Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Method of Finite Elements II - Introduction
Prof. Dr. Eleni ChatziDr. Giuseppe Abbiati, Dr. Konstantinos Agathos
Lecture 1 - 20 September, 2018
Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich
September 20, 2018
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 1
Outline
1 Course information
2 Learning goals
3 Linear vs. Nonlinear operators - Strong vs. Weak form
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 2
Course Information
InstructorsProf. Dr. Eleni Chatzi, email: [email protected]. Giuseppe Abbiati, email: [email protected]. Konstantinos Agathos, email: [email protected]
AssistantAdrian Egger, HIL E19.5, email: [email protected]
Course WebsiteLecture Notes and Demos will be posted in:http://www.chatzi.ibk.ethz.ch/education/method-of-finite-elements-ii.html
Performance Evaluation - Final Project (100%)Topic Categories announced on 11.10.2018 - You are free to shape yourown project!
Computer Labs are already be pre-announced and it is advised to bring alaptop along for those sessions
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 3
Course Information
Suggested Reading
“Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures”, by T.Belytschko, W. K. Liu, and B. Moran, John Wiley and Sons, 2000
“The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic FiniteElement Analysis”, by T. J. R. Hughes, Dover Publications, 2000
“Nonlinear finite element analysis of solids and structures”,Crisfield,M.A., Remmers, J.J. and Verhoosel, C.V., John Wiley Sons, 2012
“Computational methods for plasticity: theory and applications”, DeSouza Neto, E.A., Peric, D. and Owen, D.R., 2011
Lecture Notes by Carlos A. FelippaNonlinear Finite Element Methods (ASEN 6107):http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/NFEM.d/Home.html
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 4
Course Outline
FEM II - Lecture ScheduleIntroduction - From Linear to Nonlinear ConsiderationsBlock #1Material Nonlinearities I - Constitutive ModelingMaterial Nonlinearities II - FE Implementation
Computer Lab I
Block #2Geometrical Nonlinearities I - IntroductionGeometrical Nonlinearities II - FE formulation and solution methods
Computer Lab II
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 5
Course Outline
FEM II - Lecture Schedule
Block #3Fracture I - General principlesFracture II - The eXtended Finite Element Method
Block #4Dynamics INonlinear Dynamics II
Computer Lab III
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 6
Course Outline
FEM II - Lecture Schedule
Block #5Substructuring ISubstructuring II/Consultation session
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 7
Learning goals
By the end of the lecture, the goal is to:
Be able to distinguish between linear and nonlinear behavior
Understand what a weak formulation of a problem is and why itis useful
Review the most common types of nonlinearities
Have an idea of how nonlinear problems can be solved
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 8
Linear maps
How can we in general define linear?
To help us answer the question we will use the followingmathematical definition:
DefinitionGiven two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a functionf : V→W, such that for every u, v ∈ V and a scalar c, thefollowing conditions apply:
f (u + v) = f (u) + f (v)f (cu) = cf (u)
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 9
Linear maps
But what is a vector space?
DefinitionA vector space is a collection of objects for which addition andmultiplication with a scalar are defined.
The above is quite general and applies in the same way for e.g.:
Vectors in Rn
Functions defined in Rn, for instance all polynomials of order pdefined in R
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 10
Linear maps
Examples of linear maps:
An m × n matrix:
- Transforms elements from the vector space of vectors in Rn toelements of the vector space of vectors in Rm
- Preserves addition and multiplication by a scalar
Differentiation:
- Transforms elements from the function space of differentiablefunctions in R
- Preserves addition and multiplication by a scalar
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 11
Strong form
Consider the simple problem of a bar with:
Constant cross section A
Length L
A fixed left end
A distributed axial load P
A load R at the right end
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 12
Strong form
The equilibrium equation canbe obtained by:
Considering the stressesapplied at a segment ofinfinitesimal length
Considering the appliedforce constant in thatinterval
σ (x) A =[σ (x) + dσ (x)
dx dx]
A + P (x) dx A
⇒ dσdx + P = 0
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 13
Strong form
Additionally we consider:
Linear1elastic materialbehavior:
σ = Eε
where ε are the strains
A linear2strain measure:
ε =(du
dx
)where u are thedisplacements
By substituting in the equilibrium equation we obtain:
E d2udx2 + P = 0
1As defined previouslyInstitute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 14
Strong form
Finally, the boundary conditions are also considered:
E d2udx2 + P = 0
u = 0 for x = 0
Aσ = AE(du
dx
)= R for x = L
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 15
Linear equations
We can easily verify that the equilibrium equation is a linear!
In general, differential equations of the form:
a0 (x) u (x) + a1 (x) u′ (x) + a2 (x) u′′ (x) + · · ·+ an (x) u(n) (x) = 0
are linear.
However, equations with products of derivatives of the same ordifferent degree are not, for instance:
u (x) u′′ (x) = 0
is not linear.
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 16
Sources of nonlinearity
The linear equilibrium equation can be turned into a nonlinear one iffor instance:
An alternative materialbehavior is considered:
σ = E1ε+ E2ε2
corresponding equation:
E1d2udx2 +2E2
dudx
d2udx2 +P = 0
An alternative strainmeasure is considered:
ε = dudx + 1
2
(dudx
)2
corresponding equation:
E[
d2udx2 + du
dxd2udx2
]+ P = 0
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 17
Sources of nonlinearity
Such occurrences are common in practice, and in general thefollowing types of nonlinearity can be identified:
Material nonlinearity, i.e. nonlinear meterial laws
Geometrical nonlinearity, i.e. nonlinearity associated with thegeometry of the deformation
Boundary associated nonlinearity, e.g. contact
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 18
Strong form solution
The solution of the differential equation would satisfyequilibrium at every point
Thus, the equation is called the “strong form” of the problem
Approximate solutions could also be obtained by:
- Assuming a specific form for the solution, e.g. polynomial of acertain degree
- Enforcing the equation and boundary conditions at selectedpoints to obtain unknown coefficients
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 19
Weak form
An alternative to the above is posing the problem in “weak form”.Then:
The equations are not satisfied at every point
Instead they are satisfied in an “average” sense
In the following, alternative ways of deriving such a “weak form” willbe presented.
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 20
Weak form - Galerkin method
Starting with the equilibrium equation:
Eu′′ + P = 0
we employ an arbitrary function w (x), called the weight function,and we demand that:∫ L
0
∫A
w(Eu′′ + P
)dAdx =
∫ L
0w(EAu′′ + q
)dx = 0
regardless of the values of the parameters involved in the definitionof w . In the above AP = q
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 21
Weak form - Galerkin method
Then by integrating the first term by parts we obtain:
−∫ L
0EAw ′u′dx +
(wu′)∣∣L
0 +∫ L
0wqdx = 0
By further assuming that w (0) = 0,w (L) = 0 and rearranging weobtain the weak form as:∫ L
0EAw ′u′dx −
∫ L
0wqdx = 0
We observe that the highest derivative appearing in the equation is 1as opposed to 2 for the initial equation.
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 22
Weak form - Potential energy minimization
The same result can be obtained by following a different route. Westart with the total potential energy functional for the bar:
Π =∫ L
0
12EA
(u′)2 dx −
∫ L
0qudx
but what is a functional?
DefinitionFunctional is a mapping from a function space to the real numbers.
In other words a functional maps functions to numbers, i.e. it is afunction of functions!
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 23
Weak form - Potential energy minimization
At the point of equilibrium, the total potential energy should beminimized.
To minimize a functional we need to define variations:
DefinitionThe variation of a function u (x) is defined as an arbitrary andsufficiently smooth function η (x) that vanishes at the points whereboundary conditions are applied:
δu = η
For the derivatives of η the following should apply:
dnη
dxn = dnδudxn = δ
(dnudxn
)
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 24
Weak form - Potential energy minimization
Then for a functional we have:
DefinitionThe variation of a functional F of a function u and its derivatives(u′, u′′, . . . , un) is defined as:
δF = limε→0
F[u + εη, (u + εη)′ , (u + εη)′′ , . . . , (u + εη)n
]− F [u, u′, u′′, . . . , un]
ε
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 25
Weak form - Potential energy minimization
The variational operator has several common properties todifferentiation, for instance:
δ (F + Q) = δF + δQ, δ (FQ) = (δF ) Q + (δQ) F
Also for functionals including integrals:
δ
∫F (x) dx =
∫δF (x) dx
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 26
Weak form - Potential energy minimization
Similar to functions, the stationary conditions for functionals is thattheir variations should vanish.
For the total potential energy functional, this yields:
δΠ =∫ L
0EAu′δu′dx −
∫ L
0qδudx = 0
For comparison, the Galerkin method yields:
∫ L
0EAw ′u′dx −
∫ L
0wqdx = 0
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 27
Weak form
We can observe:
Minimizing potential energy is equivalent to the principle ofvirtual work if δu are considered as the virtual displacements
Both of the above formulations are equivalent to the Galerkinmethod if δu are considered as the weights
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 28
Weak form
For all the formulations presented we can also remark the following:
The highest derivative of the displacement in the weak form isof degree 1 as opposed to 2 for the strong form
The above also relaxes the smoothness requirements forapproximate solutions
Similar to the strong form, the weak form is linear with respectto the displacements
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 29
Strong vs. Weak form
To better understand the concepts lets consider an example:
We set:
R = 0
P = P0 ⇒ q = q0 = AP0
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 30
Strong vs. Weak form
Using the strong form:
Eu′′ + P0 = 0u = 0 for x = 0
Aσ = AE(du
dx
)= 0 for x = L
we can easily solve the problem by assuming the displacements are aquadratic polynomial:
u (x) = a0 + a1x + a2x2
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 31
Strong vs. Weak form
Then plugging displacements into the equilibrium equation yields:
E (a0 + a1x + a2x2)′′ + P0 = 0 ⇒ E (2a2) + P0 = 0 ⇒ a2 = P02E
and the boundary conditions:
u (0) = 0 ⇒ a0 = 0AEu′ (L) = 0 ⇒ a1 + 2a2L = 0 ⇒ a1 = −2a2L
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 32
Strong vs. Weak form
Putting everything together yields the solution:
u (x) = −P0LE x + P0
2E x2 = P02E x (2L− x)
or in terms of q:
u (x) = q02EAx (2L− x)
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 33
Strong vs. Weak form
To solve the same problem using potential energy minimization westart with the same assumption for the displacements:
u (x) = a0 + a1x + a2x2
Then the variations of the displacements and their derivatives are:
δu = δa0 + δa1x + δa2x2, δu′ = δa1 + 2δa2x
Notice that it is of the same form as the assumed displacements.
Also δu should vanish at x = 0, thus:
δu = δa1x + δa2x2
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 34
Strong vs. Weak form
Plugging these expressions into the weak form we obtain:
δΠ =∫ L
0EAu′δu′dx −
∫ L
0qδudx = 0
⇒δa1
[EAL (a1 + a2L)− L2q
2
]+
+δa2
[EAL2
(a1 + 4
3a2L)− L3q
3
]= 0
Since δa1 and δa2 are arbitrary parameters, both expressions inbrackets should vanish.
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 35
Strong vs. Weak form
By solving the system resulting form the above equations we obtain:
a1 = LqEA , a2 = − q
2EAApplying the boundary condition at x = 0 yields:
a0 = 0
By putting everything together, the same solution as with the strongform is obtained:
u (x) = q02EAx (2L− x)
We observe that the boundary condition at the left end is satisfiedautomatically!
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 36
Strong vs. Weak form
The same result as with the previous methods can be obtained usingthe Galerkin method if:
A quadratic polynomial is assumed for the displacements
The same form is assumed for the weights
The weights are forced to vanish at the locations whereboundary conditions are applied
Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements II 37