation limit per time step)
NSHV: Number of history variables *CONTROL_IMPLICIT_GENERAL
, , , , 2 (IGS: Geometric stiffness matrix)
*KEYWORD_ID *INCLUDE
Tool_solid Tool_solid.dynain (initial stress …)
134
*CONTROL_THERMAL
Variable ATYPE PTYPE SOLVER CGTOL GPT EQHEAT FWORK SBC

Card 1 Type I I I F I F F F
Default 0 0 3 1.0e-4 8 1. 1. 0.
ATYPE: = 0 Steady state analysis

= 1 Transient analysis
CGTOL: = 1.0e-3~1.0e-4
*CONTROL_THERMAL
1, , , 1.0e-3
*CONTROL_THERMAL_TIMESTEP
…
*INITIAL_TEMPERATURE
…
*MAT_THERMAL_ISOTROPIC
135
The Upsetting Process with Thermal (1)
Initial Temperature 20 0C
Low carbon steel Ck105
No heat transfer to the environment
Internal Energy Force
136
The Upsetting Process with Thermal (2)
Final stage Springback
Initial Temperature 20 0C Von Mises Stress Contour

Low carbon steel Ck105
No heat transfer to the environment
137
Extrusion with Thermal Coupling (1)
Contact
Force
15997 nodes
13969 nodes 15091 nodes 15003 nodes 15086 nodes

138
Extrusion with Thermal Coupling (2)
Effective Plastic Strain Temperature
139
Extrusion with Thermal Coupling
• Local refinement
• *Contact_Forming_Surface_To_Surface_Mortar
• Interactive adaptivity
140
Standard Practice of 3D Adaptivity
• Adaptive frequency is controlled by an user-defined time dependent

parameter or curve.
• Mass scaling is allowable in explicit dynamic analysis.
• Support local refinement
• Define local coordinates for constrained and symmetric planes.
• Element erosion is not supported.
• Implicit analysis is suggested for most manufacturing problems.
141
6. Workshop III
7. Advanced 3D Adaptive EFG and Its
Keywords
Advanced Adaptive Method
1. Meshfree Interactive Adaptive Method

2. Monotonic Mesh Resizing
3. Meshfree Pressure Smoothing Scheme
4. Internal Variables Transfer Methods
5. Meshfree for Orbital Forming
6. Manual Remeshing and User’s Control File for Adaptivity
*CONTROL_REMESHING_EFG
0.0015, 0.0060
1, 3, 1, , 1
0.40,4.5,
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 42
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, 2,
1
144
Meshfree Interactive Adaptive Method
Dynamically detect distortion and maintain the quality of EFG discretization.

Three indicators were implemented to detect distortion including shear
deformation, nodal distributions and volume change.
More efficient than traditional non-interactive adaptivity using constant interval.
More robust than non-interactive adaptivity in large deformation analysis.
Available in R5 version for SMP and MPP.
145
*CONTROL_REMESHING_EFG (1)
Variable RMIN RMAX VF_LOSS MFRAC DT_MIN ICURVE

Card 1 Type F F F F F I
Default 1.0 0.0 0.0 4
Options in interactive adaptive EFG method
Variable IVT IAT IAAT MM

Card 2 Type I I I I
Default 1 0. 0. 0.
Tolerance in interactive adaptive EFG method
Variable IAT1 IAT2 IAT3

Card 3 Type F F F
Default 1.0e+20 1.0e+20 1.0e+20
146
Variable IVT IAT IAAT

Card 2 Type I I I
Default 1 0. 0.
IAT: Interactive adaptivity type

= 0: No interactive adaptivity
= 1: Interactive adaptivity combined with predefined adaptivity
Extra adaptivity is triggered interactively within every period defined by ADPFREQ.
= 2: More interactive adaptivity
The time interval between two successive adaptive steps is bounded by ADPFREQ.
= 3: Purely interactive adaptivity
IAAT: Interactive adaptivity adjustable tolerance

= 0: The tolerance to trigger interactive adaptivity is not going to be adjusted in run-time
= 1: The tolerance to trigger interactive adaptivity is going to be adjusted in run-time
This is designed to avoid over-activation of interactive adaptivity.
147
Tolerance in interactive adaptive EFG method

Variable IAT1 IAT2 IAT3
Card 3 Type F F F
Default 1.0e+20 1.0e+20 1.0e+20
IAT1: The tolerance for shear deformation. (0.1~0.5)

IAT2: The tolerance for nodal distribution. (~RMAX/RMIN for no local refinement)
IAT3: The tolerance for volumetric change. (~0.5).
• The tolerance is automatically adjustable at runtime when IAAT=1.

• The tolerance adjustment is affected by:
(1) How frequently interactive adaptivity is triggered
(2) Material deformation
(3) ADPFREQ
• The rate of change in three different indicators over ONE time step is also considered.
If the rate is over 50%, interactive adaptivity is also triggered.
148
Forging Simulation (1)
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE
0.0002 …
0.0015 0.0060
3
0.40 4.5
Resultant force
Mixed adaptivity
* SMP with 1 CPU
IAT 0 1 2 3
Normalized CPU time 1.00 1.60 1.14 1.31
# of adaptive steps 22 73 29 32
Traditional adaptivity Purely interactive adaptivity

149
Forging Simulation (2)
150
Wheel Forging Simulation (1)
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE
2.5 …
0.15 0.30
3 1
0.20 3.5 0.80
Resultant force
* SMP with 6 CPUs Traditional adaptivity

IAT 0 3
Normalized CPU time 1.0 0.72
# of adaptive steps 50 22
Purely interactive adaptivity
151
Wheel Forging Simulation (2)
Purely Interactive Adaptivity (IAAT=1: adjusted tolerance)

Interactive adaptivity triggered by rate of indicator change
Tolerance
Shear
deformation Indicator
t (sec)
Unbalanced
nodal
distribution
Volumetric
change
• Standard adaptivity triggers remeshing in predefined timetable regardless of mesh distortion

• Interactive adaptivity is triggered only when distortion is detected by indicators.
152
Metal Cutting Simulation (1)
w/ interactive
w/o interactive
Stop due to local distortion
Shell
rigid
MAT_003
*CONTROL_ADAPTIVE
0.010 …
0.20 1.2
3 1 Resultant force
0.15 3.5
153
Metal Cutting Simulation (2)
Purely Interactive Adaptivity (IAAT=1: adjusted tolerance)

Tolerance
Shear
deformation Indicator
Unbalanced
nodal
distribution
Volumetric
change
• Interactive adaptivity is able to detect distortion that occurs frequently and irregularly
in metal cutting analysis, which is hard to be handled by traditional adaptivity.
• Automatic adjustment of the user defined tolerance is able to avoid over-activation of
interactive adaptivity, which results in an improved efficiency.
154
Gear Forging Simulation
155
Monotonic Mesh Resizing (1)
Variable IVT IAT IAAT IER MM

Card 2 Type I I I I I
Default 1 0. 0. 0. 0.
MM: Monotonic mesh resizing

= 0: Off
= 1: On
• Capture high gradient

• Maintain mesh density for not losing accuracy through adaptivity
• Especially useful when local refinement is not available
Local refinement is currently driven ONLY by curvature of contact surface
156
Contour Effective Plastic Strain (0~1.8)
Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG

Interactive Monotonic Interactive
resizing Monotonic resizing
Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG

Interactive Monotonic resizing Interactive
Monotonic resizing
Norm. 1.0 0.82 3.1 2.0
CPU
157
*CONTROL_REMESH
0.004 …
0.05 0.2
-2 2,,,1
1.2 0.9 Off
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
1 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1 , , , 3, 2
1
On
158
Meshfree Pressure Smoothing Scheme (1)
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 42
Card 1 1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, 2,
Type I I
1

EQ.42: for 4-noded adaptive EFG

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
Type I For
F Fracture
I FAnalysis
I & Other
I Features
F F
Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
IPS EQ. 0: (default) No pressure smoothing

EQ. 1: Moving-least squared pressure recovery
159
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
Type I For
F Fracture
I FAnalysis
I & Other
I Features
F F
Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
• Pressure smoothing is recommended for IEBT=3 or IDIM=1 (including

other IEBT approximations) in adaptive EFG method
• Pressure smoothing is NOT recommended when there is “hard contact”

condition or implicit analysis has convergence problem
(“Hard contact” condition means the contact causes the numerical difficulty to
obtain the solution, e.g. local refinement with severe deformation and locally
high gradients)
160
• Incompressibility is satisfied in a weak sense

2
3
Θ( P ) = ∑ j =1
S ij,i −ψ I , j PI from flow formulation
L2 (Ω )
~ 2
∂W
Φ( P ) = Qp −
∂J L2 (Ω )
Minimization
~
~ T ∂W
P = QM ∫ Q
−1
where M = ∫ Q T QdΩ
Ω ∂J Ω
Linearization
2 ~
~ T ∂ W −1 ∂Δu k
∆P = QM ∫ Q
−1
JFlk dΩ
Ω ∂ J2 ∂X l
(
K nv+1∆d = f ext − f int )v
n +1
~ ~
K nv+1 = ∫ B T ( D + T )n +1 Bd Ω + k ∫ B T BdΩ
v
Ω Ω
~
B = QM −1 ∫ Q T gBdΩ
Ω
161

*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 42
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, 2,
0
Smeared gradient
Adaptive EFG w/ Adaptive EFG w/o

Pressure smoothing Pressure smoothing
162
Multi-stage Hot Forming Analysis
• *MAT_ELASTIC_VISCOPLASTIC_THERMAL
• No heat transfer to the environment
• Curling is due to unbalanced stress distribution through thickness
• Pressure smoothing helps to improve stress calculation
w/o pressure
smoothing
w/ pressure
smoothing
163
Internal Variables Transfer Methods (1)
Internal variable Transfer in Adaptive EFG
Variable IVT IAT IAAT

Card 2 Type I I I
Default 1 0. 0.
IVT: = 1 Moving Least square approximation with Krocknet-delta property

= -1 Moving Least square approximation without Krocknet-delta property
= 2 Parition of Unity approximation with Krocknet-delta property
= -2 Parition of Unity approximation without Krocknet-delta property
• IVT=1 is recommended in general case

• IVT=2 is recommended in local refinement with significant change in mesh
density
164
Internal Variables Transfer Methods (2)

0.0015, 0.0060
-2,
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 42
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, 2,
1
Smeared gradient
Adaptive EFG Adaptive EFG

IVT=1 IVT=2
(Low CPU cost)
165
Meshfree for Orbital Forming (1)
*PART
Variable PID SECID MID EOSID HGID GRAV ADPORT TMID
Card 2 Type I A8 A8 A8 A8 I I A8
Default none none none 0 0 0 0 0
ADPORT EQ. 2: R-adaptive for 3D.

EQ. 3: for 6-noded/8-noded orbital forming
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
IDIM EQ.-1: Stabilized EFG method (apply

to 8-noded, 6-noded and
*PART
combination of them)
2, 1, 1, , , , 3,
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , , 3, -1,
166
*CONTROL_REMESHING
Variable RMIN RMAX VF_LOSS MFRAC DT_MIN ICURVE CID SEGANG
Card 1 Type F F F F F I I F
Default 1.0 0.0 0.0 4 0
CID: Define the orbital axis

The orbital axis has to be in parallel to the global z-axis in current pratice
SEGANG: Define angular mesh size
*CONTROL_REMESHING
Orbital
axis , , , , , , 5, 2.0
*DEFINE_COORDINATE_SYSTEM
5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0
1.0, 1.0, 0.0
167
EPS
168
User’s Adaptivity Control Files (1)
Runtime control on adaptivity (Beta development version)

Manually trigger additional adaptive remeshing
Manually remesh and edit mesh
Define adaptive parameters for individual adaptive part
IADPFC=1 (7th flag in card 4, *CONTROL_ADAPTIVE)
Two control files in the job folder

adapt.fc1
1. Trigger additional adaptive steps either immediately or any time later
2. Manually remesh/edit the mesh instead of using LS-Dyna remesher
adapt.fc2
Set specific Rmin/Rmax, adaptive birth/death time for individual adaptive part
169
adapt.fc1: Three parameters C1, C2, C3
Examples:
(1) 1,0.0,0: trigger additional normal adaptivity immediately
(2) 1, 2.5e-3,0: trigger additional normal adaptivity at t=2.5e-3
(3) 1, 2.5e-3,3: trigger additional special adaptivity with manual
remeshing on adaptive part 3 at t=2.5e-3.
Manual remeshing and mesh editing:

(1) LS-DYNA will hang up waiting for new mesh from user
(2) "user.mesh" in the job folder containing the mesh for users to remesh/edit
(3) Change C1 to -1 to continue LS-DYNA with new "user.mesh"
170
adapt.fc2: Parameter list for adaptive parts
Example:
Line 1: 2 (number of adaptive parts)
Line 2: 2, 0.0,0.1,1,4 (for adaptive part 2, adaptive birth time is 0.0,
adaptive death time is 0.1, RMIN=1, RMAX=4)
Line 3: 3, 0.01,0.2,2,4 (for adaptive part 3, adaptive birth time is 0.01,
adaptive death time is 0.2, RMIN=2, RMAX=4)
If new mesh quality of some adaptive parts using manual remeshing is NOT good
enough for the remesher in LS-Dyna, it is recommended to stop adaptivity by
setting corresponding adaptive death time to be just slightly larger than C2 in
adapt.fc1 to avoid error termination due to failure of automatic remeshing.
171
• Manually edit the mesh

Erode a thin layer of mesh right before material separation
• Stop adaptivity right after manually editing the mesh
172
• Set different control parameters on different adaptive parts
173
Manually erode a thin layer of elements Manually cut the mesh using Hypermesh
Stop adaptivity of top sheet after erosion Adaptivity of top sheet continues on
174
8. Workshop IV
9. Failure Analysis and Its Keywords
Modeling Material Separation
1. Weak Discontinuities : discontinuous deformation gradients

• Continuum damage constitutive equation + Nonlocal strain smoothing + Material erosion
• Implicit Cracks: Crack is an assumed width
• Polynomial basis is inadequate to represent the fine scale.
• Time step tents to be very small in explicit analysis with fine mesh
2. Strong Discontinuities : discontinuous displacement

• Cohesive model + (Interface element, or elemental enrichment EFEM, or
nodal enrichment XFEM, or EFG)
• Phenomenological failure + nonlocal strain (SPG, bond/state-based peridynamics)
• Explicit Cracks : remove the influence of mesh size and orientation
• No direct correlation between the strain softening and critical energy release rate.
• Time step: 2 2k
∆t ≤ ; ω max =
ω max ρh
3. Weak + Strong Discontinuities

• Loss of uniqueness as a criterion for changing from continuum damage mechanics to discete
177
Material Fracture v.s. Numerical Fracture
Material separation due to

numerical fracture in SPH
Physical material fracture before numerical fracture Enlarge numerical support !

178
SPG for Ductile Failure
Can be related to non-local or gradient types material failure model.

Currently provide three failure mechanism:
Continuum damage mechanics based
Phenomenological strain based
Max principle stress based
More failure criterions can be added upon request.
Availabel in R8.0
Will be extended to brittle materials.
179

P
Card 2
Type F F F I I I F F
KERNEL EQ. 0: Updated Lagrangian Kernel

EQ. 1: Eulerian Kernel
Some Guidelines KERNEL
Material Note
Updated Solids No failure

Lagrangian (Rubber-like, Foam, …) Less shear deformation
Solids Failure analysis

Eulerian
EOS, Solid fluid Extreme deformation
180
Failure Control
Variable IDAM SF
Card 3 Type I F
Default 0
IDAM EQ. 0: Continuum damage mechanics (default).

EQ. 1: Phenomenological strain-based failure criteria.
EQ. 2: Principle stress based failure criteria.
SF: Failure EPS / Max-Principle-Stress.
*SECTION_SOLID_SPG
5, 47
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , 1, , ,
1, 0.5
181
Plate Impact (1)
Ball: rigid, R=5.0

Plate: R=20.0, thickness=5.0
Particles: 25721, Eulerian
Elastic perfectly-plastic material:
ρ0=7.85×10-3
E=6.9x104
v=0.3
σy=200.0
Vz=-600.0 Phenomenological strain-based failure criteria
IDAM=1
182
Plate Impact (2)
v=300
t=0.12
v=400
t=0.09
v=600
t=0.06
Front view Top view Bottom view 183

Plate Impact (3)
Bottom view
v=400
t=0.04 t=0.02
∆t=7.44×10-6 ∆t=7.48×10-6
t=0.06 t=0.08 t=0.09

∆t=7.47×10-6 ∆t=7.48×10-6 ∆t=7.44×10-6
184
Plate Impact (4)
v=300 v=400 v=600
185
A Low-speed Ball Penetrating through the Metal Plate(1)
EPS
Contact Force
Von Mises stress 186

A Low-speed Ball Penetrating through the Metal Plate(2)
• Using existing FEM mesh.

• No element/particle erosion or manual cut of the model.
• Time step size does not drop.
Top view
Bottom view
187
Metal Cutting Analysis (1)
Aluminum
ρ0=2.7×10-6 kg/mm3
E=78.2GPa
v=0.3
σy=0.29(1+125ep)0.1
Strain-based failure criteria εfail = 0.5
Cutting Speed = 10 m/s
Fixed ∆t=3.0×10-5
188

Different cutting angles
Fixed ∆t=3.0×10-5
189

Different depth
Fixed ∆t=3.0×10-5
190
191
Metal Shearing Analysis (1)
εfail = 0.5
Fixed ∆t=1.0×10-5
Effective plastic strain is monotonically increased w/o diffusion ! 192

Metal shearing analysis (2)
Part
Burr Geometry
Scrap
SPG simulation Experiment
Major applications in blanking, bolt/rivet shearing, AHSS trimming …

193
Hole Punching in Metal (1)
Time-Punch Force
Effective Stress Contour (full model) Pressure Contour (Cross-section view) 194
Effective Stress Contour (Cross-section view)
∆t=7.69~8.16 ×10-8
195
196
Self-pierce Riveting Analysis (1)
Constan
tv
Rigid Deformable tool
(FEM)
Solid plates
(SPG)
Rivet model EPS
197
EPS
Upper plate Lower plate
198
Von Mises stress
Upper plate Lower plate
199
Flow Drill Screw (FDS) Analysis (1)
stage 1
Head with internal of
external drive system Thread forming zone
Flow drilling zone stage 2
Stage 1
Courtesy of Ford Motor Co. EPS 200

Stage 1
EPS
von Mises stress

201
Stage 2
EPS
202
Pull Out Test in FDS
Constant v Stage I Stage II
Rigid
Solid plates
(SPG)
Constant v
v decreases by x10
Rotational speed increases by x4
Start unscrewing
Rotation creates material vertical transportation in the direction opposite to
the prescribed v
203
FDS with Thermal Effect (1)
Temperature
204
EPS
Max: 7.0 Max: 26.1
With thermal Without thermal

205
Contact force Temperature

at final stage
206
Metal Tearing (1)
• Multiple cracks
• Sharing nodes with FEM
Courtesy of Ford Motor Co. 207

Metal Tearing (2)
von Mises stress EPS
Courtesy of Ford Motor Co. 208

SPG for Composites (1)
• Works for several composites

• Does not erode materials
MAT_COMPOSITE_MSC with AOPT=2 and a 45 material angle
FEM
SPG
209
SPG for Composites (2)
• Under development features (Beta version)
MAT_COMPOSITE_FAILURE MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE
Courtesy of DynaS+ 210

SPG for Water Sloshing
• Supports several EOS materials

• Uses regular NODE_TO_SURFACE contact
211
XFEM and Meshfree for Brittle Failure
Tmax
Initially-elastic
T = T (δ ) Initially-rigid
GIC = ∫
δ max
T (δ )dδ δ max
0
δ : displacement jump
• The potential crack propagation plane is

idealized as a cohesive zone and is
assumed to support a traction field T.
• The mechanical response of the

cohesive interface is described through a
constitutive law relating the traction field T
with a separation parameter.
212
Initially-Elastic and Initially-rigid Cohesive Law
Initially-elastic Initially-rigid
Cohesive Interface EFG or XFEM
Element
Size: 5.0 X 10.0

Displacement-control (1.2 in 0.3 sec)
Tvergaard-Law I cohesive law
Tmax = 5.0
α = 1.0
δ n = 1.0
δ t = 1.0
λcr = 1. / 3.
ρ = 1.0e − 6; E = 167.0;ν = 0.3
213
Interface element, EFG and XFEM
Cohesive zones
failed up to here
EFG CFEM CFEM

XFEM Initial Rigid Initial Elastic
214
Overview on Meshfree Method and XFEM
Extended FEM : Level set + Local PU [Belytschko et al. 2000] ξ*
uh ( X ) = ∑ Φ FEM
I (ξ )uI + ∑ ΨI ( X )qI
I =1 I ∈w
Φ FEM (ξ )(H ( f ( X )) − H ( f ( X I ))) fully cut element

ΨI ( X ) =  FEM
I
Φ I (ξ )(H ( f ( X )) − H ( f ( X I ))) contain crack tip f =0

*
Meshfree Method: MLS + Visibility [Belytschko et al. 1996]
uh ( X ) = ∑ Φ I ( X )uI
I =1
Ω0+
Φ I = P ( X ) A( X ) P ( X I )W ( X − X I , h )
T −1
X (η )
A( X ) = ∑ P ( X J )P T ( X J )W ( X − X I , h ) Ω0−
J
Extended Meshfree Method: MLS + Local PU + Visibility [Rabczul and Zi, 2006]
uh ( X ) = ∑ Φ I ( X )uI + ∑ Φ ( X )H ( f ( X ))a
J J J + ∑ Φ ( X )∑ Q ( X )b
J K KJ
I =1 J ∈Ω f J ∈Ωt K
θ  θ  θ  θ 
Q = [ r cos , r sin , r cos  sin(θ ), r sin  sin(θ )]
2 2 2 2
215
EFG Brittle Failure Analysis in Solids
Meshfree Brittle Failure Analysis and Its Assumptions

• Is a discrete approach.
• Crack initiation and propagation are governed by cohesive law.
• Crack currently is cell-by-cell propagation and is defined by visibility.
• Minimized mesh sensitivity and orientation effects.
• No material fusion.
• Applied mainly to quasi-brittle materials and some ductile materials.
Current Pratice
• Apply mainly to brittle and semi-brittle materials (Mode-I).
• Only for 4-noded background cell.
• Currently SMP only.
216
Discrete Cracks
Crack in Meshfree: Visibility Criterion [Belytschko et al.1996]

Intrinsic (Implicit crack) : no additional unknowns
2
1  
x (η ) = ∑ Φ FEM (η ) X + ∑ Ψ ( X (η ))u + ∑ Ψ ( X (η ))u 
Ω0+
I I 
2  J ∈Ω0+
J J J J 
I =1 J ∈Ω0− 
X (η ) ∂x (η ) 2 ∂Φ FEM (η ) + 1  u ⊗ ∂ΨJ ( X ) + u ⊗ ∂ΨJ ( X )  ∂X (η )
= ∑ XI ⊗ I
∑ J ∑ J
Ω0− ∂η I =1 ∂η 2  J ∈Ω0+ ∂X J ∈Ω 0− ∂X  ∂η
Initially-rigid Cohesive Law: Redefined Displacement Jump (Sam, Papoulia and Vavasis 2005)
2 2 T
λ =  un (δ + δ )  + β 2  ut (δ + δ ) 
 0n n   0t t 
2
β 
Tefs ≡ T +   Tt 2 = Tmax
n
2
α 
1 − λ un Tmax 1 − λ ut αTmax
Tn = and Tt =
λ δ n 1 − λcr λ δ t 1 − λcr
λ = λcr = 0.005 λ = λcr = 0.01
217
Computation Procedures
δW kin = δW int − δW ext + δW coh ∀δu ( X ) ∈ u0

1. Representation of Cracks
δW kin = ∫ δu ⋅ ρ 0u&&dΩ0
Ω0
∂δu
δW int = ∫ : PdΩ0
Ω 0 ∂X
2. Cohesive Law
δW ext = ∫ δu ⋅ ρ 0bdΩ0 + ∫ δu ⋅ t 0dΓt0 Crack initiation/propagation
Ω0 Γt0
δW coh = − ∫ δ [[u]]⋅ τ c dΓc

Γc
3. Branching/Multiple cracks
kin int ext coh
f = f −f +f
f ekin = ∫ e ρ 0 N T NH ((−1) e f ( X ))dΩ e0 u
&&
Ω0
4. State Variables Transfer
f e
int
= ∫ e B σH ((−1) f ( X ))dΩ
T e e
0
Ω0
f eext = ∫ e ρ 0 N T bH ((−1) e f ( X ))dΩ e0 + ∫ e N T tH ((−1) e f ( X ))dΓ0e,t

Ω0 Γ0 ,t 5. Numerical Integration
f ecoh = (−1) e ∫ e N Tτ c n0 dΓ0e,t
Γ0 ,t
218
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH (1)
Tvergaard and Hutchinson [1992] cohesive model

Variable MID RO ROFLAG INTFAIL SIGMAX NLS TLS
Card 1 Type I F I F I I F
INTFAIL: Number of integration points required for the cohesive element to be deleted
= 0 : no deletion
= 1 : deletion
219
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH (2)
Variable MID RO ROFLAG INTFAIL SIGMAX NLS TLS

Card 1 Type I F I F I I F
SIGMAX: (maximum traction)

NLS: Critical displacement jump in normal direction
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH
100, , ,1, 330.0, 0.0001 T
λ = λcr = 0.005 λ = λcr = 0.01
220

Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
IDIM EQ. 1: Local boundary condition method

EQ.-1: Stabilized EFG method (apply to 8-noded, 6-noded and combination)
221
Material identification for EFG fracture analysis

Card 3 Type I F I F I I F F
Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
MID Material identification used for EFG fracture analysis
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , ,4,-2,
,,,, 100, 1, 2.0, 0.2
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH
100,1.0e-07, ,1, 330.0, 0.0001
• Currently, only mode-I is considered and MAT_COHESIVE _TH is available.

• Only 4-noded TET integration is implemented.
222
Strain filter in facture analysis

Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
SF : For the stress-based cohesive law, a strain filter is recommended as an extra

condition for the crack initiation under slow loading. Only when the strain reaches to this
value, the crack is allowed to initiate. However, under high dynamic loading, this value
should be null or very small to allow the appearance of “Spall” fracture.
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG *SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41 5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , ,4,-2, 1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , ,4,-2,
,,, 0.0, 100, 1, 2.0, 0.01 ,,, 1.5, 100, 1, 2.0, 0.01
*MAT_ELASTIC *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC
Brittle Ductile
223

Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
IBR = 1: No branching is allowed.

= 2: Branching is allowed.
DS : Normalized support defined for computing the displacement jump in fracture analysis
ECUT : 0.0~0.5
Define the minimum edge cut in an integration cell in fracture analysis.
0.1
crack
224
Minimization of Mesh Size Effect in Mode-I Failure Test
Failure is limited
in this area Tn
D = λcr = 0.005 D = λcr = 0.01
Coarse elements Fine elements
D=0.01 D=0.005
225
Kalthoff Plate Crack Propagation (1)
100mm
75mm
100mm
50mm
25mm
y
v0
x
100mm
ρ = 8000 kg/m 3 , E = 190 GPa , ν = 0 .30

G Ic = 1.213 ×10 4 N/m, δ max = 5.245 ×10 −5 m
v 0 = 16.5 m/s
226
Kalthoff Plate Crack Propagation (2)
Maximum Principle Stress Total Displacement
227
EFG 3D Edge-cracked Plate Under Loading
d • Elastic
• EFG Fracture
• Linear Cohesive Law
101 x 31 x 6 nodes • Explicit analysis
Front
Resultant Displacement Contour
Back
228
Rigid Ball Impact on Concrete Plate
Time-velocity of the rigid ball
Elastic
EFG Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
Progressive Crack Propagation

229
Windshield Under Impact (1)
101 x 101 x 4 nodes

Front
Elastic + Rubber
EFG Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
Back
Failure Contour
230
Windshield Under Impact (2)
Rigid ball Metal ball

231
XFEM Failure Analysis in 2D and Shells (1)
XFEM Failure Analysis and Its Assumptions

• Is a discrete approach.
• Brittle and ductile fractures are treated differently.
• Crack initiation and propagation are governed by cohesive law.
• Crack currently is cell-by-cell propagation and is defined by level set.
• Preferred in a pre-cracked domain.
• Minimized mesh sensitivity and orientation effects.
• No material fusion.
• Applied mainly to quasi-brittle materials and ductile materials.
• Newly added strain regularization scheme to minimize mesh sensitivity.
232
XFEM Failure Analysis in 2D and Shells (2)
Extended FEM : Level set + Local PU [Belytschko et al. 2000]

ξ*
uh ( X ) = ∑ Φ FEM
I (ξ )uI + ∑ ΨI ( X )qI
I =1 I ∈w
Φ FEM (ξ )(H ( f ( X )) − H ( f ( X I ))) fully cut element

ΨI ( X ) =  FEM
I
Φ I (ξ )(H ( f ( X )) − H ( f ( X I ))) contain crack tip

* Γα
f =0
Discontinuity defined by two implicit functions: f (X) and g(X)

Signed distance function
f ( X ) = min X − X sign[n ⋅ (X − X )]
X∈Γα
Discontinuity
X ∈ Γα0 if f (X ) = 0 and g (X, t ) > 0
Define implicit functions locally

f (X ) = ∑ f N (X ) I I
I
g ( X, t ) replaced by index for elementwise crack propagation
233
*SECTION_SHELL_XFEM (1)
Card 1
Type I I
ELFORM EQ.52: Plane stain, using FEM #13 as base element

EQ.54: Shell, using FEM#16 (default) as base element
Card 2 define for the XFEM option

Variable MCID BASELM DOMINT FAILCR PROPCR LPRINT
Type I I I I I I
*SECTION_SHELL_XFEM
5, 52
100, 13, 0, 1,
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH
100, …
234
*SECTION_SHELL_XFEM (2)
Card 3 define for the XFEM option

Variable MCID BASELM DOMINT FAOLCR PROPCR FS LS NC
Type I I I I I F F I
BASELM: Base element for shell

EQ. 2: Belytschko-Lin-Tsay shell.
EQ.16: Assumed stress, assumed strain shell.
DOMINT: Option for domain integration in XFEM:

EQ.0: Phantom element integration.
EQ.1: Subdomain integration with triangular local boundary integration
(mainly for plane strain).
FAILCR: Option for different failure criteria:

EQ. 1: Maximum tensile stress.
EQ. 2: Maximum shear stress.
EQ.-1: Effective plastic strain.
FS: Failure value.
LS: Length scale for strain regularization

235
*BOUNDARY_PRECRACK
Card 1
Variable PID CTYPE NP
Type I I I
PID: Part ID to define a pre-crack in. (10, 10, 0)

CTYPE: Pre-crack type
EQ.1: straight line.
NP: Number of points defining the pre-crack. (0, 5, 0)
Card 2
Variable X Y Z
Type F F F
X,Y,Z: Coordinates of the points defining the pre-crack.
*BOUNDARY_PRECRACK
100, , 2
0, 5, 0
10, 10, 0
236
Strain Regularization
NP
ε p = ∑ φiaε ip
i =1
NP is number of integration points

within regularization zone
φia is the meshfree shape function
with kernel size a
a is the length scale of the
regularization zone, a material
constant
237
Mode I Test in Ductile Fracture (1)
Regular mesh 1 Regular mesh 2 Regular mesh 3

(1840 elements) (7360 elements) (29440 elements)
FEM Erosion XFEM 238

Shell element type 2 Shell element type 16
Standard effective plastic strain criterion (FS=0.15)
239
Shell element type 2 Shell element type 16
Regularized effective plastic strain criterion (FS=0.15, LS=0.5)
240
Edge-cracked Plate under Impulsive Loading (1)
100mm
75mm
100mm
50mm
25mm
y
v0
x
1
100mm
{
v0
2
symmetry
ρ = 8000 kg/m3, E = 190 GPa, ν = 0.30

50x50 elements
4 −5
GIc = 2.213 × 10 N/m, δmax = 5.245 × 10 m
v 0 = 16.5 m/s
241
Edge-cracked Plate under Impulsive Loading (2)
242
XFEM Thin Cylinder Shell Pulling
Pre-crack
Clamped edge
Rigid diaphragms
1860 elements
Failure Contour
Elastic-plastic Shell
XFEM Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
243
XFEM Thin Cylinder Shell Twisting
Constant w
Failure Indicator
Pre-crack
Effective Plastic
Strain
Fixed
*MAT_POWER_LAW_PLASTICITY
FS=0.15
244
XFEM Fracture of Container Under Pressure
245
XFEM Three-point Bending
Damage Indicator Effective Plastic Strain
246
XFEM Three-point Bending with a Hole
Damage Indicator Effective Plastic Strain
247
A Summary of Current LS-DYNA Peridynamics
Current version is mainly for brittle fracture analysis.
Is a discontinuous Galerkin (DG) approach with bond-based peridynamics theory.
Failure is based on critical energy released rate.

No element deletion is needed to advance the cracks.
Branching of the cracks is an outcome of the DG approach.

Self-contact between cracks is possible but CPU time consuming.
Accommodates for non-uniform mesh and allow the direct enforcement of

boundary conditions and constraints.
Available in R9.0.
Is mainly for windshield or plastic panels damage analysis in crashworthiness.
248
Peridynamics Theory (1)
Courtesy of Dr. Steward Silling at Sandia Nat. Lab. 249

Strong Form for Explicit Dynamics Analysis
Bond
Horizon
η +ξ ξ +η − ξ
f = cs , s=
η +ξ ξ
250
Peridynamics horizon
• Similar to “nodal support size” or “domain of

influence” in meshfree methods.
• Box function is used in most bond-based
peridynamics.
Bond
Conservation of linear momentum

Horizon
• Newton’s third law

• Like MD !
Conservation of angular momentum
Suggested in solid mechanics.

251
Autonomous and multiple cracks growth
A bond breaks when

it’s stretch exceeding a
critical value.
When a bond breaks, its load is

shifted to its neighbors, leading to
progress failure in brittle material.
252
Discontinuous Galerkin Weak Form-Explicit Dynamics (1)
The weak form of the governing equation:
253
The domain is discretized by elements.

The kinematic quantities are interpolated in each element as FEM:
The Galerkin weak form can be derived as:
This two integrations can be discretized by the summation of

Gaussian points in each element:
254
All elements do not share nodes. It implies that the discretization is piece-
wise continuous, i.e., the crack is allowed to go along the edges of elements.
255
SECTION_SOLID_PERI
Card 1 Variable SECID ELFORM

Type I I
ELFORM EQ.48: Peridynamic formulation for 4, 6, or 8 -noded elements
Card 2
Variable DR PTYPE
Type F I
Default 1.01 1
DR . ≤ ≤ . is recommend to determine the horizon size

based on the characteristic length of element
PTYPE EQ.1: bond based formula (currently implemented)

EQ.2: state based formula
256
MAT_ELASTIC_PERI
Card 1
Variable MID RO E G
Type I I F F
Default 1.0E28
MID: User defined material ID

RO: mass density
E: Classic elastic modulus E.
G: Fracture energy release rate G
257
Horizon (1)
The regular horizon is defined as
Concave shape
• Horizon Searching in Concave shape algorithm
258
Horizon (2)
• The mesh based horizon searching

• Horizon can not access the detached element
Advantage
The concave shape is represented according the
grid connectivity.
Disadvantage
The adjustment of the horizon size is limited for
deficient candidates: the surrounding gaussion
points.
Characteristic length: Diagonal length
259
Horizon (3)
Recall the Galerkin solution space:
In a FEM solution, the inner force is calculated:

r=dx
Here, A loops in a boundary element.

In the case of Peridynamics, the inner force is calculated:
Here, A loops in a boundary element, P loops through the boundary element and
adjacent element.
260
Horizon (4)
Boundary treatment-like FEM!
Continuous problem:
Continuous Galerkin Discontinuous Galerkin

261
Horizon (5)
Discontinuous problem:
Continuous Galerkin
Discontinuous Galerkin
262
Material Constants (1)
Elastic modulus E
The classic elastic energy density under small deformation condition:
A stretched bond has the micro energy:
Solve this linear equations, each bond has its own micro modulus based
on the material constant E and its horizon.
263
Elastic modulus E
With calibrated c With constant c
1D line with displacement loading

on one side and fixed another side
264
Energy Release Rate G
To form a crack surface, all bonds crossing that surface must be broken.
The energy required to break these

bonds is related to fracture mechanics
concept: energy release rate, G:
The critical bond stretch of each bond is calculated

from Energy Release Rate G and its horizon.
265
Energy Release Rate G
266
Wave Propagation 3D Bar with Initial Velocity
Displacement history at middle point
267
Cantilever Beam (1)
Thickness: 1
Thickness: 0.3
Thickness: 0.2
268
Cantilever Beam (2)
Thickness: 0.1
Thickness: 0.05
269
Mode I Crack
600 38400
elements elements
Crack velocity
4800
elements
270
Kalthoff-Winkler Problem
30800 elements
52272 elements Element: 97608
271
Three Point Bending of Concrete Beam (1)
272
Three Point Bending of Concrete Beam (2)
Experimental
results
γ=0 γ=0.5 γ=0.7

Θ=00 Θ=210 Θ=290
273
3D Glass-PC-Glass System (1)
Essential boundary
Fixed in vertical direction
Rigid body
E=211Gpa,
ρ=2g/cm2
V=30 m/s
Polycarbonate (FE) Soda-Lime glass

Elastic material Peridynamic model
E=2Gpa E=72Gpa
Υ=0.25 G=8J/m2
274
Back View
Top View
Damage patterns
275
Top View Back View
Damage evolution
276
The cone shape main damage zone in glass indentation
277
Contact force Ball velocity
278
Windshield Impact (1)
Glass layers (Peridynamic Model, MAT_ELASTIC_PERI)
Vinyl layer, FEM Model,

MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY
Interface of vinyl and glasses:

CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_OFFSET
279
Damage pattern (top) Damage pattern (bottom)
EPS
Vynl layer
280
von Mises stress on vinyl interlayer
Top view with ball Bottom view
281
Conclusions
Make sure the numerical method is physical-based and

numerical-convergent.
Attack the Error Not the Feature ! -Thomas JR Hughes
Thank you!
282

AdvFem Meshfree 2016class PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AdvFem Meshfree 2016class PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LS-DYNA ® Advanced FEM and Meshfree Methods

for Solid and Structural Analyses

Wei Hu* whu@lstc.com

Download links of class material:

Rubber Materials: FEM, EFG, MEFEM, SPG

Foam materials: FEM, SPH, EFG, SPG

Metal materials: FEM, SPH, EFG, MEFEM, Adaptive FEM/EFG, SPG

Ductile material failure: FEM, SPG

E.O.S. materials and high speed applications: ALE, SPH, SPG

Shells and fracture: FEM, EFG, XFEM

EFG for shells EFG for solids (foam)

SPG for solids SAMG Multi-grid solver

H-XFEM for shells Bond-based Peridynamics

Machining and Jointing: Adaptivity & SPG

o Cutting / Riveting / Drilling

1. Introduction and Overview

No mesh is needed for the construction of shape functions;

Meshfree shape function

F Elastic Fluid Equation of State ρ

Implicit Meshfree Galerkin

Meshfree Galerkin Method

Meshfree least square method, …

Advantages of Using Meshfree Method

Disadvantages of Using Meshfree Method

Basic SPH Equation of Motion

Spinning Test Liquid Shifting Test

I =1 Moving Least-Squares approximation

A−T MA−1∆d&& + A−T KA−1∆d = −A−T R • More neighboring nodes

Eulerian Kernel Lagrangian Kernel

Zero-energy mode Zero-energy mode

t=0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

No zero-energy mode; Time step does not drop; Tensile instability

Integration Cell or Background Element

Usually in solid and structure ! SPH and SPG nodal

• Define the physical domain Ωe

SPH EFG SPG

2D and 3D 2D, 3D and shell 3D

Efficient Accurate Accurate

Uniform Compression with Rigid Shell Impactor

Result: EFG is same as FEM

Adding 20% viscous contact damping

Non-uniform Compression with Half Rigid Solid Impactor

Half Rigid solid Result: EFG advances further

Negative Volume in EFG ?

x = φ ( X , t) •Is continuously differentiable

What will be the worst ?

Severe material deformation

Introduce damage EFG, SPG (Updated

ELFORM EQ.41: EFG formulation

Normalized dilation parameters (normalized support size) in X, Y and Z directions

Variable DX DY DZ ISPLINE IDILA IEBT IDIM TOLDEF

1.0 ≤ DX, DY, DZ ≤ 2.0 is recommended

Some Guidelines for DX, DY and DZ

EFG kernel function

Variable DX DY DZ ISPLINE IDILA IEBT IDIM TOLDEF

ISPLINE EQ.0: Cubic spline function (default) (with base function 1, x, y, z)

IDILA EQ.0: Maximum distance based on background elements (default)

Essential boundary condition treatment

Variable DX DY DZ ISPLINE IDILA IEBT IDIM TOLDEF

IEBT EQ. 1: Full transformation

Mixed transformation is equivalent to Full transformation with improved efficiency.

1.Define a local approximation of a given function u(x) in the neighborhood

2. Minimization of weighted L2 norm