RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials
RADIOSS 13.0 Tutorials
RADIOSS Tutorials
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
In addition to HyperWorks® trademarks noted above, Display Manager™, Simulation Manager™, Compute Manager™, PBS™,
PBSWorks™, PBS GridWorks®, PBS Professional®, PBS Analytics™, PBS Desktop™, PBS Portal™, PBS Application Services™,
e-BioChem™, e-Compute™ and e-Render™ are trademarks of ALTAIR ENGINEERING INC.
Altair trademarks are protected under U.S. and international laws and treaties. Copyright© 1994-2014. Additionally, Altair software
is protected under patent #6,859,792 and other patents pending. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.
ALTAIR ENGINEERING INC. Proprietary and Confidential. Contains Trade Secret Information. Not for use or disclosure outside of
ALTAIR and its licensed clients. Information contained inHyperWorks® shall not be decompiled, disassembled, or “unlocked”,
reverse translated, reverse engineered, or publicly displayed or publicly performed in any manner. Usage of the software is only as
explicitly permitted in the end user software license agreement.
...........................................................................................................................................
RADIOSS Tutorials and Examples 1
Tutorials ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Introductory...................................................................................................................................
Tutorials 3
RD-0010: Running RADIOSS from HyperMesh
................................................................................................................................... 4
RD-0020: Running RADIOSS at the Command Line
................................................................................................................................... 6
Large Displacement Finite Element Analysis
................................................................................................................................... 7
HyperCrash................................................................................................................................... 8
RD-3000: Tensile Test Setup using HyperCrash
................................................................................................................................... 9
RD-3030: ...................................................................................................................................
Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh 18
RD-3050: ...................................................................................................................................
Simplified Car Pole Impact in HyperCrash 29
RD-3060: ...................................................................................................................................
Three Point Bending with HyperCrash 42
RD-3160: ...................................................................................................................................
Setting up Multidomain Analysis using HyperCrash 61
HyperMesh................................................................................................................................... 68
RD-3500: ...................................................................................................................................
Tensile Test Setup using HyperMesh 69
RD-3510: ...................................................................................................................................
Cantilever Beam with Bolt Pretension 80
RD-3520: ...................................................................................................................................
Pre-Processing for Pipes Impact using RADIOSS 92
RD-3530:...................................................................................................................................
Buckling of a Tube using Half Tube Mesh 102
RD-3540:...................................................................................................................................
Front Impact Bumper Model using HyperMesh 116
RD-3550:...................................................................................................................................
Simplified Car Pole Impact 128
RD-3560:...................................................................................................................................
Bottle Drop 140
RD-3580:...................................................................................................................................
Boat Ditching 151
RD-3590:...................................................................................................................................
Fluid Flow through a Rubber Clapper Valve 173
RD-3595:...................................................................................................................................
Three Point Bending with HyperMesh 183
RD-3597:...................................................................................................................................
Cell Phone Drop Test using HyperMesh 199
RD-3599:...................................................................................................................................
Gasket with HyperMesh 215
Examples
............................................................................................................................................... 226
List of Examples
................................................................................................................................... 227
Example 1 - Twisted Beam
................................................................................................................................... 234
Example 2 - Snap-through Roof
................................................................................................................................... 240
Example 3 - S-beam Crash
................................................................................................................................... 254
Example 4 - Airbag
................................................................................................................................... 268
Example 5 - Beam Frame
................................................................................................................................... 278
Example 6 - Fuel Tank
................................................................................................................................... 285
Example 7 - Pendulums
................................................................................................................................... 303
Example 8 - Hopkinson Bar
................................................................................................................................... 320
Example 9 - Billiards (pool)
................................................................................................................................... 337
Example 10 - Bending
................................................................................................................................... 358
File Most tutorials use files that are located in the tutorials/ directory of the
Location software installation. In the tutorials, file paths are referenced as
<install_directory>/../. In order to locate the files needed, you will need to
determine the path of the installation directory <install_directory>. This
path is dependent on the installation that was performed at your site. To
determine what this path is, follow these instructions:
1. Launch the application.
2. From the Help menu, select Updates.
3. The HyperWorks Update Information dialog opens. The installation directory
path appears after Altair Home:.
The RADIOSS tutorial model files are located in <install_directory>/
tutorials/hwsolvers/radioss.
This tutorial demonstrates how to launch a RADIOSS job from within HyperMesh. A
HyperMesh database containing a fully defined RADIOSS finite element model is retrieved
and a RADIOSS job is launched from the RADIOSS panel in HyperMesh.
Exercise
plate.out ASCII output file containing specific information on the file set
up, the set up of your optimization problem, estimate for the
amount of RAM and disk space required for the run, information
for each optimization iteration, and compute time information.
Review this file for warnings and errors.
The tutorial Running RADIOSS from HyperMesh demonstrates how RADIOSS could be
launched from within HyperMesh. RADIOSS also can be run at the command line (UNIX or
MSDOS). This tutorial assumes you already have the running file, plate.fem, in either your
UNIX or MSDOS directory. This tutorial also assumes you know the location of the solver
script.
In this tutorial, $HWSDIR describes the directory containing the RADIOSS executable. On
UNIX machines, the script is normally located in the HyperWorks installation directory under
<install_directory>/scripts/. On Windows, it is normally located in the HyperWorks
installation directory under <install_directory>/hwsolvers/scripts/.
Running RADIOSS from the Command Line (UNIX or MSDOS).
To run RADIOSS from the command prompt, enter:
$HWSDIR/<solver_name> plate.fem
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> plate.fem -check
Information regarding memory requirements is written to the file plate.out.
Refer to the Running RADIOSS section of the RADIOSS User's Guide for more detailed
information.
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a uniaxial tensile test using a quarter size mesh
with symmetric boundary conditions.
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 D01 [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 specimen dimensions = 11 x 100 with a uniform thickness = 1.7 mm
Johnson-Cook Elastic Plastic Material /MAT/PLAS_JOHNS (Aluminum 6063 T7)
4. In the bottom of the material window select the Include picked parts icon .
5. Select the part in the graphics area.
6. Click Yes in the lower right corner.
7. Click Save > Close.
3. Use the Add/Remove nodes by picking selection icon to select the nodes in the
Graphic Window, as shown in the figure below:
7. Toggle Tx, Ty, Tz, Rx, Ry and Rz, and click Save.
8. Repeat the same operations to create constraint3, as shown in the figure below:
8. Using the Box Selection icon , select the nodes in the graphic window, as shown in the
figure below:
3. Click Add Row to add a new row. With that row selected, scroll down to the input
section and enter NODid as 79 and press ENTER.
As an alternative, use the Pick button to select a node in the graphic window.
4. Click Save > Close.
Step 7: Create Control Cards, Export the Starter and Engine files
1. From the menu bar, select Model > Control Card (see below):
RADIOSS Computing
2. In the Input file field, select TENSILE_0000.rad. from the folder you created.
3. Click Run.
The HyperWorks Solver View window is opened. The RADIOSS Starter will run and on
completion the RADIOSS Engine will automatically run.
Step 9: Review the listing files for this run and verify the results
1. See if there is are any warning or errors in the .out files.
2. Using HyperView, plot the displacement and strain contour.
Simulate buckling of a tube using half tube mesh with symmetric boundary conditions.
The figure illustrates the structural model used for this tutorial: a half tube with a rectangular
section (38.1 x 25.4 mm) and length of 203 mm.
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).
3. Use the Add nodes by box selection icon to select the nodes in the graphic window,
as shown below:
Note: For the remainder of the tutorial, you need to have the
ID of the master node of the rigid body.
5. 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).
6. Click Cancel in the lower right corner.
7. Click Close.
5. Click Save.
2. Use the Add nodes by box selection icon to select the nodes in the graphic window,
as shown below:
8. Go to the Properties tab, and switch the Friction Parameter: Sliding to Friction.
9. For Friction, enter 0.200.
10. Click Save > Close.
4. Click the Include picked parts icon and select the part in the graphic window.
5. Click Yes in the lower right corner of the main window.
6. For Title, enter the name Contact.
7. In the Coulomb friction field, enter 0.200.
8. In the Scale factor for stiffness field, enter 1.
9. In the Min. gap for impact activ. field, enter 0.900.
10. Click Save > Close.
Step 12: Select the Starter file BOXTUBE_0000.rad as Input file and
Run the model with the option: –both
Step 13: Review the listing files for this run and verify on the results
1. Using HyperView, plot the displacement and strain contour at 8 ms.
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. 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. Click Selected Parts of Tree . The selected parts will be highlighted in the graphic
area.
7. Click Save.
8. Click Selected Parts of Tree . The selected parts will be highlighted in the graphic
area.
9. Click Save > Close.
9. In the Model Display toolbar, click Display All to display the entire model.
10. Click in the [Mast_id] Master field. Move the cursor to the graphical window and right-
click. The menu shown in the image below should appear. Choose the option Add
selected parts by box and use the mouse to drag a box to select the entire car in
the graphic window.
7. Select six nodes on the rails, for example as shown in the following image:
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.
This tutorial demonstrates how to set up a 3-point bending model with symmetric boundary
conditions in Y direction (across the XZ plane).
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
Simulation time: in _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
STRAI 0 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
N
STRES 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 400
S8E-
5. Click Include picked parts and select the parts Impactor and Support in the
graphics area.
6. Click Yes in the lower right corner.
7. Click Save.
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:
12. Click Include picked parts and select the parts Inner, Outer and Flat in the
graphics area as shown in the following image.
7. Click the Tree tab and select the part HCFoam (7) on the tree.
10. Click Include picked parts and select the part HCFoam in the graphics area as
shown in the following image.
5. Click the Tree tab and select the parts Inner, Outer and Flat on the tree.
8. Click Include picked parts and 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. Click Include picked parts and select the parts Impactor and Support in the
graphics area to assign Rigid property.
7. Click Yes in the lower right corner.
8. Click Save.
6. Use the Include picked parts option to select Impactor on graphic screen, as
shown in the following image.
2. Use the Include picked parts option to select Support in the graphic area.
3. Click Yes to complete the selection.
4. Click Save. The rigid body for Support should look like the following image.
5. Click Close.
5. Click the node selection icon to select master node of Impactor, as shown in the
following image.
6. Constrain all DOF except translation in Z as shown in the following image. To constrain
the nodes, check VX, VY, 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 VX, VY, VZ, RX, RY and RZ, as shown in the following
image.
7. Using select Flat component as Slave and Support as Master, as shown in the
following image.
15. Using select Outer Part as Slave and Impactor as Master, as shown in the
following image.
25. Using select components Outer, Inner and Flat, as shown in the following image.
2. Select All.
3. Click Clean > Close.
Step 14: Export the model, write the Starter (_0000.rad) and Engine
(_0001.rad) files
1. Click Model > Control Card and select the control cards in the images below.
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.
In order to run this analysis using multidomain 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 multidomain analysis will be added to the input decks through a text-
editor. A Multidomain master input file will also be created using a text editor.
For a list of multidomain options, refer to Multidomain Input.
For information on how to create links or connections between domains, refer to Multidomain
in the User's Guide.
For more information on Multidomain Master Input, refer to Multidomain Master Input File.
Exercise
3. In the Export Selection window, select the option to Add model’s control card not
linked to any part, toggle Export geometry and select ALL POSSIBLE RELATED
ENTITIES.
7. In the Tree, select the subsets/spotwelds of the coarse-meshed region, then right-
click Export Selection.
9. Click Ok.
10. Save the file as coarse_mesh. This will write the file coarse_mesh_0000.rad.
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.
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a uniaxial tensile test using a quarter size mesh
with symmetric boundary conditions.
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 D01 [0 – 10.]
Boundary Conditions:
o The 3 upper right nodes (TX, RY, and RZ)
o The center node on left is totally fixed (TX, TY, Rx, RY, and RZ)
o A symmetry boundary condition on all bottom nodes (TY, Rx, and RZ)
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or from the toolbar, click the
icon.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you want
to export to.
3. Enter the name TENSILE 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 and Starter file as one file.
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a simple cantilever problem with a concentrated
load at the free end, using Dynamic Relaxation (/DYREL) method to obtain a static solution.
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.
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or from the toolbar, click the
icon.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
12. In the Model browser, select the curve Stiffness, right-click and select Edit from context
menu.
13. The XY curve editor appears. Fill in the values, as shown below.
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. Click create.
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.
For this tutorial it is recommended to complete the introductory tutorial, HM-1000: Getting
Started with HyperMesh. Working knowledge of the creation and editing of collectors and
card images are a definite pre-requisite. Familiarity with the Interfaces panel, and the
creation of boundary conditions are useful, although not required.
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 110.
Pipe model
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon on the toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
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.
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.
This exercise simulates buckling of a tube using half tube mesh with symmetric boundary
conditions.
The figure illustrates the structural model used for this tutorial: a half tube with a rectangular
section (38.1 x 25.4 mm) and length of 203 mm.
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).
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon on the toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
6. Click create.
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.
4. Click the Create tab to create the constraint. The created constraint appears in the table
and a handle appears in graphics area.
4. Set the normal vector using the N1, N2, N3 option, as shown below. Ensure that N3 is
not active. Click Proceed.
5. Set d (distance) value to 20 and set variable fric value to 0.20 for friction.
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.
For this tutorial it is recommended to complete the introductory tutorial HM-1000: Getting
Started with HyperMesh, as well as RD-3520: Pre-Processing for Pipes Impact Using
RADIOSS Block for the basic concepts on the HyperMesh RADIOSS interface.
In this tutorial you will learn how to use HyperMesh to set up a RADIOSS input deck for
analysis of the impact of a bumper against a barrier behind rigid wall. The modeling steps
that are covered are:
Associating /PART, with /MAT and /PROP.
Converting node-to-node connections (/RBODY) into a mesh-less welding formulation (/
INTER/TYPE2 with /SPRING) using HyperMesh connectors.
Defining the contact for the elements in the bumper with an /INTER/TYPE7 card.
Defining the interaction between bumper and barrier with an /INTER/TYPE7 card.
Defining the interaction between barrier and rigid wall with the /RWALL/PLANE and /
BOX cards.
Specify the output of resultant forces for a plane on the left interior and exterior crash
boxes with /SECT.
Creating a /TH/NODE card to output time history for nodes.
The units used in the model are millisecond, millimeter and kilogram (ms, mm, kg), and the
tutorial is based on RADIOSS Block 12.0.
Exercise
The model used consists of a simplified bumper model (see image below):
Bumper model
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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. In the Solver browser, right-click 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. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > SURF > SURF. The Entity Editor
opens.
10. For Name, enter barrier_bumper_surface.
11. For Entity IDs, select Sets.
12. Click on Sets and select barrier_surface and bumper_surface and click OK.
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.
6. Click Export to export both model and engine file.
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate frontal pole test with a simplified full car.
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
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon on toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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. Click Create to create the boundary condition and boundary condition appears in the
table.
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a Bottle Drop Test containing water and air. The
objective is to evaluate the diffusivity of water and air in the bottle on drop.
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
5. Similarly create a material with the name Water using Steps 3.1 to 3.4.
6. Input the values, as shown below.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you
want to export to.
The objective of this tutorial is to simulate Boat Ditching with Boundary Elements to
represent continuous water using bi-phase material law (Law 37). In this model, the top
chamber is air, lower chamber is water surrounded by boundary elements. Law 37 is used
for air, water and boundary. Boundary conditions are applied on each surface of boundary in
the normal direction. An interface between fluid and boat (CEL) is defined to manage the
contact.
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
Step 9: Create RBODY for the Boat and assign mass to the Master
Node
1. Isolate the boat part using the Model browser.
2. From the pull-down menu, select Tools > Rbody Manager.
3. For Title:, enter boat-rigid, verify that Master node: is set to Calculate Node and set
Slave node(s): to Parts and select the 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.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you
want to export to.
3. For name, enter boatditching_1 and click Save.
4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export one solver deck.
6. Click Export to export solver deck.
The objective of this tutorial is to simulate Boat Ditching without Boundary Elements. So
there is no boundary to represent continuous water. Basically, you are simulating Boat-
Ditching in an enclosed volume. In this model, the top chamber is air (including its outer
layer) and the lower chamber is water (including its outer layer). Bi-Phase material Law 37
was used to model air and water. Boundary conditions are applied on each surface of
boundary in the normal direction. An interface between fluid and boat (CEL) is defined to
manage the contact.
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
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.
2. For File:, click the folder icon and navigate to the destination directory where you want
to export to.
3. For name, enter boatditching_2 and click Save.
4. Click the downward-pointing arrows next to Export options to expand the panel.
5. Click Merge starter and engine file to export the one solver deck.
The objective of this tutorial is to simulate the flow of water through a rubber valve using an
inlet option in multi-phase material law (Law 51). In this model the top chamber is air, the
lower chamber is water, and the bottom row of elements is the inlet. Law 51 is used for air,
water and inlet. Boundary conditions are applied on each surface of fluid in its normal
direction. An interface between fluid and rubber (CEL) is defined to manage the contact.
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
2. In the Solver browser, right-click and select Create > FUNCT. The Curve Editor dialog
box opens.
3. In the Curve editor window, click New.
4. For the Name, enter pressure_inlet and click proceed.
5. From the Curve editor window, select pressure_inlet from the curve list.
6. Enter the X and Y coordinates, as shown below.
7. Click Update.
9. Click Close.
5. Click Create.
6. Repeat Steps 9.1 to 9.5 to create Boundary conditions on Y and Z faces (see image below
for reference).
8. Check the box next to Tz in order to constrain the translational d.o.f in Z-direction, as
shown below:
Step 10: Create Boundary Condition to fix one end of the rubber
1. For Name, enter Fix-rubber, set Select type to Boundary Condition and set the
GRNOD to Nodes.
2. Select all the nodes on the edge of the clapper, as shown below.
This tutorial demonstrates how to set up 3-point bending model with symmetric boundary
conditions in Y direction.
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
STRAI 0 0.01200 0.01400 0.01800 0.02200 0.02600 0.03000 0.032 0.03300 0.03352
N 2 3 3 2 3 6 5 3
STRES 325 335.968 343783 349.245 358.649 372.309 383.925 388.109 389.292
389.506
S
Exercise
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
6. For Name, enter Foam and set the new property Card Image as P14_SOLID. Leave all
the settings as default, except for Isolid which should be set to 24.
7. In the Model browser, right-click on the component HCFoam and select Assign. Assign
Foam as the Prop_Id and Foam as the Mat_Id.
8. Click Apply.
Step 4: Create and Assign material and property for the component
Inner
1. In the Model browser, right-click and select Create > Material. The new material
appears in the Entity Editor.
2. For Name, enter Inner.
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.
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.
9. For Name, enter Impactor_constraints, set Select type to Boundary Condition and
set the GRNOD to Nodes.
10. Click nodes and select the master node of the rigid body.
11. Check all the degrees of freedom to constrain, except Tz.
12. Click create to create the boundary condition.
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:
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a free fall of a cell phone due to gravity from a
height of 1001mm using 2nd order tetra elements.
Model Description
UNITS: Length (mm), Time (s), Mass (ton), Force (N) and Stress (MPa)
STRESS 1 17
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
This tutorial demonstrates how to simulate a rubber gasket in sequential loading, given the
following load sequence:
Translation Transverse (10 mm)
Translation Longitudinal (5 mm)
Torsion (20 Degrees)
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 (VX, 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
2. From the Preferences menu, select the User Profiles or click the icon in toolbar.
3. Select RADIOSS (Block120) and click OK.
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.
11 – Tensile Test (Material
Characterization)
Correlations between
simulations and experimental
results. Treatment of the
necking point and the failure.
12 – Jumping Bicycle
A sequence of events
managed using "sensors".
13 – Shock Tube
Analysis with SPH, Lagrangian
and Eulerian formulations.
Correlation with theory.
Perfect gas modeling.
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.
18 – Square Plate
Torsion and tension-
compression tests.
Sensitivity study on mesh and
element formulations.
19 – Wave Propagation
Bi-dimensional wave
propagation.
Lagrangian and ALE
formulations.
Infinite domain modeling.
24 – Laminating
Study of the number of
elements with regard to
thickness, the large/small
strain formulation, plastic
strain formulation and
temperature dependency.
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
39 - Biomedical Valve
A Fluid-Structure-Interaction
(FSI) problem is studied.
40 - Lap Joint
A lap joint is fixed at one end
and pulled at the other to
shear the joint.
41 - Follower Force
Evaluate the response of four
cantilever beams.
42 - Rubber Ring
Crush and Slide
43 - Perfect Gas
Polynomial EOS is used to
model Perfect Gas.
45 - Multi-Domain
Separate the whole model
into master domain and sub-
domain.
46 - TNT Cylinder
Expansion Test
An experimental test used to
characterize the adiabatic
expansion of detonation
products.
47 - Concrete Validation
Three kinds of tests are
performed in order to
evaluate the simulation/
experiment correlation.
48 - Solid Spotweld
Solid spotweld connects two
metal sheets with tied
contact.
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 3).
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
Shells Q4, T3
QEPH, BT (Hourglass type 4), BATOZ and DKT
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
This simple test is particularly severe for shell element behaviors, due to the torsion-bending
coupling. It enables readers to appreciate the qualities/restrictions of the shell element
formulations in RADIOSS.
The following points are to be noted:
Displacements are very low. Thus, we are faced with a linear problem.
Another load case, using Fy = 0 and Fz = 1, is considered in the document but does not
give concern to additional conclusions.
Modeling Methodology
The beam is modeled with different kinds of mesh, Q4 and T3.
The following are tested for each model:
Four shell formulations:
- QEPH formulation (Ishell = 24)
Q4 Mesh T3 Mesh
Energy
0.1% -14.7% 0% 0%
margin error
CPU (normalized):
BT (type 4)
QEPH BATOZ DKT18
Conclusion
Summary
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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
The material used follows a linear elastic law and has the following characteristics:
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 a snap-through instability. 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-through 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-through
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-through, 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-through/
Implicit_solver/SNAP_IMP*
RADIOSS Version
51e
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 D01 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.
/IMPL/SOLVER/1
5 0 3 0.0
/IMPL/NONLIN
5 2 0.20e-3
/IMPL/DTINI
10
/IMPL/DT/STOP
1 10
/IMPL/DT/2
6 .0 20 0.8 1.1
Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for more details about implicit options.
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:
Cycles 1 237
(normalized)
In comparison with the implicit computation, which uses a maximum time step of 10 ms, the
saved CPU time using a maximum time step fixed at 100 ms, approximately corresponds to
factor 4.
Reference
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 an auto-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)
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, auto-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*
RADIOSS Version
44q
An S–beam is crushed at an initial rate of 5 ms-1 against a rigid wall. The section is an
empty square-shaped tube (each side measuring 80 mm). The thickness is 1.5 mm. The
tube is made of steel, and plasticity is taken into account, but not failure. Using symmetry,
half of the cross-section is modeled.
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
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).
RADIOSS Options Used
Taking account of symmetry, half of the structure is modeled. The symmetry plane covers
the y axis = 0 mm. Boundary conditions are also set at the right end to simulate a rigid wall
(slide).
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
Runnamednn. For example, to run a MODIF files after the first run (restart file
Runnamer01), the run number for the MODIF file must be 02: Runnamed02.
MODIF files use the same input format as the RADIOSS deck. In RADIOSS V44, the
header lines are defined as the first line of the RADIOSS deck:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Except for the header line, blocks may be input in any order.
/END
Fig 4: Deformed mesh for Belytschko hourglass type 3 formulation (V=5 m.s-1)
The crushing force is obtained by time derivation of the X-momentum. The maximum
displacement over a 20 ms long computation corresponds to 96.4 mm.
Note that 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.
The following table shows the results obtained using different element formulations and
plasticity options:
Initial velocity = 5 ms-1 (Values in brackets are the energy percentages compared with the initial energy)
Global plastification
Global plastification
The following table indicates the influence of the crushing velocity (5 ms-1 and 10 ms-1).
X – displacement = 70
mm: 5.79897x106 (0.928) 2.44581x107 (0.978)
X – displacement = 140 5.57192x106 (0.891) 2.41546 x107 (0.966)
mm:
Internal energy (mJ)
X – displacement = 70
mm: 444848 (0.0711) 538142 (0.0215)
X – displacement = 140 666704 (0.107) 840622 (0.0336)
mm:
Hourglass energy
(mJ)
(Values in brackets refer to the energy percentages compared with the initial energy)
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 auto-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
Material law 0 and type 7 interface
Hierarchy organization
RADIOSS Options
Monitored volume with communications (/MONVOL/COMMU)
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
The fabric thickness is 0.33 mm and is modeled using an elastic orthotropic material law (/
MAT/LAW19) with the following properties:
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
Monitored volumes:
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 COMMU type for airbags
using communications (chambered, with communications, of the folder airbag type). For
further details about monitored volumes, see the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
The main properties for this type are:
Vent hole membrane surface area is 1000 mm2 (Avent =0) and is immediately
activated.
Relative vent deflation pressure: 0.0002
Number of injectors: 1 (Njet =1; Ijet =0)
Final injected mass is 46 g injected into the central chamber (Fscalemas and FscaleT
=1). Two functions define the mass and temperature of the injected gas compared
with time (function identifiers: fct_IDmas and fct_IDT).
Time (ms) 0 2 4 5 6 8 11 12 15 19 28 30 106
Mass (g) 0 6 11 14 17 22 29 31 36 41 45 46 46
Injected mass function.
Interface
Taking into account the fabric is self-impacting with itself, an auto-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 2x10-5 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 8 ms. In order to transfer into
the element time step and to reduce computation time, it is advisable to increase the gap so
that the kinematic step becomes higher than the element step.
Time-stepkinetic < 0.9 x GAP / Nodal_velocityrelative (using scale factor = 0.9)
The time step is only low during the unfolding phase (before 10 ms) with a gap equal to 1.5
mm.
Fig 7: Contact energy 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*
RADIOSS Version
44q
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/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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
The steel container is modeled using the elasto-plastic model of Johnson-Cook law (/MAT/
LAW2) with the following parameters:
Liquid EOS:
Pi = C i
where, = ( / 0) - 1
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).
Using the ALE formulation, the brick mesh is only deformed by tank deformation the water
flowing through the mesh. The Lagrangian shell nodes still coincide with the material points
and the elements deform with the material: this is known as a Lagrangian mesh. For the ALE
mesh, nodes on the boundaries are fixed in order to remain on the border, while the interior
nodes are moved.
Velocity 0 5 0 0
(ms-1)
Time (ms) 0 12 12.01 50
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/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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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:
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.
A function defines gravity acceleration in the X direction compared with time in order to
simulate the rotation effect. Gravity is activated by /GRAV. Two cases are studied depending
on the acceleration function chosen:
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Density
Velocity
Conclusion
This example allows the study of hydrodynamic bi-material using Law 37 in RADIOSS. ALE
and Eulerian formulations are used. The application of boundary conditions in ALE formations
and handling the fluid-structure interaction are 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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
The left pendulum has an initial angle of 45° 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
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.
The type 16 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method is employed to model contacts
between the nodes and the quadratic elements’ surface. An interface must be defined for
each ball (five interfaces).
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.
The upper extremities of the trusses are fixed in Y and Z translations and in Y and Z
rotations.
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. It should be noted that
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.
Note that for the 2D analysis, the rigid body /RBODY option is not available.
For the purpose of this example, the balls are given the following numbers:
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, we have:
EKINETIC = EPOTENTIAL
Where, h is the vertical displacement of the ball’s center, V is the velocity and m is the mass.
Simulation results: EKINETICmax = 78.655 mJ (time = 203.33 ms, impact balls 6 and 5)
EKINETICmax = 72.478 mJ (time = 612.5 ms, impact balls 1 and 2)
Maintaining the kinetic energy in the system is not entirely satisfactory, due to the energy
contact being dissipated during impact.
The two extreme pendulums alternate, oscillating for half of the time period. The velocity of
the middle balls in comparison to time is shown in Fig 11.
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.
The 16-node thick shells are elements which do not suffer hourglass deformation. Therefore,
the low amount of 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. Note the 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.
Referential results: [V. Acaray, B. Brogliato / Second MIT Conference on Computational
Fluid and solid Mechanics]
von Mises stress wave propagation from ball to ball during the multiple impact period
(isostep values):
The impact between several pendulums in line is studied using RADIOSS. Two models
representing physical problems are studied:
(i) a global analysis using a relatively coarse mesh with 3D elements
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 specimen
deforms under uni-axial stress, the bar specimen interfaces remain planar at all times, and
the stress equilibrium in the specimen 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*
RADIOSS Version
44q
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 specimen.
The engineering stress value in the specimen 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 specimen 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 D00 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.
True Stress, True Strain and True Strain Rate Measurement from Time History
In the experiment, the strain gauge is attached to the specimen. In simulation, the true
strain will be determined from 9040 and 6 nodes’ relative Z displacements (l0 = 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-specimen 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 specimen, 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
True
strain
rate
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 – 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].
Fig 7: Variation of true stress compared with true strain for 7010 alloy using two different rates (experimental
data).
Table 2: True stress at specific strains using both strain rates (experimental data).
Strain rate: 80 s-1 Strain rate: 900 s-1
True stress
550 600 610 625 775 800 850
(MPa)
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 specimen and the output bar.
Fig 9: Stress waves in the input bar, the output bar and the specimen (imposed velocities = 5.8 ms-1 ).
Fig 10: Diagram of SHPB showing the motion in time of the tensile pulse.
Fig 11: von Mises stress wave propagation along bars (imposed velocities = 5.8 ms-1 ).
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 specimen. It is set
at 5x10-5 ms. The stress wave thus reaches the specimen 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 specimen 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:
Either data sources used to evaluate the strain rate give similar results.
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 specimen, with and
without the strain rate filtering at time t=0.6 ms.
We obtain more physical flow stress distribution 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 type 17 sliding and tied interface, and quadratic
surface contact
Elastic shock
Momentum transmission and shock wave
RADIOSS Options
Type 7 interface (/INTER/TYPE7), type 16 (/INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE16) and type 17 (/
INTER/LAGMUL/TYPE17)
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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
Balls: phenolic
Frame: polymer Plate: slate
resin
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).
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.
RADIOSS Options Used
An initial velocity of 1.5 ms-1 in X direction is applied to all nodes of the white ball.
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*
Overview
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
The initial translational velocities are applied to the balls in the /INIV Engine option.
Velocities are projected on the X and Y axes.
Fig 14: Master and slave sides for the type 16 Lagrangian interface.
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 V1 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:
(1)
or
(2)
The shock is presumed elastic and without friction. Maintaining the translational kinetic
energy is respected as there is no rotational energy:
(3)
Such equality implies that the recovering capacity of the two balls corresponds to their
tendency to deform.
This condition equals one of the elastic impacts, with no energy loss. Maintaining the
system’s energy gives:
(4)
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:
The norms of velocities after shock result from the following relations.
and
In this example, balls have the same mass: m1 = m2.
Therefore:
and (7)
The norms of the velocities are given using the following relations, depending on the initial
velocities and angles:
(8)
By recording the projection of the velocities, directions after shock can be evaluated using
relation (9):
(9)
Equations (8) and (9) are used for determining 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°
Conclusion
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):
Table 2: Interfaces used in the problems.
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
The symmetrical interface definition is not recommended when using the Lagrange Multipliers
method (types 16, 17 and 7-Lag). The problem using the interface with the Penalty method
uses two interfaces to model the symmetrical impact.
Fig 20: Symmetrical configuration of the type 7 interface using the Penalty method
Contact between the balls and the table (sliding or tied depending on the problem):
Fig 21: Definition of slave and master objects for balls/table contacts.
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
Balls/table contact:
tied
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
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:
tied
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Balls/table contact:
sliding
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Type 7 Interface
Lagrange
Multipliers method
Contact nodes /
linear surface
(sliding contact)
Type 7 Interface
Penalty method
Contact nodes /
linear surface
Balls/table contact:
sliding
Ball/ball contact:
sliding
Error on
-30.8% -1.4% -55.5% -10.8% -1.2% -46.1%
Energy
Momentum
quasi-
Transmissi partial partial good good partial
perfect
on
Quadratic master and master and
master side master side no no
surface slave sides slave 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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
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 (Ishell =1, hourglass control type 1, 2,
and 3)
Q4 mesh with the QEPH formulation (Ishell =24)
(a)
which yields the end moment for a complete loop rotation 2 :
= KN-mm
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, depending on the finite element used, a small error can be observed, as shown in
the following tables. This is mainly due to beam vibration during deformation as it is highly
flexible. Good results are obtained by the QBAT, QEPH and DKT18 elements, respectively.
This is mainly due to the good estimation of the curvature in the formulation of these
elements. The BT family of under-integrated shell elements is less accurate. With the type 3
hourglass formulation, the model remains stable until = 6rad. However, the moment-
rotation curves do not correspond to the expected response.
CPU 108.6
(normali 2.18 2.43 3.14 1.23 1.34 42.64 7.07 2.62 0 7.17 5.44 8.21 16.21
zed) 1.03
953 107 1429 935 1052 8153 730 25150 18241 7306 4200 62945 1258
# cycles 05 219 53 77 74 8 808 1 248 81332 66 41 0 678
Error
99.9 99.9
=2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 99% -78% -53% 15% 8.9% 1.5%
% %
(%)
err 6.91 6.89 4.36 4.53 6.06 5.98 4.38 4.51 6.37
=20%
(rad) - - - - -
396° 395° 250° 260° 347° 343° 251° 258° 365°
degree
- - - - - - - -
Dz = - - - - -
500. 500. 500. 500. 525. 518.33 433. 476. -496.5
2п 500.5 491.2 506.0 529.8 499.4
5 5 5 5 8 3 8 5
(mm)
Mx
=
2п
(x10 - - - -
-4.06 -4.01 -0.21 -3.13 -2.38 -0.07 -0.02 -3.09 -3.02 -3.08
+5 4.04 4.05 4.01 0.11
kN-
mm)
Conclusion
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 specimen 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*
RADIOSS Version
44q
Fig 1: Geometry of the tensile specimen (One quarter of the specimen is modeled).
Modeling Methodology
The mesh is shown in Fig 3. The average element size is about 2 mm. 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 mm2). 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 or equal to 25 mm). The displacement is proportional to time.
Only one quarter of the specimen 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. Note
that two boundary conditions cannot be applied to the same node 13 (corner).
tr = In(1 + I / Io)
tr = In(1 + e)
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:
S = S0 exp( - tr)
tr = e exp( tr)
pl = tr - tr / E
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:
Engineering stress
Engineering 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%.
Fig 10: Comparison between engineering and true curves (from experimental data).
The true stress curve is higher than the engineering stress curve, as it takes into account the
decrease in the specimen 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.
Fig 11: Variation of the engineering stress/strain according to Johnson-Cook’s model adapted to the test.
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:
Engineering
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.067
strain
Deviation 7.9% 4.8% 1.8% 1.1% 1% 1.8% 2.9%
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 specimen. 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:
Fig 18: Engineering stress versus engineering strain; necking point characterization
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 specimen (3b and 3a in Fig 20):
Fig 20: von Mises stress curve with a maximum stress limit.
The beginning of the necking point is observed following the point where the stress is equal
to stress versus strain derivate .
The derivate of the stress is very sensitive and strongly depends on the yield curve definition.
Thus, introducing the necking point into the simulation is very delicate (a small change can
result in many variations). The necking point should first begin on a given element for
numerical reasons. The preferred beginning of necking is addressed below.
Preferred Beginning of the Necking Point
Experimentally, the beginning of the necking point can appear anywhere on the specimen.
The beginning of the necking point should preferably be located on the right end elements in
order to propose a methodology for this quasi-static test. If the model only uses a quarter
part of the specimen, the necking point is found on elements 30, 125 and 78.
The beginning of the necking point is physically and numerically sensitive and can be
initiated on the right elements by changing a few of the coordinates along the Y-axis of the
node in the right corner (node 16) in order to decrease the cross-section and privilege the
necking point in this zone. Changing the node position by 0.01 mm is enough for achieving
the preferential beginning of the necking point.
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.
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.
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
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 29: Variation of the von Mises stress on elements 110, 109, 108, 107, 11 and 106.
Fig 31: max = 47% ; yield curve adjusted with respect to lower stresses: .
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.
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.
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
RADIOSS Version
44q
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.
Strain Rate Effect - Plasticity Model: Johnson-Cook
The influence of the strain rate and stress smoothing are shown below (with = 5x10-3 ms-1
and c = 0.1):
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.
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 auto-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*
RADIOSS Version
51h
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).
The material of the metallic parts undergoes the Johnson-Cook model (/MAT/LAW2) using the
following properties:
Young’s modulus: 210000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
Hierarchy organization:
Bike model: 6 subsets comprising 23 parts.
Dummy model: 11 subsets comprising 38 parts.
Monitored Volumes / Perfect Gas
A perfect gas monitored volume is defined to model the pressure in the tires. For further
details about monitored volumes, refer to the RADIOSS Theory Manual.
The main properties are:
External pressure: 0.1 MPa
Initial internal pressure: 0.75 MPa
Gas constant: 1.4
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
Dummy joints
The general type 8 springs, characterize a spherical hinge with a stiffness given for each
d.o.f. 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
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 (MM1) 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).
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.
A 8333 mms-1 (30 km/h) initial velocity (/INIVEL) is applied to all nodes of the model
(bicycle and cyclist) in a parallel direction to the high plane at time t = 0.004 s. This initial
condition is defined in the Engine file “*_0002.rad" (start time: 0.004 s) which is run after
the quasi-static equilibrium with gravity loading.
Options in D02 file:
/INIV/TRA/X/1 initial translational velocities in direction x
8333 of 8333 mm/s
1 338000 on node 1 to 338000
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 D01 Engine file 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. Five types of
sensors are used:
Sensor type TIME (activated with time)
Sensor type DIST (activated with nodal distance)
Sensor type INTER (activated after impact on rigid wall)
Sensor type SENSOR (activated with sensor IS1 and deactivated with sensor IS2)
Sensor type NOT (ON as long as sensor IS1 is OFF)
Fig 15: Events definition for the activations and deactivations of sensors.
Sensor (S4) is also used for deactivating both the beam type springs modeling links between
the feet and pedals (Isflag set to 1). A case could be considered without this sensor to study
the risks of automatic pedals.
The following graphs show the active and deactivated zones of sensors and rigid bodies.
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 18: Distribution of the von Mises stress on the frame after quasi-static loading.
Fig 21: Configuration of a dummy cyclist during impact on the ground (shoes not attached).
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*
RADIOSS Version
44q
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
is the density
Perfect gas is modeled by setting all coefficients C0, C1, C2 and C3 to zero.
Also:
C4 = C5 = - 1c
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.
Each wave pattern is composed of a contact discontinuity in the middle and a shock or a
rarefaction wave on the left and the right sides separating the uniform state solution. The
shock wave moves at a supersonic speed into the low pressure side. A one-dimensional
problem is considered.
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.
R 287.049 J/(kg.K)
R 287.049 J/(kg.K)
Pressure p p2 = 80941.1 Pa
Temperature T T2 = 487.308 K
m/s
Therefore, x2/1 = Vs * 0.4 + 500 = 765.266 mm
Zone 2'
where, x = 500 + X
Pressure p
Density
Temperature T
Continuity verifications:
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.
In the Eulerian formulation, the coordinates of the element nodes are fixed. The nodes
remain coincident with special points. Since elements are not changed by the deformation
material, no degradation in accuracy occurs in large deformations.
The Lagrangian approach provides more accurate results than the Eulerian approach, due to
taking into account the solved equations number.
For the ALE boundary conditions (/ALE/BCS), constraints are applied on:
Material velocity
Grid velocity
The nodes on extremities have material velocities fixed in X and Z directions. The other
nodes have material and velocities fixed in X, Y and Z directions.
The ALE materials have to be declared Eulerian or Lagrangian with /ALE/MAT.
The nominal value h0 is the distance between each particle and its closest neighbor.
According to the assigned property of the part, the mass of the particles should be calculated.
The mass is related to the density and the size of the net, in accordance with the following
equation:
Where:
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.
Selected nodes and SPH symmetry condition frame along (-x) axis:
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 1.42 1 3.46
0.4 ms
(DTsca=0.5)
Reference
[1] J. D. Anderson Jr., Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective, McGraw Hill
Professional Publishing, 2nd ed., Oct. 1989.
Summary
The purpose of this example is to compare 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, auto-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*
RADIOSS Version
51j
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
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
Number
Node 24726
4-node shell 18471
The improved Belytschko hourglass formulation (type 4 hourglass, Ishell =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 main parts of the model are shown in the table below:
Displacement -1 0 1
Fx, Fy, Fz -105 0 105
Rotation -1 0 1
Mx, My, Mz -106 0 106
Fig 9: Example of the tied interface modeling connections between the fuel tank and its support
Rigid bodies are created to join two or more parts together. For these rigid bodies no added
mass is required and the master node can be located anywhere.
Slave nodes may not accept the other kinematic conditions (such as tied interface).
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 – Auto-impacting
Taking into account self-impacting parts, a type 7 auto-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.
Fig 11: Type 7 interface – Auto-impacting (slave side in red and master side in blue).
Fig 13: Infinite plane and cylindrical wall for modeling the ground and bump (slave nodes displayed in green).
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
A 15600 mm.s-1 (56 km/h) initial velocity (/INIVEL) is applied to all nodes of the structure in
the X direction at t = 0.3 s. This initial condition is defined in the D02 restart file (start time:
0.3 s), which is run after achieving the quasi-static equilibrium with gravity loading.
Option in D02 file:
/INIV/TRA/X/1 initial translational velocities in the X direction
15600 of 15600 mm/s
1 265130 on node 1 to 265130 (/INIV/TRA/X/1)
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_*
RADIOSS Version
51j
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.
The /EIG option is set up in the Starter input file and defines the part to be included in the
flexible body, as well as the type and number of modes to be computed.
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.
The /FXINP option is used in the Engine file for creating a flexible body input file .fxb.
The flexible body has the same support as that defined in /EIG. You should enter:
- Identification number of the Eigen mode or static mode problem defined in /EIG;
FXB
Master nodes of rigid bodies.
domain Rigid bodies + master nodes.
Master node of the flexible body.
can Boundary conditions.
Interfaces.
contain
Free parts.
Slave nodes on the flexible body
frontier. Rigid bodies (slave nodes).
FXB
Rigid body overlapping on Slave nodes on the flexible body
domain
flexible body and the rest of frontier.
must not
structure. Rigid body overlapping on flexible
contain
Truss elements. body and the rest of structure.
Void material.
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.
Fig 23: Nine interface nodes with blocked translations for computing static modes.
Fig 27: 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 (RADIOSS version 5) 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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
The gear system is turning with a constant acceleration ( = 0.002 rad/ms2). The
acceleration is applied to both of the gears. It is assumed that contact between the teeth
does not generate any friction.
Steel characteristic (elastic /MAT/LAW2) are:
Young Modulus: 210000 MPa
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, available as of RADIOSS V44, manages contact between the
quadratic surfaces of the SHELL16 elements.
Interfaces 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.
The out-of-plane rotation of the rigid bodies is set free. A YZ symmetry plan is used to
stabilize the model.
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
Figures 7 and 8 compare the contact forces obtained for two different models; one using the
type 16 interface 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.
The type 16 interface provides an 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*
Without_damping: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/
radioss/16_Dummy_Positioning/EXPLICIT_solver/Without_damping/SEAT*
RADIOSS Version
51f
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.
Material for seat brace - both the columns and the floor are made of steel with the following
properties (/MAT/LAW1):
Young’s modulus: 210000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
Inertia: IXX = 554975 mm4; IYY = 554975 mm4; IZZ = 937908 mm4
RADIOSS material law 35 is used. The open cell foam option is not active (IFlag = 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
Maximum impacted segment / node (Multimp flag) = 4
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 D00 file.
Fig 7: Input gravity function (-9810 mm.s-2) and nodes selection (yellow).
The six rigid body modes of the seat are removed by completely fixing the rigid body master
node attached to the seat. In order to limit the out-of-plane vibrations, the master node of
the dummy's rigid body is fixed in translation along the Y axis.
Fig 9: Kinetic relaxation method with /KEREL (also named energy discrete relaxation).
with, being the relaxation value (recommended default value 1), and T being is 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 D01 file 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.
If you have some experimental results, the proportionality factors, 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, 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 D01 Engine file using /DAMP (inputs data: and ).
Parameters Used
In this example, and are set to the following values:
First case: = 10 and = 10
Second case: = 0 and = 10
Third case: = 10 and =0
Fourth case: = 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).
Fig 14: Z-velocity 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 16: Z-velocity of 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
Fig 18: Comparison of damping on displacement obtained using the three static approaches
(Z-displacement of the rigid body’s master node on dummy: node 14199)
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.
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*
RADIOSS Version
51f
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.
Static Analysis and Implicit Options
This example deals with two implicit analyses:
A static linear computation (loading by gravity),
A static nonlinear computation (three computations are performed: dummy positioning
using an imposed displacement, followed by a concentrated load and a gravity loading).
An adapted modeling methodology is set up for each analysis. Contact with the different
interfaces depends on the computations taken into account and then the material can be
updated.
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
Tolerance: 10-6
Results
Only one animation corresponds to the static solution.
Fig 21: Linear static implicit solution of gravity loading (type 2 interface is used).
It should be noted that this modeling contact slightly modifies the problem which is no longer
comparable with the previous explicit models.
Table 1: Indication of time computation.
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.
Fig 23: Imposed displacement along the Z-axis as a monotonous increasing time function.
Due to the contact problem, the tolerance value (Tol) is set to 10-2 (default value = 10-3).
Some options are not compatible with the implicit solver. Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for
more details about implicit options.
Results
The last animation corresponds to the static solution.
Note that 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).
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.
Implicit options are the same as the previous implicit problem (initial time step is set to: 2s).
Fig 28: Convergence results of the X- and Z-displacement of master node 14199 (rigid body dummy) for the
implicit models using gravity loading and concentrated load.
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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,
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.
Rigid body:
The lower (fixed) end is modeled using a rigid body connecting all lower nodes (Z =
0.0). The rigid body is completely fixed using translations and rotations.
Wall:
The impactor is modeled using a sliding rigid wall having a fixed velocity (13.3 m/s) in
a Z direction and is fixed for other translations and rotations.
Interfaces:
The structure’s self-impact is modeled using a type 7 interface on the full structure.
Note that the interface master surface is defined using the complete model. The slave
nodes group is defined using the master surface.
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 Energy 3.38 x 105 3.94 x 105 5.00 x 105 7.34 x 105
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 Energy 3.51 x 105 4.68 x 105 5.63 x 105 8.23 x 105
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 Energy 3.32 x 105 3.72 x 105 4.79 x 105 5.32 x 105
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
2.02 x 104 3.80 x 104 6.56 x 104 11.90 x 104
t = 8 ms
EK
1.31 x 104 1.24 x 104 1.32 x 104 1.29 x 104
t = 8 ms
Total Energy 3.27 x 105 3.85 x 105 4.60 x 105 5.07 x 105
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 Energy 3.36 x 105 3.64 x 105 4.72 x 105 5.39 x 105
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 Energy 3.58 x 105 4.69 x 105 4.90 x 105 8.75 x 105
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 Energy 3.34 x 105 3.88 x 105 4.08 x 105 4.47 x 105
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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. We 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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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_TYPE3
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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
Mesh 2: 4Q4
2 Q4- 4 T3 4 Q4 8 T3 8 T3 Inverse
IEmax 2.74x1 2.35x1 2.37x1 7.21x1 3.64x1 2.93x1 2.97x1 2.30x1 1.37 1.69x1 1.37x1 1.69x1
0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 x10-1 0-2 0-1 0-2
HEmax --- 1.01x1 1.03x1 --- --- 1.94x1 1.98x1 --- --- --- --- ---
0-4 0-4 0-4 0-6
DZmax 1.75x1 1.78x1 1.78x1 1.21x1 2.42x1 2.95x1 2.97x1 2.30x1 1.44x1 1.69x1 1.44x1 1.69x1
0-3 0-3 0-3 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-2 0-3 0-2 0-3
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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
1.07 x 1.19 x 1.07 x 1.24 x 1.44 x 10- 1.24 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x
IEmax
10-2 10-2 10-2 10-2 2 10-2 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3
2.10 x 3.49 x 10-
HEmax --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
10-5 6
Dymax 1.18 x 1.38 x 1.18 x 1.24 x 1.44 x 10- 1.24 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x 6.42 x
10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3
(Traction) (Traction) (Tractio
n)
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
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)
F(t) 0 10 10
t 0 200 400
Simulation Results
Mesh 2: 4Q4
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 silent boundary 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
Bound silent material and infinite domain
RADIOSS Options
ALE material formulation (/ALE/MAT)
Bi-dimensional analysis (/ANALY)
Concentrated load (/CLOAD)
Function (/FUNCT)
Bound silent 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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
The material used follows a linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) and has the following
characteristics:
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
Silent boundary: 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 bound silent material law 11 (type 3) as a silent boundary, and has
the following characteristics:
ALE material: 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.
Vertical Displacement
The graphs below shows the vertical displacement (DZ) of three nodes respectively
positioned at 0 m, 3.2 m and 4.75 m under the edge of the distributed load.
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]. Note that 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. Note that 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.
Horizontal Displacement
Figure 14 shows the horizontal displacement of Node 1 (placed 3.2 m below the load
surface). The horizontal component of the longitudinal wave reaches the node in 0.49 ms,
while the shear wave arrives at 1.1 ms. Any response after this time results from the
different reflections of the longitudinal and shear waves.
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 silent
boundary 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 a dropping ice cube on two sloped beams is studied here 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*
RADIOSS Version
44s
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.
RADIOSS Options Used
Boundary conditions:
The ice cube nodes are constrained in the Y translation and rotation is around the X-Z
axis.
The lower nodes of the beams are constrained in all directions.
The cup is constrained in all directions.
Load:
A gravity load (g = 9.81 m/s2) in the Z-direction is applied on the ice cube’s nodes.
Interface:
The type 16 interface is used by deactivating the "tied" option, which enables a sliding
contact to be modeled. Ice cube nodes are slave and the upper surface of the beam
defines the master surface.
The type 7 interface between the ice cube and the second beam uses the Penalty
method, with an initial gap of 1.5 mm. Ice cube nodes are slave and the master surface
is defined using the upper surface of the beams. Friction is not taken into account.
The type 7 interface between the ice cube and the cup uses the same parameters as
those defined above. Ice cube nodes are slave and the cup defines the master surface.
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).
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 and without 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*
RADIOSS Version
As of 51e
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. Two interfaces
are compared.
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.
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. This option is available as of RADIOSS V51. You must define the
origin (center of rotation) and the orientation vector.
Interfaces:
The type 16 interface simulates a contact between a quadratic master surface and a
group of nodes. In the case of contact between a curved and a plane surface, the
curved surface is defined as the master surface and the nodes of the plane part are
slave.
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.
We are, at first, 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.
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).
Fig 11: Vertical acceleration of the master node valve for a type 7 interface using the Penalty method.
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 D01 file 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.
For both Figures 12 and 13, the model using slave nodes on the cam and a master surface on
the valve seems to be the most realistic.
Fig 14: Vertical velocity of the valve’s master node for a type 7 interface using the Lagrange Multipliers method.
Even if using a type 7 interface with the Penalty or the Lagrange Multipliers method good
results can be achieved, a quadratic mesh with the type 16 interface will enable the reduction
of oscillations, due to facetisation.
Figures 16 and 17 compare the results for models using type 7 and 16 interfaces.
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
Valve: elements
88 SHEL16 elements
Coarse Cam: 40 SHEL16 elements
mesh: Valve: 12 SHEL16 elements
Although the coarser mesh amplifies the facetisation of the curved surfaced, the mesh
density does not influence the results for velocity after filtering. However, the fine mesh
provides better results for acceleration, having limited parasite oscillations for each node/
surface contact.
Friction
An option in interface 7 using the Penalty method allows you to add friction to the model.
Several friction models are available. The Coulomb friction model is used here. A comparison
is made between models with and without friction.
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 a specimen into a pool of water is studied using SPH and CEL 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 specimen 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 specimen 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 CEL method.
Title
Ditching using SPH
Number
22.1
Brief Description
Impact of a simple specimen 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/Impact_velocity_35/SPHEX351*
Impact_velocity=6.8m/s: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/
Impact_velocity_68/SPHEX681*
Impact_velocity=11m/s: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/
Impact_velocity_110/SPHEX110*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Modeling Methodology
The specimen is modeled using shell elements with an average mesh size of 15 x 15 mm2.
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
mm3 and weighs 16 g. This part uses 36075 SPH cells.
The size of the water block is adapted to the shape of the specimen for the purpose of
reducing the model’s size and the simulation’s CPU time.
RADIOSS Options Used
Rigid body:
The specimen is modeled using a rigid body, and a mass of 23042.2 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:
Output Acceleration
For the specimen, 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 specimen’s
rigid body’s master node for 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 developed in RADIOSS
V4.4, allows the ditching of simple specimens 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 CEL
Number
22.2
Brief Description
Impact of a simple specimen on water simulated by CEL approach.
Keywords
CEL modeling
Type 18 interface
RADIOSS Options
/MAT/ELAST
/ALE/DONEA
/UPWIND
/MAT/BIPHAS
/ALE/MAT
/INTER/TYPE18
Input File
<install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/22_Ditching/Ditching_CEL/ALE37-15*
RADIOSS Version
51h
Modeling Methodology
The specimen is modeled using shell elements with an average mesh size of 15 x 15 mm2.
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:
# Init. dens. Ref. dens.
1.22E-9 0
# RHO_L CL ALPHA_L NU_L
LAMBDA_ON_RHO_L
1e-6 2.089 0 .00089
0
# RHO_G GAMMA P0 NU_G
LAMBDA_ON_RHO_G
1.22E-9 1.4 .1e-3 .014607
0
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 CEL and SPH approaches are
compared to Von Karman theoretical solution and experimental measures in Fig 4.
SPH and CEL approaches respectively give the maximum acceleration of 83g and 84g.
However, the Von Karman theory delivers 82g; with the maximum value by experience is
between 83g and 73g.
On the other hand, the duration for acceleration beyond 40g is respectively 7.9ms and 8.2ms
for SPH and CEL simulation methods, where the experience provides values between 7.5ms
and 8.5ms and the Von Karman theory provides 8 ms.
It is worthwhile to note that:
The computation time is similar for both SPH and CEL approaches.
Using a fine enough mesh both RADIOSS methods SPH and CEL provide satisfactory
results, compared to experience and analytical solution.
The CEL approach is more robust and stable when the SPH signal is highly vibrated.
The use of a coarse mesh in the CEL approach requires the interfaced stiffness
calibration.
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.
Summary
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*
RADIOSS Version
44s
Overview
The material used for the disk follows an isotropic elasto-plastic law (/MAT/LAW2) using the
Johnson-Cook plasticity model, with the following characteristics:
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: The first 0.03 ms, an initial velocity is
applied to the disk. 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, the first one (RBODY1) is deactivated in the
D02 file.
Two other rigid bodies are created to model the pads’ faces where concentrated loads
are applied.
Fig 2: Rigid bodies on the disk (RBODY1 on the left and RBODY2 on the right).
The necessary time to stop the disk can be computed as: t = 0 / = 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.
Reaction Forces
The reaction forces value in Fig 6 is about 90 N, which corresponds to the analytical value.
Fig 7: Energies.
Contact Forces
The following diagram presents the tangential contact forces for three consecutive moments.
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*
RADIOSS Version
44m
Temperature exponent: 1
Melting temperature: 2073 K (around 1800°C)
Specific heat at constant pressure: 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 105 kg/mm3. 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 definitely not enough to see the stress (or strain)
distribution; five elements though, seem to be enough. 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, as mentioned previously, it takes
much more time to use five elements. Thus, in this case 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 Ismtr 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 D01 Engine file having a critical time
step.
In this example the results between a full large strain formulation, a full small strain
formulation and a "mixed formulation” using /DT/BRICK/CST are compared. Concerning the
average time step, it is 20% higher for a full small strain formulation and 3.5% higher for a
"mixed formulation” in comparison to the default large strain formulation. Thus, there is a
significant gain in terms of CPU time using the small strain formulation. The deformed shape
is not good (see Table 2).
Moreover, looking at the plastic strain, using a small strain formulation from t=0 leads to
major errors (see 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 one very 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
An improved solid formulation, HA8 has been introduced in RADIOSS V44. This formulation
overcomes the drawbacks of the standard 8 integration points’ formulation (Isolid=12 or 112).
In particular, in the case of a pure bend, "shear-locking”, which makes the standard
formulation rather stiffer, does not exist. It is also possible to use the small strain
formulation, which contrary to the 8 integration points’ formulation is not compatible. It is
now possible to use up to 9 integration points for each direction.
Depending on the value given for the Icpre flag, the HA8 formulation may use a reduced
pressure integration. In this part the influence of this flag on simulation will be investigated
in order to find out the most suitable value. Table 4 shows both the deformed shape and the
equivalent plastic strain for the different solid formulations. The new HA8 formulation with
reduced pressure integration behaves the same way as the standard 8 integration points
formulation. However, if the reduced pressure integration is not activated, the results will
not be correct, with the metal strip deforming badly and the plastic strain being over-
estimated (see Table 4). Moreover, the reaction force acting on the cylinder will also be
over-estimated (see Table 3), which means that the structure will be stiffer without the
reduced pressure integration.
Conclusion
The squeezing of the metal strip under two rolling cylinders is simulated by RADIOSS. The
large deformation formulation, when a sufficient number of elements is 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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
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:
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.
The punch is shown in purple, the blank holder in green and the die in red. The sheet metal
(blue) is modeled using 4-node shell elements.
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 (Iplas = 1)
Fig 5: Contact modeling using a type 7 interface considered with the Penalty method (master / slave sides).
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 D02 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.
Stamping tools are restricted to moving only along the Z-axis. The boundary conditions are
applied on the master nodes of the rigid bodies, including the parts (Fig 7).
For the numerical simulation of the implicit spring-back, additional conditions must be added
in the D02 Engine file in order to remove the rigid body modes that is not permitted in the
implicit approach. The stamping tools are fully fixed (X, Y, Z translations and X, Y, Z
rotations). The translation of the ID 427 node is fixed along the Z-axis allowing the sheet
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 9: Imposed velocity on punch via the rigid body’s master node.
Fig 11: Imposed velocities on tools in two phases: stamping then tools removing.
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of the nonlinear cycle. It is
defined using /IMPL/SOLVER.
Refer to RADIOSS Starter Input for more details about implicit options.
Explicit spring-back analysis uses the dynamic relaxation in the D03 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.
The dynamic effect is damped by introducing a diagonal damping matrix proportional to mass
matrix in the dynamic equation.
where:
is the relaxation value which has a recommended default value 1.
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 besides 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
Fig 12: Deformed sheet metal before and after spring-back (implicit spring-back).
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.
Fig 13: Deformed mesh of the sheet metal before and after the spring-back (multi-models mode).
Fig 14: Stamping results on the sheet metal before and after spring-back.
Figure 15 shows the internal energy stored in the sheet metal during the stamping.
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):
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 analyses 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 in RADIOSS version 5, 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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
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.
max = 0.999
t1 = 0.14 t1 = 0.14
m1 = 0.15 m1 = 0.15
f1 = 0.151 f1 = 0.151
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.
where,
d refers to the current damage (failure if d = 1)
* is the normalized mean stress
The layer stress tensor is set to zero and the shell element is deleted if damage d > 1,
for all layers (Ishell set to 2).
Therefore, the four simulations performed are shown in the following table:
Ishell = 1 Ishell = 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.
FLD Failure Model (Forming Limit Diagram) – New Feature as of Version 51
This failure model uses the generic forming limit diagram, defined for the given material. The
curve is expressed in the area of principal strains (max and mini strains) and defines the
failure zone.
An input curve and the flag Ishell (same as Johnson-Cook model) are required. However, the
results obtained using Ishell = 1 and Ishell = 2 are very similar and only if Ishell = 1 is
presented.
Curve 1 Curve 2
For further information about this failure model, see the RADIOSS User's Guide.
Material law 27
Fig 6: Perforation of the plate by the rigid sphere at 5 ms (case: Johnson-Cook failure model without failure plastic
strain, Ishell=2).
The following table compares the results provided by simulations in terms of plate
deformation, hole dimension, residual shells, etc.
Conclusion
The rupture of a circular plate, due to the impact of a rigid sphere was studied and several
failure models with different simulation parameters were compared. The results obtained
highlight the sensitivity of the numerical models to simulate the failure.
Laws 2 and 27, with or without the failure models were compared. The comparison shows
that the results are quite similar when coherent simulation parameters are used.
Summary
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/AIRBAG)
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*
RADIOSS Version
51e
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).
Fig 7: Trajectory of the ball for Santini’s head (impact on a square and a round bar respectively).
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*
Beam: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/37_Analytical_Beam/
Analytical_beam/beam/explicit_nonlinear/POUTRE*
Linear: //.../beam/implicit/linear/.../POUTRE*
Nonlinear: //.../beam/implicit/nonlinear/.../POUTRE*
RADIOSS Version
51f
Overview
The material behavior is linear elastic law (/MAT/LAW1) with the following properties:
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,
with the following properties:
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.
For nonlinear case, the Timoshenko and Gere study provides the following results [1]:
In the case of linear behavior, the numerical results are quite close to the analytical solution
(error lower than 0.01% for all meshes).
For the nonlinear case, the results obtained by RADIOSS with explicit and implicit solvers are
in good concordance with the analytical solution of Timeshenko and Gere.
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%.
A schematic deformation mode for each case of mesh is shown in the following figures.
Reference
[1] S.P. Timoshenko, J.M. Gere, "Mechanics of materials", D. Van Nostrand Co, 1972
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*
RADIOSS Version
51i
Overview
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.
Grid velocities and displacements are arbitrary.
In practice, built-in algorithms determine smooth grid deformation according to
displacements of the ALE domain boundaries. Several algorithms are available (“DONEA”,
“SPRINGS”, “DISP”, and “ZERO”), in this case, the “DISP” option is used: the velocity of a
node is computed using the average velocities of the connected nodes.
Boundary nodes between ALE and Lagrangian materials must be set Lagrangian: grid and
material velocities are equal. Boundary nodes between ALE and Eulerian materials with must
have a fixed grid velocity.
Both conditions are set using the /ALE/BCS option.
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.
The main purpose of this study is to obtain the maximum deflection of the flap in time.
Plotting the vertical displacement of the node 23360 given in the following graph in which the
flap position is stabilized at time t=1 s.
The pressure stabilization in time is shown in Fig 5 for elements 3370 and 3992.
Summary
Two overlapping plates (aluminum) are connected by a rivet (titanium) forming a lap joint.
The aluminum and titanium materials are both defined by piece-wise linear elasto-plastic
law. The plates and the rivet are meshed with solid elements. The free end of the bottom
plate is constrained and the free end of the top plate is pulled (by applying imposed
displacement) to shear the joint. An all inclusive contact is defined such that all the
components in the model are master and all nodes of the model are slave.
This example is considered a static problem and the nonlinear implicit solver is used.
Number
40.1
Brief Description
A lap joint is fixed at one end and pulled at the other to shear the joint.
Keywords
Nonlinear large displacement analysis (NLGEOM)
Contact definition (CONTACT)
Plasticity and Piece-wise linear elasto-plastic material (MATX36 and TABLES1)
RADIOSS Options
Parameters for Geometric Nonlinear Implicit Static Analysis Control (NLPARMX)
Boundary conditions (SPC)
Imposed displacement (SPCD and NLOAD1)
Solid element (PSOLIDX)
Contact property for NLGEOM analysis (PCONTX)
Input File
Lap_joint: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/40_Lap_joint/lapjoint*
RADIOSS Version
11.0
The material used for the aluminum plates have the following properties:
The material used for the titanium rivet has the following properties:
The imposed displacements are defined in FEM file using NLOAD1 card:
SPCD 3 572 1 2.5
………………
NLOAD1 7 3 DISP 8
CONTACT 6 7 2 7 OPENGAP
A small physical gap of around 0.02mm has been introduced between the top and bottom
plates and also between the plates and the rivet. The minimum gap specified (0.022) for the
contact is slightly higher than the physical gap for contact to take effect. A static Coulomb
friction of 0.05 is defined for the interface.
PCONT 7 AUTO
PCONTX 7 0.05 0.022 0
+ CONST
+ 4
+
+ COUL STIFF
+
The plasticity 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.
The nonlinear implicit parameters used are:
A solver method is required to resolve Ax=b in each iteration of a nonlinear cycle. The linear
implicit options used are:
The input nonlinear implicit options set in the FEM file are defined by NLPARMX:
NLPARM 9 100 P
+ 0.01
+ 6 1.02 20 0.8
Refer to the RADIOSS manual for more details about implicit options.
The nonlinear large deformation analysis has to be defined through a subcase. An NLPARM
statement, as well as ANALYSIS=NLGEOM has to be present in the subcase. The termination
time of 1.0s is defined thru the TTERM entry.
SUBCASE 1
ANALYSIS NLGEOM
SPC = 10
NLPARM = 9
NLOAD = 7
TTERM = 1.000
Animations
The displacement, stresses (mises) and plastic strain results after the shearing of the joint
are shown in the following figures.
Summary
Four cantilever beams are analyzed. The objective is to evaluate the response of the beams
under (i) linear static analysis (small displacements) and (ii) geometric nonlinear analysis
(large displacements) with and without the application of follower forces.
Considering the example is a static problem, the nonlinear implicit solver is used.
Number
41.1
Brief Description
Cantilever beams.
Keywords
Nonlinear large displacement analysis (NLGEOM)
Termination time (TTERM)
RADIOSS Options
Parameters for Geometric Nonlinear Implicit Static Analysis Control (NLPARMX)
Boundary conditions (SPC)
Applied forces (FORCE, TABLED1, and NLOAD1)
Default shell element parameters (XSHLPRM)
Fixed coordinate system (CORD2R)
Moving coordinate system (CORD3R)
Input File
Follower force: <install_directory>/demos/hwsolvers/radioss/41_Follower_force/
follow_force*
RADIOSS Version
11.0
Modeling Methodology
The mesh is a regular shell mesh with average element size of 5mm.
The beams have been modeled using first order reduced integrated shell elements as
specified in the default definition of shell element properties (XSHLPRM):
PSHELL 1 11.0 1 1 0.0
XSHLPRM 24 2 VAR NEWT 5
The loads and boundary conditions applied in the model are shown in Figure 2.
The cantilever beams are constrained at one end and all dof and forces are applied at the
other end (15N are applied at the the two outer nodes as 30N is applied at the center node).
SPC 6 1 1234560.0
………………
NLOAD1 7 4 8
The input nonlinear implicit options set in the FEM file are defined by NLPARMX:
NLPARM 1 2
Refer to the RADIOSS manual for more details about implicit options.
The nonlinear large deformation analysis has to be defined through a subcase. An NLPARM
statement, as well as ANALYSIS=NLGEOM has to be present in the subcase. The termination
time of 1.0s is defined thru the TTERM entry. The first subcase is linear static and the second
subcase is geometric nonlinear.
SUBCASE 1
SPC = 6
LOAD = 2
SUBCASE 2
ANALYSIS NLGEOM
SPC = 6
NLPARM = 1
NLOAD = 7
TTERM = 1.0
Animations
The displacement contour on the beams is shown in Figure 3. As expected, beam 1 for which
static analysis has been performed, shows the largest deformation. Beam 2 (for which
loading has been defined in a fixed coordinate system) and beam 4 (for which loading has
been defined in the default global coordinate system) show the exact same deformations.
Beam 3 for which NLGEOM analysis has been performed with follower forces, shows higher
deformations than beams 2 and 4, and the end where load is applied bulges out into a
spherical shape.
Figure 4 shows the differences in deformation characteristics with and without the application
of follower forces for geometrically linear and geometrically nonlinear analyses.
Whether follower force should be applied or not depends on the application. For situations
where the applied force rotates with the rotation of the load application point, follower forces
should be defined for correct representation of the physical situation. In all other situations
where the direction of the force remains constant, follower forces do not need to be
considered.
Summary
The model consists of a deformed rubber ring resting on a flat, rigid surface. Another circular
rigid impactor 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 ands self-
contact is defined in the inside surface of the ring. The loading is applied in two steps – in the
first step, the circular indenter is pushed down enough to produce self-contact of the inside
surface of the ring. In the second step, the indenter 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 indenter to produce
self-contact on the inside surface of the ring. Then the indenter 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*
RADIOSS Version
11.0
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 (indenter 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 indenter 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 we 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 indenter in step 1 are
shown in Figure 4.
The flat surface is constrained in all dof's, while the impactor 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 indenter in 1st step
In the second step, the top indenter is to be simultaneously translated and rotated such that
the wheel in the crushed configuration rolls along the flat rigid surface in –X direction. So,
the X translation and ZZ rotations of the circular indenter have to be released from the
primary node of /RBODY. Additionally, the center nodes of the ring that were constrained in
X dof (as shown in Fig 3) need to be released for the ring to roll along the flat surface. So,
the Engine file for the second step has the following cards representing release of the above-
mentioned degrees of freedom.
/BCSR/TRA/X/
5 6 8 9 15 16 17 18
87 88 89 93 94 95 241 242
3) Contact definition
Several contacts have been defined: i) contact between the circular indenter 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 indenter 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.
The nonlinear implicit parameters used are:
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 indenter 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
indenter 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,
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)
RADIOSS Version
9.0
Overview
0 = 1.204 kg/m3
0 =0
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.
Polynomial EOS
Polynomial EOS is used in material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) to compute hydrodynamic pressure.
It is cubic in compression and linear in expansion.
(1)
and
(2)
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,
y Cst.x
PV PoVo
V
P(V ) P 0 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.
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 .
Modeling Methodology
A single ALE brick element is used. Material is confined inside the element by defining brick
nodes as Lagrangian. For each face, displacement is imposed on the four nodes along the
normal.
Material law 6 (/MAT/HYDRO) is used and describes the hydrodynamic viscous fluid material.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID
mat_title
i 0
C0 C1 C2 C3
Pmin Psh
C4 C5 E0
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
allow 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:
1. Equation of State
Equation of state can be written:
with
P ,E C4 C5 E
where,
2. Corresponding Input
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
/MAT/LAW6/mat_ID or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID
AbsolutePRESSURE_AbsoluteENERGY
i 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1
3. Output Results
Time Initial
Measure Unit
History Value
/TH/BRICK (P) P P0 Pressure
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:
1. Equation of State
Equation of state for a perfect gas is:
Expanding this expression and identifying with polynomial coefficients leads to:
P( ,E) = P( ,E) = Psh = -Psh + (C4 + C5 )E
where,
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 or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID
RelativePRESSURE_AbsoluteENERGY
i 0
0 0 0 0
-P0 P0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1
4. Output Result
Initial
Time History Measure Unit
Value
/TH/BRICK (P) P 0 Pressure
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 8: Numerical internal energy, model 2:
1. Equation of State
Equation of state for a perfect gas is:
Where,
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 or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID
RelativePRESSURE_RelativeENERGY
i 0
E0( - 1) E0( - 1) 0 0
-P0 P0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1 0
4. Output Results
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. 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.
P , E
Fig 10: Numerical internal energy, model 3:
1. Equation of State
Equation of state for a perfect gas is:
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 or /MAT/HYDRO/mat_ID
AbsolutePRESSURE_RelativeENERGY
i 0
E0( - 1) E0( - 1) 0 0
0 0
C4 = -1 C5 = -1 0
3. Output Results
Time Initial
Measure Unit
History Value
/TH/BRICK (P) P P0 Pressure
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. 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.
P , E
Fig 12: Numerical internal energy, model 4:
Then,
In case of an isentropic transformation (i.e. reversible and adiabatic), the change of internal
energy Eint with volume V and pressure P is given by:
dEint = -PdV
(5)
This expression allows computing 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
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
E0( -
3 E0( - 1) -1 -1 c = cREF
1)
E0( -
4 E0( - 1) -1 -1 c = cREF
1)
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 we got similar results 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/*
RADIOSS Version
10.0 and 11.0
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
Table 1: Results of model computation with and without AMS
With standard
Without time
mass scaling / With AMS
step control
DT/NODA/CST
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 we got 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.
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 multidomain 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 possible the split of 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 you 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 Multidomain Single Input Format makes the sub-domain part
definition with the /SUBDOMAIN keyword.
Keywords
Multidomain Decomposition (/SUBDOMAIN)
Multidomain 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/*
RADIOSS Version
11.0-SA1-220
Modeling Description
In order to get more accurate results we use a fine mesh in the area of interest (e.g. 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). By using the multi-domain
technique, it is possible to use a small timestep for the fine meshed part and a large timestep
for the coarse meshed part.
There are two different methods to use the multidomain 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.
Since RADIOSS v11.0.220 a new feature called “Multi-Domain Single Input Format” is
available. Using the keyword /SUBDOMAIN, you can insert the parts, which shall 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:
We must 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”.
In this example, sub-domain will not impact the master domain during the simulation. So, we
just 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)
CPU 1 1 1
For Test 1 the timestep will be controlled by the fine mesh part. In order to avoid small
timesteps, you could 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 same failure behavior between Test 1 and Test 2. Fig 4 and Fig 5
show exactly the same results between Test 1 and 2. So, Test 2 is faster and provides 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 (here 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 Solid, Liquid, and Gas 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/*
RADIOSS Version
V11.0.240
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
0 Cp = 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.
In solid properties, qa and qb default values are used. These values have to be changed
depending of the formulation (ALE, Euler).
Isolid is set to 14 for copper solid properties.
Conclusion
Good correlation between experimental and simulation results. A thinner meshing could
improve the correlation between simulation and experimental curves.
Elapsed time for simulation: t = 11 441 s, 8514 cycles, (4 cpu intel core i7 Q 840 @ 1.87
GHz).
As the model is Lagrangian, the mesh becomes very distorted at the end of the simulation to obtain a
proper mesh, it is possible to use the Euler method.
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 Solid, Liquid, and Gas 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/*
RADIOSS Version
V11.0.240
Hydrodynamic coefficients:
C11 = 1.38
C21 = 1.372
C41 = 0.87
C51 = 0.87
Tmelt = 1656
Using Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the TNT material has
the following characteristics:
Initial density = 1.63
Using the Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51, the Air material
has the following characteristics:
Initial density = 0.0012
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
# RHO_I RHO_0
.0012 0
# Iflg
10
# P_ext NU LAMDA
0 0 0
# ALPHA_1 RHO_01 E_01 P_min1
C_01
0 8.96 0 0
1E-6
# C_11 C_21 C_31 C_41
C_51
1.38 1.372 0 .87
.87
# G_1 SIGMA_Y_1 BB_1 N_1
.519 9E-4 .00292 .31
# CC_1 EPSILON_DOT_0_1
.025 1E-6
# CM_1 T_10 T_1melt T_1limit
Rhocv_1
1.09 0 1656 0
3.461E-5
# EPSILON_max_1 SIGMA_max_1 K_A1 K_B1
0 0 0 0
# ALPHA_2 RHO_02 E_02 P_min2
C_02
1 .0012 2.5E-6 -1E-20
0
# C_12 C_22 C_32 C_42
C_52
0 0 0 .4
.4
# G_2 SIGMA_Y_2 BB_2 N_2
0 0 0 0
# CC_2 EPSILON_DOT_0_2
0 0
# CM_2 T_20 T_2melt T_2limit
Rhocv_2
0 0 0 0
0
# EPSILON_max_2 SIGMA_max_2 K_A2 K_B2
0 0 0 0
Using the Multi-Material Solid, Liquid, and Gas material law (/MAT/LAW51), the Boundary
material has the following characteristics:
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
# RHO_I RHO_0
.0012 0
# Iflg
3
# ALPHA_1 RHO_01 E_01 P_min1
C_01
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.
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/*
RADIOSS Version
V11.0.240
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 fc 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.
2. Failure mode is similar to uniaxial compression.
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 they are 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 they are lightly 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 they are 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 we demonstrate concrete mechanic behavior between RADIOSS
simulation, theory and experiments. With three kinds of tests the mechanic behavior of
concrete could 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/*
RADIOSS Version
V10.0.5 and 11.0
In this connection material (/MAT/LAW59) we could use stress - plastic strain curve to
describe the material characters of spot-weld. And with failure model (/FAIL/CONNECT) it is
possible for us using two different failure criteria to describe the failure of solid spot. Here in
this example, use the following characteristics:
In this simple example a linear behavior of spotweld has just been assumed. For more
accurate results you could also put nonlinear behavior of spotweld though real physic test
and CAE validation.
Here in the model we 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
Compare with spring beam spotweld molding, the following performance could be observed:
If we use this solid spotweld modeling, it shows less sheet metal mesh size dependence
compared with spring beam element.
With coarse sheet metal mesh size we got similar deformation and similar Force vs
Displacement curve for solid spotweld modeling and spring beam spotweld modeling.
See below:
But once you remesh the sheet metal shell element with fine mesh size (for example
with 2.5mm mesh size here), then you still get similar deformation and Force vs
Displacement curve in solid spotweld modeling but not in spring beam spotweld
modeling. This means less sheet metal mesh size dependence for this new solid
spotweld modeling. See below:
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 strike on the
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 = 2e-30 and qb = 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
mp 2 3 4 3
1.725149 10 2
h 7
6.286 [mm]
9.82242 10
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:
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. This allows reducing the computational time.
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 tided 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.
The Interface Force between the bird and the windshield is shown in Fig. 4.
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 decohesion), 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, such as for instance multiple penetration cases.