DESCRIPT (1).pdf - [PDF Document] (2024)

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

1/30

Descriptionof

Sample Problems

Introduction

toFeatures in LS-DYNA

LIVERMORE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (LSTC)

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

2/30

Corporate Address

Livermore Software Technology Corporation

P. O. Box 712

Livermore, California 94551-0712

Support Addresses

Livermore Software Technology Corporation

7374 Las Positas RoadLivermore, California 94551Tel:925-449-2500 Fax: 925-449-2507

Email: [emailprotected]

Website: www.lstc.com

Livermore Software Technology Corporation

1740 West Big Beaver RoadSuite 100Troy, Michigan 48084

Tel: 248-649-4728 Fax: 248-649-6328

Disclaimer

Copyright 2000-2007 Livermore Software Technology Corporation.All Rights Reserved.

LS-DYNA, LS-OPT and LS-PrePost are registered trademarks ofLivermore Software TechnologyCorporation in the United States. Allother trademarks, product names and brand names belong to

their respective owners.

LSTC reserves the right to modify the material contained withinthis manual without prior notice.

The information and examples included herein are forillustrative purposes only and are not intended to

be exhaustive or all-inclusive. LSTC assumes no liability orresponsibility whatsoever for any directof indirect damages orinaccuracies of any type or nature that could be deemed to haveresulted from

the use of this manual.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

3/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

1.

Description of Sample Problems

This document is an introduction to some of the featuresofLS-DYNA. New features are

being constantly developed and added to LS-DYNA, and many of thenewer capabilities are not

described in this document. If the following problems are takenas a starting point, the

incorporation of improved shell elements, different materialmodels, and other new features can

be approached in a step-by-step procedure with a high degree ofconfidence.

The following ten sample problems are given for yourintroduction toLS-DYNA:

Sample 1: Bar Impacting a Rigid Wall

Sample 2: Impact of a Cylinder into a Rail

Sample 3: Impact of Two Elastic Solids

Sample 4: Square Plate Impacted by a RodSample 5: Box BeamBuckling

Sample 6: Space Frame Impact

Sample 7: Thin Beam Subjected to an Impact

Sample 8: Impact on a Cylindrical Shell

Sample 9: Simply Supported Flat Plate

Sample 10: Hourglassing of Simply Supported Plate

Once completing a review of this document, it is highlyrecommended that you proceed to

the LS-DYNA3D Keyword Manual as the next step for additionalunderstanding of the features

ofLS-DYNA.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

4/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

2.

Sample 1: Bar Impacting a Rigid Wall

Sample 1 simulates a cylindrical bar (3.24 centimeters inlength) with a radius of 0.32

centimeters impacting a rigid wall at a right angle (normalimpact). The finite element model has

three planes of symmetry. The first two planes correspond to thex-z and y-z surfaces (see Figure

1 for finite element mesh). These two symmetry planes yield aquarter section model which

reduces the number of elements by a factor of four over a fullmodel with no loss in accuracy.

Eight-node continuum brick elements are used.

Figure 1. Sample 1 mesh.

The third symmetry plane corresponds to the front x-y surface ofthe mesh, and simulates

a rigid wall. This could have been modeled using either a rigidwall or sliding surface definitions

at greater CPU cost.A bilinear elastic/plastic material model(model 3) was used with the properties of copper.

Isotropic strain hardening is included. The material propertiesused are summarized in Table 1.

The bar is given an initial velocity of 2.27x10-2

centimeters/microseconds in the negative

z-direction. View the time sequence of the deforming mesh. Also,view the contour deformation

time sequence in the z-direction. The displacement responseshows a total z-displacement of

-1.087 centimeters. Thus the final length of the 3.24centimeters long bar is 2.15 centimeters.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

5/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

3.

Material Model 3

Density (g/cm3) 8.93

Elastic Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 1.17

Tangent Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 1.0x10-3

Yield Strength (g/sec2 cm) 4.0x10-3

Poissons Ratio 0.33

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Table 1. Material properties.

View the time sequence of the deforming mesh with contours ofeffective plastic strain.

Note that the boundary of plastic deformation moves up the barin time. Also note the extreme

plastic strain near the impact surface. The model predicts amaximum plastic strain of almost300% in this localized region.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

6/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

4.

Sample 2: Impact of a Cylinder into a Rail

Sample 2 models a hollow circular cylinder impacting a rigidrail in the radial direction.

The cylinder is 9 inches in diameter by 12 inches long with a1/4 inch wall thickness. A rigid

ring is added to each end to increase stiffness and mass. Thecylinder is given an initial velocity

of 660 inches/second toward the rail.

One quarter of the cylinder was modeled using two planes ofsymmetry. Figure 2 shows

the finite element mesh. The first plane of symmetry is the x-yplane on the right side of the

mesh. The second plane of symmetry is the y-z plane. The rail ismodeled using a stonewall

plane on the top surface. The other surfaces of the rail areadded for graphic display clarity and

serve no other purpose. Approximately 70 nodes on the cylinderin the vicinity of the rail are

slaved to the stonewall.

Figure 2. Sample 2 mesh.

The cylinder model has three brick elements through the wallthickness. This is the

minimum number required to capture bending stresses withplasticity. Note the higher element

density in the vicinity of the rail. The modeler anticipatedthat this region would undergo the

most deformation and decreased element density away from therail to minimize the cost of the

analysis.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

7/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

5.

The cylinder uses an isotropic elastic/plastic material model(model 12) with the elastic

perfectly plastic material properties of steel. The rigidsupport ring on the end of the cylinder

uses material model 1, to represent a perfectly elastic materialwith twice the stiffness of steel.

The density of this material is approximately 20 times that ofsteel. Table 2 gives a summary of

the material properties.

Steel cylinder Added mass

Material Model 12 1

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 7.346x10

-41.473x10

-2

Shear Modulus (lb/in2) 1.133x10

5N/A

Yield Strength (lb/in2) 1.90x10

5N/A

Hardening Modulus (lb/in2) 0.0 N/A

Bulk Modulus (lb/in

2

) 2.4x10

7

N/AElastic Modulus (lb/in

2) N/A 60x10

6

Table 2. Material properties.

View the time sequence of the deforming mesh. View the timehistory of the rigid body

displacement (node 4987) of the support ring in the y-direction.A maximum displacement of

-1.77 inches occurs at 4.6 milliseconds, after which thestructure loses its elastic strain energy

and rebounds upward.

View the time history of the difference in nodal displacements(y-direction) between

nodes 205 and 860. Node 205 is located on the outside surface ofthe cylinder near the center of

the rail. Node 860 is located on the outside of the cylindernear the lower end of the support ring.

The difference between the y-displacements of these nodes is ameasure of the depth of the dent

in the cylinder. It is seen that there is a maximum relativedisplacement of 1.70 inches which

then stabilizes to a 1.51 inch dent after the elastic strainenergy is recovered. Experimental

measurements recorded a maximum residual dent of 1.44 inches.The post-peak oscillations are

due to elastic vibration of the cylinder about its deformedshape.

View the contours of effective plastic strain after the impact(t = 6.4 milliseconds). Mostof the contours shown represent lessthan 17% plastic strain. Some very localized plastic strain

of up to 29% is predicted on the outer surface at the center ofthe rail.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

8/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

6.

Sample 3: Impact of Two Elastic Solids

Sample 3 investigates the uniaxial strain wave propagationdeveloped by two elastic solids

under normal impact. The finite element mesh (see Figure 3) is acolumn of 100 brick elements

arranged as a one-dimensional bar. The cross-section is square,one unit of length by one unit of

length with one element in each of the sectional directions. Atthe mid-length section the model

is separated by a sliding with voids (type 3) slide surfacewhich divides the bar into two pieces.

Figure 3. Sample 3 mesh.

All nodal translational displacements are constrained in boththe y and z directions, thus

only allowing translation in the x, or "length-wise," direction.This generates a uniaxial strain

state within the bar to represent the behavior of two impactinghalf spaces The left half of the

model is given an initial x-velocity of 0.1 length/time, whilethe right half is initially at rest.

The dynamics resulting from this collision are best seen byexamining kinematic response

time histories of each of the two pieces of the model. The leftpiece begins with node 205

(leftmost end) and ends with node 405 (rightmost end). The rightpiece begins with node 1

(leftmost end) and ends with node 201 (rightmost end).

View the x-velocity time history of nodes 405 and 1. Node 405(left piece) impacts node

1 (right piece) in a very short time. The initial shock from theimpact has a rise time of

approximately 0.10 time units. During this time node 405decelerates and node 1 accelerates

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

9/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

7.

until a common velocity is attained. This common velocity ismaintained as the strain wave

travels down each section of the bar. The strain wave in theleft piece propagates from negative

x-direction, reflects off the free end and comes back towardsthe interface of the two pieces

traveling a distance equal to the length of the whole bar ortwice the length of each piece. The

strain wave in the right piece travels from left to right andthen returns back to the interface. The

time needed for the strain wave to propagate to the freesurface, reflect, and propagate back to the

interface is approximately 1.0 time units. The wave velocity cin an elastic solid can be

approximated by

c = sqrt[(+2G)/] = sqrt(E/) for = 0.0

where is Lames first constant, E is the elastic modulus, G isthe shear modulus, is the mass

density, and is Poissons ratio. The elastic material modelspecifies that E = 100 and = 0.01,

yielding a strain wave velocity of 100 (length/time). The timerequired for the strain wave to

travel a distance L is given by

t = L/c

In the present example, L = 100 and c = 100, thus the timerequired for each of the two strain

waves to travel the length of each piece and reflect back is 1unit of time. This agrees well with

the LS-DYNA analysis results.

The two halves of the bar separate when the reflected strainwaves reach the interface.

The left piece loses its kinetic energy to the right piece. Ascan be seen in the velocity plot, the

system is conservative since the right piece gains all of thevelocity lost by the left piece due to

their equal masses.

Also of interest is the overshoot in velocity seen when the twopieces first impact. This is

partially due to the penalty formulation of the slide surface,and partially due to the finite spatial

discretization and sharp strain wave front. This effect isdamped out quite rapidly and could be

made as small as desired through mesh refinement.

View the x-displacement time histories of nodes 405 and 1. Alsoview the x-velocity timehistories of nodes 205 and 405, and the x-velocity time histories of nodes 1 and 201.

View the difference in nodal displacements (x-direction) betweennodes 1 and 405. This

quantity can be interpreted as the gap between the two pieces.During the collision when the two

pieces are mated, the gap distance is shown to be a smallnegative quantity. Of course, a physical

distance cannot be negative, and in fact should be zero in thiscase. This type of response is

typical of penalty-type slide surfaces in contact, and shouldnot be cause for concern. This

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

10/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

8.

negative gap can be decreased by increasing the penalty scalefactor in LS-DYNA. Increasing the

penalty parameter over the default value can decrease themaximum allowable time step,

requiring the user to input a "time step scale factor" < 1.0and thus increasing the cost of the

calculation. This may result in a larger amplitude on theovershoot discussed above. Depending

on the particular application, it is often best to accept asmall amount of overlap or negative gap

when using slide surfaces instead of using too high of a penaltyparameter. The default penalty

parameter has proven an effective choice for a wide range ofapplications.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

11/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

9.

Sample 4: Square Plate Impacted by a Rod

Sample 4 simulates a solid rod, 4 centimeters in radius by 25centimeters long, impacting

a 62 centimeter by 62 centimeter square plate in the center. Theplate is supported near the edges

by a plate frame that elevates the main plate 5 centimeters fromthe reference ground. The main

plate is 0.79 centimeter thick and the plate frame 0.5centimeter thick. Both parts are modeled

using four-node Belytschko-Tsay shell elements. Figure 4 showsthe finite element mesh of the

model. Table 4 lists the material properties of the rod, mainplate and plate frame respectively.

Figure 4. Sample 4 mesh.

The impacting rod is given a rigid material model with eightnode brick elements and an

initial velocity of 1.8x10-3

centimeters/microsecond (18 meters/second) into the center ofthe

main plate which is initially at rest. The elastic modulusspecified for the rigid material is used

only for slide surface calculations. Quarter symmetry boundaryconditions were used on the rod.

The main plate is modeled using quarter symmetry boundaryconditions. Quadrilateral

shell elements are used with an elastic/plastic material model.Both the rod and main plate are

given symmetric boundary conditions on the x-z and y-z surfacesto utilize the symmetries of the

problem and hence reduce the number of elements by a factor offour.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

12/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

10.

Rod

Material Model 20

Density (g/cm3) 1.9218x10

1

Elastic Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 2.1

Poissons Ratio 0.0

Main plate

Material Model 3

Density (g/cm3) 7.85

Elastic Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 2.1

Tangent Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 1.24x10-2

Yield Strength (g/sec2

cm) 4.0x10-3

Hardening Parameter 1.0Poissons Ratio 0.3

Plate frame

Material Model 3

Density (g/cm3) 7.85

Elastic Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 2.1

Tangent Modulus (g/sec2

cm) 1.24x10-2

Yield Strength (g/sec2

cm) 2.15x10-3

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Poissons Ratio 0.3

Table 4. Material properties.

A sliding with voids (type 3) slide surface is defined betweenthe rod and the center of the

main plate as previously mentioned. This allows the rod toimpart loads and deformations onto

the plate without node penetration.

The nodes of the innermost 4 square centimeters of the quartermodel of the plate areslaved to the bottom end of the rod whichacts as the master surface for the slide surface

definition. By limiting the slave region as mentioned, thecomputation time can be greatly

reduced. The vertical support plates are attached 25 centimetersout from the center of the target

plate. The nodes of the support plates are merged with the nodesof the main plate, thus

simulating a welded union between the main plate and supportplates.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

13/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

11.

View the time sequence of the rod impacting the plate. Thesequence lasts for 1x104

microseconds. Note that the rod begins rebounding from theplate, reversing its velocity near t =

3x103

microseconds. This event is more clearly seen in the timehistory velocity plot

(z-direction) of nodes 1 and 4970. Node 1 corresponds to thefront left node of the main plate,

node 4970 corresponds to the lower center node of the rod. Onecan see that in the early and later

stages of the impact the plate oscillates relative to therod.

View the corresponding z-displacement of the rod (node 4970) andplate (node 1). The

maximum deflection occurs at 3x103

microseconds after which both the plate and rod rebound

back. At t = 4.5x103

microseconds the plate oscillates about its final deflection ofapproximately

2.5 centimeters and the rod rebounds at a velocity of 7.3meters/second in the positive

z-direction. The initial and final kinetic energies of the rodare 0.97 kiloJoules and 0.16

kiloJoules, respectively. Thus, the rod lost approximately 85%of its energy to the plastic

deformation and motion of the target plate.View the gap(difference in z-displacement of nodes 4970 and 1) between the rodand the

plate as a function of time. Note the positive finite gap of 0.1centimeter during the simulated

contact. This is due to the measured displacements being on therod centerline, and the target

plate cupping below the centerline of the rod. Contact ismaintained between the outer edge of

the rod and the plate until separation. This cupping phenomenonis frequently observed

experimentally and is accurately predicted by LS-DYNA.

View the contours of z-displacement of the main plate at t =1x104

microseconds. Note

that even though the simulation is terminated at t = 1x104

microseconds the plate is still

responding dynamically i.e., it has not yet reached staticequilibrium. View the contours of

effective plastic strain (mid-surface) in the main plate at t =1x104

microseconds. The majority

of the plastic strain occurs in the vicinity of the impact, witha small zone along the 45 diagonal

of the plate due to strain wave focusing effects. View thecontours of effective stress (maximum)

in the target plate. Many of the contours represent the effectsof transient strain waves in the

plate at this time.

Overall, this model is a good example of the robust dynamicimpact capabilities of

LS-DYNA.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

14/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

12.

Sample 5: Box Beam Buckling

Sample 5 investigates the buckling of a slender beam. The beam,made of 0.06 inch thick

sheet metal, is 12 inches long and its cross-section measures2.75 by 2.75 inches. A quarter

symmetric model is used in this analysis. The right 2 inches ofthe length of the beam is loaded

by a constant velocity field, which acts in a direction parallelto the beams longitudinal axis.

Figure 5 shows the finite element mesh used for this model. Themesh is composed of

1800 four node shell elements using three integration pointsthrough the thickness. The material

model used is bilinear elastic/plastic with isotopic hardeningand the (model 3) material

properties of steel. A summary of the material properties isgiven in Table 5.

Figure 5. Sample 5 mesh.

Buckling is an unstable physical phenomena which complicates thedevelopment of a

realistic numeric model. Physically, buckling is sensitive toimperfections in a structure, which

must be incorporated in some way into the numerical model toobtain meaningful results. This

model uses a carefully constructed mesh incorporating nodaldisplacement constraints for quarter

symmetry, slide surfaces to prevent element interpenetration,and initial displacements to model

geometric imperfections. The mesh uses 900 elements for eachside of the quarter sector, 10

elements for the flange width and 90 elements for the flangelength.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

15/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

13.

Material Model 3

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 7.1x10

-4

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3.0x10

7

Tangent Modulus (lb/in2) 6.0x10

4

Poissons Ratio 0.3

Yield Strength (lb/in2) 3.0x10

4

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Table 5. Material properties.

The nodes located at the left end of the model are given acompletely fixed displacement

constraint to prevent rigid body motion when loaded. Note thatthe length of the part (z-axis) is

divided into two sections. The right section has all nodaldisplacements constrained with theexception of z-translation. Theright edge is given a prescribed constant velocity in thenegative

z-direction of 273 inches/seconds. These two kinematic featuresof the right portion allow it to

act as rigid ram, causing the left portion into buckling.

The lower lengthwise edge has symmetry boundary conditions(nodal displacement

constraints in the translational y, rotational x and zdirections). The upper lengthwise edge has

the translational x, rotational y and z displacementsconstrained. All internal nodes have no

displacement restrictions on the left portion of the part.

The most unstable stage of the buckling is the initiation oflateral deflection. This is

numerically stabilized in the model by using a small crease orinitial displacement in the part at

the interface between the right and left portions. This creasestarts the buckling in a

predetermined direction, thus eliminating the initial numericinstability. Physically, parts exhibit

buckling behavior that can, in some cases, be quite sensitive toinitial imperfections.

The appropriate inclusion of initial imperfections is one of themost important modeling

choices in a buckling analysis.

View the sequential deformation of the model. Note that the boxbeam walls folds onto

itself in a distorted sinusoid pattern. To prevent thecontacting surfaces from penetrating each

other a slide surface is defined. The particular slide surfaceused is the single surface contact(type 4) slide surface. The keyfeature of this type of slide surface is that every node in the

definition is a slave to all other nodes. The advantage of usingthis type of slide surface lies in

the fact that any portion of the defined area can contact anyother portion without undesirable

penetration. The disadvantage is that the computation timerequired for such a slide surface is

somewhat longer than for the other slide surfaces. Even thoughboth the outside and inside

surfaces of the model may fold into contact, only one type 4slide surface needs to be defined.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

16/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

14.

This surface is chosen to have normal vectors pointing towardthe center or longitudinal axis of

the box beam, although outward normal vectors would yield thesame solution.

In the single surface contact algorithm, every segment in thedefinition must check every

other segment in the definition for penetration. Thus,computation time increases greatly with

the number of segments in the definition. When using this typeof slide surface, extra time spent

by the analyst in reducing the number of segments in thedefinition will substantially reduce

computation time and hence cost.

Many times the modeler can use engineering intuition toeliminate areas from the slide

surface definition that will not contact other areas. A few suchexamples can be found in this

model. The right portion used as the ram contains 300 elements,200 of which do not contact any

other portion. These right 200 elements could therefore beexcluded from the slide surface

definition without degrading the results. In the initialanalysis, contact of these elements in the

vicinity of the buckle may have been questionable. However, ifparameter studies were to beconducted, these elements could bedeleted from the slide surface definition for all subsequent

runs resulting in a substantial decrease in run time.Additionally, this right portion should not

contact the left 200 or 300 elements due to the imposeddisplacement constraints. Here, two or

three separate slide surface definitions could be used. Bydividing the slide surface definition

into three parts (right, middle, and left), one could use theintuition that the right portion might

contact the middle but not the bottom portion and the middleportion may contact both the right

and left portions. Computation time could be saved by using asingle surface contact definition

on the middle section while the right and left sections areseparately slaved to the middle using a

less costly type of slide surface. The extent of the middlesection would decrease with increased

intuition of the behavior. With the insight gained from thismodel one could probably limit the

slide surface definition to the middle section only.

Also of interest in this calculation is the use of four-nodeBelytschko-Tsay shell elements

with three integration points through the thickness. Threeintegration points is the minimum

number required to capture bending with plasticity. Purelyelastic bending can be captured by

two points through the thickness due to the linear stressdistribution. Of course, the more

integration points used the larger the computation time, withincreased accuracy in capturing a

complex stress distribution through the thickness.This partcould have been modeled using eight node brick elements. Sincebrick elements

have only one integration point, they would have to be layeredat least three deep to capture a

stress distribution due to bending, thus substantiallyincreasing the number of elements needed.

Another consideration is the ratio of maximum to minimum lengthsof the three sides of a brick

element. This aspect ratio is best kept less than four forreliable accuracy. Using three elements

through the thickness for a given plate thickness will thusseverely reduce the in-plane

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

17/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

15.

dimensions of the element, hence requiring a very large numberof small elements to be used.

The formulation of the shell element does not constrain thein-plane dimensions of the element

regardless of the thickness, except that the thickness must besufficiently small that shell theory is

applicable. Thus, for problems where the stress gradientsthrough the thickness are small relative

to the in-plane stress gradients, as is the case in thin shellsand membranes, the shell clement will

permit fewer elements to be used when compared to brickelements. Also worth noting is the fact

that a three node Belytschko-Tsay shell element with threeintegration points through the

thickness is only slightly higher in CPU cost than an eight nodebrick clement which has one

integration point.

Another advantage of the shell clement is the time step computedby LS-DYNA. For the

brick clement, the time step has a linear dependence on theminimum side length, which in the

present case would be the thickness. The time step computed forthe shell clement has a much

weaker dependence on the thickness, thus allowing larger timesteps to be used for a givenelement thickness. If wave propagationthrough the thickness of the structure is not of major

concern, then the shell element can be used with greaterefficiency and substantial savings in cost

over a comparable model with brick elements.

Overall, this problem is an excellent example of the non-linearbuckling simulation

capabilities ofLS-DYNA. View the z-displacement contour of themodel after buckling (t =

1.72x10-2

seconds). The right or ram portion of the model has displacedalmost 40% the original

height of 12 inches with realistic deformation.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

18/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

16.

Sample 6: Space Frame Impact

Sample 6 models the impact of a rigid mass onto a thin platesupported by a space frame.

Figure 6 shows the quarter symmetry finite element mesh. Thelower portion is a space frame 2

inches in diameter and 2 inches tall, composed of beam elements.Rigidly connected to the top of

the space frame is a thin plate. A 5 pound mass, initially 0.2inches above the plate, is given an

initial velocity of 1000 inches/second towards the plate.

Figure 6. Sample 6 mesh.

The space frame is constructed with three main components. Thefirst component is the

lower ring. This uses 3 Belytschko-Schwer beam elements for thequarter model. The end nodes

of each element are given fixed boundary conditions, hence theseelements experience no loads

and are for visual effect only. The second component is theupper ring, also composed of three

beam elements. The end nodes of these beam elements are mergedto the local nodes of the plate,

thus receiving both translational and rotational stiffness fromthe plate. The third component of

the space frame is the vertical columns connecting the lower andupper rings. Each column has

ten elements in order to capture the anticipated bending. Thesecolumns are not perfectly straight

but are slightly bowed out at midspan. This geometric featurewas incorporated as a perturbation

to help initiate and numerically stabilize the bucklingbehavior. The beam elements have the

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

19/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

17.

cross-sectional properties of a 1/4 inch solid cylindrical rod.The material properties of all parts

are given in Table 6.

Beam Elements

Material Model 3

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 2.77x10

-4

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3.0x10

7

Tangent Modulus (lb/in2) 3.0x10

4

Poissons Ratio 0.3

Yield Strength (lb/in2) 5.0x10

4

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Impacting MassMaterial Model 1

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 2.77x10

-3

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3.0x10

8

Poissons Ratio 0.3

Plate

Material Model 1

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 2.77x10

-4

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3.0x107

Poissons Ratio 0.3

Table 6. Material properties.

The plate is circular with a 1 inch inner diameter, a 3 inchouter diameter, and 1/4 inch

thickness. The impacting mass is a 1.8 inch long thick tube. Theinner and outer diameters

match that of the plate. The mass is constructed of brickelements and given a very stiff elastic

material model. All nodes of this part have constrainedtranslational degrees of freedom in the xand y directions. Asliding with voids (type 3) slide surface is defined between themass and the

plate to prevent node penetration between the two parts.

View the time sequence of the deforming mesh. Contact betweenthe mass and the plate

is made at time 2.0x10-4

seconds, after which the columns of the space frame begin tobuckle.

All columns buckle outward due to the geometricperturbation.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

20/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

18.

View the time history of node 54 z-displacement, which islocated on the plate near the

upper end of one of the space frame columns. Since thedeformations are symmetric and the

plate quite rigid, this can be interpreted as the verticaldeflection of the columns. Deflection

begins at 2.0x10-4

seconds and reaches a maximum of 0.159 inches or 8% of thecolumn length

at 5.8x10-4 seconds. The columns regain a small portion of thedeformation and oscillate about

the 0.156 inch permanent vertical deflection imparted by theimpact. It is apparent from the time

history plot of node 54 that most of the deformation isplastic.

View the contours of effective stress on the plate at the timeof maximum deflection (t =

5.8x10-4

seconds). The regions of highest stress occur were the columnsattach to the plate.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

21/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

19.

Sample 7: Thin Beam Subjected to an Impact

Sample 7 models a thin rectangular beam 0.6 inches wide by 10inches long with a

thickness of 0.125 inches. Symmetry is used about the plane inthe center of the span thus

reducing the number of elements by one half. Figure 7 shows thefinite element mesh. The end

boundary condition is fixed with the displacements on the x-zsurfaces constrained in the

y-direction.

Figure 7. Sample 7 mesh.

Ten four-node shell elements are used, with five evenly spacedintegration points through

the thickness (trapezoidal integration). Using the trapezoidalintegration option with three or

more points in odd increments allows the surface and mid-planestresses and strains to be

captured exactly, as opposed to using Gauss quadrature whichrequires these stresses and strains

to be extrapolated or interpolated. The shell elements are giventhe elastic/perfectly plastic

material properties of 6061-T6 aluminum using material model 3in LS-DYNA. These properties

are listed in Table 7.

The middle 2 inches of the ten inch span are given an initialvelocity of 5,000

inches/second in the negative z-direction. The response issimulated for 2.0 milliseconds. View

the time sequence of the deforming mesh. View the kinematicresponses (displacement and

velocity in z-direction) of node 19, which is at the center ofthe span. The simulated impact

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

22/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

20.

produces a maximum deflection of 0.752 inches at the center.This deflection, more than six

times the shell thickness, is sufficient to make largedeformation effects important in this

problem.

Material Model 3

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 2.61x10

-4

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 1.04x10

7

Tangent Modulus (lb/in2) 0.0

Poissons Ratio 0.33

Yield Strength (lb/in2) 4.14x10

4

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Table 7. Material properties.

The low frequency transverse structural vibration resulting fromthe impact can be seen

most clearly in the displacement response. Note that the centerof the span is oscillating in time.

The period of oscillation is approximately 0.6 milliseconds.View the deformed mesh at 0.9

milliseconds and 1.4 milliseconds with the z-displacementsamplified by a factor of 3. The

deformed mesh at 0.9 milliseconds has three troughs and fourcrests over the ten inch span. This

shape occurs again at 1.4 milliseconds which is in the secondcycle of structural vibration. These

transverse waves propagate from the center of the span to thefixed ends where they are reflected

back towards the center for another cycle.

The deformed shapes in are characteristic of the third mode ofvibration. Elastic

transverse vibration theory for a fixed end beam with similarstiffness and mass properties

predicts a third mode natural period of 0.7 milliseconds. Eventhough the model experiences

plastic strains, the elastic theory can be used for anapproximate comparison. The first and

second modes are not distinguishable in the given time interval.Higher modes can be seen in the

velocity and acceleration responses but they areindistinguishable in the deformed geometry

plots, because their amplitudes are relatively smaller.

View the time sequence of the deforming mesh with contours ofeffective plastic strain forthe bottom surface, the mid-planesurface, and the top surface. The bending stresses add to the

membrane stresses at the bottom surface and subtract from themembrane stresses at top surface,

thus the bottom fibers suffer the most plastic strain. Themembrane stresses appear to be

significantly larger than the compressive bending stresses onthe top surface (layer 3) at the

center element.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

23/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

21.

Sample 8: Impact on a Cylindrical Shell

Sample 8 models a section of a circular cylindrical shell with aradius of 2.938 inches,

length of 12.56 inches, and thickness of 0.125 inches, subjectedto an impact load that causes

large deformation in the radial direction. Figure 8 shows thefinite element mesh used in this

model. Symmetry is used about the y-z plane by constraining thenodal x-displacements as well

as y and z rotations. The ends of the cylinder have the x and ydisplacements constrained while

the bottom edge has all displacements and rotationsconstrained.

Figure 8. Sample 8 mesh.

The elements used in the model are four-node Belytschko-Tsayshell elements with 5

gauss integration points through the thickness and the materialproperties of an elastic/perfectly

plastic 6061-T6 aluminum. Each element has a uniform thicknessof 0.125 inches. A summaryof the material properties can be seen inTable 8.

An initial velocity of 5650 inches/second in the negativey-direction is given to 65 interior

nodes. The resulting deformation can be seen by viewing the timesequence of the deformed

mesh.

View the kinematic responses (displacement and velocity iny-direction) of node 8, which

is centrally located on the top of the shell. The maximumdeflection of 1.27 inches occurs at

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

24/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

22.

0.425 milliseconds in the 1.0 millisecond simulation. All plotsshow structural vibration as a

result of the impact. The lowest mode appears to have a periodof approximately 0.7

milliseconds as seen in the displacement response. Higher modescan be found in the velocity

time history.

Material Model 3

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 2.50x10

-4

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 1.05x10

7

Hardening Modulus (lb/in2) 0.0

Poissons Ratio 0.33

Yield Strength (lb/in2) 4.4x10

4

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Table 8. Material properties.

View the contours of y-displacement at 1.0 millisecond. Thedeformed shape is

representative of a real impact on such a structure. View thecontours of effective plastic strain

of the inner (layer 2), middle (layer 1), and outer (layer 3)integration points through the

thickness.

Note that the maximum effective plastic strain of 27.2% occurson the inner surface at

node 96, and 21.3% on the outer surface at node 97, while themid-surface maximum effective

plastic strain is less than 11.2% at node 96. This straindistribution is the result of both

membrane and bending stresses. These high strains occur near thelengthwise crease in the shell

(use profile feature of contour values to view sorted nodes).This model is a good example of the

use of four-node shell elements combined with an elastic/plasticmaterial model to analyze a thin-

walled structure under impact loads.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

25/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

23.

Sample 9: Simply Supported Flat Plate

Sample 9 models the response of a simply supported flat platesubjected to a rapidly

applied uniform pressure load. The 10 inch by 10 inch, 1/2 inchthick plate is modeled using two

planes of symmetry: the x-z plane and the y-z plane as seen inFigure 9. A total of 16 elements

are used in the quarter model, each having five gaussintegration points through the thickness.

Material model 3 (elastic/plastic) is used with the propertiesof a perfectly elastic aluminum (the

yield stress is set artificially high to prevent plasticity). Asummary of the material properties is

shown in Table 9.

Figure 9. Sample 9 mesh.

Material Model 3

Density (lb-sec2/in

4) 2.588x10

-4

Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 1.0x10

7

Hardening Modulus (lb/in2) 0.0

Poissons Ratio 0.3

Yield Strength (lb/in2) 1.0x10

5

Hardening Parameter 1.0

Table 9. Material properties.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

26/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

24.

A uniform pressure load of 300 lb/in2

is applied on the top surface instantaneously at time

zero and held constant for the entire 1.2 millisecondsimulation. View the (z-direction)

displacement, velocity, and acceleration time histories of node1, which is located at the center of

the plate (left corner of quarter model). The maximum deflectionof 0.2201 inches in the

negative z-direction occurs at 0.535 milliseconds.

Now consider an approximate analytical estimate of thedeflection. The equation below

expresses the maximum deflection of a square plate in terms ofthe uniform pressure load q, side

length a, flexural rigidity D, and semiempirical coefficient .This equation, derived from elastic

plate theory, assumes the plate consists of perfectly elastic,hom*ogeneous, isotopic material with

uniform thickness which is small in comparison to the edgelengths. Deflections are assumed

small in comparison to the thickness as well as the load beingstatic.

d = qa4/D

This equation predicts a maximum static deflection at the centerof the plate of 0.11

inches for the given configuration. Dynamic load deflections ingeneral amplify the static

deflection for a given load by an amount equal to the dynamicload factor. Such a load factor is

not easily calculated for a plate under large deflections, but areasonable approximation is 2.0.

The LS-DYNA results agree well with the analytical estimatebased on this assumed value of

dynamic load factor.

Also of interest is the natural free vibration frequency of theplate. Viewing the

displacement response indicates a fundamental period of 1.10milliseconds (frequency of 909

Hz). The fundamental period of a square plate is expressed interms of the side length a, flexural

rigidity D, mass density , and plate thickness t. The sameassumptions that applied to the

deflection relationship above also apply here. This expressionpredicts a fundamental period of

1.07 milliseconds (frequency of 935 Hz). which is in excellentagreement with the LS-DYNA

results.

T = (a2/) sqrt(t/D)

View the time history plot of the stress xx in element 1, whichis located at the center of

the plate and that which corresponds to the bottom or tensionsurface (layer 2) of the plate. The

response of the stress yy is identical due to symmetry. The peakstress occurs 0.035 milliseconds

prior to the maximum deflection with a value of 67,600 lb/in2.Using a maximum deflection of

0.22 inches in the deflection expression and solving for theload q gives 619 lb/in2. The

maximum stress xx,max in the plate is expressed in terms of theload q, side length a, thickness t,

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

27/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

25.

and semiempirical coefficient . This expression is also based onelastic theory. Using a load of

619 lb/in2

in the stress expression yields a maximum stress of 71,200lb/in2, which agrees well

with the numerical analysis.

xx,max = qa2/t2

View the contour plot of the z-displacement at t = 0.535milliseconds. The displaced

shape is in good agreement with analytical contour plots. Viewthe xx contour plots for the

upper, middle, and lower quadrature points through the thicknessat time equal 0.535

milliseconds.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

28/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

26.

Sample 10: Hourglassing of Simply Supported Plate

Sample 10 is an exact duplicate of sample 9 with the exceptionof the hourglass viscosity

coefficient value. Figure 10 shows two corner supported plates.The plate on the top has

undergone deformation with no appreciable hourglassing of theelements. The plate on the

bottom has experienced hourglassing of its elements in theso-called w-mode or eggcrate

mode, named for the alternate up and down displacements of thenodes. There are several other

modes of hourglassing that can occur, including both in-planeand out-of-plane modes. In

general, hourglassing involves the nodal deformations of finiteelements that do not contribute to

the strain energy of the element.

Hourglass modes arise from the use of single point Gaussquadrature to evaluate integrals

appearing in the shell element formulation. It is necessary touse single point integration in an

explicit code likeLS-DYNA

, and therefore some techniques for stabilizing the spurioushourglassmodes must be implemented. LS-DYNA offers both viscoushourglass control (the default) and

stiffness hourglass control. The default parameters have beenchosen to give acceptable

performance over a wide range of problems.

Hourglass modes tend to form over a time duration that istypically much shorter than the

time duration of the structural response, and they are oftenobserved to be oscillatory. Hourglass

modes that are a stable kinematic component of the globaldeformation modes occur over a much

larger time frame and must be admissible. Therefore, LS-DYNAresists undesirable hourglassing

with viscous damping capable of stopping the formation ofanomalous modes but having a

negligible affect on the stable global modes. Since thehourglass modes are orthogonal to the real

deformations, work done by hourglass resistance is neglected inthe energy equation. This can

lead to a slight loss of energy, however, hourglass viscosityshould always be used.

The default value for the hourglass coefficient is 0.10. Therecommended range is 0.05 to 0.15.

These values apply equally to the shells and eight-node brickelement. The values used in

samples 9 and 10 are 0.05 and 0.005 respectively. The QH entryin the hourglass data input is

used to specify this value when different from the default.

View the kinematic responses of the center node (node 1) of theplate. As a result of

reducing the hourglass coefficient an order of magnitude, thedisplacement of the center node hasincreased slightly in amplitude.The maximum deflection of -0.2213 inches occurs at 0.535

milliseconds, compared to the maximum deflection of sample 9,-0.2201 inches, also occurring at

0.535 milliseconds. This node then rebounds, reaching a maximumpositive deflection of 0.0031

inches. The response of sample 9 rebounded to 0.0003 inches.Both of the maximum rebound

deflections occur at 1.1 milliseconds. The difference is small(0.6%), and it is not apparent

which is more accurate.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

29/30

LS-DYNA Description of Sample Problems

27.

Figure 10. Hourglassing of corner supported plate.

The velocity response of the center node (node 1) shows asimilar amplitude increase.

Sample 10 with the lower hourglass coefficient shows a 2.6%larger amplitude then sample 9. A

3% increase in acceleration amplitude can be found in sample 10when compared to sample 9.

View the bottom surface x-direction stress time history of thecenter element (layer 2 of element

1). A 0.7% increase in peak stress can be found in sample 10response over sample 9.

7/27/2019 DESCRIPT (1).pdf

30/30

Description of Sample Problems LS-DYNA

Thus, although small, the damping effect of the hourglasscoefficient can be seen,

especially in the velocity and acceleration responses. Note fromthe z-displacement and x-stress

contour plots that no hourglass modes are apparent. This exampleproblem demonstrates the

more subtle aspects of hourglass control, i.e., the effect ofhourglass control parameters on the

various response parameters as opposed to outright elementhourglassing. As mentioned above,

the hourglass control is not intended to affect normal modes ofdeformation, but from this

example it is seen that it can. The difference in responsesbetween sample 9 and sample 10 are

quite small. Any adjustment of this parameter is best left tothe experienced user.