RADIOSS 2017 Tutorials and Examples
RADIOSS 2017 Tutorials and Examples
Special Notice: Pre-release versions of Altair software are provided ‘as is’, without warranty of any
kind. Usage is strictly limited to non-production purposes.
The Altair web site is a valuable online companion to Altair software. Visit www.altairhyperworks.com
for tips and tricks, training course schedules, training/tutorial videos, and other useful information.
Altair training courses provide a hands-on introduction to our products, focusing on overall
functionality. Courses are conducted at our main and regional offices or at your facility. If you are
interested in training at your facility, please contact your account manager for more details. If you do
not know who your account manager is, please send an e-mail to training@altair.com and your account
manager will contact you.
When contacting Altair support, please specify the product and version number you are using along
with a detailed description of the problem. Many times, it is very beneficial for the support engineer to
know what type of workstation, operating system, RAM, and graphics board you have, so please have
that information ready. If you send an e-mail, please specify the workstation type, operating system,
RAM, and graphics board information in the e-mail.
To contact an Altair support representative, reference the following table or the information available
on the HyperWorks website:
http://www.altairhyperworks.com/ClientCenterHWSupportProduct.aspx
For questions or comments about this help system, send an email to hwsupport@altair.com.
In addition, the following countries have resellers for Altair Engineering: Colombia, Czech Republic,
Ecuador, Israel, Russia, Netherlands, Turkey, Poland, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia
Official offices with resellers: Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, USA
See www.altair.com for complete contact information.
Table of Contents
Tutorials and Examples ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Tutorials............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Examples....................................................................................................................................................... 272
Example 22 - Ditching using SPH and ALE (Mono-Domain and Multi-Domain)............................................ 709
Example 50 - INIVOL and Fluid Structure Interaction (Drop Container) ...................................................... 914
Exercise
While still in HyperMesh, you can launch HyperView after the job has finished from the RADIOSS
panel by clicking HyperView. HyperView will open and automatically load the H3D file from the
RADIOSS job for post-processing.
To execute a check run to validate your input deck and determine how much RAM and
disk space is necessary for the run, at the command prompt, enter:
$HWSDIR/<solver_name> Radioss_Sample_Run.rad -check
Information regarding memory requirements is written to the file Radioss_Sample_Run.out.
Refer to the Running RADIOSS section of the RADIOSS User's Guide for more detailed information.
HyperCrash
The model is reduced to one-quarter of the total mesh with symmetric boundary conditions to
simulate the presence of the rest of the part.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time Rootname_0001.rad [0 – 10.]
Boundary Conditions:
o The 3 upper right nodes (TX, RY, and RZ)
o A symmetry boundary condition on all bottom nodes (TY, RX, and RZ)
At the left side is applied a constant velocity = 1 mm/ms on -X direction.
Tensile test object dimensions = 11 x 100 with a uniform thickness = 1.7 mm
Johnson-Cook Elastic Plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (Aluminum 6063 T7)
8. Toggle Tx, Ty, Tz, Rx, Ry and Rz, and click Save.
Step 7: Create Control Cards, Export the Starter and Engine files
1. From the menu bar, select Model > Control Card:
2. Enter the values for the Control Cards, as shown in the images below, saving after every step:
RADIOSS Computing
Step 9: Review the listing files for this run and verify the results
1. See if there are any warnings or errors in the .out files.
2. Using HyperView, plot the displacement and strain contour.
Model
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time: Engine [0 – 10 ms]
The tube thickness is 0.914 mm.
An imposed velocity of 13.3 mm/ms (~30 MPH) is applied to the right end of the tube
Elasto plastic material using Johnson-Cook law /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (STEEL).
[Rho_Initial] Initial density = 7.85e-6 Kg/mm3
[E] Young’s modulus = 210 GPa
[nu] Poisson coefficient = 0.3
[a] Yield Stress = 0.206 GPa
5. Right-click in the Support entry box and click Select in graphics and select Include picked
parts and select boxtube in the graphics area.
6. Press ENTER or click Yes in the lower right corner.
7. Click Save > Close.
Note: For the remainder of the tutorial, you need to have the ID of
the master node of the rigid body.
4. Click Show Node Info icon in the toolbar, and select the rigid body master node in the
graphic window. The Node ID appears in the message window (node ID: 803).
5. Click Cancel in the lower right corner to exit the picking loop.
6. Click Close.
6. Click Save.
3. Right-click to validate.
4. Toggle the buttons Tx, Ry and Rz.
5. Click Save > Close.
4. Right-click in the graphic area, and select Include picked parts icon and select the part in
the graphic window.
5. Click Yes in the lower right corner of the main window to validate.
6. For Title, enter the name Contact.
7. Set Scale factor for stiffness as 1.
8. Set Min. gap for impact active to 0.900.
9. Set Coulomb friction to 0.200.
10. Click Save > Close.
Note: Make sure to save it before moving to the next Control Card.
Total Displacement (mm) and Plastic Strain (Mid Layer and Average)
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time: Engine file (_0001.rad) [0 – 0.06 ms]
An initial velocity of 15600 mm/s is applied on the car model to impact a rigid pole of radius
250 mm.
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (WINDSHIELD)
[Rho_Initial] Initial Density = 2.5x10-9 ton/mm3
[E] Young's Modulus = 76000 MPa
[nu] Poisson’s Ratio = 0.3
[ 0] Yield Stress = 192 MPa
[K] Hardening Parameter = 220 MPa
[n] Hardening Exponent = 0.32
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (STEEL)
[Rho_Initial] Initial Density = 7.9x10 -9 ton/mm3
[E] Young's Modulus = 210000 MPa
[nu] Poisson’s Ratio = 0.3
[ 0] Yield Stress = 200 MPa
[K] Hardening Parameter = 450 MPa
[n] Hardening Exponent = 0.5
[SIG_max] Maximum Stress = 425 MPa
Exercise
8. Right-click in the Support entry box and click Selected Parts of Tree . This icon allows
adding the part selected in the tree to the selection. The selected parts will be highlighted in the
graphic area.
9. Click Save.
6. Go back to the Time History panel and click Add/Remove nodes by picking selection in
the second table.
7. Click Yes in the lower right corner or right-click in the graphic window to exit the selection.
8. Click Save > Close.
Note: Make sure to save all control card before editing the next.
Step 13: Select the Starter file FULLCAR_0000.rad as Input file and Run
the model
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time: in Rootname_0001.rad [0 – 7.0E-2s]
Only one half of the model is modeled because it is symmetric.
The supports are totally fixed. An imposed velocity of 1000 mm/s is applied on the Impactor
in the (–Z) direction
Model size = 370mm x 46.5mm x 159mm
Honeycomb Material /MAT/LAW28: HONEYCOMB
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
STRAIN 0 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
STRESS8E- 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 400
5. Right-click in the entry box Support and click Include picked parts and select the parts
Impactor and Support in the graphics area.
6. Click Yes in the lower right corner to validate.
7. Press ENTER or click Save to validate.
Step 3: Create and assign a material for Inner, Outer, and Flat parts
1. In the Window, right-click and select Create New > Elasto-plastic > Piecewise linear (36).
2. For Title, enter Shell Material.
3. Enter all the material data, as shown in the following image:
6. In the Function file window, select the function with an ID of 2, then click OK to import the
curve. The function can be edited, as shown in the image below.
10. Right-click the entry box Support, and click Include picked parts in the graphic area, and
select the parts Inner, Outer and Flat in the graphics area as shown in the following image.
10. Right-click in the entry box Support, and click Include picked parts to select the part
HCFoam in the graphics area as shown in the following image.
8. Right-click in the entry box Support, and click Include picked parts to select the parts
Inner, Outer and Flat in the graphics area to assign Shell property.
9. Click Yes in the lower right corner.
10. Click Save.
6. Right-click in the entry box Support and click Include picked parts to select the parts
Impactor and Support in the graphics area to assign the Rigid property.
7. Click Yes in the lower right corner.
8. Click Save.
5. Click Close.
6. Constrain all DOF except translation in Z as shown in the following image. To constrain the
nodes, check the boxes for TX, TY, RX, RY and RZ.
9. Click node selection icon to select master node of Support, as shown in the following
image.
10. Constrain all DOF by selecting TX, TY, TZ, RX, RY and RZ, as shown in the following image.
18. Right-click in the entry box Support, right-click in the graphic window, and click Add nodes by
box selection to select the nodes, as shown in the image below
8. Click in the entry box Support and right-click in the graphic area. Click and select the master
node of Impactor.
9. Click Yes in the lower-right corner.
2. Select All.
3. Click Clean > Close.
Note: Make sure to save each control card before editing the next.
Step 17: Review the listing files for this run and verify on the results
1. Using HyperView, plot the displacement and strain contour.
Introduction
This tutorial presents the different steps involved in building a simple Sled model using HyperCrash
pre-processing tool.
Exercise
Step 2: Import the seat model and merge all components, floor, seatbelt
and foam block
1. Click File > Import > RADIOSS.
Step 5: Connection
To add the feet of the seat and the seatbelt anchorage point to the floor rigid body.
5. Right-click in the Grnod_Id entry box and click Select in graphic, click Add nodes by box
selection and select all the nodes of the seat, feet and the anchorage points of the seatbelt.
6. Right-click to validate.
7. Select the Floor rigid body in the list, right-click and add the rigid body and master node to time
history.
3. Display only the cushion parts. Press F11 for XZ view, select Slave nodes section, and click
Add noes by box selection.
4. Holding down the SHIFT key, click to draw a polygon window around nodes on the backside of
cushion of the nodes.
5. Display Frame Assembly in the Tree, pick Master surface section, click Add/Remove a
face and pick one element on each part of the frame facing the cushion. Then select the
Expand option on the lower right corner to pick select all.
6. Select the Expand option on the lower right corner to select all the elements of the seat
assembly facing the seat cushions.
7. Click Yes or Enter on the keyboard to end the selection.
10. Click at the top of the interface panel, to check the interface. The created interface should be
displayed with green text, as shown below. Otherwise, the interface has to be modified.
10. Close the Dummy positioner and Export the model to save.
4. Click Add nodes by picking ( ) and select three nodes, as shown in the following image (red
dots).
6. Click Add/Remove body parts ( ) and select the parts: torso, pelvis, upper legs, and the
seat cushion fabric, as shown in red in the image.
11. Click Material ( ) and select the material file BELT.mat you saved to your working directory
from the radioss.zip file. Refer to Accessing the Model Files.
12. Click OK.
19. Select the parts: pelvis, upper legs and seat cushion fabric.
20. Click Preview > Save > Close.
4. Click in Master Surface, right-click in the graphic area, and click Include picked parts, to
select the Fabric backframe and the Backseat frame as they may come into contact with the
shoulder belt during the analysis.
5. Click Save.
Seat structure
Creation of Self-Impact between different parts of the Seat.
1. In the Tree window, select subsets Frame, Floor and Foam. Click the Isolate icon .
2. Right-click in the Contact list and select Create New > Multi-usage (Type 7).
3. Click Self impact.
4. Set the Title to Self impact seat structure.
5. Set Gap/element option to Variable gap.
9. Click Save.
10. Select the self impact seat structure interface in the list.
11. Click Check penetration selected interfaces ( ). Some penetrations exist between the seat
cushion and the seat structure.
12. Switch to the Tree window, and select the subset named Frame.
Note: Only the nodes of the seat cushion are moved. The seat parts
are fixed.
Dummy vs Seat
Seat Deformer
Modifying the seat cushion mesh to conform to the dummy using the Seat Deformer tool.
Step 1: Edit Pre-simulation settings
To remove the intersection between the dummy and the set HyperCrash will generate a RADIOSS
input deck and run a pre-simulation step. The settings for the pre-simulation are defined in the
menu Option > Presimulation Parameters (for Seat Deformer). For this exercise, modify the
settings, as shown below:
2. Switch back to the Seat Deformer Wizard and click Add selected parts of Tree ( ).
3. Click Next.
2. If an intersection/penetration does not exist, go back to the HyperCrash window and load the
results by clicking Yes in the dialog.
3. When the job is completed, click Yes to load the results.
You can also load the results by clicking File > Import > .h3d node coordinates, then click
Yes to the "Warning: all the nodes coordinates will be replaced by the ones found in the
selected .h3d file."
3. Click Check penetration selected interfaces ( ). Penetrations exist between the seat
beam and the dummy.
8. Click Fixed part ( ) and then select the displayed parts of the dummy.
9. Click Depenetrate Auto ( ). Only the nodes of the seat cushion are moved. The parts of the
dummy are fixed.
10. Click Close and then Export the model to save.
Loadcase Setting
3. Click See selected imposed velocity ( ). The floor rigid body is displayed on the screen. The
imposed velocity is defined on its master node.
3. Click See selected boundary condition ( ). The floor rigid body is displayed on the screen.
The boundary condition is defined on its master node.
4. Verify that the degree of freedom for Ty, Tz, Rx, Ry, and Rz are fixed.
3. Click See selected th ( ). These are the nodes of the dummy rigid bodies.
4. For the first 5 nodes of the group:
Select the node in the list.
In order to run this analysis using Multi-Domain technique, we have to split this model into two
domains, one containing the finely meshed region and the other containing the rest. A node to node
link (/LINK/TYPE4) is then specified at the boundary between the two domains.
These domains will be created using a pre-processor (using HyperCrash in this tutorial) and the
options specific to Multi-Domain analysis will be added to the input decks through a text-editor. A
Multi-Domain master input file will also be created using a text editor.
For a list of Multi-Domain options, refer to Multi-Domain Input.
For information on how to create links or connections between domains, refer to Multi-Domain in
the User's Guide.
For more information on Multi-Domain Master Input, refer to Multi-Domain Master Input File.
Note: Two external links through node sets 1001 and 1002 have
been added to this domain. These node sets were already
defined in monodomain_0000.rad and exported to the two
domains in Step 2.
3. Open the Starter file fine_mesh_0000.rad and add the same options.
4. Create a RAD2RAD input file input.dat defining the two domains and specifying the connections
between them.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time Rootname_0000.rad [0 – 10.]
Boundary Conditions:
o The 3 upper right nodes (TX, RY, and RZ)
o The center node on left is totally fixed (T X, TY, Rx, RY, and RZ)
3. Click on Nodes. A nodes selection appears. Select the three nodes, as shown in the figure
below and click proceed.
9. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table, and a handle
appears in the graphics area.
10. For Name, enter constraint3, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set GRNOD to
Nodes.
11. Select the nodes, as shown in the image below.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time:
o CANTILEVER_0000.rad [0 – 25.1 ms]
Steps to setup this model:
o Fix the Cantilever Beam to the support with a 10 kN pre-tension. The bolt attains 10 kN in
10 ms and remains constant thereafter.
o After pre-tension, a concentrated load of 0.2 kN is gradually applied at the free end of the
beam from 10 ms to 25 ms and it remains constant thereafter.
Material used:
Elasto-plastic material /MAT/LAW2.
Fig 1
12. With all the DOF’s checked, click create to create the rigid body.
13. Click the Mask icon in the toolbar and click reverse to show remaining elements of the bolt.
14. Click return to exit the panel.
15. In the Model browser, rght-click the 3 components and click Show to display onscreen, as
shown below.
16. Use Steps 3.10 through 3.12 to create a rigid body with the nodes shown in the following image
with the other ends of the springs as the primary node and the nodes on the bolts as slave
nodes.
8. In the Model browser, click on the property Spring to open the Entity Editor.
9. Right-click on IFUN2 and select Create to create and attach a curve. A Create Curve dialog
opens.
10. Change the Name of the curve to Stiffness.
11. Click Close to exit the dialog.
14. Click Update > Close. The created curve is assigned to the property.
3. Click on the nodes, the nodes selection appears; by window option, select the bottom layer of
the bolt support, as shown below and the selection should appear as shown below in the XY
Plane view:
5. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table and a handle
appears in graphics area.
3. Set NUM_VARIABLES to 1 and click on the Data:Var icon . A table will open, enter the
variable name DEF.
4. Click edit and enter the variable name DEF.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you want to
export to.
3. For Name, enter CANTILEVER and click Save.
4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export both the Starter and Engine file in one file.
6. Click Export to export the file.
Objective
In this tutorial you will learn how to set up a RADIOSS input file in HyperMesh for analyzing the
impact response between two pipes. The modeling steps that are covered are:
Creating materials, sections, and parts for the model.
Defining the contact between the two pipes using /INTER/TYPE7.
Applying a translational initial velocity to a pipe using the /INIVEL card.
Applying local constraints to the other pipe using the /BCS card.
Model Description
The units used in this tutorial are milliseconds, millimeters and kilograms (ms, mm, kg), and the
tutorial is based on RADIOSS 14.0.
Pipe model
2. Click the Select File icon to open the pipesd00.rad file you saved to your working directory
from the radioss.zip file. Refer to Accessing the Model Files.
3. Click Import. The model loads into the graphics area.
Component, property and material collectors are created and edited from the Collectors panel.
For the RADIOSS keyword interface, there is only one component card image and it is named Part.
There are several property card images, such as P1_SHELL, P2_TRUSS, and P14_SOLID. There are
many material card images, such as M1_ELAST and M48_HONEYCOMB.
The complete list of card images is available from the Collectors panel, as you assign card images to
the various types of collectors.
A HyperMesh card image allows you to view the image of keywords and data lines for defined
RADIOSS entities as interpreted by the loaded template. The keywords and data lines appear in the
exported RADIOSS input file as you see them in the card images. Additionally, for some card
images, you can define and edit various parameters and data items for the corresponding RADIOSS.
Use the Entity Editor or card (card editor) panel from the permanent menu to review and edit card
images. Also, for many entities, their card image can be viewed and edited from the panels in which
they are created.
Note: If you have difficulties completing any task with the creation,
update or editing of materials in this tutorial, refer to the on-
line help for the materials by clicking Help from the menu.
Hint: Any material that was mistakenly created with wrong values
can be edited using the card image option.
In this step, the material created will be used for the analysis. The next step is to define the /PROP
card that will be used to define the properties of the elements in the model.
Step 6: Assign the /PART, /MAT and /PROP cards to the elements
Assign the /PART card to the component for the coarse pipe and specify the /PROP/SHELL card ID in
it.
1. In the Model browser, select the components Pipe1 and Pipe2. A combined Entity Editor (EE)
appears for both the selected components.
2. Set Card Image to PART.
3. For Prop_Id, click Unspecified > Property and select the property, prop shell and click OK.
4. For Mat_Id, click Unspecified > Material and select the material, elast1 and click OK.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and then navigate to the destination directory where you want
to export to.
3. For Name, enter pipe and click Save.
4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export both the Starter and Engine file in one file.
6. Click Export to export the solver deck.
This concludes this tutorial. You may discard this HyperMesh model or save it for your own
reference.
In this tutorial some of the concepts that govern the HyperMesh interface to RADIOSS are
introduced. You also used numerous panels that allowed you to do basic modeling in terms of
RADIOSS, such as defining contacts or boundary conditions.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time: Engine [0 – 10 ms]
The tube thickness is 0.914 mm.
An imposed velocity of 13.3 mm/ms (~30 MPH) is applied to the right end of the tube
Elasto-plastic material using Johnson-Cook law /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (STEEL).
[Rho_Initial] Initial density = 7.85e-6 Kg/mm3
[E] Young’s modulus = 210 GPa
[nu] Poisson coefficient = 0.33
[a] Yield Stress = 0.206 GPa
[b] Hardening Parameter = 0.450 GPa
[n] Hardening Exponent = 0.5
[SIG_max] Maximum Stress = 0.0 GPa
File needed to complete this tutorial: tube_box.hm
3. Click on the nodes, nodes selection appears; by window option, select the top layer of the
channel as shown below and the selection should appear as below:
5. Click Create to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table, and a handle
appears in graphics area.
2. Select the master node of the RBODY on which the boundary condition needs to be applied.
9. Click the Create tab to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table and a
handle appears in graphics area.
4. Click the Create tab to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table and a
handle appears in graphics area.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you want to
export to.
3. Enter the name boxtube and click Save.
4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Select Merge starter and engine file to export the engine file with the model file.
6. Click Export to export the file.
Total Displacement (mm) and Plastic Strain (Mid Layer, Simple Average)
Exercise
The model used consists of a simplified bumper model (see image below):
Bumper model
Step 3: Define vehicle mass component to partially take into account the
inertia properties and mass of the missing parts of the vehicle
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Component. The Entity Editor (EE) will
open.
2. For Name, enter Vehicle mass.
3. Set Card Image to None and click Yes to confirm.
4. Click Geometry > Create > Nodes > XYZ to open the Nodes panel.
5. In the X field, enter 700.
6. In the Y field, enter 0.
7. In the Z field, enter 170.
8. Click create to create the node.
9. Go to the 1D page, and click rigids.
10. Click the selector arrow nodes 2-n: and select sets.
11. For primary node, select the node created in the steps above.
12. Click sets and select the Constrain Vehicle set.
13. With all the DOF’s checked, click create to create the rigid body.
14. Click Card Edit in the toolbar, set the selector to elements and select the rigid body
created.
15. Click edit.
16. Fill the mass and inertia information in the card image, as shown in the table below:
5. Right-click in the Solver browser and select Create > SURF > PART. The Entity Editor opens.
6. For Name, enter bumper_surface.
7. For Entity IDs, click on Components.
8. In the Select Components dialog, select bumper, exterior crashbox left, exterior crashbox
right, interior crashbox left, and interior crashbox right and click OK.
9. Right-click in the Solver browser and select Create > SURF > SURF. The Entity Editor opens.
Note: Node numbers will appear next to the node for selection in
further steps.
5. Right-click in the Solver browser and select Create > GRNOD > BOX.
6. For Name, enter RigidwallSlave_grnodbox.
7. For Entity IDs, set the selector to Box and select the above created half model (BOX/RECTA).
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you want to
export to.
3. Enter the name bumper_impact and click Save.
4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Toggle Merge starter and engine file to export the engine file with the model file (or export
separately).
6. Click Export to export both model and engine file.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time: Engine file (_0001.rad) [0 – 0.0601 ms]
An initial velocity of 15600 mm/s is applied on the car model to impact a rigid pole of radius
250 mm.
Elasto-plastic Material /MAT/LAW2 (Windshield)
Exercise
Step 3: Create and assign the material for the windshield components
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. The Entity Editor is displayed
below the Model browser.
2. For Name, enter windshield.
3. Set Card Image as M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL and click Yes to confirm.
4. Input the values, as shown below:
Step 4: Create and assign the material for the rubber components
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. The Entity Editor is displayed.
2. For Name, enter rubber.
3. Set Card Image to M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL and click Yes to confirm.
4. Input the values, as shown below:
5. In the Model browser select all components labeled with COMP-PSHELL and COMP-PROD,
except COMP-PSHELL_3, COMP-PSHELL_16 and COMP-PSHELL_20 to COMP-PSHELL_23.
6. For Mat_Id, select the material steel and click OK to assign the material to the selected
components.
Exercise
5. Similarly create a material with the name Water using Steps 3.1 to 3.4.
6. Input the values, as shown below.
Exercise
5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Water with a Card Image of P14_SOLID.
6. Click on the component Water and assign Water as the Prop_Id and water as the Mat_Id in
the Entity Editor.
6. Click on the component Boat and assign Boat as the Prop_Id and boat as the Mat_Id in the
Entity Editor.
5. Click on the component Air-BC and assign Air as the Prop_Id and air-bc as the Mat_Id in
the Entity Editor.
4. Set the Surf_id (M) for master selection to Components and select the boat component.
5. Set the Grnod_id (S) for slave selection to Components and select all the components, except
boat.
4. Click Create to create the RBODY. The created RBODY appears in the table.
5. Select the created RBODY in the table and right-click and select Edit card to open the card
image panel.
6. Assign a mass of 23.04 kg to the boat.
7. Click return to return from the card image panel.
8. Click Close to close the RBODY Manager.
Exercise
5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Air with a Card Image of P14_SOLID.
6. Click on the component Air and assign as the Prop_Id and air as the Mat_Id in the Entity
Editor.
5. In the Model browser, create a new property named Water with a Card Image of P14_SOLID.
6. Click on the component Water and assign Water as the Prop_Id and water as the Mat_Id in
the Entity Editor.
6. Click on the component Boat and assign Boat as the Prop_Id and boat as the Mat_Id in the
Entity Editor.
3. Set the Surf_id (M) for the master selection to Components and select the boat component.
4. Set the Grnod_id (S) for the slave selection to Components and select all the components,
except boat.
Step 7: Create RBODY for the Boat and assign mass to the Master Node
1. In the Model browser, isolate the boat part.
2. From the pull-down menu, select Tools > Rbody Manager.
3. For Title, enter RIGID_BOAT. Verify that the Master node is set to Calculate Node and set the
Slave node(s) to Parts and select the Boat.
5. Select the created RBODY in the table and click Edit Card to open the Card Image panel.
6. Assign a mass of 23.04 kg to the boat.
7. Click return to return from the Card Image panel.
8. Click Close to close the RBODY Manager.
Exercise
7. Click Update.
9. Click Close.
8. Check the box next to Tz in order to constrain the translational d.o.f in Z-direction, as shown
below:
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time: in Engine file [0 – 6.601e-002 s]
Only one half of the model is modeled because it is symmetric.
The supports are totally fixed. An imposed velocity of 1000 mm/s is applied on the Impactor
in the (–Z) direction
Model size = 370mm x 46.5mm x 159mm
Honeycomb Material /MAT/LAW28: HONEYCOMB
STRAIN 0 0.012002 0.014003 0.018003 0.022002 0.026003 0.030006 0.032 0.033005 0.033523
STRESS 325 335.968 343783 349.245 358.649 372.309 383.925 388.109 389.292 389.506
Exercise
5. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Property to create a new property.
6. For Name, enter Inner and set Card Image as P1_SHELL. Leave all the settings as default,
except for Ishell which should be set to 4 and Thick which should be set to 9.119e-01.
7. In the Model browser, right-click on the component Inner and select Assign. Assign Inner as
the Prop_Id and Inner as the Mat_Id.
Step 5: Create and Assign material and property for the component Outer
1. In the Model browser, right-click on the material Inner and select Duplicate. Name the new
material Outer. This creates a new material that is identical to the source material.
2. In the Model browser, right-click on the property Inner and select Duplicate. Name the new
property Outer. This creates a new property that is identical to the source property.
Step 6: Create and Assign material and property for the component Flat
Follow the procedure described in Step 5 with Outer replaced by Flat.
5. In the Model browser, right-click on the property Inner and select Duplicate. Name the new
property Impactor. This creates a new property that is identical to the source property.
6. In the Model browser, right-click on the component Impactor and select Assign. Assign
Impactor as the Prop_Id and Impactor as the Mat_Id.
Step 10: Define imposed velocity and boundary condition for the impactor
1. From the Utility page, start the BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter IMPOSED_VELOCITY, set Select type to Imposed Velocity and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
3. Click nodes and select the master node of the rigid body of the Impactor, as shown in the
following image.
Step 12: Define symmetry boundary condition for the foam, inner, outer
and flat
1. From the Utility page, start the BCs Manager.
2. For Name, enter SYMMETRY_XZ, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the GRNOD to
Nodes.
3. Select the nodes of the foam, inner, outer and flat, as shown in the following image.
4. Check the degrees of translational degrees of freedom Y and rotational degrees of freedom X
and Z to constraint.
Step 13: Define contacts between the beam and the support
1. Launch the HyperMesh Solver browser from View > Browsers > HyperMesh > Solver.
2. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > INTER > TYPE7.
3. Enter the values, as shown below:
Step 19: Review the listing files for this run and verify on the results
1. See if there are any warnings or errors in .out files.
2. Using HyperView, plot the displacement, strain contour and vectors.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time: in Engine [0 – 3.3e-3]
This is a very simple cell phone model used to demonstrate how to set up a drop test. The
model is an assembly of two solid parts meshed with Tetra 10 elements, connected with
spring elements, and contact defined between them.
To reduce the simulation time, the cell phone is dropped 1 mm from the ground with an initial
velocity of -4429.4469 mm/s representing the velocity that it would have attained from a free
fall of 1000 mm.
Boundary Conditions: Gravity load + initial velocity of -4429.4469 mm/s on the cell phone.
STRESS 1 17
Exercise
Step 4: Create material and properties for the cell phone parts
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material to create a new material.
2. For Name, enter cell_phone.
3. For Card Image, select M36_PLAS_TAB and click Yes in the confirmation window.
4. Input the values, as shown below.
Step 13: Review the listing files for this run and verify on the results
1. See if there are any warnings or errors in .out files.
2. Using HyperView plot the strain and stress contour.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (ms), Mass (kg), Force (kN) and Stress (GPa)
Simulation time:
o Engine [0 – 1.501] in steps of 0.5 ms for each load case
The outer circumference area is fixed on all degrees of freedom (V X, VY, VZ) and the center
node is fixed on X direction and the X and Y rotation (VX, WX, Wy)
The gasket dimensions are: Thickness = 100 mm, External Diameter = 200 mm and Internal
Diameter = 50 mm.
Hyper-Elastic Material /MAT/LAW42 (Rubber)
[alfa1] ( 1) =2
(alfa2] ( 2) = -2
8. In the Model browser, expand the Component folder and select GASKET. Right-click and Assign
(or use the Entity Editor) the newly created property and material.
Step 14: Review the listing files for this run and verify on the results
1. See if there are any warnings or errors in .out files.
2. Using HyperView plot the displacement and strain contour and vectors.
1 – Twisted Beam
Torsion - bending coupling
Sensitivity study on mesh and
element formulations.
2 – Snap-through Roof
Snap-through problem solved
by explicit and implicit solvers.
Results are compared with
experiments.
3 – S-beam Crash
Sensitivity study on element
formulations, plasticity
treatment and boundary
conditions for impact.
4 – Airbag
Airbag deployment using
monitored volumes with
communications.
Perfect gas modeling.
5 – Beam Frame
Transient dynamic analysis
using beam elements.
6 – Fuel Tank
Fluid-structure coupling and
fluid flow are studied using ALE
formulation.
Two analyses are performed:
sloshing and fuel tank
overturning.
8 – Hopkinson Bar
Study of the stress wave
propagation and the strain rate
effect on the Hopkinson bar.
9 – Billiards (Pool)
Impact between balls,
trajectory study and treatment
with several interfaces
(Penalty/Lagrangian method).
10 – Bending
Pure bending test.
Sensitivity study on mesh and
element formulations.
3- and 4-nodes shell.
12 – Jumping Bicycle
A sequence of events managed
using "sensors".
16 – Dummy Positioning
Quasi-static analysis by explicit
solver with different
convergence options.
Static analysis by implicit solver
(linear and nonlinear problem).
17 – Box Beam
Crash test.
Sensitivity study on mesh and
element formulations.
19 – Wave Propagation
Bi-dimensional wave
propagation.
Lagrangian and ALE
formulations.
Infinite domain modeling.
20 – Cube
Demonstrative problem.
Contact modeling.
Co-rotational formulation
elements.
21 – Cam
Contact modeling.
Linear and quadratic surface.
Comparison of fine and coarse
meshes.
22 – Ditching
Fluid simulation using the
Smooth Hydrodynamic Particles
formulation.
Comparison with experimental
data.
23 – Brake
Frictional contact modeling.
Lagrangian formulation.
25 – Spring-back
Explicit stamping simulation
followed by an implicit/explicit
spring-back simulation. Final
shape of the sheet metal is
compared with experiments.
26 – Ruptured Plate
Perforation of a thick plate by a
rigid sphere. Different failure
models integrated in material
law (2 and 27) or independent
(/FAIL options) are used.
37 – Analytical Beam
Illustrates how to prepare a
RADIOSS deck for linear
analysis, and demonstrates a
high quality of RADIOSS finite
elements to resolve linear and
nonlinear problems.
39 - Biomedical Valve
A Fluid-Structure-Interaction
(FSI) problem is studied.
43 - Perfect Gas
Polynomial EOS is used to
model Perfect Gas.
45 - Multi-Domain
Separate the whole model into
master domain and sub-
domain.
48 - Solid Spotweld
Solid spotweld connects two
metal sheets with tied contact.
49 - Bird Strike on
Windshield
Introduce how to simulate a
bird hitting a windshield.
53 - Thermal Analysis
A heat source moved on one
plate. Heat exchanged between
heat source and plate through
contact also between plate and
atmosphere (water) through
convective flux.
Summary
This example deals with a clamped beam subjected to a coupled torsion-bending loading. This
simple test being particularly severe for shell elements, a sensitivity study is performed on the
mesh and element formulation. An analytical solution validates the accuracy of results. The problem
under analysis consists of a concentrated load being applied to the extremity of the beam with the
static approach requiring a convergence method to enable fast convergence towards equilibrium.
The dynamic relaxation option allows for an efficient quasi-static response to be obtained.
The results are compared using two separate views:
Shell element formulations (BATOZ, QEPH, DKT18 and BT hourglass type 4).
Influence of the mesh (Triangular and quadrilateral meshes are compared using three
different element densities: 4x24, 2x12 and 1x3).
Several results can be extracted:
X-displacement of the loaded point
Y-displacement of the loaded point
Z-displacement of the loaded point
Error on energy
CPU time
Comparisons are made between theoretical displacements and those by simulations.
Results show that QEPH and BATOZ element formulations provide the most accurate results and the
more the mesh is fine, the more accurate the results will be. To pass this test, a good curvature
representation of element formulation is needed; the BT hourglass type 4 formulation does not
satisfy this condition. QEPH offers a good ratio in terms of precision-cost, and is useful for quasi-
static analysis. DKT18 is a costly element formulation.
Number
1.1
Brief Description
Bending test on a twisted beam modeled with triangular and quadrilateral meshes and different
element formulations (QEPH, BT hourglass type 4, BATOZ, DKT).
Keywords
4-node shell (Q4) and 3-node shell (T3)
QEPH, BT (Hourglass type 4), BATOZ and DKT18
Density mesh, elasticity, and dynamic relaxation
Linear problem
RADIOSS Options
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Dynamic relaxation (/DYREL)
Input File
QEPH: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/QEPH/TWISBEAM*
BATOZ: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/BATOZ/TWISBEAM*
BT-TYPE4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/BT-
type4/TWISBEAM*
DKT18: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/01_Twisted_Beam/DKT18/TWISBEAM*
Overview
This simple test is particularly severe for shell element behaviors, due to the torsion-bending
coupling. Users appreciate the qualities/restrictions of the shell element formulations in RADIOSS.
The following points are:
Displacements are very low. Thus, you are faced with a linear problem.
Another load case, using Fy = 0 and Fz = 1, is considered, but does not give concern to
additional conclusions.
Modeling Methodology
The beam is modeled with 4-node shell and 3-node shell meshes.
The following are tested for each model:
Four shell formulations:
- QEPH formulation (4-node shell element, Ishell = 24)
Energy 99.9%
0.1% 0% 0%
margin error (diverge)
CPU (normalized):
Conclusion
Summary
A snap-through problem is studied on a shallow cylindrical roof upon which an imposed velocity is
applied at its mid-point. The characteristic curve, caused by the limit load and achieved by
simulation is compared to a reference. This example is considered a static problem.
Only one-quarter of the structure is taken into consideration and adequate boundary conditions are
applied on the model sides.
The problem is solved using two different approaches:
An analysis by an explicit solver
An analysis by an implicit solver
The implicit strategy uses the arc-length method with a time step limitation. The RADIOSS implicit
options are defined in the modeling description.
The simulations using explicit and implicit methods provide accurate results with a good evaluation
of the limit load experimentally observed. A time step control with a low value is required in order
to describe the nonlinear path of the load displacement curve. Both computations converge toward
a single solution.
Title
Snap Roof - Explicit
Number
2.1
Brief Description
An imposed velocity is applied onto a shallow cylindrical roof at its midpoint. The analysis uses an
explicit approach.
Keywords
Explicit solver
T3 Shell
Elasticity and quasi-static analysis
Stability, snap-through problem, and limit load
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Explicit solver: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/02_Snap-
through/Explicit_solver/SNAP_EXP*
The material used follows a linear elastic law and has the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.85x10-3 g/mm3
Young modulus: 3102.75 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Modeling Methodology
The structure is considered perfect, having no defects. To take account of the symmetries, only a
quarter of the shell is modeled (surface ABCD).
A regular mesh with a total of 72 3-node shells (Fig 2)
Fig 2: T3 mesh
The displacement of point C is indicated in its absolute value. The curve illustrates the characteristic
behavior of the instability of a snap-thru. Beyond the limit load, an infinite increase in load Fz will
cause a considerable increase in displacement q due to the collapsing of the shell.
The first extreme defines the limit load =2208.5 N (displacement of point C = 10.5 mm).
The increase in the curve slope after the snap-thru, shows that the deformed configuration becomes
more rigid.
The difference between the two curves is approximately 10% for reduced displacements (up to 5
mm) and slightly more (15%) for the higher nonlinear part of the curve (between 5 and 20 mm).
For displacements exceeding 20 mm, the curves are shown much closer together.
The accuracy of the RADIOSS results in comparison to those obtained from the reference is ideal for
this explicit approach.
Initial configuration
Start of snap-thru
Stable configuration
Title
Snap Roof - Implicit
Number
2.2
Brief Description
A shallow cylindrical roof upon which an imposed velocity is applied at its mid-point. Analysis uses
an implicit approach.
Keywords
Implicit solver, time step control by arc-length method
Static nonlinear analysis
Stability, snap-thru, and limit load
T3 Shell
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Implicit options (/IMPL)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Implicit solver: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/02_Snap-thru/
Implicit_solver/SNAP_IMP*
The material used follows a linear elastic law and has the following characteristics:
Initial density: 7.85x10-3 g/mm3
Young modulus: 3102.75 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Modeling Methodology
The modeling problem described in the explicit study remains unchanged.
The implicit computation requires specific implicit parameters that must be defined in the Engine file
*_001.rad using the options beginning with /IMPL.
The imposed velocity is considered using the implicit method. Thus, the constant input curve is
converted into an imposed displacement according to the computation time.
Tolerance: 2x10-4
Update of stiffness matrix: 3 iterations maximum
Time step control method: Arc-length
Initial time step: 10 ms
Minimum time step: 0.5 ms
Maximum time step: 10 ms
Desired convergence iteration number: 6
Maximum convergence iteration number: 20
Decreasing time step factor: 0.8
Maximum increasing time step scale factor: 1.05
Arc-length: Automatic computation
Spring-back option: no
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. It is defined in
/IMPL/SOLVER. The linear implicit options used are:
Linear solver: Direct solver MUMPS
Precondition methods: Factored approximate Inverse
Maximum iterations number: System dimension (NDOF)
Stop criteria: Relative residual in force
Tolerance for stop criteria: Machine precision
For a time step equal to or less than 10 ms (maximum value set in the implicit /IMPL/DT/STOP
option), agreement with RADIOSS is achieved, with good results obtained using the reference.
Accuracy is improved by decreasing the maximum time step, even though the CPU time is
increased.
Fig 11: Load displacement curve obtained by implicit and explicit solvers.
Comparison of the computation time between the explicit and implicit (maximum time step set to
10 ms) approaches is shown in the table below:
Summary
A sensitive study is performed on a crushed S-beam. The modeling includes a material law using
the elasto-plastic model of Johnson-Cook and a self-impacting interface based on the Penalty
method in order to model the buckling of the beam. An initial velocity is applied on the left section
via a kinematic condition: either a rigid body or a rigid link. The impacting condition is sliding and is
secured by specific boundary conditions in the right section. Half of the structure is modeled.
The results are compared according to three different views:
Shell element formulations (BATOZ, QEPH and BT hourglass type 3)
Plasticity options (global and progressive plasticity)
Influence of the initial velocity (5 and 10 ms -1)
Several criteria are used to compare the results:
Deformation configuration
Crushing force versus displacement (via momentum integration)
Energy assessment
Displacement of the left section
Hourglass energy
Kinetic energy
Internal energy
Maximum force
Maximum plastic strain
BATOZ and QEPH element formulations provide accurate results. The BT hourglass type 3
formulation is a low-cost method and the QEPH formulation provides a good precision/cost ratio
(the cost is three times lower than the BATOZ formulation). BATOZ and QEPH are element
formulations which do not have hourglass energy.
The results show an over-estimation of the plastic strain in the case of the global plasticity use.
Number
3.1
Brief Description
An S-beam is crushed against a rigid wall with initial velocity.
Keywords
Shell, type 3 Q4 Hourglass, QEPH, and BATOZ
Type 7 interface, self-impacting, plasticity, and /MAT/LAW2
MODIF files
RADIOSS Options
Initial velocities (/INIVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Rigid link (/RLINK)
Input File
QEPH: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/QEPH/
Global_plasticity/QEPH*
BATOZ: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/BATOZ/
Global_plasticity/BATOZ*
BT_type3_NiP0: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/BT-type3/
Global_plasticity/Q4_NIP0*
BT_type3_NiP5: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/03_S-Beam/BT-type3/
NiP5/Q4_NIP5*
Modeling Methodology
The mesh is a regular shell mesh. Each shell measures approximately 10 mm x 10 mm.
A sensitive study is performed on:
Shell element formulations: BATOZ, QEPH and Belytschko hourglass type 3
Plasticity options: global and progressive plasticity model
Influence of the initial velocity: 5 and 10 ms -1
The rigid wall is modeled with boundary conditions on the right section of the beam (X, Z
translations and all rotations fixed).
The left section undergoes the following conditions:
Fixed in the Z direction.
Initial velocity of 5 m/s in the X direction.
All nodes are rigidly connected in X, Y and Z directions.
A 500 Kg mass is added on the left end.
Block format input specifications:
Hierarchy organization: there is only one subset made up of three parts, one for each side of
the beam, and one for the top. The materials and properties are identical for each part.
Node groups: there are three node groups, one for each end of the beam, and one for the
symmetry plane. The boundary conditions are set on the left end.
TH selection: DX is saved for node 1 (the node used to display displacement at the left end).
Both models provide identical results; the rigid link will be used for this example.
An initial velocity of 5 ms-1 is used for the master node of the rigid link or for the rigid body.
MODIF file:
A MODIF file enables to add option(s) during a run. The MODIF files carry the name
ROOTNAMErun*.rad. Where, run# is the RADIOSS run number four digits from 0000 to 9999
and run# is the name of the last Restart file + 1.
For example, to run a MODIF file after the first run (restart file ROOTNAME_0001.rad), the run
number for the MODIF file must be 2: ROOTNAME_0002.rad. MODIF files use the same inout
format as the RADIOSS deck. Put all the input decks in one folder and with Irun=2 RADIOSS
will automatically recognize the MODIF file.
Fig 4: Deformed mesh for Belytschko hourglass type 3 formulation (V=5 m.s -1)
Fig 5: Crushing force (X-direction) versus displacement for different element formulations (V=5 m.s -1)
The structure does not absorb a lot of energy and that you should check the hourglass energy,
which may be relatively high compared with the total energy.
Q4 Hourglass Q4 Hourglass
BATOZ QEPH
type 3 type 3
Initial energy (mJ) 6.25012x106 6.25012x106 6.25012x106 6.25012x106
Initial velocity = 5 ms-1 (Values in brackets are the energy percentages compared with the initial energy)
Global plastification
Global plastification
(Values in brackets refer to the energy percentages compared with the initial energy)
First self-contact:
Initial velocity = 5 ms-1: displacement = 120 mm;
Initial velocity = 10 ms-1: displacement = 94.15 mm.
Summary
This example deals with the deployment of a chambered airbag modeled by monitored volumes
using communications. The airbag is initially folded along four fold lines. The fabric is meshed with
shell elements which undergo an elastic orthotropic behavioral test. Perfect gas is injected into a
central chamber via an inflator with the air flow through the connected chambers being simulated.
The chambers inflate while the airbag is deploying.
In the self-impacting interface definition, the action of the Inacti flag to deactivate stiffness in the
case of initial penetration is studied in order to significantly increase the time step. An adequate gap
enables to pass from a kinematic interface time step to a higher element time step.
Number
4.1
Brief Description
A chambered airbag folded along four fold lines is deployed.
Keywords
Orthotropic shell
Monitored volumes and communicating airbags
/MAT/GAS
/PROP/INJECT1
Material law 0 and type 7 interface
Hierarchy organization
RADIOSS Options
Monitored volume with communications (/MONVOL/COMMU1)
Interface (/INTER/ with Inacti flag)
Input File
Inactiv_0_Gap0.1:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/04_Airbag/Inacti0_Gap01/AIRFIX*
Inactiv_5_Gap0.3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/04_Airbag/Inacti5_Gap03/AIRBAG*
Inactiv_5_Gap1.5:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/04_Airbag/Inacti5_Gap15/AIRBAG2*
The fabric thickness is 0.33 mm and is modeled using an elastic orthotropic material law
(/MAT/LAW19) with the following properties:
Density: 0.85x10-3 g/mm3
Young’s Modulus: 500 MPa in both directions
Shear Modulus: 10 MPa
Reduction factor: 0.001
The property set is /PROP/SH_ORTH (shell orthotropic, type 9), using one integration point.
Modeling Methodology
The model is divided into two subsets: the fabric layers and the communication surfaces.
The fabric surface is then divided into 9 subsets, one for each monitored volume. Each "monitored
volume" is further divided into two parts. All the parts of the layer of fabric have the same Type and
MID.
The same properties apply for the communication surfaces.
The airbag is modeled using 9 communicating volumes in order to simulate the air flow through the
folds and the behavioral differences within the airbag when unfolding. The communicating surfaces
between the volumes are simulated using dummy membranes. The dummy membranes are
modeled using shells with fictitious material (/MAT/LAW0).
RADIOSS Options Used
A monitored volume is defined as a surface area having one or more shell property sets and where
the surface must be closed. The monitored volume used is a COMMU1 type for airbags using
communications (chambered, with communications, of the folder airbag type). For further details
about monitored volumes, see the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
Mass (g) 0 6 11 14 17 22 29 31 36 41 45 46 46
Interface
Taking into account the fabric is self-impacting with itself, a self-impacting interface must be used.
The interface’s Block Format definition is made: defining the master surface (/SURF/PART), then
defining the slave nodes for all nodes on this surface (/GRNOD/SURF).
The distance between the fabric layers before unfolding is very small. In order to avoid initial
penetration, the gap required is approximately 0.1 mm, thus enabling the time step to considerably
decrease when such a gap is chosen.
By using Inacti =5, a 0.3 mm gap is chosen. Any initial penetration below 0.2 mm (two-thirds of the
input gap) is ignored (it is strongly recommended to verify that no initial penetration is above this
value).
Using Inacti = 5, the minimum time step is around 10 -3 ms. When not using this option, the
minimum time step is around 2x10-4 ms. For the full model, the number of cycles may be divided
up into 10 or more. Furthermore, the model is numerically less sensitive.
The time step is monitored by the interface time step (kinematic) for up to 40 ms despite the
unfolding and the fact that there is no energy contact from 7.8 ms. In order to transfer into the
element time step and to reduce computation time, it is advisable to increase the gap so the
kinematic step becomes higher than the element step.
Fig 6: Time step obtained with GAP = 0.3 mm and GAP = 1.5 mm (Inacti = 5).
It is obvious that a gap of 1.5 mm generates an increase in the contact force. However, the
additional error on energy remains quite low and is acceptable.
Summary
A beam frame with clamped extremities receives an impact at its mid-point from a pointed mass
having initial velocity. The material is subjected to the elasto-plastic law of Johnson-Cook. The
model is meshed with beam elements. An infinite rigid wall with only one slave node, including the
impacted node, is subjected to the initial velocity. This example is considered a dynamic problem
and the explicit solver is used.
The explicit approach leads to finding a quasi-static equilibrium of the structure after impact.
Number
5.1
Brief Description
A beam frame receives an impact from a mass having initial velocity.
Keywords
Beam
Rigid wall
Plasticity and Johnson-Cook material (/MAT/LAW2)
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Initial velocities (/INIVEL)
Beam element (/PROP/BEAM)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Input File
Beam_frame: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/05_Beam-frame/FRAME*
Overview
Modeling Methodology
The mesh is a regular beam mesh, each beam being 9 mm long (total = 70 beams).
Fig 7: Normal and shear force on beam element 15 (near to point O).
Summary
The fluid-structure interaction and the fluid flow are studied in cases of a fuel tank sloshing and
overturning. A bi-phase liquid-gas material with an ALE formulation is used to define the interaction
between water and air in the fuel tank.
In the case of sloshing, the fuel tank is subjected to a horizontal deceleration. The fuel tank
container is modeled with a Lagrangian formulation and undergoes an elasto-plastic material law.
Fluid structure coupling is taken into account.
The overturning of the fuel tank is studied by applying a variable deceleration. The tank container is
not modeled as the boundary nodes are fixed. The Eulerian formulation is used.
Title
Fuel tank - Fluid
Structure Coupling
Number
6.1
Brief Description
Sloshing inside a fuel tank by simulating the fluid structure coupling. The tank deformation is
achieved by applying an imposed velocity on the left corners. Water and air inside the tank are
modeled with the ALE formulation. The tank container is described using a Lagrangian formulation.
Keywords
Fluid structure coupling simulation, and ALE formulation
Shell and brick elements
Hydrodynamic and bi-phase liquid gas material (/MAT/LAW37)
RADIOSS Options
ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS)
J. Donea Grid Formulation (/ALE/GRID/DONEA)
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
ALE material formulation (/ALE/MAT)
Input File
Fluid_structure_coupling: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/06_Fuel_tank/
1-Tank_sloshing/Fluid_structure_coupling/TANK*
The steel container is modeled using the elasto-plastic model of Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/LAW2)
with the following parameters:
Density: 0.0078 g/mm3
Young’s modulus: 210000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.29
Yield stress: 180 MPa
Hardening parameter: 450 MPa
Hardening exponent: 0.5
The material air-water bi-phase is described in the hydrodynamic bi-material liquid-gas law
(/MAT/LAW37). Material law 37 is specifically designed to model bi-material liquid gas.
Liquid EOS:
where,
Gas EOS:
Where, Sij is the deviatoric stress tensor and eij is the deviatoric strain tensor.
Modeling Methodology
Air and water are modeled using the ALE formulation and the bi-material law (/MAT/LAW37). The
tank container uses a Lagrangian formulation and an elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/LAW2).
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Title
Fuel tank - Fluid flow
Number
6.2
Brief Description
Fuel tank overturning with simulation of the fluid flow. The reversing tank is modeled using
horizontally-applied gravity. The tank container is presumed without deformation and only the
water and air inside the tank are taken into consideration using the ALE formulation.
Keywords
Fluid flow simulation and ALE formulation
Brick elements
Hydrodynamic and bi-phase liquid gas (/MAT/LAW37)
RADIOSS Options
ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS)
J. Donea Grid Formulation (/ALE/GRID/DONEA)
Gravity (/GRAV)
ALE material formulation (/ALE/MAT)
Input File
Fluid_flow_gravity_1: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/06_Fuel_tank/
2-Tank_overturning/Fluid_flow_1/PFTANK*
Fluid_flow_gravity_2: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/06_Fuel_tank/
2-Tank_overturning/Fluid_flow_2/PFTANK*
The example deals with two loading cases: an instantaneous rotation of the fuel tank by 90 degrees
(gravity function 1) and a progressive rotation (gravity function 2).
The main material properties for the ALE bi-phase air-water are:
Air density: 1.22x10-6 g/mm3
Water density: 0.001 g/mm3
Gas initial pressure: 0.1 MPa
Modeling Methodology
The bi-material air-water is described in the hydrodynamic material law (/MAT/LAW37). See
previous section for information about this law, including full input data.
This loading case does not require a tank container mesh and the model, air and water are only
comprised of the brick element using an ALE formulation.
Using the ALE formulation, brick mesh is only deformed by the tank deformation, the water flowing
through the mesh. The Lagrangian shell nodes still coincide with the material points, while the
elements are deformed with the material: this is the Lagrangian mesh. For the ALE mesh, nodes on
boundaries are fixed to remain on the border, while the interior nodes are moved.
RADIOSS Options Used
Regarding the ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS), constraints are applied on:
Material velocity
Grid velocity
All nodes inside the border have grid and material velocities fixed in the Z direction; the nodes on
the left and right sides have a material velocity fixed in the X and Z directions, while the nodes on
the high and low sides have a material velocity fixed in the Y and Z directions. The grid velocity is
fully fixed on the border, just as the material velocity is fixed on the corners.
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Conclusion
This example studied hydrodynamic bi-material using Law 37 in RADIOSS, using ALE and Eulerian
formulations. The application of boundary conditions in ALE formations and handling the fluid-
structure interaction were discussed. Furthermore, the results obtained correctly represent the
physical problem.
Summary
The purpose of this example is to simulate the oscillation and wave propagation of a group of
pendulums, arranged in a line, when impacted at one end. The material is described as being
elastic. Two models are used to simulate two different physical problems:
The 2D model represents the infinite cylindrical mass for pendulums
The 3D model is necessary for determining the spherical mass
The quality of the model first depends on how contact is managed. For the 2D model, a simple type
5 interface with a plane facet is used. For the 3D model, however, a type 16 interface using the
Lagrange Multipliers method is used.
Number
7.1
Brief Description
Five pendulums in line, initially in contact with each other, are struck by a sixth one. The shock
wave and oscillating motion are observed.
Keywords
Tri-dimensional analysis, truss, brick, and 16-node thick shell
Type 16 interface (Node to brick contact)
Elasticity, momentum transmission, shock wave propagation, and multiple-impacts
Bi-dimensional analysis, plane strain, type 5 interface, and quad element
RADIOSS Options
Bi-dimensional analysis (/ANALY)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Type 16 interface (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 5 (/INTER/TYPE5)
Input File
Tri-dimensional_analysis:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/07_Pendulums/3D_model/PENDULUMS_3D*
Bi-dimensional_analysis:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/07_Pendulums/Plan_strain_model/
PENDULUMS_2D*
The left pendulum has an initial angle of 45 degrees in relation to the vertical. The material used is
aluminum alloy which behaves like a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) during impact.
The properties are defined as follows:
Young’s modulus: 70000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.33
Density: 0.0027 g.mm-3
The geometrical characteristics of the balls and trusses are:
Truss:
- Length: 124.6 mm
Ball:
- Radius: 25.4 mm (massball = 182.5g)
The modeling technique used enables to ensure contact between the quadratic surfaces.
Figure 3 shows the mesh used for balls. The mesh uses a hypercube mesh topology combining brick
and 16-node thick shell elements.
Fig 4: Slave nodes and master surfaces defined for the type 16 interface.
No gap is required for the type 16 interface, enabling the contact condition to be exactly satisfied.
RADIOSS Options Used
Gravity is applied to all nodes. A function defines the gravity acceleration in the Z direction
compared with time. Gravity is activated by the /GRAV option.
Normal vectors of quad elements should have the same orientation to avoid negative volumes.
Quad elements undergo a type 14 general solid property.
The contact between the external segments of the quads is modeled five times using a type 5
interface.
Type 5 interface uses the Penalty method for a master segment contact (blue side) to the slave
node (red side). The gap is set to 0.1 mm as the initial interval between the masses. The contact is
sliding using a Coulomb friction coefficient that is equal to zero.
Type 7 general interface is not available in a 2D analysis.
RADIOSS Options Used
The upper extremities of the trusses are fixed in Y and Z translations. The 2D conditions are
automatically taken into account with N2D3D = 2 in /ANALY.
Gravity is applied to all nodes. A constant function (-0.00981 mm.ms-2) defines the gravity
acceleration in the Z direction compared with time. Gravity is activated by /GRAV.
For the 2D analysis, the rigid body /RBODY option is not available.
For the purpose of this example, the following numbers are assigned to the balls:
When the pendulum mass is released at time t=0, the No. 6 end ball has maximum potential energy
and null kinetic energy. Ball 6 achieves maximum velocity before striking the five other pendulums.
For a moderate case that is without loss, you have:
Where, h is the vertical displacement of the ball’s center, V is the velocity and m is the mass.
The maximum kinetic energy is reached for: h = hmax = I(1 - cos(45)) = 43.934 mm
EKINETICmax = mghmax = 182.5 * 0.00981 * 43.934 = 78.656 mJ
Analytical solution:
EKINETICmax = 78.655 mJ (time = 203.33 ms, impact balls 6 and 5)
Simulation results:
EKINETICmax = 72.478 mJ (time = 612.5 ms, impact balls 1 and 2)
Velocity is transferred from pendulum to pendulum until reaching the end one.
Equation of Motion
The relative motion of a simple pendulum can be described using the equation:
Such analytical equation can be corroborated with regard to the end balls No. 1 and 6.
Rotations and rotational accelerations are indicated from the nodes located at the upper end of
the trusses.
The numerical results have an average correlation in relation to the analytical solution, due to the
dynamic response of the nodal acceleration saved in the Time History.
Energetic Behavior upon Impact
Lets consider the interval [203,33 ms and 204,11 ms] where multiple impacts occur from balls No.
6 to 1.
As shown in Fig 15, the internal energy stored in the system is released after each impact, in line
with the defining balls linear material law. The kinetic energy is transferred from pendulum to
pendulum.
The 16-node thick shells are elements, which do not suffer hourglass deformation. Therefore, the
low kinetic energy lost during multiple impact is due to the dissipated contact energy (-2.47mJ).
The external work of the gravity remains constant (78.655mJ).
The following animations separately illustrate:
the motion of the pendulums
the kinetic energy transmission
the stress wave propagation
Velocity Norm
The force between balls compared with time is shown in Fig 17. Existence of a time interval where
forces’ contacts are not at zero.
Fig 17: Forces’ contact between balls compared with time (contact starts at t’=0 ms).
This process leads to multiple impacts. It corroborates the experimental observations, where the
theory was well estimated. Based on an Impulse Correlation Ratio (ICR), a regularized system of an
N-ball chain using an elastic contact spring gives similar results.
The impact between several pendulums in line was studied using RADIOSS. Two models
representing physical problems were studied:
(i) a global analysis using a relatively coarse mesh with 3D elements
(ii) a 2D model using a fine mesh
In the first case, the energy assessment and the wave propagation are studied. The mesh used is
not fine enough for studying the contact effects, due to the fact that 3D represents a high cost
model and using a fine mesh dramatically increases the computation time. The results are
compared to an analytical solution where the pendulum system is assimilated to a simple
pendulum.
The 2D analysis concentrates on contact between the balls. There still exists an analytical solution
though for a chain of three balls, but which can be generalized for the purpose of this example. The
results obtained by simulation and theory demonstrate the validity of the numerical results obtained
by RADIOSS.
Summary
Precise data for high strain rate materials is necessary to enable the accurate modeling of high-
speed impacts. The high strain rate characterization of materials is usually performed using the split
Hopkinson Pressure Bar within the strain rate range 100-10000 s-1. Using the one-dimensional
analysis of the Hopkinson bar experiment, it is assumed that the object deforms under uni-axial
stress, the bar object interfaces remain planar at all times, and the stress equilibrium in the object
is achieved using travel times. The RADIOSS explicit finite element code is used to investigate these
assumptions.
Number
8.1
Brief Description
The high strain rate tensile behavior of the 7010 aluminum alloy is studied using the Hopkinson
pressure bar technique (stress wave).
Keywords
Axisymmetrical analysis and quad elements
High strain rate and Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)
Wave propagation and stress pulse
Elastic model (/MAT/LAW1) and Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic model (/MAT/LAW2)
RADIOSS Options
Axisymmetrical analysis (/ANALY)
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Input File
High_strain_rate:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/08_Hopkinson_Bar/High_strain_rate/
SHPB_H*
Low_strain_rate:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/08_Hopkinson_Bar/Low_strain_rate/SHPB_L*
The objects material undergoes an isotropic elasto-plastic behavior which can be reproduced using a
Johnson-Cook model (/MAT/LAW2). The steel bars and the striker follow a linear elastic law
(/MAT/LAW1).
The following system is used: mm, ms, g, N, MPa.
Johnson-Cook Model
The Johnson-Cook model describes the stress in relation to the plastic strain and the strain rate
using the following equation:
where:
is the strain rate
0 is the reference strain rate
Where, Ebar is the modulus of the output bar, T is the strain associated with the output stress wave
and the Sbar is the cross-section of the output bar.
If the two bars remain elastic and wave dispersion is ignored, then the measured stress pulses can
be assumed to be the same as those acting on the object.
The engineering stress value in the object can be determined by the wave analysis, using the
transmitted wave:
Engineering stress can also be found by averaging out the force applied by the incident that is the
reflected and transmitted wave, as shown in the equation:
Where, I and R are the strains associated with input stress wave and T is the strain associated
with output stress wave.
True stress in the object is computed using the following relation (refer to Example 11 - Tensile Test
for further details):
True stress and true strain are evaluated up to the failure point.
Modeling Methodology
Taking into account the geometry’s revolution symmetry the material and the kinematic conditions,
an axisymmetrical model is used (N2D3D = 1 in /ANALY set up in the Starter file). Y is the radial
direction and Z is the axis of revolution.
The mesh is made of 12054 2D solid elements (quads). The quad dimension is about 2 mm.
Fig 5: Mesh of the axisymmetrical model with imposed velocities on the top of the input bar.
In the experiment, the strain gauge is attached to the object. In simulation, the true strain will be
determined from 9040 and 6 nodes’ relative Z displacements (l 0 = 3.83638 mm).
The true stress can be given using two data sources. The first methodology consists of using the
equation previously presented, based on the assumption of the one-dimensional propagation of bar-
object forces. The engineering strain t associated with the output stress wave is obtained from the
Z displacement of nodes located on the output bar. The true plastic strain is extracted from the
quads on the object, saved in the Time History file. True stress can also be measured directly from
the Time History using the average of the Z stress quads 6243, 6244, 6224 and 6235. It should be
noted that the section option is not an available option with the quad elements.
The strain rate can be calculated from either the true plastic strain of quads saved in /TH/QUAD or
from the true strain true.
True strain
The purpose of this test is to obtain the results observed in experiments with a Johnson-Cook
model. The increase of stress is expected to equal approximately 30% compared to the low strain
rate test.
Experimental Data
Experimental results show that the variation of the true tensile flow stress compared with the true
strain is approximately equivalent to a strain rate between 80 s -1 and 100 s-1. The reference strain,
in the Johnson-Cook model is set to 0.08 ms-1. At higher rates, the true flow stress increases
significantly compared with the strain rate. The 7010 aluminum alloy exhibits an increase in the
flow stress by a typical 30% at high strain rates (900 s -1 to 3000 s-1) compared to static values.
Results are given at the specific true strains of 0.02, 0.05 and 0.10. The influence of the strain rate
on stress can be seen in Fig 7 [1].
For the test performed with a strain rate of 900 s-1, the flow stress reaches 850 MPa at a 0.25
strain.
Table 2: True stress at specific strains using both strain rates (experimental data).
True stress (MPa) 550 600 610 625 775 800 850
Johnson-Cook Model
Figure 8 shows the variation of true stress in time in relation to the wave propagation along the
bars. Stresses are evaluated on the input bar, the object and the output bar.
The stress-time curve shows the incident, reflected and transmitted signals.
Fig 10: Diagram of SHPB showing the motion in time of the tensile pulse.
The speed of wave, C along the bars is calculated using the relation:
C = 5189 ms-1
Where, E is the Young’s modulus and is the density of the bars.
The time step element is controlled by the smallest element located in the object. It is set at 5x10 -5
ms. The stress wave thus reaches the object in 0.77 ms and travels 0.26 mm along the bar for each
time step. Obviously, it remains lower than the element length of the smallest dimension (0.88
mm).
An imposed velocity of 5.8 ms-1 produces a strain rate in the object of approximately 900 s -1, while
a strain rate of approximately 80 s-1 is achieved using an imposed velocity of 1.7 ms-1. A simulation
is performed for each velocity value. It should be noted that the study on low rates is more limited
in time than on high rates due to the reflected wave generated on top of the output bar.
Figure 12 shows the true stress and true strain as a function of the strain rate.
At a high strain rate (900/s), an increase in the flow stress is observed, being approximately 30%
higher than the stress obtained for a low strain rate (80/s). The Johnson-Cook model used provides
precise results compared with the experimental data.
The true stresses determined from both methodologies are shown side-by-side. This validates the
analysis based on a transmitted wave. Typical curves for a model having imposed velocities equal to
5.8 ms-1 are shown below:
These studies are performed for the high strain rate model ( = 900 s-1).
Figure 14 compares the distribution of the von Mises stress on the object, with and without the
strain rate filtering at time t=0.6 ms.
More physical flow stress distribution is obtained using filtering. Explicit is an element-by-element
method, while the local treatment of temporal oscillations puts spatial oscillations into the mesh.
Reference
[1] CRAHVI, G4RD-CT-2000-00395, D.1.1.1, Material Tests – Tensile properties of Aluminum Alloys
7010T7651 and AU4G Over a Range of Strain Rates.
Summary
The impact and rebound between balls on a small billiard table is studied. This example deals with
the problem of defining interfaces and transmitting momentum between the balls. The study is
divided into three parts:
At first, a general study is used to see the results of a cue ball when coming into contact with the 15
other balls arranged in a triangle. The balls are meshed for the purpose using 16-node shell
elements (for the curvature) and a type 16 interface between each ball as well as between the balls
and the table. The results show that the momentum is not homogenously transmitted: the balls on
the table are not being evenly spread out.
Secondly, the collision between two balls is studied. All parameters are the same as in the first part.
The reaction of those two balls is then compared to the analytical results.
Finally, six different interfaces are compared: types 16 and 17 tied or sliding interfaces using the
Lagrange Multipliers method and a type 7 tied or sliding interface using the Lagrange Multipliers or
the Penalty method. The study is also initiated using a quasi-static gravity application prior to
dynamic behavior. When comparing the kinetic energy transmission, the results show that
interfaces without the tied option provide better results than the others, and that the type 16
interface seems to be the best.
Title
Billiards (Pool)
Number
9.1
Brief Description
A pool game is modeled to show the transmission of momentum between one impacting ball and 15
impacted balls.
Keywords
16-node thick shell and sphere mesh
Type 7 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method and the Penalty method
Type 16 sliding and tied interface, and quadratic surface contact
Elastic shock
Momentum transmission and shock wave
RADIOSS Options
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7) and type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16)
Initial velocities (/INIVEL)
16-node thick shell property type 20 (/PROP/TSHELL)
Input File
Billiard_game/Interface_16:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Billiards_model/BILLARD*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Billiards_model/Supplement_
Interface7Lag/BILLARD*
Modeling Methodology
The balls are meshed with 16–node solid shells (quadratic elements) in order to improve the
conditions of contact by taking into account the curvatures. The frame of the table is made of 16–
node solid shells to comply with the interface used. The plate is modeled using only one solid
element. The 16–node thick shells are considered as solid elements. They are defined by a thick
type 20 shell property (number 16 solid formulation for quadratic 16-node thick shells, fully-
integrated with 2x2x2 integration points).
The type 16 interface with the Lagrange Multipliers method is used to model the ball/ball and
balls/table contacts. An interface must be defined for each ball (that is: 16 interfaces in total). An
additional interface is used to define the contacts between the balls and the table (plate and frame).
Fig 5: Type 16 interface: slave SHEL16 for balls and master SHEL16 for the table.
Fig 6: Example of the type 16 interface defined for the contact between balls.
Slave nodes (red) are extracted from the external surfaces of the parts.
All nodes of the lower face of the table are completely fixed (translations and rotations).
Gravity is considered for all the balls nodes. A function defines the gravity acceleration in the Z
direction compared with time. Gravity is activated using /GRAV.
Due to the faceting of the ball, contact between the impacting ball and the impacted balls is not
perfectly symmetrical and momentum is not homogeneously transmitted among the balls. An
apparent physical strike thus results.
Study on Trajectories
Title
Collision between two
balls
Number
9.2
Input File
Collision study:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Collision_simulation/
COLLISION*
Two balls are now considered in order to study the behavior of impacting spherical balls.
The balls’ behavior is described using the parameters (angles and velocities) shown in Fig 11. The
numerical results are compared with the analytical solution, assuming a perfect elastic rebound
(coefficient of restitution is equal to 1).
Modeling Methodology
The balls and the table have the same properties, previously defined for a pool game. The
dimensions of the table are 900 mm x 450 mm x 25 mm and the balls’ diameter is 50.8 mm. The
balls and the table are meshed with 16-node thick shell elements for using the type 16 Lagrangian
interface.
The initial translational velocities are applied to the balls in the /INIV Engine option. Velocities are
projected on the X and Y axes.
Analytical Solution
Take two balls, 1 and 2 from masses m1 and m2, moving in the same plane and approaching each
other on a collision course using velocities V 1 and V2, as shown in Fig 15.
Velocities are projected onto the local axes n and t. To obtain the velocities and their direction after
impact, the momentum conservation law is recorded for the two balls:
or
The shock is presumed elastic and without friction. Maintaining the translational kinetic energy is
respected as there is no rotational energy:
Such equality implies that the recovering capacity of the two balls corresponds to their tendency to
deform.
This relation means that the normal component of the relative velocity changes into its opposite
during the elastic shock (coefficient of restitution value e is equal to the unit).
The following equations must be checked for normal components:
The equations system using V’1 and V’2 as unknowns is easily solved:
It should be noted that these relations depend upon the masses ratio.
As the balls do not suffer from velocity change in the t-direction, maintaining the tangential
component of each sphere’s velocity provides:
The norms of velocities after shock result from the following relations.
Therefore:
and
By recording the projection of the velocities, directions after shock can be evaluated using relation.
Used to determine the analytical solutions (angles and velocities after collision):
The following diagram shows the trajectories of the balls’ center point obtained using numerical
simulation before and after collision.
For given initial values of V1, V2, 1 and 2, simulation results are reported in Table 1.
1’ 42.27° 1’ 44.72°
2’ 26.75° 2’ 26.48°
The simulation corroborates with the analytical solution. The 16-node thick shells are fully-
integrated elements without hourglass energy. This modeling provides a good transmission of
momentum. However, the type 16 interface does not take into account the quadratic surface on the
slave side (ball 2), due to the node to thick shell contact. Accurate results are obtained for a
collision without penetrating the quadratic surface of the slave side in order to confirm impact
between the spherical bodies.
A fine mesh could improve the results.
Title
Study on interfaces
Number
9.3
Input File
Inter_7_Penalty:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Contact_modelling/
Inter_7_Penalty/TEST7P*
Inter_7_Lagrangian:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Contact_modelling/
Inter_7_Lagrangian/TEST7L*
Inter_16_tied:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Contact_modelling/
Inter_16_tied/TEST16T*
Inter_16_sliding:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Contact_modelling/
Inter_16_sliding/TEST16S*
Inter_17_tied:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Contact_modelling/
Inter_17_tied/TEST17ST*
Inter_17_sliding:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/09_Billiards/Contact_modelling/
Inter_17_sliding/TEST17S*
Overview
The balls and the table have the same properties as previously defined. The dimensions of the table
are 900 mm x 450 mm x 25 mm and the balls’ diameter is 50.8 mm.
Six interfaces are used to model the contacts (ball/ball and balls/table):
The type 16 interface defines contact between a group of nodes (slaves) and a curved surface of
quadratic elements (master part). The type 17 interface is used for modeling a surface-to-surface
contact. For both interfaces, the Lagrange Multipliers method is used to apply the contact
conditions; gaps are not required. Contact between the balls and the table is set as tied or sliding.
Contact between the balls themselves is always considered as sliding. The type 7 interface enables
the simulation of the most general contact types occurring between a master surface and a set of
slave nodes. The Coulomb friction between surfaces is not modeled here (sliding contact) and the
gap is fixed at 0.1 mm. The other parameters are set to default values.
The type 7 interface with the Penalty method is not available with 16-node thick shell elements.
Thus, brick elements replace the 16-nodes shells in this case (check in the input file).
Contact modeling between balls (always sliding).
Fig 20: Symmetrical configuration of the type 7 interface using the Penalty method
Slave: nodes
Type 16 – tied
Master: solids (16-node shell)
Slave: nodes
Type 16 – sliding
Master: solids (16-node shell)
Slave: nodes
Type 7 – Penalty method
Master: surface (segments)
Fig 21: Definition of slave and master objects for balls/table contacts.
Slave: nodes
Type 16 – tied
Master: solids (16-node shell)
Slave: nodes
Type 16 – sliding
Master: solids (16-node shell)
Slave: nodes
Type 7 – Penalty method
Master: surface (segments)
with, being the relaxation value by default, equal to 1, and T being the period to be damped (less
than or equal to the largest period of the system).
Thus, a viscous stress tensor is added to the stress tensor:
In an explicit code, the application of the dashpot force modifies the velocity equation:
without relaxation
with relaxation
with:
Type 17 Interface
Contact between
quadratic surfaces
Type 17 Interface
Contact between
quadratic surfaces
Balls/table contact:
sliding
Ball/ball contact: sliding
Type 16 Interface
Contact nodes/ quadratic
surface
Balls/table contact:
sliding
Ball/ball contact: sliding
Type 7 Interface
Lagrange Multipliers
method
Balls/table contact:
sliding
Ball/ball contact: sliding
Interface 7
Interface Interface Interface 17 Interface Lagrange Interface 7
16 Tied 16 Sliding Tied 17 Sliding Multipliers Penalty
Error on
-30.8% -1.4% -55.5% -10.8% -1.2% -46.1%
Energy
Momentum quasi-
partial partial good good partial
Transmission perfect
master
Quadratic master master master and
and slave no no
surface side side slave sides
sides
A non-elastic collision appears using the type 7 interface Penalty method. After impact, each ball
has about half of the initial velocity. The momentum transmission is partial and can be improved by
increasing the stiffness of the interface despite the hourglass energy and degradation of the energy
assessment.
Error on energy is more noticeable for interfaces using the Tied option, due to taking into account
the rolling simulation.
This study shows the high sensitivity of the numerical algorithms for the modeling impact on elastic
balls. Regarding the interface type, the kinematics of the problem and the transmission of
momentum are more or less satisfactory. Type 16 interface allows good results to be obtained.
Summary
The bending of a straight cantilever beam is studied. The example used is a famous bending test for
shell elements. The analytical solution enables the comparison with the quality of the numerical
results. Carefully watch the influence from the shell formulation. In addition, the results for the
different time step scale factors are compared.
Number
10.1
Brief Description
Pure bending test with different 3- and 4-nodes shell formulations.
Keywords
Q4 and T3 meshes
QEPH, Belytshcko & Tsay, BATOZ, and DKT shells
Mesh, hourglass, imposed velocity, quasi-static analysis, and bending test
RADIOSS Options
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid bodies (/RBODY)
Input File
BATOZ: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/BATOZ/.../ROLLING*
QEPH: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/QEPH/.../ROLLING*
BT (type1):
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/BT/BT_type1/.../ROLLING*
BT (type3):
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/BT/BT_type3/.../ROLLING*
BT (type4):
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/BT/BT_type4/.../ROLLING*
DKT18: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/10_Bending/DKT18/.../ROLLING*
Modeling Methodology
Three beams are modeled using quadrilateral shells and one beam with T3 shells. A rigid body is
defined at the end of each beam for applying the bending moment.
The four models are integrated into one input file. The shell element formulations are:
Q4 mesh with the Belytshcko & Tsay formulation (I shell =1, hourglass control type 1, 2, and 3)
The following tables summarize the results obtained for the different formulations. From an
analytical point of view, the beam deformed under pure bending must satisfy the conditions of the
constant curvature which implies that for = 2 , the beam should form a closed ring. However,
For
CPU
(normalized)
2.18 2.43 3.14 1.23 1.34 42.64 7.07 2.62 108.60 1.03 7.17 5.44 8.21 16.21
# cycles
97600 109800 146400 95800 107800 59100 552600 182300 -- 59100 552600 364100 621600 1243200
Error
=2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 55.3% 99% 0% 0% 55.9% 99.9% 3.4% 28.88% 3.7%
(%)
err =20% 6.91 6.89 4.36 4.53 6.06 5.98 4.38 4.51 6.37
(rad)
-- -- -- -- --
degree 396° 395° 250° 260° 347° 343° 251° 258° 365°
Dz = 2п -500.5 -500.5 -500.5 -500.5 -500.5 -491.2 -525.8 -518.333 -506.0 -529.8 -433.8 -476.5 -496.5 -499.4
(mm)
Mx = 2п
+5 -4.04 -4.05 -4.06 -4.01 -4.01 -0.21 -0.11 -3.13 -2.38 -0.07 -0.02 -3.09 -3.02 -3.08
(x10 kN-
mm)
Summary
The material characterization of ductile aluminum alloy is studied. The RADIOSS material laws 2,
27 and 36 are used to reproduce the experimental data of a traction test by simulation. The
work-hardening, damage and rupture of the object are simulated by a finite element model. The
parameters of the material laws are determined to fit the experimental results. The influence of
the strain rate is also studied. A strain rate filtering method is used to reduce the effect of a
dynamic resolution on the simulation results.
Title
Law characterization
Number
11.1
Brief Description
Elasto-plastic material law characterization using a tensile test.
Keywords
Shell element
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic model (/MAT/LAW2)
Tabulated elasto-plastic (/MAT/LAW36)
Elasto-plastic brittle (/MAT/LAW27)
Necking point, damage model, maximum stress, and failure plastic strain
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Material definition (/MAT)
Input File
Law_2_Johnson_Cook:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_test/Law_2_Johnson-
Cook/.../TENSIL2*
Law 27_Damage:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_test/Law_27_Damage/DAMAGE*
Law_36_Tabulated:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_test/Law_36_Tabulated/
TENSI36*
Fig 1: Geometry of the tensile object (One quarter of the object is modeled).
The material undergoes isotropic elasto-plastic behavior which can be reproduced by a Johnson-
Cook model with or without damage (/MAT/LAW27 and /MAT/LAW2, respectively). The tabulated
material law (/MAT/LAW36) is also studied.
Modeling Methodology
The average element size is about 2 mm in the mesh (Fig 3). There are 201 4-node shells and
one 3-node shell.
The shell properties are:
5 integration points (progressive plastification).
Belytschko elasto-plastic hourglass formulation (Ishell = 3).
Thickness changes are taken into account in stress computation (Ithick = 1).
Node number 54 was renamed "Node 1" to be compliant with the Time History.
For node 54, only displacements in the x-direction (variable DX) are saved.
For both sections, the variables FN and FTX, are saved; thus the following variables will be
available in /TH/SECTIO: FNX, FNY, FNZ (saved using "FN"), and FTX.
Engineering strains will be obtained by dividing the displacement of node 1 with the distance up
to the symmetry axis (75 mm). Engineering stresses will be obtained by dividing the force
through section 1 with its initial surface (10.5 mm 2). Therefore, the results shown correspond to
the engineering stress as a function of the engineering strain, equivalent to the force variation
compared to displacement (similar curve shape).
RADIOSS Options Used
An imposed velocity of -1.0 m/s in the x-direction is applied to the nodes, shown below (abscissa
less than or equal to 25 mm). The displacement is proportional to time.
Only one quarter of the object is modeled to limit the model size and to eliminate the rigid body
motions. Symmetry planes are defined along axis x = 100 mm and axis y = 0. Two boundary
conditions cannot be applied to the same node 13 (corner).
Engineering stresses are measured by dividing the force through one section with the initial
section. True stresses are measured by dividing the force with the true deformed section:
Thus, to compute true stresses, the surface variation must be taken into account. Assuming that
Poisson’s coefficient is 0.5 during plastic deformation, the true surface in mono-axial traction is:
An important point to be characterized on the curve is the necking point, where the slope of the
force versus the displacement curve is equal to 0, and where the following relationships apply:
Material
Generic Equation
Property
Engineering stress
Engineering strain
True stress
True strain
Experimental Results
An experiment designed by the "Norwegian Institute of Technology" as part of an EC-financed
program, "Calibration of Impact Rigs for Dynamic Crash Testing" is used. The following curve was
obtained from the experiment:
It is estimated that the necking point occurs between 6% and 8% (engineering strain). After
analyzing the experimental data, the first point satisfying the necking condition is at 6.68%.
The true stress curve is higher than the engineering stress curve, as it takes into account the
decrease in the objects cross-section.
The first point is chosen at the necking point, then b and n are computed for each other point of
the curve and averaged out since the results tend to differ depending on the point chosen.
Characterization up to the Necking Point
The first stage when determining the material model is to obtain Johnson-Cook’s coefficients.
Neither the maximum stress, nor the failure plastic strain effects are taken into account here (set
at zero).
The values of coefficients are chosen so that the model adapts to the test data.
Figure 12 compares the yield curve defined using the Johnson-Cook model with the one extracted
from experimental data.
The engineering stress deviations between experiment and simulation are described in the table
below:
Comparison is performed up to the necking point (engineering strain = 6.68%) because after this
state, a rapid decrease in the engineering stresses occurs in the object. The rupture sequence is
simulated in the following paragraphs. Results using Law 2 remain within 8% of the experimental
curve.
The curve could be improved by slightly adjusting some of the values. The purpose of this test is
to propose a method for deducing material law parameters using a tensile test.
Fig 13: Beginning of the necking point using only the first coefficients of the Johnson-Cook model (a, b and n).
The necking point can be simulated, either by adjusting the Johnson-Cook coefficients to obtain
an accurate slope, or by compelling curve with a maximum stress.
Simulation of the Slope near the Necking Point
By implementing an energy approach, the hardening curve can be modified to achieve an
engineering curve which resembles a horizontal asymptote near the necking point with the
purpose of simulating the behavior of the curve as observed in the test.
The Johnson-Cook coefficients used to describe the physical slope are:
Yield stress: 79 MPa
Hardening parameter: 133 MPa
Hardening exponent: 0.17
For this model, the new true stress/true strain relationship is:
(Johnson-Cook model 2)
The results obtained with those coefficients are provided below.
Fig 15: Adjusted engineering stress/strain curve to model the beginning of the necking point.
The shape of the yield curve versus the experimental data is depicted in Fig 16.
For this test, the Johnson-Cook coefficients input are those set in characterization up to the
necking point, the failure effect not being taken into account (the failure plastic strain is set to
zero). The beginning of the necking point is set using the choice of a maximum stress value. In
comparison to the experimental results (see Fig 10), the necking point is well defined for a
maximum stress set at 175 MPa. The limit in stress appears on the von Mises stress versus true
strain curve on elements where the necking point occurs.
The maximum true stress manages the beginning of the necking, as shown below:
Maximum stress max is reached for von Mises stress on shells where the necking begins. To
avoid overly-high stresses after the necking point, a maximum stress factor must be set
approximately equal to the true necking point stress.
The following curves show the evolution of the von Mises stress versus the true strain shell at
two characteristic locations of the object (3b and 3a in Fig 20):
The beginning of the necking point is observed following the point where the stress is equal to
stress versus strain derivate .
A second approach also enables the necking point to be triggered on the right end side by
defining an extra part, including shells 3, 11 and 4 by using a maximum stress slightly lower than
the remaining part, in order to initiate the necking point locally since the necking point stress is
first reached in the elements having the lowest maximum stress value, that is shells 3, 11 and 4.
This method, based on material properties, is quite appropriate for demonstrating the
characterization of a material law and will thus be used in the continuation of the example.
Fig 23: Localization of the beginning of the necking point according to the models using max.
The following curves indicate the variation of the engineering stress versus the engineering strain
according to the beginning of the necking point zone and in comparison to the experiment.
Fig 24: Engineering stress/strain curve for each starting necking point location.
There is a fast decrease in the engineering stress after the right-end necking point. The necking
point, due to the boundary conditions of the y-symmetry plane (y-translation DOF released),
becomes more pronounced.
The variations in the section where the necking point is found are quite similar up to the necking
point. After such point, there is a sharp surface decrease for the right-end necking point, contrary
to the second case where the surface decrease is more moderate.
In order to simulate physically the contribution of each element in the necking point, it is
advisable to adjust the curve by varying the Johnson-Cook coefficients in order to increase the
intensity of stress at the necking point. The main result is no longer the variation of the
stress/strain curve but rather the surface under the curve which characterizes the energy
dissipated during the test. This energy-based approach is relevant for crash tests since the final
assessment is often more significant than how it was achieved.
The following graph compares the new yield curve with experimental data:
(true stress/strain)
Yield stress = 50 MPa
Hardening parameter = 350 MPa
Hardening exponent = 0.38
Maximum stress is set to 189 or 190 MPa (according to the parts)
Fig 28: Shell contribution during the necking point sequence (von Mises stress).
As the necking point progresses, more physical results are obtained due to the new input data of
the material law coefficients having a better element contribution.
Fig 32: max = 40% ; yield curve adjusted with respect to high stresses: .
Failure is reached for relatively high true strains.
Law 27 is used to simulate material damage following a Johnson-Cook plasticity law. Thus, model
damage is associated with the previous law in order to take account of failure.
The damage parameters are:
Tensile rupture strain t1: damage starts if the highest principal strain reaches this tension
value.
Maximum strain m1: the element is damaged if the highest principal strain is above the
tension value. The element is not deleted.
Maximum damage factors max: this value should be kept at its default value (0.999).
Failure strain f1: the element is deleted if the highest principal strain reaches the tension
value.
The following graphs display the results obtained using the material coefficients of two previous
Johnson-Cook models. Damage parameters complete those models.
Johnson-Cook model:
Johnson-Cook model:
This is a tabulated law; therefore, the true stress versus plastic strain function can be directly
used. The rupture phase can be simulated by adding points to this hardening function.
Fig 34: Hardening function defined in law 36 to obtain the results below.
The hardening curve has to be defined with precision around the necking point while the decrease
of the curve is very sensitive to its adjustment. In order to improve the modeling of the necking
point, two points can be interpolated, one "just before" the necking point, and one "just after"
with the slope between those two points equal to the necking point stress.
Title
Strain rate effect
Number
11.2
Brief Description
The strain rate effect is taken into account, using filtering (cut-off frequency).
Keywords
Shell element
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic model (/MAT/LAW2)
Engineering strain/stress, strain rate effect, and filtering
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Input File
Time_History_files:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/11_Tensile_Test/TENSILET01
In this additional study, the Johnson-Cook model is used to study the strain rate influence on
stress with or without filtering. There is no comparison with the experiment data in this section.
The study of sensitivity will be performed up to the beginning of the necking point.
Stress-strain relationship:
The Johnson-Cook plasticity model will take into account the strain rate effect on the elasto-
plastic material behavior in order to improve the quality of simulation.
where:
is the strain rate
0 is the reference strain
a = 90.27 MPa
b = 223.14 MPa
n = 0.375
The results are reported in the following tables.
Stress Comparison
Fig 36: First principal strain rate comparison at time t=4 ms.
A more physical strain rate distribution is achieved by filtering. Moreover, such results show
spatial oscillations when not damped by filtering. The explicit scheme is an element-by-element
method and the local treatment of temporal oscillations puts spatial oscillations into the model.
Strain rate coefficient c influence:
If c is set to zero, the strain rate effect is not taken into account. This coefficient affects the
yield stress and it slightly translates curves in the plastic region. It must be adjusted in
accordance with the reference strain rate.
Reference strain rate influence:
If the strain rate is lower than the reference strain rate, there is no strain rate effect.
Therefore, the lower the reference strain rate, the more the effect will be emphasized. The
effect appears as a translation of the curve towards higher stresses. An increase in the flow
stress using an increasing reference strain rate is observed.
Cut-off frequency influence:
The cut-off frequency must not be set higher than half of the sampling frequency.
Smoothing is improved as the cut-off frequency comes closer to a particular value and the
convergence of the curve until a smoothing curve can be observed. A high-reference strain
rate requires low cut-off frequencies.
Conclusion
A tensile test is simulated using several material laws in RADIOSS. A method is set up to
correspond to the material parameters in the Johnson-Cook model. The rupture phase is very
sensitive and the simulation results strongly depend upon the starting point for necking. The
point-by-point definition of the hardening curve in law 36 enables to bypass the adaptation
difficulties when using the Johnson-Cook model. However, the results following the necking point
are very sensitive to the position of points defining the hardening curve.
A method to filter the strain rate is also demonstrated. The method can be generalized to the
industrial cases.
Summary
The purpose of this example is to illustrate how to use the RADIOSS description when resolving a
demonstration example. The particularities of the example can be summarized using dynamic
loading during a four-step scenario where a dummy is first put on a bike, then it rides on a plane
to subsequently jump back down onto the ground. The scenario described is created using
sensors.
Number
12.1
Brief Description
After a quasi-static pre-loading using gravity, a dummy cyclist rides along a plane, then jumps down
onto a lower plane. Sensors are used to simulate the scenario in terms of time.
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, truss, general spring, and beam
Sensors on rigid bodies and monitored volumes (perfect gas)
Quasi-static load treatment (gravity), kinetic relaxation, restart file, and MODIF file
Dummy and hierarchy organization
Type 7 interface self-impacting and rigid wall (infinite plane and parallelogram)
Linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/LAW2)
RADIOSS Options
Added mass (/ADMAS)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Initial velocity (/INVEL)
Kinetic relaxation (/KEREL)
Monitored volume type gas perfect (/MONVOL/GAS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Sensor (/SENSOR)
Input File
Jumping_bicycle: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/12_Bicycle/Bike/BIKERC*
Modeling Methodology
The bike is meshed with 12103 4-node shells, 68 3-node shells, 62 trusses, 12 beams and six
brick elements. The dummy consists of 4779 4-node shells, 207 3-node shell and 27 springs (8).
Hierarchy organization:
Bike model: 6 subsets comprising 23 parts
Dummy model: 11 subsets comprising 38 parts
A type 11 interface models contact between the pedals (beams) and the feet (shells).
Links between man and bicycle
The spring type 8 (/PROP/SPR_GENE) general spring property model the links between the
feet/pedals and the hands/handlebar.
Stiffness (TX, TY and TZ): 100 kN/m
Mass: 1 g
Inertia: 0.1 kg/mm2
A rupture criteria based on displacements is activated by the beams connecting the hands and
handlebar in order to simulate the fall of the cyclist after landing.
Left hand: Z = 20 mm
Right hand: Z = 20 mm
Dummy joints
The general type 8 springs, characterize a spherical hinge with a stiffness given for each DOF.
Directions are local and attached to a moving skew frame. Two coinciding nodes define a spring.
Limbs are linked to the springs via the slave nodes of the rigid bodies, as shown in Fig 7.
Wheel rotation
Beam elements are used to attach the wheel to the forks. The rotational DOF is released around
the beam axis.
The characteristics of the parallelogram plane are: 2013 mm x 1200 mm. Both rigid walls are tied
to allow the wheels to turn.
The infinite plane is defined by the normal vector ( ) and the parallelogram by the
coordinates of three corners (M, M1, and M2). For both rigid walls, the slave nodes are obtained
from the tire and rim parts (displayed in green in Fig 10).
Fig 10: Slave nodes definition (green) and profile view of rigid walls
Several rigid bodies are created (/RBODY) and activated by sensors for use at the appropriate
time and in a chronological manner (sens_ID not equal to 0). Thus, every rigid body is not active
at the same time. The activation order is described in the paragraph dedicated to /SENSOR.
According to their activation time, the rigid bodies are classified in groups which are indicated in
following table.
The inertias of rigid bodies are set in local skew frames for groups A, C and D.
Rigid body activation – deactivation:
Groups A and B: The rigid bodies are activated during pre-loading up to equilibrium then
applied to the initial velocity start. They are activated again just before the impact of the bike on
the inferior plane.
During the free fly phase, both the cyclist and the bike undergo a rigid body motion. In order to
save the computation time, the motion can be simulated by putting the whole structure into a
global rigid body (Group D). The rigid body is deactivated just before landing.
Fig 12: Initial translational velocities of the model bike – man (30 km/h) at t = 0.004 s.
Gravity is applied to all nodes of the model. A constant function defines the gravity acceleration
in the Z direction versus time. Gravity is activated by /GRAV.
The explicit time integration scheme starts with the nodal acceleration computation. It is efficient
for the simulation of dynamic loadings. Nevertheless, quasi-static simulations via a dynamic
resolution method need to minimize the dynamic effects to converge towards the static
equilibrium. Among the methods usually employed, the kinetic relaxation method is quite
effective and is activated in the Engine file (*_0001.rad) with /KEREL. All velocities are set to
zero each time the kinetic energy reaches a maximum value.
Rigid bodies are activated and deactivated with sensors (/SENSOR). A sens_ID flag characterizes
the sensors and it is required in the rigid bodies’ definition. The five types of sensors used are:
TIME (activated with time)
DIST (activated with nodal distance)
INTER (activated after impact on rigid wall)
SENSOR (activated with sensor IS1 and deactivated with sensor IS2)
NOT (ON as long as sensor IS1 is OFF)
At the beginning of the simulation (time=0), the rigid bodies are automatically set to ON, as long
as the sensors are not active. Thus, in order to deactivate the rigid bodies at the first cycle,
active sensors at time t=0 should be used. Consequently, the rigid bodies are active when the
sensors are not active.
Added masses and inertia, as well as the flag for the gravity center, are ignored when a rigid
body is managed by sensors. By default, the gravity center is only computed by taking into
account the slave nodes mass (ICoG set at 2). The master node is moved to the computed center
of gravity where added mass and inertia are placed. In order to distribute the mass to the
dummy over the rigid bodies, option /ADMAS is used.
Sensors used are:
The elements included in a rigid body are deactivated. Therefore, the element flags saved in
/TH/RBODY provide information on the activation and deactivation of rigid bodies during
simulation.
Fig 17: Activation and deactivation of main model parts (elements flag ON/OFF).
Summary
This famous experiment is interesting for observing the shock-wave propagation. Moreover, this
case uses the representation of perfect gas and compares the different formulations: The ALE
uses Lagrangian or Eulerian and Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH).
The first part of the study deals with the modeling description of perfect gas with the
hydrodynamic viscous fluid law 6. The purpose is to test the different formulations:
Lagrangian (mesh points coincident to material points)
Eulerian (mesh points fixed)
For the Eulerian formulation, different scale factors on time step are also tested. Furthermore,
the SPH formulation is also tested; which does not use mesh, but rather particles distributed
uniformly over the volume.
The propagation of the gas in the tube can be studied in an analytical manner. The gas is
separated into different parts characterizing the expansion wave, the shock front and the contact
surface. The simulation results are compared with the analytical solution for velocity, density and
pressure.
Number
13.1
Brief Description
The transitory response of a perfect gas in a long tube separated into two parts using a
diaphragm is studied. The problem is well-known as the Riemann problem. The numerical results
based on the SPH method and the finite element method with the Lagrangian and Eulerian
formulations, are compared to the analytical solution.
Keywords
Brick elements
Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations
SPH modeling and hexagonal net
Scale factor for time step
Hydrodynamic viscous fluid law (/MAT/LAW6) and perfect gas modeling
RADIOSS Options
ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS)
ALE material formulation (/ALE/MAT)
SPH symmetry conditions (/SPHBCS)
Input File
Eulerian_formulation:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/13_Shock_tube/Eulerian_formulation/
TACEUL*
Lagrangian_formulation:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/13_Shock_tube/Lagrangian_formulation/
TACLAG*
SPH_hexagonal-net:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/13_Shock_tube/SPH_formulation/TUBSPH*
The initial state at time t = 0 consists of two constant states 1 and 4 with p4 > p1, 4 > 1, and V1
= V4 = 0 (table).
Just after the membrane is removed, a compression shock runs into the low pressure region,
while a rarefaction (decompression) wave moves into the high pressure part of the tube.
Furthermore, a contact discontinuity usually occurs.
with
where, p is the pressure, Ci are the hydrodynamic constants, En is the internal energy per initial
volume, and is the density.
Perfect gas is modeled by setting all coefficients C0, C1, C2 and C3 to zero.
Also:
C4 = C5 = -1
Under the assumption = CST = 1.4 (valid for low temperature range), the hydrodynamic
constants C4 and C5 are equal to 0.4.
Analytical Approach
The shock tube problem has an analytical solution of time before the shock hits the extremity of
the tube [1].
Fig 3: Schematic shock tube problem with pressure distribution for pre- and post-diaphragm removal.
Evolution of the flow pattern is illustrated in Fig 3. When the diaphragm bursts, discontinuity
between the two initial states breaks into leftward and rightward moving waves, separated by a
contact surface.
There are four distinct zones marked 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Fig 4. Zone 1 is the low pressure gas which
is not disturbed by the shock wave. Zone 2 (divided in 2 and 2' by the contact surface) contains
the gas immediately behind the shock traveling at a constant speed. The contact surface across
which the density and the temperature are discontinuous lies within this zone. The zone between
the head and the tail of the expansion fan is noted as Zone 3. In this zone, the flow properties
gradually change since the expansion process is isentropic. Zone 4 denotes the undisturbed high
pressure gas.
Equations in Zone 2 are obtained using the normal shock relations. Pressure and the velocity are
constant in Zones 2 and 2’.
The ratio of the specific heat constant of gas is fixed at 1.4. It is assumed that the value does
not change under the temperature effect, which is valid for the low temperature range.
The analytical solution to the Riemann problem is indicated at t=0.4 ms. A solution is given
according to the distinct zones and continuity must be checked. Evolution in Zones 2 and 3 is
dependent on the constant conditions of Zone 1 and 4. The analytical equations use pressure,
velocity, density, temperature, speed of sound through gas and a specific gas constant.
Equations in Zone 2 are obtained using normal shock relations and the gas velocity in Zone 2 is
constant throughout. The shock wave and the surface contact speeds make it possible to define
the position of the zone limits.
Zone 4 Zone 1
R 287.049 J/(kg.K)
Pressure p p2 = 80941.1 Pa
Temperature T T2 = 487.308 K
Zone 2'
where, x = 500 + X
Pressure p
Density
Temperature T
In the Lagrangian formulation, the mesh points remain coincident with the material points and
the elements deform with the material. Since element accuracy and time step degrade with
element distortion, the quality of the results decreases in large deformations.
Where:
Particle mass of low pressure part: mp = 1.25265x10-5 g
Each symmetry condition is defined according to the plane passing through the frame origin
attached to the plane and is normal in relation to the local direction of this frame.
Where, O is the origin of the frame, P is a point of the plane, and is the local direction of the
frame.
Pressure
Velocity
Density
Indications on computation for each formulation are given in the following table (the scale factor
is set to 0.5):
Number of cycles
(normalized) up to 0.4 1.42 1 3.46
ms
(DTsca=0.5)
Fig 9: Pressure wave produced in the shock-tube at t = 4 ms for different approaches and animations regarding pressure,
density and velocity
Summary
This example compares different studies with flexible or rigid bodies. The method for using the
flexible bodies in an explicit analysis is also studied.
At first, the truck is modeled using a classical finite element model for explicit analysis. All parts
of the truck are modeled using different kinds of finite elements, such as shells, bricks, springs
and beams. The volumes monitored with perfect gas characterize the tires.
The problem is divided into two loading phases. First, gravity is applied as a quasi-static load.
Then, the truck’s Virtual Proving Ground (VPG) is studied to observe the truck driving over an
obstacle (bump).
For the gravity loading phase, the explicit approach using relaxation techniques or not is
employed. For the VPG analysis, three approaches are compared: (i) classical finite element
model; (ii) simplified finite element model with a global rigid body; and (iii) finite element model
involving a flexible body. The last approach requires the first run to compute the Eigen and static
modes. A flexible body input file is then generated for use in a second time-history run. The main
interest of this method is to economize the CPU time.
Title
VPG with a complete
finite element model
Number
14.1
Brief Description
After applying gravity, a truck runs on a horizontal plane and passes over a bump.
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, beam type spring, and monitored volume (perfect gas)
Quasi-static load treatment and kinetic relaxation
Type 7 and 2 interfaces, self-impacting, and rigid wall (infinite plane and cylinder)
Linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1), elasto-plastic law (/MAT/LAW2), and void material law
(/MAT/LAW0)
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Initial velocity (/INIVEL)
Kinetic relaxation (/KEREL)
Monitored volume type gas perfect (/MONVOL/GAS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Skew frame (/SKEW)
Input File
VPG_complete_model:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/VPG_complete_model/
TRUCK*
In order to simplify modeling, most of the parts undergo the linear elastic material law
(/MAT/LAW1).
Young’s modulus: 205000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.85x10-9 Kg/l
The elasto-plastic Johnson-Cook model (/MAT/LAW2) mainly describes the joint and
strengthening elements, such as the beams and spring.
Young’s modulus: 205000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
Density: 7.85x10-9 Kg/l
Yield stress: 180 MPa
Hardening parameter: 480 MPa
Hardening exponent: 0.5
The truck represents a simplified model having the essential parts. The weight of the truck is
approximately 8 tons.
Modeling Methodology
Finite Element mesh:
The truck model is meshed with 21430 elements - 148356 degree of freedom, as follows:
1D elements: 173
2D elements: 20109
3D elements: 1148
Details of the elements used are provided in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Composition of the EF mesh.
Number
Node 24726
Brick 1148
Beam 47
Spring 126
Part 159
The improved Belytschko hourglass formulation (type 4 hourglass, I shell =4) is used for shell
elements in the explicit computation. The Eigen analysis requires fully-integrated elements since
the computation mode needs an implicit option. Compatible element formulations are set by
default.
The type 2 tied interface rigidly connects a set of slave nodes to a master surface. The kinematic
constraint is set on the slave nodes which remain in the same position on their master segments.
This interface is a kinematic condition. The Spotflag spotweld formulation is set to zero in order to
connect two meshes without coincident nodes. The master surface should be the coarser mesh.
Fig 9: Example of the tied interface modeling connections between the fuel tank and its support
A spherical inertia must be used for the rigid bodies having only two slave nodes for ensuring the
stability of the connected elements (set Ispher = 1). Thus, inertia is spherical and not computed
from data.
Contact Modeling – Self-impacting
Taking into account self-impacting parts, a type 7 self-impacting interface must be used. The
Block Format definition of this interface is to define master surface (/SURF/PART), then define
slave nodes as all nodes on this surface (/GRNOD/SURF).
Gap is equal to 0.5 mm.
The cylindrical wall is defined by point M (500, 0, -600), M1 (500, 100, -600) and the diameter.
Both rigid walls are tied to allow the wheels to turn. The tire parts define the slave nodes for the
infinite plane (contact of ground and tires) and only the nodes of the front right tire are set as
slave for the speed bump in order to model a local bump. The obstacle is not infinite.
A kinematic condition is applied on each impacted slave node. Therefore, a slave node cannot
have another kinematic condition; unless such condition is applied in an orthogonal direction. In
such a manner, incompatible kinematic conditions can be detected, due to the coincident normal
orientations along the Z-axis of the cylindrical and plane walls. However, the common slave
nodes are not affected simultaneously by both kinematic conditions.
Fig 16: Selected nodes for the initial translational velocity of the truck (56 km/h) at t = 0.3 s.
Fig 18: Distribution of von Mises stress on the model during bump passage.
Title
VPG with flexible and
rigid bodies
Number
14.2
Brief Description
After applying gravity, a truck runs on a horizontal plane and passes over a bump. The major
part of the truck is described using a flexible body.
Keywords
Eigen and static analysis
Eigen modes
Flexible body
RADIOSS Options
Eigen modes computation (/EIG)
Flexible body input file (/FXINP)
Flexible body (/FXBODY)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
VPG_Rigid_body:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/VPG_Rigid_body/TRUCK
*
VPG_Flexible_body:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/VPG_Flexible_body/
Model_EIG/TRUCK_EIG_*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/14_Truck_with_FXB/VPG_Flexible_body/
Model_FXB/TRUCK_FXB_*
Modeling Methodology
The original model and two alternative models are compared:
In the previous section where a complete finite element model is used, it is noted that the stress
and strain levels are low for most parts of the global model. Thus, the CPU time can be
considerably reduced if the elements working in the linear elastic field are replaced with a flexible
body. The purpose of this example is to provide an overall view of using flexible bodies in
RADIOSS.
The top part of the truck, where no damage and no plastic strain occurs, is first successively
modeled with a rigid body (non-deformable) and then with a flexible body (deformable), as
shown in Fig 20.
Parts of the truck covered by rigid or flexible body is shown in the following diagram:
Fig 21: A flexible body is deformable according to its Eigen modes (from vibratory analysis).
A preliminary study with RADIOSS extracts Eigen or static modes for creating the flexible body
input file used in a second run. This computation phase requires the /EIG and /FXINP options.
In addition, static modes can be computed if boundary conditions are added to a node group in
the flexible body frontier. They correspond to the static response of the structure. All degrees of
freedom in the set of interface nodes concerned by the additional boundary conditions are fixed
and one static mode is computed for each constrained degree of freedom. The equation solved is:
Ku = F
Static modes are displayed with null frequencies in animations.
Rigid modes are not permitted and generate null pivots during inversion of the stiffness matrix.
It should be noted that modes computation requires the implicit options in the Engine file
(/IMPL/LINEAR and /IMPL/SOLVER/1).
Eigen frequencies are provided in the Engine output file. One animation exists per
computed mode.
Free parts.
Slave nodes on the Rigid bodies (slave
flexible body frontier. nodes).
FXB domain Rigid body overlapping on Slave nodes on the
must not flexible body and the rest flexible body frontier.
contain of structure. Rigid body overlapping on
Truss elements. flexible body and the rest
Void material. of structure.
Monitored volumes.
For the truck model, the global flexible body includes 14344 nodes, 120 of which are the master
nodes of the inside rigid bodies. Thus, the flexible body takes into account constraints of the rigid
bodies.
Eigen Run
In addition, you can define nine interface nodes linking the flexible body and the rest of the truck
with the translation fixed along the X-, Y- and Z-axis. Thus, 27 static modes will be computed.
Only the translation degrees are retained in order to minimize the input file size of the flexible
body, given that preliminary studies have shown that additional static modes computed by fixing
rotational degrees have not substantially improved flexible body behavior.
A static mode is computed for each fixed degree of freedom, in addition to the Eigen modes.
Thus, the number of modes is equal to the number of Eigen modes, plus the number of blocked
degrees of freedom.
Flexible Body Run
The rigid bodies and tied interfaces included in the flexible body domain should be removed for
the second run. Those kinematic conditions are only considered in Eigen modes computation.
The coordinates of the center of mass (possible master node) indicated in the flexible body input
file are:
X: 3.267252E+03 Y: -1.71759E+01 Z: 1.407584E+03 (node 265200)
The master node should be included in the nodes groups for gravity loading and initial velocity. It
should be defined in the Starter file (/NODE).
Connections between the parts covered by the flexible body and other parts of the model are
modeled with beams and the rigid body, as shown in Fig 24. Connection is set at the beam
extremity.
Fig 26: Face view of the different models’ behavior during bump passage (displayed with multi-models option)
Animation Results
Animations multi models: cab deformation face view
Animation flexible body model: cab deformation
Animation original model: cab deformation
Conclusion
This example introduced a method for creating and employing a flexible body using an Eigen
analysis performed by RADIOSS. The number of retained modes and the frequency range set for
the Eigen analysis are according to the parameters which influenced the results.
Simulation using the flexible body provided accurate distribution of deformations in the model,
compared with the modeling not having a substitute body. However, the amplitudes obtained are
very low. The flexible body behavior could be enhanced by improving connections between the
flexible body and the rest of the structure to ensure transmission of the shock wave up to the
flexible body.
The flexible body input file required the IMPLICIT module for the Eigen modes computation.
Summary
The main purpose of this example is to study how to represent a quadratic contact. Two different
interfaces are compared:
Type 16 interface (node to surface)
Type 17 interface (surface to surface)
Moreover, 20-node brick and 16-node shell elements are used for the mesh to represent the
curvature of the teeth. Constant acceleration is also applied to the gear using constant initial
rotation and an imposed velocity.
Finally the results of the contact force show that the type 16 interface is more adaptable than a
type 17 interface.
Number
15.1
Brief Description
The problem studied is a twin gear having an identical pitch diameter and straight teeth.
Keywords
Type 16 and 17 interfaces (sliding)
20-node brick and 16-node thick shell
Quadratic surface contact
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Initial velocities (/INIVEL)
Interface type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 17 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE17)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Interface_type16:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/15_Gears/Inter16/DIF24416*
Interface_type17:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/15_Gears/Inter17/DIF24416*
Modeling Methodology
The finite elements used to model this gear are the thick SHELL16 type elements and the
quadratic BRICK20 elements.
A quadratic solid mesh is used to take into account the teeth’s curvature. The external BRICK20
elements are then converted to solid SHELL16 shells using pre-processing. The interface types 16
and 17, manage contact between the quadratic surfaces of the SHELL16 elements.
Interface types 16 and 17 use the Lagrange multipliers. Type 16 interface is built with a slave
node group impacting a quadratic master surface. Type 17 interface is built with two quadratic
surfaces.
To apply the initial rotational velocity to the gears, two rigid bodies are created, as shown in Fig
4. Then both the rigid bodies are set to OFF to ensure a realistic deformation of parts after the
first loading phase.
Number of options:
Options Quantity
BCS 3
BRIC20 950
FUNCT 1
GRBRIC 2
GRNOD 20
IMPVEL 1
INIVEL 2
INTER 1
MAT 1
NODE 10757
PART 3
PROP 3
RBODY 4
SENSOR 1
SHEL16 380
TH 4
Minimum time step: 0.4E-03 ms
Figures 7 and 8 compare the contact forces obtained for two different models; one using the
interface type 16 and the other using the type 17 interface. The comparison shows that some
numerical problems may appear when using the interface type 17, due to the complexity of the
algorithms; especially when two surfaces with nonlinear curvatures are used.
On the other hand, interface type 16 obtains an overall physical response.
Conclusion
The type 16 interface provides overall satisfactory results for this kind of application, where the
contact surfaces are complex and there is no gap.
Summary
The problem of a dummy positioning on the seat before a crash analysis is the quasi-static
loading which can be resolved by either RADIOSS explicit or RADIOSS implicit solvers. If
deformation remains small, a linear analysis may be used as a simple approach to determine the
position after applying gravity force. However, this method is not valid if the contact surface
between the dummy and the seat is not correctly estimated before analysis. When comparing the
implicit and explicit solvers, it's shown that the implicit computation enables saving time in the
computation. However, the rigid body modes of the dummy must be controlled. This is not the
case if the explicit solver is used.
Title
EXPLICIT solver
Number
16.1
Brief Description
A dummy is sat down via gravity using the quasi-static load treatment.
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, and dummy
Quasi-static analysis by explicit, kinetic and dynamic relaxation, and Rayleigh damping
Type 7 interface (symmetric)
Kelvin-Voigt visco-elastic model (/MAT/LAW35) and linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1)
RADIOSS Options
Added mass (/ADMAS)
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Dynamic relaxation (/DYREL)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Kinetic relaxation (/KEREL)
Material definition (/MAT)
Rayleigh damping (/DAMP)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Rayleigh_damping:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/
RAYLEIGH/.../SEAT_RAYLEIGH*
Dynamic_relaxation:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/
DYREL/SEAT_DYREL*
Kinetic_relaxation:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/
KEREL/SEAT_KEREL*
Overview
The dummy weighs 80 kg (173.4 lbs.). The material introduced does not represent the physical
case; however, the global weight of the dummy is respected. As the dummy deformation is
neglected in this loading phase, simplifying the material characterizations has no incidence on the
simulation.
RADIOSS material law 35 is used. The open cell foam option is not active (I Flag = 0) and the
pressure is read using the following input curve:
Table 1: Pressure versus compression curve.
Two pressure computations are available in RADIOSS for foam having no open cells. The
expression used by default is:
Modeling Methodology
The model consists of two subsets:
a dummy composed of 38 parts (limbs and joints).
a seat comprised of six parts (foam seat back, foam seat cushion, seat back brace, seat
bottom brace, seat columns and the floor).
The seat cushion is meshed with 70 brick elements defined by general type 14 solid property.
Quadratic bulk viscosity: 1.1
Linear bulk viscosity: 0.05
Hourglass viscosity coefficient: 0.1
The dummy and seat brace are modeled with shell elements, divided into 4871 4-node shells and
203 3-node shells (Dummy: 5004 shells and seat: 70 shells).
Using a dummy in the model, the /DEL/SHELL/1 option should be activated in the Engine file to
avoid a small time step, due to the low density of material defining the dummy envelope.
The shell properties are:
Belytschko hourglass formulation (Hourglass type 4, Ishell = 4).
The gap between the symmetrical interfaces is equal to 5 mm, while a gap of 0.5 mm is set for
the other interface.
The type 7 interface allows sliding to occur between surfaces. A Coulomb friction can be
introduced; in addition, a critical viscous damping coefficient can be defined to damp sliding.
The symmetric interfaces properties are:
Coulomb friction (Fric flag) = 0.3
Critical damping coefficient (Visc flag) = 0.05
Scale factor for stiffness (Stfac flag) = 1
Sorting factor (Bumult flag) = 0.20
See the RADIOSS Theory Manual and Starter Input for further information about the definition of
the type 7 interface.
RADIOSS Options Used
The goal is to set the body on the seat using a quasi-static approach in order to obtain static
equilibrium. The positioning phase is not included in this study. Thus, all nodes of the dummy are
placed in a global rigid body in order to maintain the dummy’s initial configuration.
In order to save the CPU, a second global rigid body includes parts of the seat and the floor;
except for the seat cushion parts, which will only have active elements during simulation.
When the ICoG flag is set to 1 for the rigid body of the seat, the center of gravity is computed
using the master and slave node coordinates, and the master node is moved to the center of
gravity, where mass and inertia are placed.
When the ICoG flag is set to 3 for the rigid body of the dummy, the center of gravity is set at the
master node coordinates defined by you. The added masses and added inertia are transmitted to
the master node coordinates.
The master node coordinates and skew are extracted from the pelvis part of the original rigid
body.
Gravity is applied to all nodes of the model. A function defines gravity acceleration in the z
direction versus time. Gravity is activated by /GRAV in the Starter file (*_0000.rad).
Fig 7: Input gravity function (-9810 mm.s-2) and nodes selection (yellow).
Fig 9: Kinetic relaxation method with /KEREL (also named energy discrete relaxation).
with, being the relaxation value (recommended default value 1), and T being the period to be
damped (less than or equal to the highest period of the system).
Thus, a viscous stress tensor is added to the stress tensor:
Using an explicit code, application of the dashpot force reduces the velocity equation
modification:
This option is activated in the Engine file (*_0001.rad) using /DYREL (inputs: and T ).
Rayleigh Damping Method
Dynamic loading is damped by introducing a damping matrix, proportional to the mass and
stiffness matrix, in the dynamic equation. This simplified approach will allow you to reduce the
global equilibrium equation to n-uncoupled equations by using an orthogonal transformation. This
damping is said to be proportionally uncoupled.
with, i being the ith being the damping ratio of the system, and i being the ith being the
natural frequency of the system.
If you have some experimental results, the proportionality factors, a and are found by
evaluating the damping for a pair of the most significant frequencies used. Thus, two equations
with two unknown variables are obtained:
If several frequencies are available, an average of computed values, a and may be used.
This model of proportional damping is not recommended for complex structures and does not
enable good experimental retiming.
This option is activated in the Engine file (*_0001.rad) using /DAMP (inputs data: a and ).
Parameters Used
In this example, a and are set to the following values:
First case: a = 10 and = 10
Second case: a = 0 and = 10
Third case: a = 10 and =0
Fourth case: a = 20 and =0
The resulting assumptions are:
First case: [C] = 10[M] + 10[K]
Second case: [C] = 10[K]
Third case: [C] = 10[M]
Fourth case: [C] = 20[M]
Fig 11: Z-displacement of the rigid body’s master node on dummy (node 14199).
Fig 13: Z-displacement of the rigid body’s master node on dummy (node 14199).
The period T to be damped is estimated from the velocity curves (highest period).
Fig 15: Z-displacement of the rigid body’s master node on dummy (node 14199)
Fig 17: Comparison of the nodal displacements’ display on the seat at time t = 1.48 s
Conclusion
It is undeniable that the damping methods used to converge towards static equilibrium provide
accurate results, especially in the case of this problem where the low rigidity of the seat caused
very little quenched oscillations.
The kinetic relaxation introduced in /KEREL, was relatively effective having a swift convergence of
the solution towards a static solution, in addition to being easy to use since no input is required.
Stability was obtained at 0.137 s.
The /DYREL and /DAMP options are based on viscous damping conducted for the same response,
with convergence in three oscillations. Stability was obtained at 0.75 s. Furthermore, dynamic
relaxation and the Rayleigh damping methods are basically equivalent in this problem, due to the
low stiffness of the seat cushion (Young’s modulus is equal to 0.2 MPa), which breaks the balance
between the mass and the weight stiffness in the Rayleigh assumption. Moreover, the boundary
conditions and the loading applied on the model lead to a problem described using a predominant
natural frequency. Thus, only one parameter, a is needed to describe this physical behavior,
which reverts back to the dynamic relaxation assumption.
Rayleigh damping:
[C] = [M] + [K] [M]
10[M]
In conclusion, the approaches available in RADIOSS provided after convergence a single solution,
namely displacement of the dummy by -12.66 mm along the Z-axis and an identical deformation
of the seat cushion.
Title
IMPLICIT solver
Number
16.2
Brief Description
A dummy is sat down via gravity using the implicit approach (static).
Keywords
Shell, brick, beam, spring, and dummy
Linear and nonlinear static solution by implicit solver
Type 7 interface (symmetric) and tied interface (type 2)
Kelvin-Voigt visco-elastic model (/MAT/LAW35) and linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1)
RADIOSS Options
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Time step control method for implicit (/IMPL/DT)
Initial time step for implicit (/IMPL/DTINI)
Static linear implicit solution (/IMPL/LINEAR)
Static nonlinear implicit solution (/IMPL/NONLIN)
Print frequency for implicit (/IMPL/PRINT)
Implicit solver method (/IMPL/SOLVER)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Input File
Linear_implicit_model:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/IMPLICIT_solver/
Linear/SEAT_IMPL_LIN*
Nonlinear_implicit_model:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/IMPLICIT_solver/
Nonlinear/
Imposed_displacement: //.../Imposed_displacement/SEAT_IMPL_DISP*
Concentrated_load: //.../Concentrated_load/SEAT_IMPL_CLOAD*
Gravity_loading: //.../Gravity/SEAT_IMPL_GRAV*
The modified Newton-Raphson method is based on maintaining the tangent matrix for all
iterations and can be combined with the line search acceleration technique for accelerating
convergence.
Piloting techniques available in RADIOSS:
Displacement norm control
Arc-length control
An automatic time step control is used.
Fig 20: Type 2 tied interface linear contact for dummy / seat cushion modeling.
The visco-elastic law 35 (generalized Kelvin-Voigt model) describing the foam of a seat is
converted into a linear plastic law 1 (properties are maintained):
Young’s modulus: 0.2 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0
Density: 4.3 x 10-11 k g/l
Results
Only one animation corresponds to the static solution.
Fig 21: Linear static implicit solution of gravity loading (type 2 interface is used).
Normalized 170 1
CPU
In addition to the constant gravity load, an imposed displacement along the Z-axis is applied on
the master node of the global rigid body covering the dummy. This approach allows computation
to converge and the rigid body modes to be removed (no null pivot). An input curve for the
imposed displacement is required. The boundary conditions on master node 14199 are: 110 111.
The Z-displacement of the dummy should not be considered as a result but as an input data
(imposed displacement on the master node 14199).
Normalized 1.26 1
CPU
Fig 25: Concentrated load along the Z-axis as a monotonous increasing time function.
Fig 26: Springs type 8 defined for removing rigid body modes during implicit computation.
Z– -12.75 mm -12.49 mm
displacement
(master node
dummy)
Implicit options are the same as the previous implicit problem (initial time step is set to: 2s).
Results
Table 4: Time computation comparison between explicit and implicit computations:
Conclusion
This example brings awareness to the use of the RADIOSS implicit solver in resolving quasi-static
problems. On the other hand, it illustrates different convergence acceleration techniques when an
explicit solver is applied to the quasi-static problems. The advantages and drawbacks of the
methods are compared.
Summary
The crashing of a box beam against a rigid wall is a typical and famous example of simulation in
dynamic transient problems. The purpose for this example is to study the mesh influence on
simulation results when several kinds of shell elements are used.
At first, the quality of the results obtained for the different mesh densities is studied using
several element formulations. Then the mesh transition influence is highlighted. Finally, the
meshes are disturbed and the simulation results are compared.
This example illustrates element sensitivity for various kinds of mesh, in the case of a crash
analysis.
Title
Box Beam - Densities
Number
17.1
Brief Description
A steel box beam, fixed at one end and impacted at the other end by an infinite mass.
Results for mesh with different densities are compared.
Keywords
Shells Q4
Type 7 and 11 interface
Global plasticity, iterative plasticity, and variable thickness
BT_TYPE1, 3, 4, QEPH, BATOZ, DKT18 and C0 formulation
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Mesh 0:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Densities_mesh/mesh0/.../
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 1:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Densities_mesh/mesh1/.../
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 2:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Densities_mesh/mesh2/.../
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Densities_mesh/mesh3/.../
BOXBEAM*
Modeling Methodology
Four kinds of meshes are used to model the beam. The initial mesh is uniform using a total of 60
x 8 elements. For the three other meshes, the element length is multiplied by 2, 3 and 4, as
shown in the following diagram.
For each model, several element formulations are tested:
BT_TYPE1
BT_TYPE3
BT_TYPE4
QEPH
BATOZ
C0 (T3 element)
DKT18 (T3 element)
Fig 2: Meshes.
The 3-node shell mesh is obtained by dividing the 4-node shell elements.
RADIOSS Options Used
Boundary conditions:
Take into account the symmetry, all nodes in the Y-Z plan are fixed in a Y translation and
an X and Z rotation. One quarter of the structure is modeled.
MESH 1
MESH 3
EI
3.25 x 105 3.82 x 105 4.88 x 105 7.23 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr
- - - -
t = 8 ms
EK
1.32 x 104 1.23 x 104 1.26 x 104 1.10 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.38 x 105 3.94 x 105 5.00 x 105 7.34 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10350 10491 10953 11555
the wall
(N)
Formulation: QEPH
EI
3.38 x 105 4.55 x 105 5.49 x 105 8.13 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr
- - - -
t = 8 ms
EK
1.32 x 104 1.36 x 104 1.35 x 104 0.93 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.51 x 105 4.68 x 105 5.63 x 105 8.23 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10345 10574 11335 11865
the wall
(N)
Formulation: BT_TYPE1
EI
3.19 x 105 3.60 x 105 4.68 x 105 5.19 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr
2.42 x 104 4.17 x 104 3.87 x 104 8.80 x 104
t = 8 ms
EK
1.29 x 104 1.23 x 104 1.16 x 104 1.35 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.32 x 105 3.72 x 105 4.79 x 105 5.32 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10344 10505 10971 11569
the wall
(N)
Formulation: BT_TYPE3
EI
3.14 x 105 3.73 x 105 4.46 x 105 4.94 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr 11.90 x
2.02 x 104 3.80 x 104 6.56 x 104
t = 8 ms 104
EK
1.31 x 104 1.24 x 104 1.32 x 104 1.29 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.27 x 105 3.85 x 105 4.60 x 105 5.07 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10353 10526 11000 11670
the wall
(N)
Formulation: BT_TYPE4
EI
3.23 x 105 3.52 x 105 4.60 x 105 5.26 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr
1.26 x 104 1.94 x 104 3.74 x 104 5.02 x 104
t = 8 ms
EK
1.30 x 104 1.24 x 104 1.21 x 104 1.31 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.36 x 105 3.64 x 105 4.72 x 105 5.39 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10344 10538 11011 11568
the wall
(N)
Formulation: C0
EI
3.45 x 105 4.56 x 105 4.79 x 105 8.64 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr
- - - -
t = 8 ms
EK
1.29 x 104 1.30 x 104 1.10 x 104 1.12 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.58 x 105 4.69 x 105 4.90 x 105 8.75 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10355 10344 10875 11435
the wall
(N)
Formulation: DKT18
EI
3.21 x 105 3.75 x 105 3.97 x 105 4.32 x 105
t = 8 ms
Ehr
- - - -
t = 8 ms
EK
1.29 x 104 1.34 x 104 1.13 x 104 1.45 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total
3.34 x 105 3.88 x 105 4.08 x 105 4.47 x 105
Energy
Maximum
normal
force on 10348 10367 10800 11139
the wall
(N)
Title
Box Beam -
Transitions
Number
17.2
Brief Description
A steel box beam, fixed at one end, impacted at the other end by an infinite mass.
Results for meshes with different transitions are compared.
Keywords
Q4 shells
Type 7 and 11 interface
Global plasticity, iterative plasticity, and variable thickness
BT_TYPE1-3-4, QEPH, BATOZ, DKT18 and C0 formulation
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Mesh 0:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Transition_mesh/mesh0/...//
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 1:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Transition_mesh/mesh1/...//
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 2:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Transition_mesh/mesh2/...//
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Transition_mesh/mesh3/...//
BOXBEAM*
Modeling Methodology
Four types of mesh are used to model the beam. The beam is divided into two parts: a fine mesh
for one half (8 x 26 elements) and a coarse mesh for the other half. Transition between the two
meshes of a single beam is carried out using a mesh transition element of the same length as
each particular case. You will compare results using a reference case which has a uniform mesh.
The layout of the elements is shown in the following diagram. The following are tested for each
model:
1. Element formulation:
BT_TYPE1
BT_TYPE3
QEPH
BATOZ
C0
DKT18
2. Plasticity:
Global plasticity
Progressive plasticity with five integration points
Iterative plasticity with five integration points and variable thickness
BT_TYPE3
C0
DKT18
MESH 1
MESH 3
Formulation: BT_TYPE1
Formulation: BT_TYPE4
Formulation: DKT18
Title
Box Beam - Distorted
Number
17.3
Brief Description
A steel box beam, fixed at one end and impacted at the other by an infinite mass.
Results for distorted meshes are compared.
Keywords
Q4 shells
Type 7 and 11 interface
Global plasticity, iterative plasticity, and variable thickness
BT_TYPE1-3-4, QEPH, BATOZ, DKT18 and C0 formulation
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Rigid wall (/RWALL)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Mesh 0:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Distorted_mesh/mesh0/...//
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 1:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Distorted_mesh/mesh1/...//
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 2:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Distorted_mesh/mesh2/...//
BOXBEAM*
Mesh 3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/17_BoxBeam/Distorted_mesh/mesh3/...//
BOXBEAM*
Modeling Methodology
Four beams are modeled with different kinds of mesh, all having 56 elements in length and 8 in
height. The layout of the elements is shown in the following diagram.
The following are tested for each model:
1. Element formulation:
BT_TYPE1
BT_TYPE3
QEPH
BATOZ
C0
DKT18
2. Plasticity:
Global plasticity
Progressive plasticity with five integration points
Iterative plasticity with five integration points and variable thickness
MESH 1
MESH 3
Formulation: BT_TYPE4
Formulation: BATOZ
Formulation: C0
Conclusion
The crash of a box beam using several meshes and finite element formulations was studied in
detail. The simulation results for uniform, mapped and transit meshes are classified and
compared for each different shell formulation. The results obtained illustrate the sensitivity of the
shell elements with respect to the quality of the mesh for a typical crash problem.
Summary
A square plane subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane static loading is a simple element test. It
allows you to highlight element formulation for elastic and elasto-plastic cases. The under-
integrated quadrilateral shells are compared with the fully-integrated BATOZ shells. The triangles
are also studied.
Title
Square plate torsion
Number
18.1
Brief Description
Torsion test on a cantilever plate submitted to two opposing forces on the same side.
Keywords
Q4 shells
T3 shells
Hourglass, mesh, and concentrated loads
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Concentrated loads (/CLOAD)
Element formulation (/PROP)
Input File
4Q4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Torsion/4Q4/.../
TORSION*
8T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Torsion/8T3/.../
TORSION*
8T3 inv:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Torsion/8T3_inv/.../
TORSION*
2Q4-4T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Torsion/
2Q4-4T3/.../TORSION*
Modeling Methodology
Four different types of mesh are used:
Mesh 1: two quadrilateral shells and four triangular shells (2Q4-4T3)
Mesh 2: four quadrilateral shells (4Q4)
Mesh 3: eight triangular shells (8T3)
Mesh 4: eight triangular shells (8T3 inverse)
2 Q4- 4 T3 4 Q4 8 T3 8 T3 Inverse
BT_TYPE
QEPH BT_TYPE4 BATOZ QEPH BT_TYPE1 BT_TYPE4 BATOZ DKT C0 DKT C0
1
IEmax 2.74x10-2 2.35x10-2 2.37x10-2 7.21x10-2 3.64x10-2 2.93x10-2 2.97x10-2 2.30x10-2 1.37 x10-1 1.69x10-2 1.37x10-1 1.69x10-2
HEmax --- 1.01x10-4 1.03x10-4 --- --- 1.94x10-4 1.98x10-6 --- --- --- --- ---
DZmax 1.75x10-3 1.78x10-3 1.78x10-3 1.21x10-2 2.42x10-3 2.95x10-3 2.97x10-3 2.30x10-3 1.44x10-2 1.69x10-3 1.44x10-2 1.69x10-3
Conclusion
A square plate under torsion is a severe test to study the behavior of shell elements in torsion-bending. A general overview of the results obtained
highlight the following key points:
For the 4Q4 mesh, the results obtained using QBATOZ and QEPH are similar. BT elements are too flexible and are not significantly
influenced by the hourglass formulation, due to the in-plane mesh.
For triangular meshes, the DKT element is able to bend much better, the co-element being too stiff.
The mesh with both Q4 and T3 elements may not comment like the other two, as one part uses the triangle elements employed in
RADIOSS.
Title
Square membrane
elastic
Number
18.2
Brief Description
Square plate submitted to two opposing in-plane end forces.
Keywords
Q4 shells
T3 shells
Hourglass, mesh, and concentrated loads
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Concentrated loads (/CLOAD)
Input File
4Q4:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elastic/4Q4/.
../TRACTION*
8T3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elastic/8T3/.
../TRACTION*
8T3 inv:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elastic/
8T3_inv/.../TRACTION*
2Q4-4T3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elastic/
2Q4-4T3/.../TRACTION*
Modeling Methodology
Four different types of mesh are used:
Mesh 1: two quadrilateral shells and four triangular shells (2Q4-4T3)
Mesh 2: four quadrilateral shells (4Q4)
Mesh 3: eight triangular shells (8T3)
Mesh 4: eight triangular shells (8T3 inverse)
F(t) 0 10 10
t 0 200 400
Simulation Results
IEmax 1.07 x 10-2 1.19 x 10-2 1.07 x 10-2 1.24 x 10-2 1.44 x 10-2 1.24 x 10-2 6.42 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3
HEmax --- 2.10 x 10-5 --- --- 3.49 x 10-6 --- --- --- --- ---
Dymax 1.18 x 10-3 1.38 x 10-3 1.18 x 10-3 1.24 x 10-3 1.44 x 10-3 1.24 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3 6.42 x 10-3
(Traction) (Traction) (Traction)
Conclusion
In the case of elastic flat plate modeling, when the loading is in-plane, the shell elements are reduced to become a membrane if the loads applied
do not cause buckling.
A general overview of the results obtained highlight the following key points:
1. The quadrilateral shell elements QEPH and QBAT have the same in-plane behavior.
2. The different types of hourglass formulations in the BT shell elements lead to the same results, as there is no out-of-plane deformation and
the material is supposed to be elastic.
3. The three in-plane behaviors of the DKT18 and T3C0 RADIOSS triangles are exactly the same, as both of the elements are used for the same
membrane formulation.
4. The triangles are stiffer than the quadrilateral elements and do not provide good results, especially when the mesh is coarse.
Refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual for more details.
Title
Square membrane
elasto-plastic
Number
18.3
Brief Description
Square plate submitted to two opposing in-plane end forces.
Keywords
Q4 shells
T3 shells
Hourglass, mesh, and concentrated loads
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Concentrated loads (/CLOAD)
Input File
4Q4: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elasto-
plastic/4Q4/.../TRACTION*
8T3: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elasto-
plastic/8T3/.../TRACTION*
8T3 inv:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elasto-
plastic/8T3_inv/.../TRACTION*
2Q4-4T3:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/18_Square_plate/Membrane_elasto-
plastic/2Q4-4T3/.../TRACTION*
Modeling Methodology
Four shells are modeled with different types of mesh:
Mesh 1: two quadrilateral shells and four triangular shells (2Q4-4T3)
Mesh 2: four quadrilateral shells (4Q4)
Mesh 3: eight triangular shells (8T3)
Mesh 4: eight triangular shells (8T3 inverse)
For each model, the following element formulation is tested:
QBAT formulation (Ishell =12)
F(t) 0 10 10
t 0 200 400
Simulation Results
Conclusion
The purpose of this example was to highlight the role of the elasto-plastic treatment when
formulating RADIOSS shells. The in-plane plasticity was considered here. Regarding the applied
boundary conditions and the Poisson effect on the plate, the test may be very severe with
respect to the behavior of plastic in under-integrated elements.
In the case of a mesh with four quadrilaterals, the QBAT element always provides the best results
as it allows four integration points to be put over the element. The plasticity computation over
the integration points is thus more accurate. The under-integrated elements, having just one
integration point at the center, allows only two integration points to be put through the width of
the mesh. Another point concerns the role of Poisson’s ratio in the plasticity computation. In
fact, the QEPH element uses an analytical expression of the hourglass energy which takes into
account the accurate expression in terms of the Poisson ratio (refer to the RADIOSS Theory
Manual for further information). However, some approximations are induced in its elasto-plastic
formulation, possibly influencing the results, especially for low levels of work-hardening. In the
BT element formulation with a type 3 hourglass control, the Poisson ratio effect on the plastic
part of the hourglass deformation is computed by a simplified expression which minimizes its
role. In fact, the results obtained using BT_TYPE3 are slightly affected by the change in (use
=0 for the example studied and compare the results obtained). The BT elements are generally
more flexible and provide better results for a very coarse mesh.
For triangular meshes, the in-plane behavior of DKT18 should be noted as being the same as the
T3C0 element. In fact, the elements are essentially different with respect to their bending
behaviors.
When combining the T3 and Q4 elements, the results generally come between a uniform
triangular mesh and a quadrangular mesh.
Summary
Elastic shock wave propagation on a half-space is studied using two different approaches:
Lagrangian formulation
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) formulation
The simulation results are compared with an analytical solution. A bi-dimensional problem is
considered.
The domain subjected to the vertical impulse load undergoes an elastic material law process. The
generated shock wave is composed of a longitudinal wave and a shear wave. Results are
indicated in 0.77 ms, for which the longitudinal wave is predicted to reach the lower boundary of
the domain. In order to ensure an accurate wave expansion, an infinite domain is modeled using
a non-reflective frontiers (NRF) material law available in the ALE formulation.
Number
19.1
Brief Description
Elastic wave propagation on a half-space subjected to a vertically-distributed load.
Keywords
Bi-dimensional analysis, quad and general solid
Impulse load, shock wave propagation, longitudinal and shear waves
ALE and Lagrangian modeling
Non-reflective frontiers (NRF) material and infinite domain
RADIOSS Options
ALE material formulation (/ALE/MAT)
Bi-dimensional analysis (/ANALY)
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Function (/FUNCT)
Non-reflective frontiers (NRF) material law 11 (/MAT/BOUND)
Input File
Lagrangian modeling:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/19_Wave_propagation/
Lagrangian_formulation/WAVE*
ALE modeling:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/19_Wave_propagation/ALE_formulation/
WAVE*
The material used follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and has the following characteristics:
Initial density: 2842 kg.m-3
Young’s modulus: 73 GPa
Poisson ratio: 0.33
The expansion process of the shock wave is comprised of the longitudinal and shear waves.
Based on these material properties, the propagation speed of longitudinal waves in the material
correspond to 6169.1 m.s-1 and 3107.5 m.s-1 for shear waves. Thus, the longitudinal waves
should reach the lower boundary of the domain in about 0.77 ms.
The impulse load is described by the sinusoidal function: F(t) = sin(2 * 105t) GPa
Modeling Methodology
The part is modeled using a regular mesh with 19080 QUAD elements (44.9 mm x 44.4 mm with
lc =63.15 mm).
The limitation of this approach is the reflection on the domain’s boundaries. Simulation results
are shown for the point in time prior to the shock hitting the low side (< 0.77 ms).
Specific Options for the ALE Modeling
Non-reflective frontiers (NRF): The mesh includes quiet boundary elements to model the infinite
domain. These elements minimize the reflection of the propagating waves. The material used for
these elements follow a non-reflective frontiers (NRF) material law 11 (type 3) as a non-reflective
frontiers (NRF), and has the following characteristics:
Initial density: 2842 kg.m3
Characteristic length: 0.0632m
The materials have to be declared ALE using /ALE/MAT in the input desk.
The shock wave propagation is well predicted. Simulation results obtained at t=0.77ms
corroborate the analytical solution: Longitudinal and shear waves.
Lagrangian Results
Wave Pattern
The wave pattern produced by the distributed load shown previously can be identified in the
deformed configuration when the longitudinal wave reaches the lower boundary of the mesh.
Figure 11 shows the vertical displacement of Node 0. The beginning of the wave propagation can
be seen during the time [0; 1.35e-04]. The response after the end of the application force
[1.35e-04; 4e-04] is due to the shear wave.
The vertical response of Node 1 shows that the longitudinal wave reaches it in 0.47 ms (Fig 12).
The reflection can be seen after 0.97 ms. The shear wave does not appear because its motion is
in the horizontal direction.
The displacement of Node 2 placed at the other extremity of the pattern, shows that the
longitudinal wave crosses the model in 0.7 ms, in accordance with the analytical results.
ALE Results
The wave pattern produced by a distributed load can be identified in the deformed configuration
by displaying the pressure. The grid is fixed and nodal displacements are equal to zero. The
following figure shows propagation when the longitudinal wave reaches the lower boundary of the
mesh.
Conclusion
The wave propagation in a finite domain is studied using Lagrangian and ALE approaches. The
Lagrangian formulation does not allow an infinite domain to be defined. Reflections of the
longitudinal and shear waves against boundaries restrict simulation in terms of time (t < 0.77
ms). The ALE approach allows you to model an infinite domain by defining the non-reflective
frontiers (NRF) material (Law 11 - type 3) on the limits. Such specific modeling minimizes the
reflection of the expansion wave.
The bi-dimensional analysis illustrates a planar propagation. An accurate representation of the
wave pattern is obtained and the simulation results are in a closed agreement with the analytical
solution.
Summary
The fall of an ice cube dropping on two sloped beams is studied to illustrate the use of an explicit
time integration scheme in resolving a transient dynamic analysis with free deformable flying
objects. The impact and the rebound are modeled easily using various types of RADIOSS contact
algorithms. Due to the rotary motion of the ice cube, a co-rotational solid formulation is required.
Number
20.1
Brief Description
Ice cube dropping on two sliding channels.
Keywords
Brick elements and 16-node shell elements
Type 7 and 16 interface
Co-rotational formulation
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7) and type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16)
Function (/FUNCT)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Input File
Model: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/20_Cube/CUBE*
Overview
Modeling Methodology
Contact between the ice cube and the first beam is modeled using a type 16 interface. Contact
between the ice cube and the second beam is modeled using a type 7 interface. A type 7
interface defines contact between the ice cube and the cup.
The first beam is modeled using twelve 16-node thick shell elements.
The second beam is modeled using twelve 8-node brick elements.
The ice cube is modeled using 8-node brick elements having a co-rotational solid
formulation.
The cup is modeled with twelve standard shell elements.
The results below represent the trajectory of the ice cube and the cube’s reaction forces on the
channels. The ice cube trajectory is obtained using a post-processing option, which enables to
draw the trajectory of a picked node (here the center ice cube node) throughout simulation.
Conclusion
This demonstrative example illustrated the capacity of RADIOSS to simulate sliding contacts,
either using a Lagrangian (type 16 interface) or a Penalty method (type 7 interface).
The co-rotational solid formulation is essential in this case, taking into account the ice cube’s
rotary motion.
Summary
A cam can be considered as a device that translates motion from circular to linear. The camshaft
of a car takes the rotary motion of the engine and translates it into the linear motion required for
operating the intake and exhaust valves.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the capacity of RADIOSS to simulate the dynamic
behavior and the kinematic motion of a cam-valve system. The smooth motion of the valve can
be simulated using an adequate and accurate contact model having contact algorithms with
quadratic surfaces without any gaps.
Number
21.1
Brief Description
The modeling of a camshaft, which takes the engine’s rotary motion and translates it into linear
motion for operating the intake and exhaust valves, is studied.
Keywords
Penalty/Lagrangian contact, type 7 interface, and type 16 interface
Linear/quadratic elements and quadratic surface contact
RADIOSS Options
BRIC20 elements (/BRIC20)
SHEL16 elements (/SHEL16)
Initial velocities around axis (/INIVEL/AXIS)
Spring element (/PROP/SPRING)
Type 16 interface (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 7 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE7)
Input File
Interface 16:
Fine mesh:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface16/fine_mesh/I16S16FM*
Coarse mesh:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface16/coarse_mesh/I16S16CM*
Interface 7:
Penalty method:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/penalty/slave_cam/
I7PMCAM*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/penalty/
slave_valve/I7PMVALVE*
Lagrange multipliers:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/lagrange/slave_cam/
I7LMCAM*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/lagrange/
slave_valve/I7LMVALVE*
Friction:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/21_Cam/interface7/friction/I7PFMCAM*
Modeling Methodology
The problem raised in this example is the modeling of an interface between a plane and a curved
surface. In this case, using quadratic elements is the most appropriate.
A type 16 interface with 16-node shell elements for both the valve and the cam should be chosen
first for the modeling. 20-node brick elements are used for the mesh inside the cam (Fig 2).
Another model using linear elements is studied. Contact between the cam and valve is defined by
a type 7 interface. In order to satisfy the closed contact between parts, the Lagrange Multipliers
method is selected.
The springs are modeled using RADIOSS type 4 springs. The stiffness is linear and defined by the
following functions. Damping is neglected.
l-l0 (mm) -40 0 50
Fspring 1 (mN) -1.5 e+06 -0.3 e+06 1.2 e+06
Fspring 2 (mN) -0.75 e+06 -0.15 e+06 0.6 e+06
Boundary conditions:
- Master node of the cam is blocked, except when rotating around Y.
- Master node of the valve is blocked, except when translating around Z.
- One extremity of the spring is fixed to the valve, while the other is blocked.
Initial velocity:
An initial rotational velocity is applied to all the cam’s nodes, including the master node of
the rigid body. You must define the origin (center of rotation) and the orientation vector.
The type 7 interface works either with Penalty or with Lagrange multipliers. In its basic
formulation, the interface simulates contact between two facetisated surfaces. The use of the
Lagrange Multipliers method enables to precisely satisfy the kinematic contact without
introducing a gap.
Fig 9: Interface 7.
At first, you are interested by the kinematics of the problem. The results obtained for velocity
and acceleration at the master node of the rigid body’s valve are thus compared.
The graphs in Fig 10 provide the velocity of the valve’s master node when a type 7 interface is
used with the Penalty method. The raw results obtained are noisy due to the fact that the Penalty
method applies discontinued forces. The smooth velocity curve is obtained by using a low pass
CFC 180 (3db) filter. Figure 11 shows the acceleration of the same master point.
Fig 10: Vertical velocity of the master node valve for a type 7 interface, using the Penalty method.
Attention should be paid to the use of filters. The filtered curves are in fact generally affected by
a border effect. Filtering induces an error in the beginning and end parts of the curves (for this
example, take the intervals of 0 < t < 0.002 and 0.038 < t < 0.04).
The filtering quality depends on the number of samples which, in this case is the number of
points computed by RADIOSS for each curve. Therefore, a low value for the /TFILE parameter in
the Engine file (*_0001.rad) is used to obtain good results, especially for the acceleration curve.
In the following sections, only the filtered curves are represented in order to the compare
different models.
Comparison of Interfaces
Figures 12 and 13 represent velocity and acceleration curves for a model using a type 7 interface
with the Penalty method. As for the master and slave part definition, the results are slightly
different.
Figures 14 and 15 give velocity and acceleration curves for type 7 interface using the Lagrange
Multipliers method.
Fig 13: Vertical acceleration of the valve’s master node for a type 7 interface, using the Penalty method.
Fig 14: Vertical velocity of the valve’s master node for a type 7 interface, using the Lagrange Multipliers method.
Fig 15: Vertical acceleration of the valve’s master node for a type 7 interface, using the Lagrange Multipliers method.
Comparison of Meshes
Considering a contact modeled with a type 16 interface, the influence of the mesh density is
studied using two relatively coarse and fine meshes
Fine mesh: Cam: 200 external SHEL16 elements, 250 internal BRIC20 elements
Valve: 88 SHEL16 elements
Coarse mesh: Cam: 40 SHEL16 elements
Valve: 12 SHEL16 elements
Fig 22: Vertical acceleration of the valve’s master node for a type 7 interface, using the Penalty method.
CPU
Simulation Time Step
(normalized)
Conclusion
This example illustrated the ability of RADIOSS to model mechanisms, particularly in the case of
this contact mechanism. Interface types 16 and 7 can be used to model contact between plane
and curved surfaces. The type 16 interface enables you to simulate contact between quadratic
surfaces without using a gap and provides accurate results within a reasonable computation time.
The type 7 interface allows a frictional modeling of the contact, needing little computation time
and provides good simulation results.
Summary
The ditching of an object into a pool of water is studied using SPH and ALE approaches. The
simulation results are compared to the experimental data and to the analytical results.
Furthermore, the study is performed using different impact velocities. The object is modeled
using a triangular section. In the first approach, a SPH model is used for water. This example
deals with the problem of an interface definition between the two parts. First, the SPH boundary
and type 7 interface are used. Moreover, the object undergoes a linear elastic law; the water
being defined by the hydrodynamic viscous fluid law 6. The results are compared with regard to
the pressure and acceleration outputs. The OUTLET boundary conditions provide appropriate
results. In the second approach, the water is modeled with an ALE mesh while the structure is
Lagrangian. The interface type 18 is used to treat the fluid-structure interactions. The results
compared to Von Karman theory, illustrate the robustness and stability of the ALE method.
Here RADIOSS Multi-Domain applied to Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) is demonstrated, which
is easy to define Multi-Domain with Single Input Format. Highly effective computation speedup
and results are equivalence whatever H-MPP setup.
Title
Ditching using SPH
(Mono-Domain)
Number
22.1
Brief Description
Impact of a simple object on water.
Keywords
SPH modeling and hexagonal net
Hydrodynamic viscous fluid law (/MAT/LAW6) and impact on water modeling
Type 7 interface
RADIOSS Options
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Initial velocity (/INIVEL)
Accelerometer (/ACCEL)
Gravity (/GRAV)
Interface (/INTER)
SPH outlet (/SPH/INOUT)
Input File
Impact_velocity=3.5m/s:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_Mono_Domain_SPH/
v_35/*
Impact_velocity=6.8m/s:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_Mono_Domain_SPH/
v_68/*
Impact_velocity=11m/s:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_Mono_Domain_SPH/
v_110/*
Overview
Modeling Methodology
The object is modeled using shell elements with an average mesh size of 15 x 15 mm 2.
The water is modeled using SPH particles having a hexagonal compact net with a smoothing
length "ho" equal to 28.2843 mm. Each particle of the net represents a volume equal to 16 mm 3
and weighs 16 g. This part uses 36075 SPH cells.
The size of the water block is adapted to the shape of the object for the purpose of reducing the
model’s size and the simulation’s CPU time.
RADIOSS Options Used
Rigid body:
The object is modeled using a rigid body, and a mass of 23.0422 kg is added to the rigid
body’s master node (ID: 287002).
Initial velocity:
An initial velocity, in accordance with the Z-axis, is set on the rigid body’s master node and
its value is set successively at 3.5 m/s, 6.8 m/s and 11 m/s.
Gravity:
A gravity load gz = -9.81 m.s-2 is applied to the object.
Output Acceleration
For the object, an accelerometer is set on the master node of the corresponding rigid body. The
acceleration values expressed in g units are compared to both the experimental values [1] and
the analytic solution proposed by Von Karman [2]. The signal is filtered using a CFC 60 (-3db)
filter frequency after calculation. The filtering reduces discrepancy between the peaks.
The following diagrams indicate the time history acceleration results at the wedge object’s rigid
body’s master node for the three cases of impact speed: 3.5, 6.8 and 11 m/s.
For these three cases, the SPH approach using the OUTLET SPH boundary conditions indicates a
good deceleration. For an impact velocity nearing the 8 m/s of the Helicopter ditching
configuration, the deceleration is in correlation with the experimental data [1] and also with the
analytic solution proposed by Von Karman [2].
Conclusion
The simulations show that the SPH approach using the OUTLET option, allows the ditching of
simple objects to be modeled without any numerical problems.
The SPH and OUTLET results are very close to the experimental test results and also to the
analytical solution. In conclusion, to achieve ditching simulations with the correct results, it is
necessary to model the water block using the SPH method with the OUTLET boundary conditions.
References
[1] CAST Deliverable 5.5.1 Generic Water Impact Tests performed at Politecnico di Milano
(Polytechnic University of Milan)
[2] Olivier Pastore Study and modelization of rigid bodies impact during sea landing phase;
Annex 1 Von Karman's Theoretical Models, T. Miloh et al. May.
Title
Ditching using ALE (Mono-
Doman)
Number
22.2
Brief Description
Impact of a simple object on water simulated by ALE approach.
Keywords
ALE modeling
Type 18 interface
RADIOSS Options
/MAT/ELAST
/ALE/GRID/DONEA
/UPWIND
/MAT/BIPHAS
/ALE/MAT
/INTER/TYPE18
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_Mono_Domain_ALE/*
Modeling Methodology
The object is modeled using shell elements with an average mesh size of 15 x 15 mm 2. In order
to simplify the computation, it is put in a rigid body with an accelerometer on the master node.
The water is modeled using 15x15x15 mm mesh with a total of 166023 elements. The material
law BIPHAS (/MAT/LAW37) is used.
The air is modeled using a BIPHAS material with the following characteristics:
#blank
The interface type 18 forces are computed by Penalty method. The forces are proportional to the
stiffness factor Stfac which should be calibrated. The following graph shows the dependence of
results (acceleration at the accelerometer) to the mesh and Stfac.
Higher peak forces are obtained with the coarse mesh. That can be partially corrected by
filtering, as shown in Fig 3.
Using a filter CFC 60, -3 dB, the simulation results of the ALE and SPH approaches are compared
to Von Karman theoretical solution and experimental measures in Fig 4.
Fig 4: Comparison between simulation results, theoretical solution and experimental measures (acceleration)
Title
Ditching using Multi-Domain
for SPH and ALE
Number
22.3
Brief Description
Impact of a simple object on water using Multi-Domain to approach SPH and ALE.
RADIOSS Options
Multi-Domain (/SUBDOMAIN)
Rad2rad (/RAD2RAD/ON) in Engine
Compared
Results of Mono-Domain and Multi-Domain
Input File
SPH (Multi-Domain):
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_Multi_Domain_SPH/*
ALE (Multi-Domain):
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_Multi_Domain_ALE/*
Overview
Note: The subdomain_title “SPH_SubDomain” (or “ALE_SubDomain”) must be the same as sub-
domain Engine name SPH_SubDomain_0001.rad (or ALE_SubDomain_0001.rad).
Acceleration
Where, Ne is the number of elements, Nc is the number of cycles, and C is the the element
average time cost/cycle.
Speedup a could also be formulated with following factors:
Lagrange shell= 1
Lagrange sold ~ 3
ALE solid ~ 6
SPH cell ~ 15
Elapsed times:
SPH ditching
ALE ditching
After comparing the elapsed time, observe Multi-Domain FSI speedups ranging from 6 times to 9
times of the Mono-Domain.
Conclusion
For Multi-Domain FSI there is no need to minimize the contacts in TYPE7 interface (SPH) or
in TYPE18 or TYPE22 interfaces (ALE) between Fluid and Structure whereas it is needed in
pure Lagrange Multi-Domain.
For Multi-Domain FSI it is advised to use for the main-domain a free element time step with
a scaling factor of 0.5 for ALE and a free nodal time step with a scaling factor of 0.6.
When Lagrange parts are assembled using tied contact interface TYPE2. Then poor
performances may occur with SPOTflag = 0 or 1.
Summary
A frictional mechanism is studied, which consists of a brake system, defined by a disk pinched
between two pads. The main aspects of the model are the initial rotary motion of the disk and
the interface definition, between the disk and the pads. Carefully watch the accuracy of the
simulation results compared to the analytical solution.
Number
23.1
Brief Description
A brake system is simulated using a finite Lagrangian mesh element.
Keywords
Brick elements and HEPH formulation
Type 7 interface and friction
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Initial velocities (/INIVEL)
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7)
Skew frame (/SKEW)
Function (/FUNCT)
Input File
Lagrangian formulation:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/23_Brake/Lagrangian_formulation/
BRAKE2*
Modeling Methodology
The two parts are modeled using a regular mesh having 720 BRICK elements for the disk and 80
such elements for the pads. The HEPH formulation is used to describe the BRICK elements.
Two steps are necessary to compute the model: First, an initial velocity 0.03ms is applied to the
disk. In the second step, pressure is applied to the pads to push them onto the disk.
RADIOSS Options Used
Rigid bodies:
Two rigid bodies are created to put the disk into motion: the first (called RBODY1) contains
all the nodes of the disk, except those in the disk’s internal periphery, which are contained
in the second rigid body (called RBODY2). Both rigid bodies are activated in the first step of
computation; however, RBODY1 is deactivated in the D02 file.
Two other rigid bodies are created to model the pads’ faces where concentrated loads are
applied.
Boundary conditions:
For the disk’s rigid bodies, all DOF, except the rotation around Y are fixed. For the pads’
rigid bodies, all DOF; except translation around Y are fixed.
Load:
Two concentrated opposite forces are applied to the rigid bodies’ master nodes for the
pads.
Initial velocity:
An initial rotational velocity 0 = 120 rad/s is applied to the disk’s master nodes during the
first computation phase.
The necessary time to stop the disk can be computed as: t = 0 / a = 0.096 second.
The simulation by RADIOSS using the explicit solver allows similar results to be obtained, as
shown in the following diagrams. The following graph shows the time history for angular velocity.
The disk stops at t = 0.095 s, which corresponds to the analytical solution.
The reaction forces value in Fig 6 is about 90 N, which corresponds to the analytical value.
Energies
The total energy remains constant during computation. After braking, the kinetics energy
decreases smoothly while the contact energy increases. There is no hourglass energy as a HEPH
solid element is used.
Fig 7: Energies.
Conclusion
The accuracy of the results obtained, using the simulation and corresponding to the analytical
solution, proves that RADIOSS is able to simulate mechanisms, such as braking systems.
Summary
The lamination of a metal strip under two rolling cylinders is studied. Several formulations are
compared. Large and small strain assumptions are respectively used. The influence of the
number of elements concerning the thickness of the metal strip, as well as element formulation is
discussed.
Number
24.1
Brief Description
Two rolling rigid cylinders squeeze a plate to laminate it.
Keywords
Brick element, solid formulation, co-rotational formulation, and fully-integrated element
Constant pressure formulation and plasticity options
Large deformation/Small strain
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Constant time step (/DT/BRICK/CST)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/PLAS_JOHNS)
General solid property (/PROP/SOLID)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Thickness: 2 elements:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/24_Laminating/Thickness/2_elements/
ROLLING*
5 elements: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/Thickness/5_elements/ROLLING*
Formulation: Isolid=12:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/24_Laminating/Formulation/Isolid12/
ROLLING*
Icpre=0: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/Formulation/Icpre0/ROLLING*
Icpre=1: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/Formulation/Icpre1/ROLLING*
Temperature: T=800°C:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/24_Laminating/temperature/T=800/
ROLLING*
T=1200°C: //.../radioss/24_Laminating/temperature/T=1200/ROLLING*
Temperature exponent: 1
Melting temperature: 2073 K (around 1800°C)
Specific heat at constant pressure Cp: 460 J/Kg.K
Geometry: The metal strip has a cross-section of 80 x 20 mm and the rollers have a radius
of 100 mm. After the passage of the first roller, the thickness is reduced by 7 mm, then by
another 5 mm after the second roller.
Modeling Methodology
It is not necessary to pass many elements over the width of the metal strip, but rather to obtain
an accurate stress distribution over its thickness by passing a minimum of five elements over the
thickness of the metal strip. Depending on what is being looked for, passing five elements over
the thickness may seem like a lot. This issue should be discussed in the early part of the analysis.
Concerning the rollers as the elements is of first order, as it is not easy to perfectly model the
curvature. The mesh must be fine enough to estimate the curvature with as much accuracy as
possible, one element over the width being sufficient.
Some details are made: The moving machine bed is not modeled and all lower nodes of the
metal strip are constrained in the Z-direction. Moreover, an initial velocity is applied to the metal
strip to initiate contact with the first roller. Assuming there is a Coulomb friction between the
metal strip and the roller using a friction coefficient of 0.3, the metal strip is then dragged by the
roller.
Assuming the rollers are rigid, a constant angular velocity to the master nodes is applied.
As this process may be considered as a quasi-static one, the density is artificially increased by a
factor of 10000, that the density used is now 7.8 x 10 -5. Consequently, the time step will be
higher, and assuming the kinetic energy is negligible compared to the energy of deformation,
results will be correct.
Note: Density can be increased as long as dynamic effects are negligible.
Passing two elements over the thickness is not enough to see the stress (or strain) distribution;
five elements is enough though. If the deformed shape is not smooth and/or the gradient
between the two elements is too high, consider refining the mesh; however, this can be
somewhat costly! Additionally, it takes 12 times longer to run the model with five elements over
the width.
What if the only interest is in the reaction force acting on the cylinder?
The above graph indicates the reaction force on the first cylinder using two or five elements over
the thickness. Both curves are almost identical and it takes much longer to use five elements.
Thus, to save CPU time, there is no need to use more than two elements.
Influence of the Small Strain Formulation
Usually for problems involving large deformations, a large strain formulation would be used. In
RADIOSS this is the default setting, but it is also possible to use a small strain formulation. This
formulation is not very accurate for large deformations, but it is more robust and enables the
time step to not decrease too much. Indeed, large deformation/rotation problems may lead to
mesh distortion which causes the time step to drop drastically; computation may even stop due
to a negative volume. The small strain formulation overcomes all this by assuming a constant
volume, consequently the time step becomes constant, and even if the mesh is completely
distorted, computation will not be stopped due to the negative volume.
This formulation can be applied from t=0 by setting the flag I smstr to 1, directly in the type of a
specific part. It is also possible to switch from a large strain formulation to a small strain
formulation during the simulation in order to prevent a negative volume and/or to maintain a
decent time step using the /DT/BRICK/CST option in the Engine file (*_0001.rad) having a
critical time step.
Moreover, looking at the plastic strain, using a small strain formulation from t=0 leads to major
errors (Table 3). First of all, the strain distribution is not well determined and most importantly,
the maximum is far too low, which means permanent deformation was under-estimated.
In such a case, it may be of interest to use the small strain formulation but only for a few
elements reaching a critical time step (using /DT/NODA/CST); as the time step will not stop, due
to a distorted element. However, for accuracy reasons, the number of elements switching to a
small strain formulation should be checked, the lower the better.
The HA8 formulation must always be used with reduced pressure integration, the only time when
this option must be deactivated is in the case of emulating a thick shell formulation with 8-nodes
bricks.
Temperature Influence
When metal forming, one of the main parameters engineers' study whether the force is needed
during the process. In this particular case, it concerns the rolling force applied by the cylinders.
Conclusion
The squeezing of the metal strip below two rolling cylinders is simulated by RADIOSS. The large
deformation formulation, when a sufficient number of elements are used, obtaining physically-
acceptable results is allowed. The small strain option leads to bad results, but with low cost. The
element formulation and the number of integration points through thickness are other
parameters influencing results; the higher the precision, the higher the cost. On the other hand,
as the problem is considered to be quasi-static, resolution using the RADIOSS implicit solver can
be envisaged.
Summary
The spring-back simulation of sheet metal bent into a hat-shape is studied. The problem is one of
the famous tests from the Numisheet’93. As spring-back is generally a quasi-static unloading, the
use of the RADIOSS implicit solver is justified. The RADIOSS explicit solver is also used to
compare the methods’ efficiency. However, for the stamping phase only the explicit solver is
used, as the forming process is highly dynamic.
The example illustrates how to link up the explicit computations. It highlights the efficiency of the
implicit solver for the spring-back simulation.
Number
25.1
Brief Description
An explicit stamping simulation is followed by a spring-back analysis using implicit or explicit
solvers for stress relaxation. Results are compared with a reference.
Keywords
Explicit stamping simulation, implicit/explicit spring-back simulation, and stress relaxation
Implicit strategy and time step control by arc-length method
Anisotropic elasto-plastic material law (/MAT/LAW43) and Hill model
Orthotropic shell formulation, QEPH, progressive plastification, and iterative plasticity
Type 7 Interface, Penalty method, and friction
RADIOSS Options
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Dynamic relaxation (/DYREL)
Implicit parameters (/IMPL)
Implicit spring-back (/IMPL/SPRBACK)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Explicit spring-back: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/25_Spring-back/
Explicit_spring-back/DBEND_44*
Implicit spring-back: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/25_Spring-back/
Implicit_spring-back/DBEND_44*
The Ai coefficients are determined using Lankford’s anisotropy parameters range. Angles for
Lankford parameters are defined according to orthotropic direction 1.
A hardening coefficient is used to describe the hardening model as full isotropic (value set to 0)
or based on the Prager-Ziegler kinematic model (value set to 1). Hardening can be interpolated
between the two models, if the coefficient value is between 0 and 1.
The material parameters are:
Initial density: 8x10-3 g/mm3
Young modulus: 206000 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3
Lankford 0 degrees: r00= 1.73
The yield curve used is shown in the diagram below. Failure is not taken into account.
Modeling Methodology
Taking symmetry into account, only a quarter of the structure is modeled. The symmetry plane is
along axis y = 17.5 mm and x = 0 mm.
In order to achieve accurate simulation results, the QEPH shell element formulation is used in
explicit and implicit analyses. A Lagrangian formulation is adopted.
In accordance with the elasto-plastic Hill model for the material law, the sheet metal is described
by the shell elements using the orthotropic property (Type 9). The shell characteristics are:
Five integration points (progressive plastification)
Interactive plasticity with three Newton iterations (I plas = 1)
In the implicit approach, the contact using the Penalty method with fictional springs is stored in a
separate stiffness matrix to the main one. Therefore, supplementary memory is needed and
information of the second contact stiffness will be printed when contact is active.
Critical damping coefficients (inputs) description:
The normal force computation is indicated by:
Where,
VISCS is the critical damping coefficient on interface stiffness (default value: 0.05)
For spring-back computation by implicit, the removing of the stamping tools is taken into account
by deleting all interfaces using the input option in the second *_0002.rad Engine file as follows:
/DEL/INTER
1 2 3 Interfaces ID 1, 2 and 3 are deleted.
An automatic master node is chosen. The center of gravity is computed using the master and
slave node coordinates and the master node is moved to the center of gravity where is placed
mass and inertia (ICoG is set to 1). No mass or inertia are added to the rigid bodies.
A quarter of the structure is modeled in order to limit the model size and to eliminate rigid body
modes for implicit computation. Symmetry planes are defined along the y axis = 0.
Fig 7: Boundary conditions (/BCS) on the sheet metal according to the symmetries.
The nodes on the longitudinal plane are fixed in the Y translation and X, Z rotations.
For the other symmetry plane, the nodes are fixed in the X translation and Y, Z rotations.
Fig 8: Added boundary conditions on the 427 node for implicit spring-back.
Imposed velocities are applied on the stamping tools via the master nodes of the rigid bodies.
The velocity of the punch is controlled by a specific input curve, as shown in Figures 9 and 10.
During implicit spring-back, all velocities are set to zero. Explicit spring-back computation up to
6000 ms necessitates imposed velocities on tools in order to withdraw them as of 1000 ms.
Fig 10: Imposed velocity on die and blank holder via the rigid bodies’ master node.
Considering the symmetries, a constant concentrated load of 612.5 N is vertically applied on the
blank holder via the master node of the rigid body. The load is set to zero from 960 ms before
studying the spring-back.
Implicit spring-back analysis is launched using /IMPL/SPRBACK.
The nonlinear implicit parameters used are:
Implicit type: Static nonlinear
Nonlinear solver: Modified Newton
Tolerance: 0.025
Update of stiffness matrix: 2 iterations maximum
Time step control method: Norm displacement (arc-length)
Initial time step: 0.08 ms
Minimum time step: 10-5 ms
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of the nonlinear cycle. It is defined
using /IMPL/SOLVER.
Linear solver: Direct solver MUMPS
Precondition methods: Factored approximate inverse
Maximum iterations number: System dimension (NDOF)
Stop criteria: Relative residual on force
Tolerance for stop criteria: Machine precision
The input implicit options added in the *_0002.rad Engine file are:
/IMPL/PRINT/NONL/-1 Printout frequency for nonlinear iteration
Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for more details about implicit options.
Explicit spring-back analysis uses the dynamic relaxation in the *_0003.rad Engine file from
2000 ms.
The explicit time integration scheme starts with nodal acceleration computation. It is efficient for
the simulation of dynamic loading. However, a quasi-static simulation via a dynamic resolution
method is needed to minimize the dynamic effects for converging towards static equilibrium, the
final shape achieved after spring-back.
where, is the relaxation value which has a recommended default value 1, and T is the period
to be damped (less than or equal to the highest period of the system).
The inputs of the relaxation dynamics are:
Relaxation factor: 1
Period to be damped: 1000 ms
This option is activated using the /DYREL keyword (inputs: and T).
In the metal stamping operation, the highly nonlinear deformation processes tend to generate a
large amount of elastic strain energy in the metal material in addition to some of the plastic
deformed areas. The internal energy, which is stored in the sheet metal during stamping, is
subsequently released once the stamping pressure has been removed. This energy released is
the driving force of the spring-back in the sheet metal forming process. Therefore, the spring-
back deformation for sheet metal forming is mainly due to the amount of elastic energy stored in
the part while it is being plastically deformed.
The material density has been multiplied by 10,000 to obtain a reasonable computation time
using explicit simulations. An additional time period is also required for slowly withdrawing the
tools, prior to the explicit spring-back simulation in order to achieve a good result. Thus, explicit
stamping takes longer than stamping followed by implicit spring-back computation.
Figure 12 shows the deformed configurations using implicit simulation. The symmetrical part is
added.
Stamping is performed from the beginning up to 960 ms. The final shape after the spring-back
process is achieved after 1000 ms using the implicit solver and after 6000 ms using the explicit
solver.
The animations in Fig 14 include the results of the spring-back during simulation. There is an
increasing number of stresses in the sheet metal from the start up to 960 ms, after which, the
stresses begin to decrease as a result of the spring-back (stress relaxation).
Fig 14: Stamping results on the sheet metal before and after spring-back.
Fig 15: Internal energy in the sheet metal part (explicit spring-back simulation).
The dynamic relaxation used in the explicit spring-back computation enables to improve
convergence towards quasi-static solution. The variation of the kinetics energy on the sheet
metal in the explicit spring-back simulation is depicted in Fig 16 (from 960 ms up to 6000 ms):
Experiment
105.7 77.7
(means values)
Explicit 106.1 78
The implicit simulation for spring-back is performed from 960 ms to 1000 ms. Explicit spring-
back simulation is performed until the kinetics energy on the sheet metal reaches a minimum
value (quasi-static equilibrium). The final computation time is set to 6000 ms.
Explicit and implicit analysis' both obtain good results in this test, with implicit computation being
40% faster than the explicit computation. The implicit approach is; however, 1320 times more
expensive per step than the explicit solver. The use of the implicit approach allows you to
economize on the overall computation time.
Summary
Failure of a circular plate subjected to the impact of an infinite rigid sphere is studied. Material
models, with or without a dedicated failure criteria, are compared. The new failure criteria
available adds to the simple rupture models existing in such material laws as Law 2 and Law 27.
The study is divided into three parts:
Rupture using a damage model in Law 27
Failure using the Johnson-Cook model
Advantage of Forming Limit Diagram as a failure model
The sensitivity of the results for the different failure models is demonstrated.
Number
26.1
Brief Description
A metallic thick plate is perforated by a rigid sphere. Simulation of the rupture uses different
failure models.
Keywords
Rupture, elements deletion, maximum stress, and failure plastic strain
Johnson-Cook failure model, failure model using Forming Limit Diagram
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic material law and damage integrated in the material law
General shell formulation, progressive plastification, and layers
RADIOSS Options
Johnson-Cook failure model (/FAIL/JOHNSON)
Forming Limit Diagram failure model (/FAIL/FLD)
Imposed velocities (/IMPVEL)
Material law 2 (/MAT/PLAS_JOHNS) and law 27 (/MAT/PLAS_BRIT)
Rigid Sphere (/RWALL)
Input File
Law 2 without failure:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law2/Without_FAIL/
LAW2*
Johnson failure:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law2/JOHNSON_model/.
../FAILURE_JOHNSON*
FLD failure:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law2/FLD_model/
Ishell=1_without_epsmax/.../FAILURE_FLD*
Law 27: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/26_Ruptured_plate/Law27/LAW27*
Modeling Methodology
The plate is meshed with 4-node shell elements.
The shell properties (Type 1) are:
5 integration points (progressive plastification)
Belytschko elasto-plastic hourglass formulation (Ishell = 3)
Fig 2: Mesh of the metallic plate with the initial rigid sphere position.
Failure Modeling
Failure strain f1: the element is deleted if the highest principal strain reaches the tension
value.
The maximum stress and the failure plastic strain are activated:
max = 0.151
The element is removed if one layer (one integration point) of the element reaches the failure
tensile strain.
For further information about this law, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual and RADIOSS User's
Guide.
f D1 D2 exp D3 *
where,
D refers to the current damage (failure if D = 1)
is the normalized mean stress
The strain rate and thermo-plastic effects are not taken into account in this example. Therefore,
only three parameters are required (D1, D2 and D3).
Two cases are considered:
The maximum stress and the failure plastic strain are not taken into account.
In addition to the Johnson-Cook failure model, the maximum stress and the failure plastic
strain are activated.
The layer stress tensor is set to zero and the shell element is deleted if damage D > 1, for
all layers (Ifail_sh set to 2).
Therefore, the four simulations performed are shown in the following table:
Ifail_sh = 1 Ifail_sh = 2
/FAIL /FAIL
only /FAIL only /FAIL
max , max max , max
For further information about this failure model, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual and the
RADIOSS User's Guide.
Curve 1 Curve 2
For further information about this failure model, see the RADIOSS User's Guide.
Material law 27
Ifail_sh = 1 Ifail_sh = 2
Law 2 + /FAIL
/FAIL only /FAIL /FAIL only /FAIL
max , max max , max
Johnson failure
model
FLD FLD 1
failure
model FLD 2
Engine file:
Fig 6: Perforation of the plate by the rigid sphere at 5 ms (case: Johnson-Cook failure model without failure plastic strain,
Ifail_sh=2).
The following table compares the results provided by simulations in terms of plate deformation,
hole dimension, residual shells, etc.
Summary
This is mainly a demonstration example. An unusual application is used: In 1976, the European
Football (Soccer) Cup final was between the Bayern of Munich and Saint Etienne. During the
match, two shots from Saint Etienne rebound on the opposite bars, shaped as a square cross-
section. The fact that England is the only European country not having replaced its square bars
by round bars always makes French supporters believe that Saint Etienne could have won the
final if the bars had been round. This example provides an answer through simulation; however,
the controversy will no doubt continue.
Number
27.1
Brief Description
Simulation of a football (soccer) shooting impact on bars.
Keywords
Q4 and T3 meshes, and Orthotropic shell
Airbag modeling and sensor
Rigid cylinder
Initial velocity
RADIOSS Options
Initial velocity (/INIVEL)
Initial velocities around axis (/INIVEL/AXIS)
Monitored volume type airbag (/MONVOL/AIRBAG1)
Rigid bodies (/RBODY)
Rigid cylinder (/RWALL)
Sensor (/SENSOR)
Input File
Bathenay’s shot:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/Bathenay_circular/
BAT_CIR*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/Bathenay_square/
BAT_SQR*
Santini’s header:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/Santini_circular/
SANT_CIR*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/27_Football_shots/Santini_square/
SANT_SQR*
Modeling Methodology
The ball is modeled using 60 3-node shells and 1420 4-node shells. The shell element
formulations are set by default. The bar and the ground are also modeled with 4-node shell
elements, but their mesh will not be used for the computation.
Fig 6: Trajectory of the ball for Bathenay’s shot (impact on a square and a round bar respectively).
Conclusion
Even using a simple modeling of the impact (bars modeled with rigid walls instead of parts), the
simulation provides quite accurate results in the case of a square cross-section when simulations
are compared to reality. The results obtained for the bars with a round cross-section show that
the ball enters to the goal for both shots. However, several impact parameters, such as friction
and rotational velocity are estimated as calibrating the case of a square cross-section.
Conclusions on the results of the match in case of cylindrical bars should be moderated.
Summary
This example deals with the use of RADIOSS linear and nonlinear solvers. A beam submitted to a
concentrated load on one extremity and fixed on the other hand is studied. This problem is well
known and results can be compared with analytical solutions.
Different meshes are tested: beam, shell, thick-shell, and brick elements. For thick-shell
representation, different formulations are also tested: HA8, HSEPH, and 16-node thick-shell.
Moreover, this study tests with solvers: linear and nonlinear implicit solvers, as well as nonlinear
explicit solver. The linear solver is used for small displacements, whereas nonlinear can solve
more problems.
The main propose of this example is to illustrate how to prepare a RADIOSS deck for linear
analysis. It also demonstrates a high quality of RADIOSS finite elements to resolve linear and
nonlinear problems.
Number
37.1
Brief Description
A cantilever beam submitted to a shear-bending is tested by RADIOSS linear and nonlinear
solvers. Different kinds of RADIOSS finite elements provide results close to the analytical one.
Keywords
Linear solver
Beam, shell, thick-shell and brick elements
BATOZ, HA8 and HSEPH formulations
Dynamic relaxation and implicit solver
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Dynamic relaxation (/DYREL)
Implicit options (/IMPL)
Input File
2 Bricks:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/Analytical_beam/
2_bricks/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../2_bricks/implicit/Linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../2_bricks/implicit/Nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
4 Bricks:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/Analytical_beam/
4_bricks/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../4_bricks/implicit/linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../4_bricks/implicit/nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
Overview
Modeling Methodology
The beam is modeled with four different kinds of mesh: beams (/BEAM), shells (/SHELL), thick-
shells (/PROP/TSHELL), and bricks (/BRICK).
Each formulation has particular properties (/PROP). Beam elements use the default formulation
(Ismstr = 0). Furthermore, in order to satisfy Timoshenko’s beam assumptions, use the following
properties:
Cross section: 100 mm2
Moment of inertia: 833.33 mm4
This conducts to a shell thickness of 10 mm, where BATOZ shell formulation is used (I shell = 12).
For the solid mesh, the HA8 formulation (I solid = 14) is applied. No reduced pressure integration
is necessary for implicit computation, as the behavior is elastic (I cpre = 0).
For thick-shell elements (/PROP/TSHELL), several formulations are tested: HA8 (Isolid = 14),
HSEPH (Isolid = 15), and 16-node thick-shell (Isolid = 16), which require a specific nodal
connectivity, as shown below:
Fig 4: Notation.
In the case of linear behavior, the numerical results are quite close to the analytical solution
(error lower than 0.01% for all meshes).
The numerical error or the difference between the numerical results and the analytical solution
can be evaluated by:
(4)
Here it appears that errors for the slender case ( =2) are high for the explicit solver. This is
mainly due to difficult convergence of the dynamic solution to the static response. High flexibility
means low frequency vibrations and thus low efficiency of dynamic relaxation method. On the
other hand, the implicit solver converges to the good solution. The error is remains lower than
0.5%.
Regarding the thick-shell elements, RADIOSS results are quite close to the analytical solution.
The error remains always less than 0.5%.
Summary
This example aims at demonstrating how to perform an FSI run using RADIOSS on a relatively
simple case. The maximum deflection of a flap in an interaction with a transient fluid is computed
once the stationary state is reached.
In this example, the two following points are emphasized:
How to set up an FSI case study
Fast description of the various options used in an ALE/CFD run (refer to the RADIOSS
Theory Manual for more information)
Number
39.1
Brief Description
A Fluid-Structure-Interaction (FSI) problem is studied. The RADIOSS ALE/CFD solver is used to
resolve the problem.
Keywords
FSI, CFD, and Fluid
INLET and OUTLET
Turbulent Fluid
RADIOSS Options
/MAT/BOUND
/ALE/MAT
/ALE/BCS
/PROP/FLUID
/VEL/ALE
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/39_Bio_Valve/BIO_VALVE/VALVE*
Euler Formulation
The Eulerian formulation is classical in fluid mechanics. The mesh is fixed and material flows
through the mesh. Equations are modified with respect to the Lagrangian formulation in order to
take into account the convective terms.
It can be activated for a specific part by a flag in material data:
/EULER/MAT/mat_ID
Where, mat_ID is the identification number of the material to be set Eulerian.
In this case, the Eulerian formulation cannot be used because the boundaries of the domain (and
mainly the flap) move.
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) Formulation
The material flows through an arbitrary moving mesh and it can degenerate either in a
Lagrangian or an Eulerian formulation.
This option can be activated for a specific part by a flag in material data:
/ALE/MAT/mat_ID
Where, mat_ID is the identification number of the material to be set ALE.
A quasi-uniform solid mesh is used for domain discretization. One element through the thickness
with a fine enough mesh along the axis is used.
Shell elements are used to model the flap. The flap is clamped on one side and its nodes are
attached by the springs to the clamp. One row of meshes are created at each extremity to define
inlet and outlet.
The problem is incompressible; therefore, in order to increase the time step, the speed of the
sound in the fluid has been arbitrarily reduced to 50 m/s.
When doing such an approximate, it must be verified that the velocity of the fluid is much lower
than the modified speed of the sound.
Vorticity distribution in the transient period gives a good overview of the problem evolution in
time before stabilization.
Fig 4: Vertical displacement of the free extremity (node 23360) of the flap in meter
Summary
The model consists of a deformed rubber ring resting on a flat, rigid surface. Another circular
rigid roller rests at the top of the ring, and is in contact with the ring at just a point. Contact is
defined between the rigid surfaces and the outside surface of the ring and self-contact is defined
in the inside surface of the ring. The loading is applied in two steps – in the first step, the circular
roller is pushed down enough to produce self-contact of the inside surface of the ring. In the
second step, the roller is simultaneously translated and rotated such that the crushed ring rolls
along the flat rigid surface producing a constantly changing region of contact.
This example is considered a static problem and the nonlinear implicit solver is used.
Number
42.1
Brief Description
A rubber ring resting on a flat rigid surface is pushed down by a circular roller to produce self-
contact on the inside surface of the ring. Then the roller is simultaneously rolled and translated
so that crushed ring rolls along the flat surface.
Keywords
Nonlinear implicit large displacement analysis
Self-contact
Hyper-elastic material
RADIOSS Options
Hyper-elastic rubber material (/MAT/LAW42)
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Releasing of DOF (/BCSR)
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Incompressible solid element (/PROP/SOLID)
Contact definition (/INTER/TYPE7)
Implicit analysis (/IMPL)
Input File
Rubber_ring:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/42_Rubber_ring/rubber_ring*
The hyper-elastic rubber ring has been modeled using the Ogden, Mooney-Rivlin material
(/MAT/LAW42) with the following properties:
1: 0.7
2: -0.5
1: 2.0
2: -2.0
Poisson’s ratio: 0.495
The rigid barriers (roller and flat surface) have been modeled using elastic material, but a 1D
rigid link has been connected to all the nodes of each of the barriers, making them essentially
rigid. The material used for the rigid barriers has the following properties:
Density: 7.9e-9
Young’s modulus: 600 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
The ring has been modeled using first order fully-integrated solid elements.
/PROP/SOLID/5
WHEEL
14 10 1 222
The flat surface and roller have been modeled using the first order reduced integration shell
elements with three integration points through the thickness. Full integration elements were not
considered as you are not interested in any detailed post-processing of the barrier.
/PROP/SHELL/6
BARRIER
1 2
3 0.01
The boundary conditions applied to the flat rigid surface and circular roller in step 1, are shown in
Figure 4.
The flat surface is constrained in all DOF's, while the roller is pushed down by 6.22 units in Y-axis
so much that self-contact is established within the inner surface of the ring.
Fig 4: Boundary conditions applied to flat surface and roller in 1st step
3) Contact definition
Several contacts have been defined: i) contact between the circular roller and rubber ring, (ii)
contact between the flat rigid surface and rubber ring, and (iii) self-contact within the inner
surface of the rubber ring.
A small physical gap (0.05 units) has been introduced between the circular roller and the rubber
ring and also between rubber ring and the flat rigid surface. The minimum gap specified for the
contact is slightly higher than the physical gap for contact to take effect. Static Coulomb friction
of 0.5 is defined for all the interfaces. The definition of one such interface is shown below:
/INTER/TYPE7/14
TOP_Rubber
25 30 4 0
0.5 0.055
000 0
0 2
Also, since the contact involved is between a rigid part and a very soft hyper-elastic material, it is
advisable that the E*h (Young’s modulus * thickness) of the rigid part be approximately the
same order as the bulk modulus of the rubber material.
RADIOSS Options Used
The hyper-elasticity and contact causes major nonlinearities. Therefore, a static nonlinear
analysis is performed using the arc-length displacement strategy. The time step is determined by
a displacement norm control.
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. It is defined in
the option /IMPL/SOLVER. The linear implicit options used are:
Linear solver: Direct
5 1 0.001
5 0 3 0.0
0.001
1e-6 0.001
6 0 15 0.8 1.1
Refer to the RADIOSS manual for more details about implicit options.
Animations
The deformed shape of the rubber ring after the circular roller is pushed down enough is shown
in Figure 5.
Figure 6 shows the slide of the crushed rubber ring along the flat rigid surface after the roller has
been simultaneously translated and rotated.
The stresses in the rubber ring after it has been crushed and sliding along the flat rigid surface
are shown in Figure 7.
Summary
where,
Material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) uses this equation to compute hydrostatic pressure. It is possible
to consider absolute values or relative variation (Table 1). This example shows how to build
material control cards for each of the following cases:
Mathematical
Case Pressure Energy
model
1 P , E absolute absolute
2 P , E relative absolute
3 P , E relative relative
4 P , E absolute relative
Number
43.1
Brief Description
Polynomial EOS is used to model perfect gas. Pressure or energy can be absolute
values or relative. Material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) is used to build material cards for each
of these cases.
Keywords
Perfect gas
Polynomial EOS
Absolute/Relative formulations
Pressure shift
RADIOSS Options
Hydrodynamic fluid material (/MAT/LAW6 (HYDRO))
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS)
Overview
The fluid will be assumed to be a perfect gas. Volume is changed in the three directions to
consider a pure compression (-1 < < 0) followed by an expansion of matter (0 < ). See
Figure 1.
This test will be modeled with a single ALE element (8 node brick) and polynomial EOS.
Evolutions of pressure, internal energy and sound speed will be compared between numerical
output and theoretical results.
(1)
(2)
are called hydrodynamic coefficients and they are input flags. Hypothesis on the
material behavior allows determining of these coefficients:
General case corresponds to Mie-Guneisen EOS (see Appendix C of the Theory Manual)
Incompressible gas
Linear elastic material
Perfect gas
This example is focused only on Perfect Gas modeling.
Theoretical Results
The purpose of this section is to plot pressure, internal energy, and sound speed in function of
the single parameter V or .
1. Pressure
Perfect gas pressure is given by:
PV 1 Eint
(3)
Then,
RADIOSS assumes the hypothesis of an isentropic process to compute the change in internal
energy:
dEint = -PdV
dP P
dV V
y ' x 0
This has the form and the general solution is:
y Cst.x
PV PoVo
V0
P(V ) P 0
V (4)
Here, is the material constant (ratio of heat capacity). For diatomic gas =1.4. Air is made
mainly of diatomic gas, so set gamma to 1.4 for air.
2. Internal Energy
Equations (3) and (4) lead to the immediate result:
3. Sound Speed
Perfect gas sound speed is:
(5)
Equation (4) gives its expression in term of volume:
The theoretical results are listed in the table below. Pressure, internal energy, and sound speed
are expressed both in function of V and .
Pressure (Pa) Internal Energy Density (J) Sound Speed (m/s)
i
C0 C1 C2 C3
Pmin Psh
C4 C5 E0
Pressure Shift
Material law 6 introduces flag Psh which allows shifting computed pressure in the polynomial
equation of state:
RADIOSS Engine shifts C0 flag and computed pressure P( ,E) with an offset of -Psh.
Minimum Pressure
The theoretical value is Pmin = 0 Pa (absolute pressure) with a default value of -1030, to accept a
negative value in relative pressure formulation.
This flag has to be manually offset with -Psh.
P , E
Case 1: Both Pressure and Energy are absolute values:
P , E
Case 2: Pressure is relative and Energy is absolute:
P , E
Case 3: Both Pressure and Energy are relative:
P , E
Case 4: Pressure is absolute and Energy is relative:
Case 1: Both Pressure and Energy are absolute values
1. Equation of State
Equation of state can be written:
with
Expanding this expression and identifying the polynomial coefficients leads to:
P , E C4 C5 E
where,
2. Corresponding Input
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID/unit_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID/unit_ID
AbsolutePRESSURE_AbsoluteENERGY
i
0 0 0 0
0 0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1
P , E
Fig 5: Numerical pressure, model 1:
Internal energy can be obtained through two different ways. The first one is internal energy density
(Eint / V) recorded by element time history (RADIOSS /TH/BRICK). The second one is the internal
energy from the global time history because the model is composed of a single
element.
P , E
Fig 6: Numerical internal energy, model 1:
Expanding this expression and identifying with polynomial coefficients leads to:
P( ,E) = P( ,E) = Psh = -Psh + (C4 + C5 )E
where,
2. Minimum Pressure
Then, the minimum pressure must be set to a non-zero value Pmin = -P0.
3. Corresponding Input
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID/unit_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID/unit_ID
RelativePRESSURE_AbsoluteENERGY
i
0 0 0 0
-P0 P0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1
Initial
Time History Measure Unit
Value
P , E
Fig 7: Numerical pressure, model 2:
Internal energy can be obtained through two different ways. The first one is internal energy density
(Eint / V) recorded by element time history (/TH/BRICK). The second one is the internal energy from
the global time history because the model is composed of a single element.
P , E
Fig 8: Numerical internal energy, model 2:
Where,
Expanding this expression and identifying with polynomial coefficients leads to:
P( , E) = P( ,E) - Psh = C0 - Psh + C1 + (C4 + C5 ) E
where,
C0 = C1 = E0( - 1)
C4 = C5 = -1
E0 = 0
Psh = P0
2. Minimum Pressure
3. Corresponding Input
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID/unit_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID/unit_ID
RelativePRESSURE_RelativeENERGY
i
E0( - 1) E0( - 1) 0 0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1 0
4. Output Results
Initial
Time History Measure Unit
Value
P , E
Fig 9: Numerical pressure, model 3:
Internal energy can be obtained through two different ways. The first one is internal energy
density (Eint / V) recorded by element time history (/TH/BRICK). The second one is the
internal energy from the global time history because the model is composed
of a single element. This numerical internal energy is relative to its initial value; it is shifted
with the E0V0 value from the absolute theoretical one and also starts from 0.
Expanding this expression and identifying with polynomial coefficients leads to:
P( ,E) = C0 + C1 + (C4 + C5 ) E
Where,
C0 = C1 = E0 ( - 1)
C4 = C5 = -1
2. Corresponding Input
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID/unit_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID/unit_ID
AbsolutePRESSURE_RelativeENERGY
i
E0( - 1) E0( - 1) 0 0
0 0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1 0
P , E
Fig 11: Numerical pressure, model 4:
Internal energy can be obtained through two different ways. The first one is internal energy
density (ΔEint / V) recorded by element time history (/TH/BRICK). The second one is the internal
energy from the global time history because the model is composed of a single
element. This numerical internal energy is relative to its initial value; it is shifted with the E0V0
value from the absolute theoretical one and also starts from 0.
Then,
In case of an isentropic transformation (reversible and adiabatic), the change of internal energy
Eint with volume V and pressure P is given by:
dEint = -PdV
Using relation which links Eint and E leads to:
(5)
This expression computes the sound speed for a given equation of state P( ,E). In the case of
perfect gas, it was shown that for each type of formulation (absolute or relative), EOS can be
written:
P( ,E) = C0 + C1 + (C4 + C5 )E
Equation (5) is used to compute sound speed:
(6)
C0 C1 C4 C5 Comparison with
Case c2 from Eq (5)
theoretical value
1 0 0 -1 -1 c = cREF
2 0 0 -1 -1 c = cREF
For each of the four formulations, the computed sound speed by RADIOSS is the same as the
theoretical one. Time step and cycle number are also not affected.
Summary
The aim of this example is to introduce high quality time step control Advanced Mass Scaling
(AMS). Time step will be computed by RADIOSS. Small element sizes may lead to small time step
and; therefore, occupy many CPU sources. Increase time step could use time step control, but
using old option of time step control will for example increase the mass or kinematic energy. If
the increase is not small enough, it will affect the solution, but with this high quality time step
control AMS, there is no change in inertia effects on translational global acceleration, non-
diagonal mass added. With AMS similar results are received, like the old one, but with much less
computation time.
Number
44.1
Brief Description
Blow molding with Advanced Mass Scaling (AMS).
Keywords
Advanced Mass Scaling (/AMS)
Time Step for Advanced Mass Scaling (/DT/AMS/Iflag)
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7)
Visco Elastic Plastic Piecewise Linear Material law (/MAT/LAW66)
Shell property (/PROP/SHELL)
Rayleigh damping (/DAMP)
RADIOSS Options
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Impose displacement (/IMPDISP)
Pressure Load (/PLOAD)
Input File
Example44:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/44_blow_molding_ams/E4_66_AMS/*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/44_blow_molding_ams/E4_66_no_dt_
control/*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/44_blow_molding_ams/E4_66_Noda_CST/*
Imposed displacement:
Two molds are moved in opposite directions with imposed displacement.
Interface:
Type 7 interface has been defined between mold and plastic parison with friction 0.7.
The following figures show the plastic strain, von Mises stress on plastic parison. (See below).
Performance
Using the AMS technique, CPU time is reduced by a factor of approximately 3, in this case.
Below shows results comparison of tests:
Without time step control (no mass scaling)
With standard mass scaling /DT/NODE/CST
With AMS
Speed-up
- 2.80 3.88
Results quality
- Bad Good
Fig. 4: Plastic strain for tests without time step control (no mass scaling). With /DT/NODA/CST and with AMS at time
0.4s.
It shows at time 0.4s for the same speed up factor with AMS you get more accurate results
compare with no mass scaling test than with node mass scaling.
Conclusion
To obtain a CPU saving factor of about 3, the target time step should be about 10 times higher
than the one without AMS; AMS treatment itself is taking some CPU cost.
Standard mass scaling technique can also speed up the calculation by a factor of about 3, but the
results quality will be affected.
In general, AMS technique for a given speed up, gives more accurate results than standard mass
scaling.
The AMS technique does not change the total mass; the mass is added only on non-diagonal
terms of the mass matrix.
It is applicable to the entire model.
There is no change in inertia effects on translational global acceleration
Note:
Result accuracy, in terms of stress and strains, is normally not affected; by the way AMS is
affecting Eigen modes of the structure(s) to which it is applied. Higher frequencies are
lowered.
AMS technique is highly scalable; large models could show even more significant speed up
factors.
Summary
The Multi-Domain technique aims at optimizing performance of large scale RADIOSS models
containing one sub-domain with significant time step discrepancy, often related to mesh
refinement differences. It makes it possible to split a whole model into master domain and
several sub-domains. Each domain is computed as a separate RADIOSS model, using its own
timestep. The force and momentum transfers between them are managed by a separate program
insuring stability constraints. The aim of this example is to show how to use the new Multi-
Domain Single Input Format and how to prepare a model.
Number
45.1
Brief Description
Separate the whole model into master domain and sub-domain and solve each one with its own
timestep. The new Multi-Domain Single Input Format makes the sub-domain part definition with
the /SUBDOMAIN keyword.
Keywords
Multi-Domain Decomposition (/SUBDOMAIN)
Multi-Domain Coupling (/RAD2RAD/ON)
/INTER/TYPE2
Input File
FRAME_MODIFIED: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/45-
multidomain_tied/monodomain/*
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/45-multidomain_tied/multidomain/*
Modeling Description
In order to get more accurate results, use a fine mesh in the area of interest (high deformation
location). In this example, the part near the impact area (highlighted in red) where the bumper
highly deforms was chosen. The fine mesh size is about 2 mm, whereas the mesh size of the
remaining part is about 7 mm. The finely meshed part has 18370 shell elements that represent
nearly 50% of the whole model. In explicit analysis the timestep will be controlled by this fine
mesh. In order to improve performances, this computation is usually treated with classical mass
scaling (/DT/NODA/CST). It is possible to use a small timestep for the fine meshed part and a
large timestep for the coarse meshed part using the Multi-Domain technique.
There are two different methods to use the Multi-Domain technique. The first (old) method
requests users to build separate Starter and Engine files for each domain and to define a /LINK
keyword for the connections between domains.
A new feature was introduced in RADIOSS v11.0.220 called Multi-Domain Single Input Format.
Using the keyword /SUBDOMAIN, you can insert the parts, which use a different timestep into
the new sub-domain and create an Engine file with its specific timestep. RADIOSS will
automatically create the Starter information for the sub-domain and its link for connection
between the two domains.
Remark:
Keep the “subdomain_title” in /SUBDOMAIN the same as the sub-domain Engine file
root_name.
In this example, the “subdomain_title” in /SUBDOMAIN is “FINE_MESH”. Therefore, the
Engine sub-domain is “FINE_MESH_0001.rad”.
2. /RAD2RAD/ON must be present in both Engine files:
In order to use the Multi-Domain technique, /RAD2RAD/ON in both Engine files needs to be
defined, so that the Multi-Domain coupling can be established.
In this example, sub-domain will not impact the master domain during the simulation. So, define
two self-contacts for each domain. In case the sub-domain impacts the master domain during the
simulation, it is recommended to define the following four contact interfaces type 7.
Two internal contact interfaces (/INTER/TYPE7) each one treated in its own domain:
Contact interface 1: self-contact interface for the master domain
Contact interface 2: self-contact interface for the sub-domain
Two contact interfaces (/INTER/TYPE7) for the interaction between domains treated in the
sub-domain:
Contact interface 3: contact subframe/car – subframe on the slave side
Contact interface 4: contact car/subframe – subframe on the master side
In this case, if all contacts are treated in one single contact (/INTER/TYPE7), every element of
the model would impact the sub-domain and all the elements of the model would be duplicated in
the sub-domain. If the model is large, the Multi-Domain interface would be huge, the CPU cost of
RAD2RAD would be very high; therefore, the performance of the computation is very poor. The
warning message “Multi-Domains interface is too big” will be printed by Starter, in this instance.
In order to show the performance of a Multi-Domain, the following two tests were conducted:
Test 1: Mono-domain – free DT control
Test 2: Multi-Domain – free DT control
Multi-Domain (2)
Test Mono-Domain (1)
free DT control Master domain Sub-domain
free DT control free DT control
CPU 1 1 1
For Test 1, the timestep will be controlled by the fine mesh part. In order to avoid small
timesteps, use the Multi-Domain approach (Test 2). The master domain (coarse mesh part) has a
free timestep of about 8e-4 ms and the sub-domain (fine mesh part) has a timestep of about 2e-
4 ms. The total calculation time is only 3.3e-3 s (almost 2 times faster than Test 1). Fig 3 shows
the same failure behavior between Test 1 and Test 2. Fig 4 and Fig 5 show exactly the same
results between Test 1 and 2. Test 2 is faster and provides the same results quality as in Test 1.
When using Multi-Domain, the performance will be more significant for large models or for cases
where the fine mesh part represents less than 30% of the whole model (50% here is a lot).
The RADIOSS domains are treated sequentially, which means that only one RADIOSS process is
running at a time. The full CPU resource is automatically allocated to the running process and the
other is put into a no CPU consuming idle mode.
Summary
The Cylinder Expansion Test is an experimental test used to characterize the adiabatic expansion
of detonation products. It allows determining JWL EOS parameters.
It consists in a copper cylinder filled with an explosive (TNT). Detonation is initiated at the
bottom of the explosive with a planar detonation wave. It propagates along cylinder axis and
radial expansion of the copper cylinder is measured at a given point of external surface.
In order to simulate this experience, a model is created with the following details:
3D mesh of a quarter-cylinder with eight node brick elements
Jones Wilkins Lee Equation-of-State for TNT detonation products (/MAT/JWL)
Hydrodynamic Johnson-Cook material law for the copper cylinder (/MAT/HYD_JCOOK)
Multi-Material, Fluid and Explosive material law (/MAT/LAW51)
The simulation results are then compared to the experiment data.
Title
Cylinder
Expansion Test
with Lagrange
formulation
Number
46.1
Brief Description
Detonation is initiated at the bottom of the explosive. Radial expansion of the cylinder is
measured and compared to experimental data.
Keywords
Lagrange formulation
Jones Wilkins Lee EOS (/MAT/JWL)
Hydrodynamic Johnson-Cook Material (/MAT/LAW4)
Gruneisen equation of state (/EOS/GRUNEISEN)
Brick elements
RADIOSS Options
Axisymmetrical analysis (/ANALY)
Solid property (/PROP/SOLID)
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Detonation plan (/DFS/DETPLAN)
Time history on node (/TH/NODE)
Input File
Cylinder Test:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/46_TNT_Cylinder_Expansion_Test/
Lagrange/*
R2 = 0.95
= 0.3
Chapman Jouget parameters enable detonation time to compute and burn fraction evolution:
Detonation velocity D = 0.693
Chapman Jouguet pressure PCJ = 0.21
Using Hydrodynamic Johnson-Cook material law (/MAT/LAW4), the copper cylinder material has
the following characteristics:
Initial density = 8.96
E-Module = 1.24
Poisson = 0.35
A = 0.9e-3
B = 0.292e-2
N = 0.31
max = 0.0066
C = 0.025
0 = 1e-5
M = 1.09
0Cp = 3.461e-3
Tmelt = 1656
The Gruneisen equation of state (/EOS/GRUNEISEN) is used for copper with the following
characteristics:
C = 0.394
S1 = 1.489
0 = 1.97
a = 0.47
E0 = 8.96
Modeling methodology
A 3D mesh is made of brick elements. The element size is approximately of 0.035 cm x 0.035 cm
x 0.035 cm.
The mesh is dragged along the z direction (z = 30.5 cm). It is important to have no discontinuity
in element volume in order to ensure a good propagation of detonation wave and shock wave.
A scale factor of 0.5 (on time step for all elements) is used for this type of application.
The following diagram shows the comparison between the experimental and simulation
measurement of radial expansion.
References
[1] Adiabatic Expansion of high explosive detonation products, LANL, Wilkins (1969)
[2] A Constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures, Gordon R. Johnson, William H. Cook
Title
Cylinder Expansion
Test with Euler
formulation
Number
46.2
Brief Description
Detonation is initiated at the bottom of the explosive. Radial expansion of the cylinder is
measured and compared to experimental data.
Keywords
Euler formulation
Multi-Material, Fluid and Explosive material law (/MAT/LAW51)
Brick elements
RADIOSS Options
Axisymmetrical analysis (/ANALY)
Solid property (/PROP/SOLID)
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Detonation plan (/DFS/DETPLAN)
Input File
Cylinder Test:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/46_TNT_Cylinder_Expansion_Test/Euler/*
C2mat1 = 1.372
C4mat1 = 0.87
C5mat1 = 0.87
# Iform
10
# P_ext NU Nu_Vol
0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat1 RHO0_mat1 E0_mat1 Pmin_mat1 C0_mat1
1 8.96 0 0 1E-6
# C1_mat1 C2_mat1 C3_mat1 C4_mat1 C5_mat1
1.38 1.372 0 .87 .87
# G1_mat1 a_mat1 b_mat1 n_mat1
.519 9E-4 .00292 .31
# c_mat1 EPSILON_DOT0_mat1
.025 1E-6
# m_mat1 T0_mat1 Tmelt_mat1 Tlim_mat1 Rhocv_mat1
1.09 0 1656 0 3.461E -5
# Epspmax_mat1 sigma_max_mat1 KA_mat1 KB_mat1
0 0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat2 RHO0_mat2 E0_mat2 Pmin_mat2 C0_mat2
0 .0012 2.5E-6 -1E-20 0
# C1_mat2 C2_mat2 C3_mat2 C4_mat2 C5_mat2
0 0 0 .4 .4
# G1_mat2 a_mat2 b_mat2 n_mat2
0 0 0 0
# c_mat2 EPSILON_DOT0_mat2
0 0
# m_mat2 T0_mat2 Tmelt_mat2 Tlim_mat2 Rhocv_mat2
0 0 0 0 0
# Epspmax_mat2 sigma_max_mat2 KA_mat2 KB_mat2
0 0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat3 RHO0_mat3 E0_mat3 Pmin_mat3 C0_mat3
0 0 0 0 0
# C1_mat3 C2_mat3 C3_mat3 C4_mat3 C5_mat3
0 0 0 0 0
# G1_mat3 a_mat3 b_mat3 n_mat3
0 0 0 0
# c_mat3 EPSILON_DOT0_mat3
0 0
# m_mat3 T0_mat3 Tmelt_mat3 Tlim_mat3 Rhocv_mat3
0 0 0 0 0
# Epspmax_mat3 sigma_max_mat3 KA_mat3 KB_mat3
0 0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat4 RHO0_mat4 E0_mat4 Pmin_mat4 C0_mat4
Using Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the TNT material has the
following characteristics:
Initial density = 1.63
Chapman Jouget parameters compute detonation time and burn fraction evolution:
Detonation velocity D = 0.693
Chapman Jouguet pressure PCJ = 0.21
# Iform
10
# P_ext NU Nu_Vol
0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat1 RHO0_mat1 E0_mat1 Pmin_mat1 C0_mat1
0 8.96 0 0 1E-6
# C1_mat1 C2_mat1 C3_mat1 C4_mat1 C5_mat1
1.38 1.372 0 .87 .87
# G1_mat1 a_mat1 b_mat1 n_mat1
# Iform
10
# P_ext NU Nu_Vol
0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat1 RHO0_mat1 E0_mat1 Pmin_mat1 C0_mat1
0 8.96 0 0 1E-6
# C1_mat1 C2_mat1 C3_mat1 C4_mat1 C5_mat1
1.38 1.372 0 .87 .87
# G1_mat1 a_mat1 b_mat1 n_mat1
.519 9E-4 .00292 .31
# c_mat1 EPSILON_DOT0_mat1
.025 1E-6
# m_mat1 T0_mat1 Tmelt_mat1 Tlim_mat1 Rhocv_mat1
1.09 0 1656 0 3.461E -5
# Epspmax_mat1 sigma_max_mat1 KA_mat1 KB_mat1
0 0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat2 RHO0_mat2 E0_mat2 Pmin_mat2 C0_mat2
1 .0012 2.5E-6 -1E-20 0
# C1_mat2 C2_mat2 C3_mat2 C4_mat2 C5_mat2
0 0 0 .4 .4
# G1_mat2 a_mat2 b_mat2 n_mat2
0 0 0 0
# c_mat2 EPSILON_DOT0_mat2
0 0
# m_mat2 T0_mat2 Tmelt_mat2 Tlim_mat2 Rhocv_mat2
0 0 0 0 0
# Epspmax_mat2 sigma_max_mat2 KA_mat2 KB_mat2
0 0 0 0
# ALPHA0_mat3 RHO0_mat3 E0_mat3 Pmin_mat3 C0_mat3
0 0 0 0 0
# C1_mat3 C2_mat3 C3_mat3 C4_mat3 C5_mat3
Using the Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the Boundary
material has the following characteristics:
Modeling Methodology
A 3D mesh is made of brick elements. The element size for the copper cylinder is approximately
of 0.035 cm x 0.035 cm x 0.035 cm.
The mesh is dragged along the z direction (z = 30.5 cm). It is important to have no discontinuity
in element volume in order to ensure a good propagation of detonation wave and shock wave.
Units: cm, µs, g, Mbar
The following diagram shows the comparison between the experimental and simulation
measurement of radial expansion. The displacement values are estimated on the animations
using the density contour.
Conclusion
Good correlation between experimental and simulation results. A thinner meshing could improve
the correlation between simulation and experimental curves.
References
[1] Adiabatic Expansion of high explosive detonation products, LANL, Wilkins (1969)
[2] A Constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures, Gordon R. Johnson, William H. Cook
Summary
RADIOSS includes the material model CONC to model concrete failure modeling under
compression and tension.
Three kinds of tests are performed in this example:
Uniaxial tests (uniaxial compression and uniaxial tension) where experimental results have
been used to calibrate the model reference
Multi-axial tests to evaluate the simulation/experiment correlation
Cyclic tests to illustrate the right behavior of the model used
In order to simulate this experience, a model is created with the following details:
A one element cube with eight node brick elements
Concrete material law (/MAT/LAW24)
The simulation results are then compared to the experiment data.
Number
47.1
Brief Description
Three kinds of tests are performed in order to evaluate the simulation/experiment correlation and
to illustrate the good behavior of the model used.
Keywords
Concrete material law (/MAT/LAW24)
Brick elements
RADIOSS Options
Solid property (/PROP/SOLID)
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Imposed velocity (/IMPVEL)
Pressure load (/PLOAD)
Input File
Concrete Failure: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/47_concrete_test/*
Cyclic Tests
4.1: BBX0 Tension-Compression-Tension Cycle without Reinforcement
Reinforcement percentage: α3 = 1%
Modeling Methodology
A 10 mm cube is modeled with a one element brick.
Isolid = 1
Iframe = 2 (co-rotational formulation)
Istrain is set to 1 (to post-treat strains).
RADIOSS Card (Concrete)
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|---10----|
/PROP/SOLID/1
Concrete
# Isolid Ismstr Icpre Inpts Irot Iframe dn
1 0 0 0 0 2 0
# q_a q_b h
1.1 0.05 0
# dt_min Istrain
0 1
#---1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----|---10----
Curves
Test C000: Uniaxial Compression
The X displacement is fixed for nodes 2, 3, 6 and 7. A negative displacement is applied on the
face defined by nodes 1, 4, 5 and 8.
Fig 2: Uniaxial compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. The stress/strain curve is made of three line segments.
2. After failure, the behavior obtained with RADIOSS curves (left) is perfectly plastic whereas
there is experimentally a softening phenomenon (right).
3. The yield stress is obtained at σ = 0.337 f c for theoretical, numerical and experimental
curves.
Fig 3: Uniaxial Tension with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Failure is modeled by stress and elastic modulus softening.
2. On the RADIOSS curve there is a residual stiffness in concrete after the softening: (1-Dsup)E
3. Dsup is set to 0.9 (default value = 0.99999).
Fig 4: Biaxial Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. The yield stress is obtained at σ=0.197 fc for theoretical, numerical and experimental curves.
Fig 5: Compression/Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 0.288 fc
4. Theoretical and numerical results are the same, but different from experimental results; linear
interpolation between the traction meridian and the compression meridian is too coarse for
small confinement.
Fig 6: Compression/Tension with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 0.327 fc
Fig 7: Compression/Tension with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 0.3 fc
4. Theoretical and numerical results are the same, but slightly different from experimental
results.
Fig 8: Compression/Tension with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 0.28 fc
4. Theoretical and numerical results are the same, but different from experimental results.
Fig 9: Triaxial Meridian Shear with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 64.3 MPa
2. Theoretical failure: 88.9 MPa
3. Experimental failure: 93 MPa
Fig 10: Triaxial Meridian Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 68.4 MPa
2. Theoretical failure: 99.7 MPa
3. Experimental failure: 103 MPa
4. The behavior of the model under hydrostatic loading is elastic, whereas there are non-
linearities experimentally.
Fig 11: Triaxial Meridian Compression with RADIOSS (blue curves) and experiment (red curves)
Comments
1. Theoretical yield strength: 57.9 MPa
2. Theoretical failure: 70.8 MPa
3. Experimental failure: 72 MPa
Comments
1. Steel reinforcement improves compressive and tensile strength by 5 MPa compared to the
same model without steel reinforcement.
Conclusion
Under complex loading, concrete mechanic behavior between RADIOSS simulation, theory and
experiments are demonstrated. With three kinds of tests, the mechanic behavior of concrete can
be well characterized using LAW24.
References
[1] A non-uniform hardening plasticity model for concrete materials, Mechanics of Materials, D.J.
Han and W.F. Chen, 1984.
[2] Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, V. 99, No. 4, pp. 853-866u, LKupfer, B., and Gerstle, K., 1973.
Summary
The aim of this example is to introduce solid element modeling for spotweld connection.
Number
48.1
Brief Description
Solid spotweld defined with /MAT/LAW59 and /FAIL/CONNECT connect two metal sheets with tied
contact.
Keywords
Shell element (for sheet metal)
Tied contact interface /INTER/TYPE2 (between solid spotweld and sheet metal)
Material law /MAT/LAW59 and failure model /FAIL/CONNECT for solid spotweld
Solid element property for connect material /PROP/TYPE43 for solid spotweld
Johnson-Cook elasto-plastic material law /MAT/LAW2 for sheet metal
RADIOSS Options
Boundary condition /BCS
Rigid wall /RWALL
Input File
Frame Modified: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/48_solid_spotweld/*
In this connection material (/MAT/LAW59) use stress - plastic strain curve to describe the
material characters of spot-weld. With failure model (/FAIL/CONNECT) it is possible to use two
different failure criteria to describe the failure of solid spot. In this example, use the following
characteristics:
Initial density = 7.8e-9 [Mg/mm3]
Young modulus = 210000 [MPa]
Failure relative displacement in normal direction = 1.0
Failure relative displacement (elongation) in tangential plane = 1.8
In this simple example a linear behavior of spotweld has just been assumed. For more accurate
results, you can also put nonlinear behavior of spotweld through real physic test and CAE
validation.
With /ANIM/BRICK/TENS/STRAIN and /ANIM/BRICK/TENS/STRESS you get the strain and stress
results of the solid spotweld (see below).
Here in the model you define max. relative displacement in normal direction EPS_N_MAX=1.0 in
option /FAIL/CONNECT. Therefore, two solid spotwelds (circled in red) failed after reaching this
criterion.
Performance
Compared with spring beam spotweld molding, the following performance could be observed:
If you use this solid spotweld modeling, it shows less sheet metal mesh size dependence
compared with spring beam element.
With coarse sheet metal mesh size, you got similar deformation and similar Force vs
Displacement curve for solid spotweld modeling and spring beam spotweld modeling.
The solid spotweld element is time step is free. The element stability is assured by its nodal
connection. The node of the solid element must be connected (tied interface, common
nodes, and rigid connection).
The solid spotweld element height (length in local Z direction) can be null and the spotweld
results are independent from its height.
Strain rate of solid spotweld can be taken into account.
Summary
Birds striking an aircraft windshield is a very important topic, for safety reasons and also
financially. The aim of this example is to introduce how to simulate a bird hitting a windshield.
Brief Description
Using SPHCEL to simulate a bird hitting a windshield.
Keywords
/SPHGLO
/SPHCEL
/MAT/HYD_VISC
/MAT/PLAS_TAB
/MAT/PLAS_BRIT
/PROP/SPH
/PROP/SH_SANDW
/INIVEL/TRA
RADIOSS Options
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Rigid Body (/RBODY)
Interface (/INTER/TYPE7 and /INTER/TYPE2)
Input File
Bird Strike on Windshield:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/49_bird_strike_on_windshield/*
1. In property, mp is the mass of each particle. There are 11190 particles in the bird model, so
the bird weighs 11190*1.725149e-4 = 1.93kg (4 pounds).
2. Set qa to 2e-30 and qb to 1e-30 for no damping.
To properly simulate a bird strike, the compression phase of the bird is the most important;
therefore, the initial compression wave should properly propagate through the bird. Energy
conservation is also important, so that the bird communicates the most realistic amount of
energy to the target, thus ensuring that the impact is reasonably conservative.
A low value of qa and qb should be chosen. The behavior of the bird for very low values of the
damping is very similar, and there is no evidence of instability; therefore, negligible values of
qa and qb (that is 1-30 and 2-30) are considered.
3. In property, h is smoothing length:
1 1
m p 2 3 1.725149 104 2 3
h 6.286 [mm]
9.82242 107
The smoothing length, h is highly recommended to use the minimal distance between any
particle and its closest neighbor.
4. SPH correction order is used to satisfy the consistency conditions. It is generally to insure a
better representation when the particles are not so well organized than into a hexagonal
compact net. High order value is very expensive. In this example, set order to 0.
For the windshield in this example, use composite material with matrix glass and plastic fabric.
Both use /MAT/PLAS_BRIT (composite with isotropic layers).
Glass matrix:
Initial density = 1.74e-6 [kg/mm3]
E-Modules = 61 [GPa]
Poisson ratio = 0.3
Yield stress a = 0.045 [GPa]
Plasticity hardening b = 0.05
t1
= 0.01
m1
= 0.03
f1
element deleted at =0.06
Fabric plastic:
Initial density = 8e-7 [kg/mm3]
E-Modules = 3 [Gpa]
Poisson ratio = 0.3
Yield stress a = 1e30 [Gpa]
with /PROP/SH_SANDW
Thickness of windshield = 9 [mm]
Number of lays N = 9
Ithick=1
Modeling methodology
Bird modeling
A 4 pound bird model with 11190 particles, the distributions follow a hexagonal compact
net. The cell distribution must be cubic centered. The diameter for each particle is about
5.0 mm.
o Set sort = 0.25 (default value). sort is a security coefficient which is used when
searching for neighbors, so that for each particle more than the actual neighbors are
found. The computational time can be reduced.
Contact between SPH bird and structure and impact setup
o Use interface type 7 to simulate the Contact between SPH bird and structure. Set the
structure as master and the bird as slave.
o Set Igap=1 (use variable gap). The gap is 1/2(particle diameter)+1/2(thickness of the
target). This is the physical value for contact.
o The stiffness between bird and structure are quite different. In order to get results more
close to reality. Normally set Istf=0 and Stfac=0.1. This means interface stiffness equals
to 0.1 times stiffness of master side (structure).
o Use /INIVEL/TRA to set bird part with initial velocity 80m/s strike on the structure.
Connection between the windshield and fuselage
o Use spring beam to simulate the weld connection between windshield and fuselage, and
use tied contact to connect them.
Other remarks
In order to decrease the size of animation files and get the best display of SPH particles,
use /ANIM/VERS/44 in Engine file.
Figure 3 shows von Mises stress of the windshield at time 3ms ~ 8ms.
Conclusion
The size of the mesh and the number of particle seems to be a good compromise between
the accuracy of the problem and the CPU considerations (especially for larger models such
as 4 and 8 pound birds).
For interface parameters default values could be used.
The simplified viscous law is good.
Impact velocity remains small compared to the sound speed in the material (that is less
than 300 m/s).
The h value should be set to a value larger than the inter-cell distance (to avoid excessive
de-cohesion), but not too large to avoid excessive energy absorption by the bird.
Using this model, the discrepancies between the real tests and the simulations are usually
due to parameters independent from bird modeling: boundary conditions, target material
laws and test sensitivity and so on.
The final shape of the bird is more “physical”, so more experimental data would be
required, for instance multiple penetration cases.
Summary
The aim of this example is to introduce /INIVOL for initial volume fractions of different materials
in multi-material ALE elements, /SURF/PLANE for infinite plane, and fluid structure interaction
(FSI) with a Lagrangian container.
Title
FSI and ALE container drop
Number
50
Brief Description
A container that is partially filled with liquid is dropped and the interaction between the liquid and
structure can be studied. The liquid fill is defined using /INIVOL and infinite plane /SURF/PLANE.
The contact between the structure and liquid is defined using /INTER/TYPE18.
Keywords
Solid element /BRICK
Material law /MAT/LAW51 and /ALE/MAT
ALE grid velocity /ALE/GRID/DONEA
Upwind /UPWIND
Property /PROP/SOLID
Load /INIVEL
Define initial volume /INIVOL
Infinite surface plane /SURF/PLANE
Fluid structure contact /INTER/TYPE18
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/50_invol_and_fluid_structure_interaction
/fsi_drop_container*
Modeling description
A hex mesh is created that fully encloses the structural container. The mesh size of the hex mesh
should be ½ the size of the structural mesh. Ideally the hex mesh should also be ¼ of the
structural mesh size in the direction of impact. To simplify this example, the hex mesh in this
model does not adhere to the ¼ mesh size guideline.
Boundary conditions
Each outer side of the hex mesh is constrained to prevent displacement in the direction normal to
the side. For example, the top and bottom of the hex mesh is constrained in the z translation
DOF (Fig. 2). The same is done for the other four sides. The velocity at impact of a drop from 1
meter would be 4429 mm/s. Since the simulation is started right before impact, an initial velocity
of 4429 mm/s is applied to the container and the fluid hex mesh (Fig. 2).
* 2 * Sel
Stfval
Gap
is the (highest) fluid density
is the velocity. as defined below:
For incompressible models (ditching, sloshing, etc.), use the velocity of the event.
For compressible but not supersonic, use the speed of the sound in the material.
Compressible and transonic (Mach 0.8 to 1.0), replace the term v 2 with v*c
where,
is the speed of the sound in the material and c is the speed of sound in air
Compressible and supersonic, use the velocity of the event
For an explosion, use the Chapman Jouguet velocity
Sel is the surface area of the Lagrangian elements.
Gap is the interface gap, as defined above.
For this example:
Gap=1.5 * fluid element size = 1.5*2.5=3.75[mm]
* 2 * Sel 1e 9 * 44292 * (5 * 5)
Stfval = 0.131
Gap 3.75
(phase 3) inside the container (filling the side which against surface normal direction).
/INIVOL/86/10003507
INIVOL
# Surf_ID ALE_PHASE FILL_OPT
998 3 1
Now, ALE mesh is filled with ALE material 1 (air) from /MAT/LAW51 on the outside of the
container and material 3 (water) inside the container. Lastly, define a surface plane,
/SURF/PLANE to define the fill height. The normal of this plane points upward, use FILL_OPT = 0
to fill the air (phase 2) above the plane (filling the side along normal direction).
/INIVOL/86/10003507
# Surf_ID ALE_PHASE FILL_OPT
9999 2 0
To see the movement of the water in the container, and isosurface plot of results type, User Var
40 can be done. If the simple averaging method is used in HyperView, the results will look
smoother, as shown below.
Also notice that water is starting to splash up the sides of the container at the end of the
simulation.
Summary
The new feature, Optimization in RADIOSS, makes it easy to set up an optimization problem in
RADIOSS Block Format. A typical optimization problem has three elements:
Objective (minimize mass of the structure)
Constraints (stress less than 200 MPa and maximum displacement less than 10mm)
Design variables (parameters that can be adjusted to improve the design)
The setup of optimization in RADIOSS requires an extra input file apart from the usual Starter
and Engine input files. The required file is an optimization input file named <name>.radopt (the
Starter and Engine files are named <name>_0000.rad and <name>_0001.rad, respectively). The
<name>.radopt file defines optimization entities such as the optimization objective, optimization
constraints, design variables, optimization responses and so on.
For more RADIOSS optimization details, refer to Design Optimization in the User’s Guide.
Number
51
Brief Description
This example defines a crash test on B-Pillar. The optimization objective is to minimize the mass of the
B-Pillar by changing the shell thickness. The intrusion, which is defined by the optimization constraint
is required to not be larger than the original model, to keep the passenger safe.
RADIOSS Options
Material law (/MAT/LAW36)
Shell property (/PROP/SHELL)
Initial velocity (/INIVEL)
Interface type 7 (/INTER/TYPE7)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Input File
Optimization in RADIOSS for B-Pillar (Thickness Optimization):
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/51_optimization_bpillar
Optimization Problem
Objective: Minimize mass
Constraint: Maximum displacement of node 2021524 in Y direction (inside reinforcement) <
19.7 [mm]
Design variables:
- Shell thickness of the middle reinforcement - allowable range [0.5mm, 3.0mm]
- Shell thickness of the inside reinforcement - allowable range [0.5mm, 3.0mm]
Optimization Objective
/DESOBJ is used to define optimization objective. In this example, it defines the minimal response
#1.
Response #1 defines an optimization response that is the combination of mass in part group
#2000329 (defined in the RADIOSS Starter file), which includes both parts of the middle
reinforcement and the inside reinforcement.
Design Variable
/DESVAR is used to define design variables and /DVPREL1 to relate design variables to analysis
model property.
Two different design variables are defined: One for part 2000327 and one for part 2000329
For example, the design variable for inside reinforcement (part 2000327) is defined:
In /DESVAR with the range [0.5,3.0] - this will be used in /DVPREL1.
In /DVPREL1 with prop_typ and prop_fid the above variable can be used for shell
thickness, and with prop_ID the thickness in shell property 2000327 will be used in the
optimization run.
COEF_1 in /DVPREL1. In each iteration, Pi (the thickness value) will be equal to C0+(1.0*X),
where
X [0.5,3.0] which is defined in /DESVAR.
In the original model, the mass of the two parts is 3.0011e-3[Ton] and the optimized mass for
these two parts is 2.4158e-3[Ton]. The mass is reduced by approximately 19.5%.
The thickness of part #2000327 is 1.328mm and the optimized thickness is 0.5539mm. The
thickness is reduced.
The thickness of part #2000329 is 0.7060mm and the optimized thickness is 0.8933mm. The
thickness in this model increased in order to get better performance of these two parts (in
response 1, ATTB =1 (for COMB) is defined).
In the last iteration, the mass was reduced to 2.4158e-3[Ton]. This new design still meets the
constraint (< 19.7[mm]), defined in /DCONSTR.
In node 2021524, the max. y-displacement:
19.57[mm] (last iteration) < 19.7 [mm] (in constraint). Meets the constraint.
Fig 12: y-displacement on node 2021524 in original model and optimized model
Summary
The aim of this example is to introduce how to use typical visco-elastic material to simulate creep
and stress relaxation tests. Stress relaxation is the phenomena of how polymers relieve stress
under constant strain, and creep is the phenomena of how polymers or metal move slowly or
deform permanently under constant stresses. This simulates the creep and relaxation processes
over a short period of time in quasi-static.
Title
Creep and Stress Relaxation
Number
52
Brief Description
Use visco-elastic material law /MAT/LAW40 to simulate the creep and stress relaxation.
Keywords
/MAT/LAW40
RADIOSS Options
Boundary condition (/BCS)
Rigid body (/RBODY)
Concentrated force load (/CLOAD)
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Input file
Creep and Stress Relaxation:
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/52_creep_and_stress_relaxation/*
Modeling methodology
Fig 2: Stress relaxation test under constant displacement and creep test under constant force
For stress relaxation test: The foam sample has been compressed under constant displacement
(/IMPDISP).
For creep test: The foam sample has been tensile under constant force (/CLOAD).
The stress relaxation test shows stress relieve under constant displacement with different
relaxation parameters (Decay constant, defined as the inverse of relaxation time ) and
shows a different stress relive tendency.
The creep test shows deformation increased under constant force and with different relaxation
parameter it shows a different deformation increase tendency.
In LAW40 shear modulus is reduced with time and tends to G∞ after an infinite period of time.
The softening speed is determined by relaxation parameter . Higher relaxation parameter
means quick softening.
5
G t = G + G ie
βi t
Summary
Thermal analysis, like heat exchange (between two contact surfaces, between heat object and
surrounding atmosphere though convection or radiation, inside the object through conduction),
deformation is due to thermal expansion or heat generated, due to friction can be simulated in
RADIOSS. In this example heat exchange is discussed between a moving heat source and one
plate, due to contact and also between plate and atmosphere (water) through convective flux.
Number
53.1
Brief Description
A heat source moved on one plate. Heat exchanged between a heat source and a plate through
contact, also between a plate and the atmosphere (water) through convective flux.
Keywords
/HEAT/MAT
/CONVEC
/IMPTEMP
/INTER/TYPE7
/MAT/LAW2
RADIOSS Options
Boundary conditions (/BCS)
Imposed displacement (/IMPDISP)
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/53_thermal_analysis/Heat_exchange/*
g
mm3
Initial density: 2.8 x 10 -3
N mm
ms mm K
Thermal conductivity coefficient AS: 0.23
Modeling Methodology
/HEAT/MAT is an additional material law card used to describe the material thermal character. So
the material ID in the material law in /MAT and in /HEAT/MAT must be the same. The thermal
parameter defined in /HEAT/MAT will recover the same parameters which are defined in the
material law.
Heat capacity provides heat and mass the ability to change the temperature. In engineering and
science, it is recommended to use specific heat capacity, which is heat capacity divided by mass,
J J N mm
kg K C p 897 897 gK
in SI unit. Heat capacity is kg K
for aluminum.
Refer to Material Constants in the Theory Manual Appendices for more information on heat
capacity of ordinary material.
N mm
0.23
For the thermal conductivity coefficient AS, ms mm K . Thermal conductivity
W N mm
k 230 0.23
mK ms mm K for aluminum, and constant thermal conductivity. Set
BS=0. Since thermal conductivity k=AS+BS*T, then k=AS, in this case.
With /IMPTEMP, imposed temperature will be set on a group of nodes. The source constant
temperature is defined for heat source.
The surrounding atmosphere is water with a constant temperature of 298K, which is described in
function, fct_IDT (Figure 3).
Where, H is the heat transfer coefficient between structural component and its surrounding
J
s m2 K
infinite room with unit . In general, the convective heat transfer coefficient for water
J
s m2 K
(free convection) is about 20 - 100 and water (forced convection) is about 50 -
J
s m2 K
10000 . Forced convection in water is
J N mm
H 500 5e 4
s m K s mm2 K
2
.
In /INTER/TYPE7, heat exchange between the heat source and plate during the contact, is
defined Ithe=1 to activated heat transfer between master and slave.
There are two ways to define heat exchange between contact parts.
W
m 2 K
1. Define constant heat exchange coefficient using Kthe ( in SI unit). In this case,
fct_IDK = 0.
2. If fct_IDK ≠ 0, the heat exchange coefficient is the function of contact pressure using this
curve and Kthe is the scale factor.
W N mm
Kthe 15000 2 0.0.15
m K ms mm K
2
The following figure shows nodal temperature at time 10[ms], 20[ms] and 30[ms]. Part of heat
transferred to plate through contact. Therefore, the temperature under the trace increased. The
temperature on the plate decreased during the time, due to the convection with water.