Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lab. LAMIH, UMR8201 CNRS, Universit Lille Nord de France, 59313 Valenciennes, France
Lab. I2M, UMR 5295 CNRS, Arts & Mtiers ParisTech, Universit Bordeaux I, 33607 Pessac, France
c
Lab. Roberval, UMR 6253 CNRS, Universit de Technologie de Compigne, 60205 Compig`ne, France
b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 July 2012
Received in revised form
31 December 2012
Accepted 20 February 2013
Available online 1 April 2013
In this investigation a coupling between a 3D solid-shell element for the analysis of multilayered
composite shell structures and a specic response surface method is proposed. The rst part of the paper
is dedicated to the nite element formulation of a developed composite 8-node solid-shell element
called SCH87, based only on translational degrees of freedom. The basis of the present nite element
formulation is the standard 8-node brick element with tri-linear shape functions. A particular attention is
given to alleviate shear, trapezoidal and thickness locking, without resorting to the classical plane-stress
assumption. Assumed natural strain method and enhanced assumed strain method are used to improve
the relative poor element behavior of a standard hexahedral displacement element. The anisotropic
material behavior of layered shells is modeled using a fully three dimensional elastic orthotropic material
law in each layer, including the thickness stress component. The second part of the paper will focus on an
adaptive response surface method for the structural optimization problem. The response surfaces are
built using moving least squares approximations and design of experiments by means of a specic
method called Diffuse Approximation.
Several numerical applications to composite multilayered shell structures are studied to show the
applicability and effectiveness of the proposed procedure. Good results of analysis and optimization
using the developed SCH87 solid-shell element have been obtained in comparison with reference
analytical solutions and with those obtained using the SC8R solid-shell nite element available in
ABAQUS code.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Composite structures
Solid-shell
Optimization
Design of experiment
1. Introduction
In the modeling of shell structures various problems may
appear especially when shell nite elements are used in combination with solid elements. Therefore special connection elements
are necessary to link shell elements with solids having different
degrees of freedom. It turns obvious to develop general-purpose
brick elements, which are able to deal with any type of structures
(solid, shell, and/or their combination).
3D-continuum elements are a variety of Finite Element (FE)
models halfway between solid elements and thin shells. They have
the same freedom conguration of solid elements but account for
shell-like behavior in the thickness direction. They are very
attractive for modeling shell-like regions of a 3D structure without
the need of special elements to connect solid elements to shell
nodes. 3D-continuum elements also called solid-shell elements
0168-874X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nel.2013.02.004
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
Schweizerhof [19], Alves de Sousa et al. [2], Hannachi et al. [18], Quy
and Matzenmiller [32], Nguyen et al. [29], Shiri et al. [35] and more
recently the work of Schwarze and Reese [34], Moreira et al. [25].
Solid-shell element properties make them appropriate also for the
modeling of laminated structures as can be seen in some representative references [3,21,25,33,40], to name just a few. In all of
these works it has been shown that it is possible to use a solid-shell
nite element models which possess no rotational degrees of
freedom and obtain good results for the resolution of various
structural problems. However, development of these elements is
not straightforward, transverse shear, trapezoidal and thickness
locking phenomena must be alleviated and therefore special treatments have to be included to suppress the numerical locking effects
become crucial.
Transverse shear locking is characterized by an overestimation
of stiffness associated to transverse shear strain energy [2]. The
most common methods that have been used to solve the shear
locking effect are the Selective Reduced Integration (SRI) scheme
[2] and also the Assumed Natural Strain (ANS) which has been
applied rstly on shells by Dvorkin and Bathe [17] and as can be
seen in the works of [3,11,15,35] for a fully integrated solid-shell
element.
Trapezoidal locking is only found in structures where the
directors of the element edges are not perpendicular to the midplane. One method to resolve this pathology is by using the ANS
interpolation of the transverse strain in thickness direction as
performed in [8,9,37,38], where it was proposed to avoid articial
thickness straining.
Thickness locking, caused by Poisson's ratio coupling to the
in-plane and transverse normal stress and normal strain responses
[14,15] can be overcome by plane-stress assumption, or more
generally by the Enhanced Assumed thickness Strain (EAS), where
a 7th parameter is added [10,21] and suppressed by condensation
technique. This locking pathology usually appears when a solidshell element with only translational degrees of freedom is to be
used in problems involving bending.
The 7th parameter as proposed by Bchter and Ramm [10] is an
extension of classical shear deformation theory. The interest of this
model is especially useful when full three-dimensional constitutive law is used which allows solving problems involving large
strains. In their work, Bchter and Ramm [10] describe the 7th
parameter model along with a FE formulation and they introduce
it on the element level by means of the hybrid-mixed formulation.
In the present solid-shell model, the 7th parameter is resulting
independently from the FE formulation, i.e. it can be understood as
semi-discretization of the solid-shell element through the thickness. Based on this technique, the obtained 7th parameter model
is considered simply as a two-dimensional continuous concept
with 7 degrees of freedom per node of the reference surface. The
7th parameter is then eliminated using the static condensation
procedure on the element level.
Another alternative, has been proposed recently by Professor
Brunet and his collaborators [4], concerning a solid-shell element
with 9 nodes: 8 are located at the element vertices and the 9th is
located at the centroid. The authors used classically a reduced
integration with one in-plane quadrature point with an assumed
shear-strain eld to avoid locking phenomena. The centroid node
is used as an extra parameter to enhance the displacement in the
thickness direction and thus obtain a linear normal strain, allowing the use of full three-dimensional constitutive strainstress
behavior.
During last few years, Response Surface Method (RSM) [24] has
gained more and more importance in the optimization of general
shell structures [30]. RSM has the advantage of replacing a
complex response model by an approximate one based on results
calculated at various points in the design space. The optimization
u,, u0 , un , N i ,
i1
1 1
u
ui
2 i
2
2
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
Using Eqs. (2) and (3), the displacement gradient vector in the
curvilinear coordinate system can be expressed as
du L ds
12
with
L F T L
13
and du L d is the displacement gradient tensor in the parametric coordinate system. In order to calculate the strain tensor
directly in the curvilinear coordinate system, we have to dene a
tensor which is given by [6,15,41]
C F 1 Q
14
where
2 1
a t 1
6 2
a t
C 6
4 1
0
a1 t 2
a2 t 2
0
a1 n
7
a2 n 7
5
a3 n
15
where Ni are the two-dimensional 4-node Lagrangian interpolation functions, X i , ui and X i , ui are respectively, the coordinate
and displacement vectors of the ith node on the bottom and top
shell surfaces respectively (Fig. 1).
Using Eq. (1), the gradient vector dX can be expressed in terms
of d fd, d, dg
E c 12L LT
dX F d
and
F 1 a1 ; a2 ; a3 T
16
E aT1 u, ,
2E aT1 u, aT2 u,
F a1 ; a2 ; a3
E aT2
E aT3
u, ,
2E aT1 u, aT3 u,
u, ,
2E aT2 u, aT3 u,
Therefore, we obtain a simple relationship between the curvilinear and covariant strain tensors
a1 X p, 12 V ,
a2 X p, 12 V ,
a3 V
1
2
with
J detF ja1 a2 a3 j
where t 1 and t 2 are unit vectors in the plane A for Cst. The
normal unit vector is dened by
n
a1 a2
ja1 a2 j
11
E C T Ec C
18
C 211
6
6 C 212
6
6 2C C
6
~
C 6 112 12
6 C 13
6
6 2C C
4 11 13
2C 12 C 13
19
C 221
C 11 C 21
C 222
2C 21 C 22
C 12 C 22
C 12 C 21 C 11 C 22
0
0
0
0
C 223
C 13 C 23
C 233
C 13 C 33
2C 21 C 23
C 23 C 11 C 21 C 13
C 11 C 33
2C 22 C 23
C 23 C 12 C 22 C 13
C 12 C 33
7
7
7
7
7
7
C 23 C 33 7
7
C 21 C 33 7
5
C 22 C 33
0
0
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
2222
H 1122 E1 21 23 =K
H 1113 E1 31 21 32 =K
E2 113 31 =K,
H 2223 E2 32 12 31 =K,
H 1212 G12 ,
H
2323
G23 ,
H 3333 E3 112 21 =K
H 1313 G13
ij Ej ji Ei
21
r 1 2
6 1 2
6 r 1
6 2
6 1 1
6 2r 1 r 2
R6
6 r 1 2
6 3
6 1 1
6 2r r
4 2 3
2r 11 r 13
22
r 21 2
r 11 r 21
r 31 2
r 21 r 31
r 22 2
2r 21 r 22
r 12 r 22
1 2
r 1 r 2 r 21 r 12
r 32 2
2r 31 r 32
r 22 r 32
2 3
r 1 r 2 r 22 r 31
r 23 2
r 13 r 23
1 2
r 2 r 3 r 13 r 22
r 11 r 23 r 13 r 21
r 33 2
r 23 r 33
2 3
r 2 r 3 r 23 r 32
r 21 r 33 r 23 r 31
2r 22 r 23
2r 21 r 23
2r 32 r 33
2r 31 r 33
r 11 r 31
7
7
r 22 r 32
7
1 3
1 37
r 1 r 2 r 2 r 1 7
7
7
r 13 r 33
7
7
1 3
1 37
r 2 r 3 r 3 r 2 5
r 11 r 33 r 13 r 31
23
r ji
Q j mi .
and
The stresses can be evaluated in the curvilinear coordinate
system (Fig. 4) as
S H~ Z
where the stress tensor S fSxx Syy Sxy Szz Sxz Syz g
24
T
25
u0 and u 0, u u on Su.
With Su is the shell contour where displacements are imposed.
The Principal of Virtual Work can be expressed in the curvilinear
coordinate system as
Z
Z
Z
W W int W ext E T S dV uT f v dV uT f s dS
V
26
Sf
where f V and f s are volume and surface traction forces respectively. In order to deal with the several locking phenomena
separately, we need to split the expression of virtual internal work
by separating the membrane/bending, thickness and transverse
shear effects [6,15].
W int W mb W tr W sh
27
with
Z
W mb E Ts H~ 1 E s dV
Z V
W tr E Tz H~ 2 E z dV
ZV
W sh GTs H~ 3 Gs dV
28
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
z h=2
z h=2
E Ts S s
z hi =2
nl
dz dA
i1
Ai
z hi =2
E Ts S s
dz dA
29
1 A1 1 A2
2
2
30
2EANS
1 B1 1 B2
2
2
31
32
ANS
33
i1
GANS
T H~ 3 GANS
J d d d
s
s
34
ANS
T
W int uTn K mb K EAS
tr K sh un k k u un un ku
35
i1
nl
i1
Z Z Z
i 1
i
33
2 H~ 2 e J d d d
37
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
given by (Fig. 9)
38
xRn
39
40
wxi ,x wr
exp2 r 2 exp2
1exp2
42
43
41
T
x2
x2
px 1 x1 x2 x3 xn x1 x2 x1 x3 xi xi 1 1 n
2
2
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
J
AxaBxZ 0
a
44
i1
45
with
ANN x P T WxP
46
BNM x P T Wx
47
and
6
6
W MM 6
6
4
wx1
0
wx2
wxM
0
2
6
P MN 4
pT x1
pT xM
3
7
5
and
3
7
7
7
7
5
8
9
>
< f x1 >
=
Z MN
>
: f x >
;
M
48
49
Table 1
Material properties of the anisotropic layered plate.
Material property
Value
Units
E11
E22 E33
G12 G13 G23
13 23
12
27,6000
6900
2000
0
0.25
MPa
MPa
MPa
4. Numerical applications
In order to
model dened
with the aim
phenomena, as
Table 2
Plate deection convergence.
No. of elements
uA (mm)
Present model
uA (mm)
uC (mm)
Present model
uC (mm)
ABAQUS
2
4
6
8
10
20
30
40
50
100
0.335
0.360
0.365
0.368
0.370
0.371
0.371
0.371
0.371
0.371
0.423
0.414
0.416
0.417
0.417
0.418
0.418
0.419
0.419
0.419
17.960
20.806
21.766
22.204
22.461
22.956
23.114
23.191
23.236
23.241
29.435
28.649
28.584
28.555
28.543
28.460
28.475
28.480
28.485
28.495
Analytical
0.376
0.376
23.250
23.250
ABAQUS
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
Table 3
Material properties of the laminated strip.
Material property
Value
Units
E11
E22 E33
G12
G13 G23
13 23
12
100,000
5000
3000
2000
0.3
0.4
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
Fig. 13. Multilayered composite plate with ply dropoffs: undeformed mesh.
Table 5
Material properties of the multilayered composite plate.
Table 4
Convergence of the laminated strip deection.
No. of elements
(edge AE)
uE (mm)
Present model
ABAQUS
1
3
6
9
12
15
18
30
60
0.807
1.034
1.055
1.059
1.061
1.061
1.062
1.062
1.062
1.776
1.062
1.052
1.056
1.057
1.057
1.058
1.058
1.058
NAFEMS
1.060
1.060
uE (mm)
Material property
Value
Units
E11
E22 E33
G12 G13 G23
12 13 23
25,000
1000
1000
0.2
MPa
MPa
MPa
Table 6
Deection of the multilayered composite plate.
Thickness
Deection (m)
ABAQUS
Deection (m)
Present model
0.0039
2.6933
40.9174
0.0029
2.5685
39.9480
0.1
0.01
0.004
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
solution [28] and to the one obtained using the ABAQUS SC8R
solid-shell FE model.
For the inner ange we obtain S11 1534:8 MPa, the SC8R
ABAQUS gave S11 1477 MPa, while the reference solution was
1565 MPa. For the outer ange we obtain S11 892:8 MPa, the
ABAQUS solution was S11 900 MPa, while the reference solution
was 875 MPa. These results conrm that our solid-shell model and the
used mesh are good enough to carry out the optimization process.
The optimization problem consists in nding optimal ber
orientation angle of the outer orthotropic circumferentially
wound layer and the Young's modulus E of the inner isotropic
cylinder while keeping constant the cylinder expansion for
z 0 mm at a value of uR 0:5 mm. The objective function is based
on the general Hill criterion [42].
nel
J,E J J e
Fig. 15. Design of experiments: (a) central composite design and (b) Box-Behnken
design.
Table 7
DOE plan using central composite design.
Run
Factor x1
Factor x1
Response J (MPa2)
Disp. uR (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
268316.8
294069.1
282546.0
293785.5
278756.9
294282.9
280609.1
286957.9
285223.1
0.355
0.833
0.150
0.196
0.210
0.316
0.584
0.134
0.211
50
e1
10
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
carried out using (DA) and given explicitly by (see Fig. 17).
~
u,E
0:49 0:026 0:071E 0:13E0:132 0:098E2
~
The minimization of J~ ,E under constraint u,E
0:5 (see
Fig. 18) has been done using the SQP algorithm based on the work
of Powell [31], the optimal solution was obtained in 5 iterations
leading to the optimal solution in coded form (0.830, 0.961) which
corresponds to n ,En 82:341,295:40 GPa.
Fig. 19 shows the hoop stress distribution on the cylinder
before and after optimization. We can observe just a few amount
of stress reduction is obtained after optimization, this is due to the
~
presence of the constraint u,E
0:5 which cannot lead to the
minimum of the unconstrained objective function J~ ,E.
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
11
Fig. 21. Comparison of the global deection of a multilayered strip panel (SC8R vs. SCH87). (a) ABQUS (SC8R). (b) Present model SCH87.
Minimize
J,E J e ,
,ERn
obtained for the optimal structure is about un 15:11 mm which
respects the imposed constraint u15 (Fig. 23).
e1
with
u,E15 mm0,
22:51 22:51,
60 GPaE79 GPa:
52
12
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
Fig. 24. Geometry and boundary conditions of a composite leaf spring suspension.
Table 8
Material properties of a composite leaf spring suspension.
Material property
Value
Units
E11
E22 E33
G12 G13 G23
12 13 23
39,000
10,000
5000
0.3
MPa
MPa
MPa
analysis is carried out using ABAQUS software and its SC8R solidshell element with the same mesh. Fig. 25 shows the stress
distribution on the top ange of the structure in the 1st principal
direction. Comparison of maximal values of S11 obtained using the
present solid-shell model gave 185.79 MPa which is almost the
same maximal value 185.41 MPa obtained with the SC8R element
of ABAQUS .
Unlike the stress S11, the distribution of the transverse stress
S33 in the thickness direction, shows that a maximal value of
sj si
sj si j
Here again, the objective function is based on the Hill criterion
[1] and dened by Eq. (51). Thus the optimization problem can be
stated in terms of the DV vector f1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 g as follows:
nel
Minimize
J J e ,
e1
with
601i 601,
Rn
i 1,5
53
5. Conclusion
In the present investigation, an efcient 8-node solid-shell
element formulation for the analysis of multilayered composite
shell is presented. While the ANS method has been used in order
to remedy to shear locking, the enhancement of transverse normal
strain is adopted, thus full 3D anisotropic constitutive model is
incorporated without resorting to the plane-stress assumption.
The present formulation can predict the through-thickness effects
with a high degree of accuracy.
In the second part of the paper we proposed a specic method
based on RSM for the optimization of laminated structures, where
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
Fig. 25. Comparison of stress distribution on the top ange in the 1st principal direction. (a) ABQUS (SC8R). (b) Present model SCH87.
Fig. 26. Comparison of stress distribution on the top ange in the 3rd principal direction (thickness direction). (a) ABQUS (SC8R). (b) Present model SCH87.
13
14
H. Naceur et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7071 (2013) 114
Table 9
Summary of principal results obtained before and after optimization.
Maximal stress
component
S11
S22
S12
S33
185.79
20.41
34.53
20.43
173.90
19.12
12.66
19.20
[17] E.N. Dvorkin, K.J. Bathe, A continuum mechanics based four node shell
element for general nonlinear analysis, Eng. Comput. (1984) 177.
[18] M. Hannachi, H. Naceur, J.L. Batoz, Continuum based solid-shell element
modeling for the optimization of composite multilayered structures, Int. Rev.
Mech. Eng. 1 (4) (2007) 150163.
[19] M. Harnau, K. Schweizerhof, Articial kinematics and simple stabilization of
solid-shell elements occurring in highly constrained situations and applications in composite sheet forming simulation, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 28 (34)
(2006) 10971111.
[20] R. Hauptmann, K. Schweizerhof, A systematic development of Solid-Shell
element formulation for linear and non-linear analysis employing only
displacement degrees of freedom, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 42 (1998) 4969.
[21] S. Klinkel, F. Grutmann, W. Wagner, A continuum based d-shell element for
laminated structures, Comput. Struct. 71 (1999) 4362.
[22] R.L. Mason, R.F. Gunst, J.L. Hess, Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments
with Applications to Engineering and Science, 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons,
2003.
[23] S.K. Mazumdar, Composites ManufacturingMaterials, Product, and Process
Engineering, Edition, CRC Press LLC, Florida, 2002.
[24] R.H. Meyers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology Process and
Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2003.
[25] R.A.S. Moreira, R.J. Alves de Sousa, R.A.F. Valente, A solid-shell layerwise nite
element for non-linear geometric and material analysis, Compos. Struct. 92 (6)
(2010) 15171523.
[26] H. Naceur, A. Delameziere, J.L. Batoz, Y.Q. Guo, C. Knopf-Lenoir, Some
improvements on the optimum process design in deep drawing using the
Inverse Approach, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 146 (2) (2004) 250262.
[27] H. Naceur, Y.Q. Guo, S. Ben-Elechi, Response surface methodology for design
of sheet forming parameters to control springback effects, Comput. Struct.
84 (2006) 16511663.
[28] NAFEMS, National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards
(NAFEMS), Test R0031/2 from NAFEMS publication R0031, Composites Benchmarks Issue 2, February 5, UK, 2001.
[29] N.H. Nguyen, V.N. Pham, M. Hogge, J.P. Ponthot, An assumed natural strain
technique for 2D solid-shell elements, in: M. Hogge et al. (Eds.), Fourth
International Conference on Advanced Computational Methods in Engineering, University of Lige, Belgium, 2628 May 2008.
[30] J. Nocedal, S.J. Wright, in: P. Glynn, S.M. Robinson (Eds.), Numerical Optimization, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.
[31] M.J.D. Powell, Extensions to subroutine VF02AD, in: R.F. Drenick, F. Kozin
(Eds.), Systems Modeling and Optimization, Lecture Notes in Control and
Information Sciences, vol. 38, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982, pp. 529538.
[32] N.-D. Quy, A. Matzenmiller, A solid-shell element with enhanced assumed
strains for higher order shear deformations in laminates, Tech. Mech. 28 (34)
(2008) 334355.
[33] K. Rah, W. Van Paepegem, A.M. Habraken, J. Degrieck, A partial hybrid stress
solid-shell element for the analysis of laminated composites, Comp. Meth.
Appl. Mech. Eng. 200 (4952) (2011) 35263539.
[34] M. Schwarze, S. Reese, A reduced integration solid-shell nite element based
on the EAS and the ANS conceptgeometrically linear problems, Int. J. Numer.
Meth. Eng. 80 (2009) 13221355.
[35] S. Shiri, H. Naceur, J. Roelandt, Numerical modeling of stamping and crashworthiness of steel/polymer/steel structures using solid-shell element, in:
International Conference on Computational Plasticity, COMPLAS X 2009,
Barcelona, Spain, 2009.
[36] R.L. Spilker, S. Verbiese, O. Orringer, S.E. French, E.A. Witmer, A. Harris, Use of
the hybrid-stress nite-element model for the static and dynamic analysis of
multilayer composite plates and shells, Report for the Army Materials and
Mechanics Research, Center Watertown, MA, 1976.
[37] K.Y. Sze, S. Yi, M.H. Tay, An explicit hybrid-stabilized eighteen-node solid
element for thin shell analysis, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 40 (1997) 18391856.
[38] K.Y. Sze, L.Q. Yao, A hybrid stress ANS solidshell element and its generalization for smart structure modeling, Part I-solidshell element formulation,
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 48 (2000) 545564.
[39] J.R. Vinson, R.L. Sierakowski, The Behavior of Structures Composed of Composite Materials, 2nd Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
[40] L. Vu-Quoc, X.G. Tan, Optimal solid shells for non-linear analyses of multilayer
composites. I. Statics, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 192 (2003) 9751016.
[41] G. Wempner, D. Talaslidis, Mechanics of Solids and ShellsTheories and
Approximations, Edition, CRC PRESS LLC, New York, 2003.
[42] X. Xiao, C. Hsiung, Z. Zhao, Analysis and modeling of exural deformation of
laminated steel, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 50 (2008) 6982.