Theory Manual Volume 1

Theory Manual Volume 1
LUSAS Version 14 : Issue 2
LUSAS
Forge House, 66 High Street, Kingston upon Thames,
Surrey, KT1 1HN, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 8541 1999
Fax +44 (0)20 8549 9399
Email: info@lusas.com
http://www.lusas.com
Distributors Worldwide
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1
1.1 General....................................................................................................1
2 Analysis Procedures ...................................................................................3
2.1 Basic Finite Element Equations ..............................................................3
2.2 Linear Static Analysis And Equation Solution .........................................8
2.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis ......................................................................22
2.4 Linear Step By Step Dynamics .............................................................48
2.5 Nonlinear Dynamics ..............................................................................65
2.6 Eigenvalue Extraction ...........................................................................67
2.7 Natural Frequency Analysis ..................................................................79
2.8 Eigenvalue Extraction For Buckling ......................................................83
2.9 Eigenvalue Extraction Including Damping ............................................84
2.10 Modal Analysis ....................................................................................86
2.11 Steady State Field Analysis ................................................................95
2.12 Transient Field Analysis ....................................................................100
2.13 Thermo-Mechanical Coupling ...........................................................107
2.14 Fourier Analysis ................................................................................113
2.15 Analysis With Superelements ...........................................................118
2.16 Activation and Deactivation Of Elements..........................................126
3 Geometric Nonlinearity ...........................................................................129
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................129
3.2 Virtual Work Equation .........................................................................130
3.3 Lagrangian Geometric Nonlinearity ....................................................130
3.4 Eulerian Geometric Nonlinearity .........................................................136
3.5 Co-Rotational Geometric Nonlinearity ................................................147
3.6 General Comments .............................................................................154
4 Constitutive Models.................................................................................157
4.1 Linear Elastic Models ..........................................................................157
4.2 Elasto-Plastic Models..........................................................................162
4.3 Plasticity Models For Beams And Shells ............................................199
4.4 Interface Models..................................................................................206
4.5 Damage...............................................................................................213
4.6 Viscoelastic Models.............................................................................216
4.7 Multi-Crack Concrete Model................................................................222
4.8 Resin Cure Model ...............................................................................235
4.9 Shrinkage ............................................................................................240
4.10 CEB-FIP Creep and Shrinkage Model ..............................................241
4.11 Generic Polymer Material..................................................................252
4.12 Joint Models ......................................................................................268
4.13 Field Models......................................................................................277
4.14 Composite Models ............................................................................280
4.15 Rubber Models..................................................................................283

4.16 Volumetric Crushing Model ...............................................................285
4.17 Delamination Damage Model............................................................289
5 Load And Boundary Conditions.............................................................293
5.1 General Load Types............................................................................293
5.2 Constraint Equations ...........................................................................300
5.3 Transformed Freedoms.......................................................................302
5.4 Slidelines .............................................................................................305
5.5 Thermal Surfaces ................................................................................385
6 Post-Processing Facilities ......................................................................403
6.1 Nodal Extrapolation .............................................................................403
6.2 Wood-Armer Reinforcement ...............................................................404
6.3 Strain Energy And Plastic Work Calculations .....................................410
6.4 Composite Failure Criteria...................................................................411
7 References................................................................................................415
ii
Notation
Notation
Standard matrix notation is used whenever possible throughout this manual and the
expressions are defined as follows:
Basic Expressions
Vector
Matrix or second order tensor
Fourth order tensor
Matrix scalar product
| |
|| ||
Determinant of a matrix
Norm of a vector
b g Trace of a matrix
b g Transpose of a vector of matrix
b g Inverse of a matrix
d b g Variation
b g Virtual variation
c h Rate
b g Increment
b g Summation
tr
diag , Diagonal matrix with terms given

iii
< , > Orthogonality condition
ch
Subscripts
cr
Variables defined in local axes

Critical value
Ground displacements, velocities and accelerations
Component i
max
Maximum value
Normal component in slideline analyses
Initial components (initial strains)
Thermal components (thermal strains)
Tangential component in slideline analyses
x,y,z
Components in the local x,y,z Cartesian system
X,Y,Z
Components in the global X,Y,Z Cartesian system
Zienkiewicz constants
,x
Differentiation with respect to x (or other variable)
Superscripts
i
Iteration I
Local quantities (co-rotational for continuum elements)
Values at time t
t + t Values at time t+t

Scalars
aR
Rayleigh damping coefficient (multiplies mass matrix M)
Bulk modulus
bR
Rayleigh damping coefficient (multiplies stiffness matrix K)
C0
neo-Hookean constant
C1 , C2 Mooney-Rivlin constants
iv
Notation
c
Cohesion in friction based material models
Wave speed
Da
Maximum distance between two adjacent contact nodes
Youngs Modulus
fi
Slideline interface force on contact node i
Yield surface
Initial gap for nonlinear joint models
Shear Modulus
Gf
Fracture energy in concrete model
Transfer coefficient in field analysis
I1
First stress invariant
I1,I2,I3
Strain invariants
I 1 , I 2 Modified strain invariants

J
Volume ratio (det F )
J2
Second deviatoric stress invariant
J3
Third deviatoric stress invariant
Interface stiffness coefficient
Bulk modulus
Thermal conductivity
Kc
Spring stiffness when in contact for nonlinear joint models
K1
Spring stiffness after liftoff for nonlinear joint models
Length of local contact segment
lo
Initial chord length of beam element
ln
Current chord length of beam element

M
Moment
Stress resultant
Number of required eigenvalues
Participation factor in spectral response analysis
Axial force
Field variable flux in field analysis
Number of starting iteration vectors for subspace iteration
Rate of internal heat generation in field analysis
Qhg
Hourglass constant
Q1,Q2
Constants for shock wave smoothing
rz
Contact zone radius
Sd
Spectral displacement in special response analysis
Sv
Spectral velocity in spectral response analysis
Sa
Spectral acceleration in spectral response analysis
Thickness of local contact segment
Period of oscillation for transient and dynamic analysis
Temperature in structural applications
Torque
Axial stretch
Element volume
Crack width in concrete model
Work
Normal penetration distance
Radial overlap constant
Coefficient of thermal expansion
Softening Parameter in concrete model
vi
Notation
Constant used in dynamic recurrence algorithms
Shear retention factor in concrete model
Displacement norm used for convergence
Residual norm used for convergence
Work norm used for convergence
Root mean square of residuals convergence criterion

Maximum absolute residual convergence criterion
Error estimate in subspace iteration
Step length multiplier for line search
Lodes Angle
Angle between old and new displacement vector in arch-length

method
Angle of orthotropy
Angle defining crack directions in concrete model
Local slope at a node
Strain hardening parameter
Load factor
Plastic strain rate multiplier
Eigenvalue (ith)
Principal stretches
Eigenvalue shift in subspace iteraction
Friction coefficient
vii
p , p Ogden constants
Poissons ratio
Modal Damping ratio
Model coefficient for CQC combination in spectral response

analysis
Mass density
Effective stress
Interface stiffness scale factor
Friction angle in friction based models
Structural damping in harmonic response analysis
Field variable in field analysis
Potential energy
Circular frequency in transient and dynamic analysis
Circular frequency of load in harmonic response analysis
Local spin at the centroid
Nodal displacement vector
ei
Unit vectors forming the co-rotated base axes
Green-Lagrange strain vector
Vector of master slideline surface forces
Vector of nodal body forces
Vectors
g , g , g Covariant base vectors

Mm
Vector of master slideline surface mass
viii
Notation
Vector of unit segment normal
Global internal force vector
Local internal force vector
q~
Euler parameters
External force vector
ri
Unit vectors defining the beam cross section at a gauss point
Deviatoric Cauchy stress
Second Piola-Kirchhoff stress vector
Vector of surface tractions
t i , qi
Unit vectors defining the beam cross section at a node
Vector of unit segment tangent
Generalised displacement vector in spectral response analysis
Logarithmic strain vector
Displacement gradient vector (geometric nonlinearity)
Unscaled pseudovector (co-rotational formulation - section 3.5.1)
Pseudovector of rotation
Lagrangian multiplier vector
Incompatible modes for enhanced elements
Cauchy stress vector
d J
Jaumann variation of Cauchy stress
i , i Eigenvector
ix
Residual force vector

1
Local spin at the centroid
Matrices/Tensors
A
Matrix of slopes
Strain-displacement matrix
B0
Linear strain-displacement matrix
B1
Displacement dependent strain-displacement matrix
Damping matrix in dynamic analysis
Matrix of constrain constants
Green deformation tensor
Compliance matrix of material moduli
Rate of deformation tensor
Material modulus matrix
Deformation gradient matrix
Matrix of shape functions
Stiffness matrix
KT
Tangent stiffness matrix
Stress stiffness matrix
Mass matrix
Shape function array
Notation
Ni
Principal directions of the Lagragian triad
Vector of constraint constants
Rotation tensor
bg
Skew symmetric matrix of the vector
S$
Matrix containing Second Piola-Kirchoff stresses
Transformation matrix for co-rotational formulation
Right stretch tensor
Angular acceleration tensor
Matrix of eigenvalues
Local engineering strain tensor
Density matrix
Matrix containing Cauchy stresses
$$
Matrix containing Cauchy stresses
Biot stress tensor
Matrix of eigenvectors
Kirchhoff stress tensor
Angular velocity tensor
xi
xii
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 General
The objective of this manual is to outline the theories on which the LUSAS finite
element analysis system is formulated.
The manual aims to provide sufficient information for the user to understand the basic
concepts of the procedures and to provide references to more detailed information.
Therefore, by itself, the manual does not provide comprehensive coverage of all
topics, and in this sense it is only a reference volume.
The manual also supplies many useful hints on how to select the best options for each
analysis type e.g. the most effective element and load incrementation scheme. As
such, the manual should also be a useful aid to a reader who is unfamiliar with a
particular area of finite element analysis.
Analysis Procedures
2 Analysis
Procedures
2.1 Basic Finite Element Equations
This section provides a brief introduction to the formulation of the equations of both
static and dynamic equilibrium. These equations form the basis for the evaluation of
the response of a structure using the finite element method.
2.1.1 Static Equilibrium

Consider the equilibrium of a general three dimensional body subject to forces
t - surface forces
f - body forces
F - concentrated loads
The body will be displaced from its original configuration by an amount u, which
give rise to strains and corresponding stresses .
The governing equations of equilibrium may be formed by utilising the principle of
virtual work. This states that, for any small, virtual displacements u imposed on the
body, the total internal work must equal the total external work for equilibrium to be
maintained, i.e.
T dv = uT f dv + uT t ds + duT F
(2.1-1)
where are the virtual displacements corresponding to the virtual displacements .

In finite element analysis, the body is approximated as an assemblage of discrete
elements interconnected at nodal points. The displacements within any element are
then interpolated from the displacements at the nodal points corresponding to that
element, i.e. for element e
(e)
(e)
=N a
(e)
(2.1-2)

(e)
where N
is the displacement interpolation or shape function matrix and a
vector of nodal displacements.
(e)
The strains
within an element may be related to the displacements a
( e ) = B( e ) a ( e )
(e)
(e)
is the
by
(2.1-3)
where B is the strain-displacement matrix.

For linear elasticity, the stresses within the finite element are related to the strains
using a constitutive relationship of the form
( e ) = D( e ) ( ( e ) (oe ) ) + (oe )
where D
(e)
(2.1-4)
is a matrix of elastic constants, and
o( e )
and
o( e )
are the initial
stresses and strains respectively, e.g. due to thermal effects.

Therefore, using (2.1-2), (2.1-3) and (2.1-4), the virtual work equation (2.1-1) may be
discretised to give
n
e =1
B( e )T D( e ) B( e ) dv a =
LM z N f dv + z N t ds OP (2.1-5)
PP
a M
MM
z B ( D )dv + F P
N
Q
n
e =1
( e )T
(e)
e =1
e =1
( e )T
( e )T ( e )
(e)
o
(e)
(e)
o
(e)
where N s are the interpolation functions for the surfaces of the elements and n is
the number of elements in the assemblage.
By using the virtual displacement theorem, the equilibrium equations of the element
assemblage becomes
Ka = R
(2.1-6)
where K is the structure stiffness matrix, defined as

n
K = B
e =1
( e )T
(e)
(e)
(2.1-7)
D B dv
Analysis Procedures
and
R is the structure force vector, defined as

R = Rb + R s Ro + Rc
and
(2.1-8)
R b is the force vector due to the element body loads

n
Rb = N
e =1
( e )T
(e)
(2.1-9)
dv
R s is the force vector due to the element surface tractions

n
Rs = N s
e =1
( e )T ( e )
(2.1-10)
t dv
R o is the force vector due to the initial stresses and strains

n
Ro = B
e=1
( e )T
(e)
(e)
(e)
( o D o ) dv
(2.1-11)
R c is the force vector due to concentrated loads

Rc = F
(2.1-12)
Equation (2.1-6) may be utilised for situations where the applied loading is
independent of time or when the load level changes very slowly. If rapid changes in
the load level occur, inertia and damping forces must be included in the equilibrium
equations.
2.1.2 Dynamic Equations

Using d'Alembert's principle, the inertia and damping forces may be included as part
of the body load vector. Assuming the accelerations and velocities are approximated
using the same interpolation functions as displacement:
velocity
(e)
(e) (e)
u& = N a&
(2.1-13)
acceleration
(e)
(e) (e)
u&& = N a&&
(2.1-14)
The body force vector (2.1-9) then becomes

5

n
Rb = N
e=1
( e )T
(e)
(e)
(e)
( e ) N a&& c( e ) N a& dv
(2.1-15)
where is the density and c is the damping constant for the material.
Substitution of (2.1-15) in (2.1-6) leads to the dynamic equilibrium equations
M a&& + Ca& + K a = R( t )
(2.1-16)
where M is the mass matrix defined as

n
M = N
e =1
( e )T
( e ) N ( e ) dv
(2.1-17)
and C is the damping matrix defined as

n
C= N
e=1
( e )T
(e)
c N
(e)
(2.1-18)
dv
Note the influence of geometric nonlinearity on the basic equilibrium equations will
be considered in Section 3.
2.1.3 Model Pre-Solution Output Summary

As an initial check on the finite element model the following quantities are computed
and output for all analysis types:
summation of nodal loads in global directions

summation of moments about the origin
element volume and mass summaries
the centre of mass and moments of inertia
mass and geometric property summaries
Brief descriptions of the computations involved are presented in the following

sections.
2.1.3.1 Resultant loads
The moments M about the origin have been approximated by the discrete equation
n
M = Pi x x i + M i
(2.1-19)
i =1
Analysis Procedures
where x i is the vector connecting the origin and node i. Pi and M i are equivalent
nodal forces at, and moments about, node i respectively. n is the number of problem
nodes. The discrete form of the equation is only approximate, the accuracy of which
is determined by the type of loading.
The following assumptions have been made when processing nodal loads:
1. For axisymmetric analyses (except Fourier) the nodal forces do not contribute
towards the moment at the origin. In addition, the forces on one radian of
revolution are processed. This is required to give meaningful results as
consideration of the full revolution will lead to radial components summing to
zero.
2. For Fourier analyses forces/moments for the complete revolution are processed
and forces are considered to contribute towards moments at the origin.
3. Forces applied to degrees of freedom which represent a departure from linearity
are not considered to contribute towards the static equivalence of the applied
loading [C10].
2.1.3.2 Mass properties
The mass of the structure
M s is calculated by summing the masses of the individual
elements me , where me is given by integrating the density over the element

volume
me =
dvol
(2.1-20)
volume
The centre of mass G , of the structure is approximated from

n
G=
m x
i
i =1
(2.1-21)
Ms
n = number of nodes in structure

The element nodal masses are calculated by distributing the element mass equally
between its nodes. The structural nodal masses mi are then the summation of all the
nodal contributions from elements connected to the node.
The moments of inertia of the structure I o about the origin are given by [S9]
n
I o = mi S ( x i )S ( x i )T
(2.1-22)
i =1

where the skew-symmetric matrix, S ( x i ) is given by
LM 0
S(x ) = M z
MN y
i
zi
0
OP
P
0 PQ
yi
xi
xi
(2.1-23)
Expansion and summation of (2.1-22) results in
Io
LM I
=M
MN
xx
I xy
I yy
SYM
I xz
I yz
I zz
OP
PP
Q
(2.1-24)
The parallel axes theorem is used to compute the moments of inertia about global
directions with the origin at the centroid of the structure, I G .
I G = I o M s S ( G )S ( G )T
(2.1-25)
An eigenvalue analysis can then be carried out on I G to compute the principal
moments of inertia (the eigenvalues) and the directions about which they act (the
eigenvectors). Note that for axisymmetric elements the mass properties are computed
for the complete revolution.
2.2 Linear Static Analysis And Equation Solution

This section provides a brief description of the equations of linear static equilibrium
and outlines the techniques available to solve these equations. For the frontal solution
method some modelling considerations are presented together with a description of
the 'diagonal decay' solution monitor. Frontwidth optimisation techniques which may
be used to reduce both the memory and CPU usage are also outlined. Finally a
description of the iterative solver is given which also includes brief details of the
'preconditioning' process.
2.2.1 Governing Equations

The finite element equilibrium equations for linear static analysis are (2.1-6)
Ka = R
where the load vector
(2.2-1)
R is replaced by a matrix R which may contain several load
cases.
Analysis Procedures
These equations can be solved directly using Gaussian reduction [H6] or iteratively
using a conjugate gradient technique [M6],[C10] and [H3]. The frontal solver utilises
Gaussian elimination to invert the stiffness matrix K , followed by a back-substitution
process to evaluate the displacements a . This technique may be performed on
several load cases simultaneously, reducing the analysis costs. The iterative solver is
effective for extremely large and comparatively well conditioned problems where
only one load case is to be solved. The success of this method depends very much on
the condition of the stiffness matrix and the preconditioning stage is an imperative
part of the solution process.
2.2.2 Frontal Solver

The Gaussian reduction solution technique requires the structure stiffness matrix to be
non-singular. For structural applications, this is equivalent to stating that for any
displacement field, the strain energy stored by the finite element system must be
greater than zero.
Therefore, the structure must be supported so that no rigid body displacements or
rotations are possible. Failure to comply with this criterion will result in LUSAS error
or warning messages.
The stiffness matrix may also be poorly conditioned. This is the result of a large
variation in magnitude of diagonal stiffness terms, which may be due to
large, stiff elements being connected to small, less stiff elements
elements with highly disparate stiffnesses, e.g. a beam element may have
a bending stiffness that is orders of magnitude less than it's axial stiffness.
Poor conditioning may result in round-off error, which is a loss of accuracy in the
evaluation of the terms during the reduction process. This in turn leads to inaccuracies
in the predicted displacements and stresses.
LUSAS monitors the round-off error by evaluating the diagonal decay during the
reduction process. This criterion [I2] is based on the assumption that initially large
diagonal terms accumulate errors proportional to their size. As reduction progresses,
the diagonal term is reduced, amplifying the errors until they become a maximum
when the diagonal term is the pivot. An indication of probable errors may be obtained
by examining the change in magnitude of the diagonal term, i.e. the diagonal decay is
defined as
LM ( K ) OP
N
Q
D =
m
( j) 2
ii
j =1
(2.2-2)
K ii( m )
where
9
Di is the diagonal decay for the ith equation,

K ii( j ) is the value of the diagonal term of the ith equation at the jth modification
( m)
m is the last modification i.e. K ii is the pivot.
If Di > Dkl (default 1.0E+05) then a warning is output and the solution in the region
of this node should be examined carefully.
If Di > Dkl (default 1.0E+12) then the solution is terminated as the matrix has
become singular, probably due to insufficient restraints.
The specific form of Gaussian reduction implemented in LUSAS is the frontal
solution technique [I2]. This technique uses sophisticated 'housekeeping' techniques
which are designed to minimise the number of operations performed and the memory
required during the equation solution.
Instead of assembling the complete structural stiffness matrix, the elements are
considered in turn according to a prescribed order, with assembly and elimination
processes proceeding simultaneously. Whenever a new element is called in, its
stiffness contribution is added to the currently active structure stiffness by either
adding the contribution to the current equations, if the degrees of freedom
are already active, or
creating new equations, if the degrees of freedom are not active.
When all the stiffness contributions for a degree of freedom have been assembled, the
equation is removed from the list of active equations using Gaussian elimination. The
list of active nodes is called the front and the number of variables in the front is the
frontwidth.
The size of the frontwidth greatly influences the CPU time and disk storage required
for the solution of the equations. Therefore, the elements should be assembled such
that the frontwidth or root mean square of the frontwidth is a minimum. This may be
achieved by either
Careful ordering of elements in the mesh (fig.2.2-1), or
Using the automatic element reordering algorithm (see Section 2.2.2.1).
The frontal solution technique is also used for equation solution in the nonlinear,
dynamic, eigenvalue and field analysis procedures.
2.2.2.1 Frontwidth optimisation
Four algorithms are available for frontwidth optimisation
(i) STANDARD OPTIMISER
This optimiser is based on the minimisation of the growth of the element front. The
following steps are used to optimise the frontwidth
10
Analysis Procedures
1. For each element, form a vector containing all elements which are neighbours to
the current element.
2. Use each element in turn as a starting element. The current front then contains one
element
Update the current front by
adding to the front the neighbours of the elements that form the front,
removing elements that are no longer active from the front.
If the current frontwidth for this starting element exceeds the maximum
frontwidth obtained using a previous starting element, the algorithm
selects the next starting element (return to step 2.). Otherwise return to
step 2.a unless the complete mesh has been considered.
If the maximum frontwidth for the current starting element is less than the
previously obtained value, update optimum starting element and
maximum frontwidth.
3. Form element assembly order using the starting element that provides the smallest
frontwidth.
The procedure is illustrated for a simple example in fig.2.2-2. As the algorithm uses
element rather than nodal data, it is computationally efficient. Also, the simple rules
utilised to choose the starting element and update the front, ensure that the algorithm
is very stable, i.e. it will always produce reasonable element assembly order.
However, for certain cases the element order may be significantly greater than the
true optimum. This is illustrated by the examples in fig.2.2-3. For the long, thin mesh
the algorithm produces a maximum frontwidth close to the optimum value. Whereas
for the square mesh, the maximum frontwidth is significantly greater than the
optimum value.
(ii) AKHRAS AND DHATT OPTIMISER
This frontwidth optimisation technique is based on the procedure presented by Akhras

and Dhatt [A5]. The method was developed by considering various topological
characteristics of band matrices corresponding to typical well-ordered network
problems and then employing the simplest of these properties as criteria for
developing an optimisation algorithm. Consider the mesh shown in fig.2.2-4, with 12
interconnected nodes and an optimum bandwidth of 4, in order to discuss these
properties of interest.
The node connectivity matrix of the network is defined by column 2 of table 2.2-1. It
contains the complete information regarding the connectivity of the network. The
matrix has, among others, the following properties:
Sum Consider the rows having the same number of terms. It is noticed that
the sum of the terms in each row is arranged in an increasing order as shown in
column 3. For example, rows 1,3,10 and 12 have the same number of terms,
and the sum of terms in these rows 12,16, 36 and 40, is arranged in an
ascending order.
11

Ponderation Column 4 gives a ponderation vector which is obtained by
dividing the row sum by the number of terms in the row. It is observed these
values are arranged in an ascending order from the first row to the last one.
Span The sum of the minimum term and the maximum term for each row is
arranged in ascending order (column 5).
Each of these criteria may not be necessarily appropriate for the optimal bandwidth
organisation of a general sparse matrix or network. However, it is assumed that if the
nodes of a mesh are numbered in such a way that the above mentioned criteria are
respected, the corresponding matrix will have a minimum bandwidth, but this may not
be the absolute minimum.
The LUSAS implementation of the method works on elements rather than on nodes to
reduce the size of the problem.
The present optimisation algorithm employs these criteria in an iterative manner and
it is divided into two phases.
Phase 1 The elements are relabelled on the span criterion and the ponderation
criterion respectively. The relabelling process is repeated a number of times
respecting these two criteria until no more reduction in bandwidth is obtained.
Phase 2 The elements are relabelled such that the ponderation criterion and
the sum criterion are respected simultaneously. This process is repeated until
no further reduction in bandwidth is realised. Usually the process terminates
after a finite number of iterations.
Node
Node connectivity matrix
10 11
11 12
10
10 7
11
11
11 7
12
12 8
11
Sum
10 11 12
10 12
TABLE 2.2-1
12
Ponderation
Span
12
21
3.5
16
27
4.5
45
10
33
5.5
11
45
7.5
15
72
16
51
8.5
17
36
18
57
9.5
19
40
10
20
Analysis Procedures
Note that this optimiser will function with two or more unconnected meshes (e.g. in a
slideline analysis).
(iii) REVERSE CUTHILL-MCKEE OPTIMISER
Cuthill and McKee [C15] noted that the ordering of a sparse symmetric matrix for
minimum profile and wavefront is equivalent to the labelling of an undirected graph.
The terminology of 'graph theory' provides a means of assessing various node
ordering schemes [J3]. The Reverse Cuthill-McKee optimiser works by re-ordering
node numbers directly (rather than element numbers) in an attempt to optimise the
element solution order. The optimiser may be used to minimise any of the following
criteria (see figure 2.2-5 for descriptions of terms):
Maximum wavefront
RMS wavefront
Bandwidth
Profile
The basic steps taken in this optimisation method are as follows:

1. Choose a node to be relabelled as 1. This node should be one with the lowest
connectivity.
2. The nodes connected to the new node are relabelled 2,3 etc., in order of increasing
degree (connectivity).
3. The sequence is then extended by relabelling the nodes which are directly
connected to the new node 2 and which have not been previously relabelled. The
nodes are again listed in order of increasing degree.
4. The last operation is repeated for the new nodes 3,4 etc., until renumbering is
complete.
5. Finally, the Reverse Cuthill-McKee method requires that the ordering of the
relabelled nodes is reversed.
Steps 1. to 5. are repeated for all the nodes with the lowest degree of connectivity.
The final sequence chosen is the one which best satisfies the criterion to be
minimised.
When the optimum node sequence has been established the element solution order is
modified to reflect the new sequence. To illustrate how this is done reference will be
made to the finite element mesh shown in figure 2.2-6. The following steps are taken
[S12,S13]:
1. The element topology is taken as:
Element label
Node labels
2
597
1
3
832
2
4
796
3
Element number
13
7
8
352
257
4
5
2. Form a list of element labels in ascending order : 2,3,4,7,8

3. Initialise the element solution order to 1,2,3,4,5
4. Form a list of unique node labels by looping through elements in ascending order:
5,9,7,8,3,2,6
5. List the original node label locations for each element:
element 1
element 2
element 3
element 4
element 5
1,2,3, 4,5,6, 3,2,7, 5,1,6, 6,1,3

6. Read the optimised list of unique node labels after Reverse Cuthill-McKee
optimisation:
8,9,7,6,2,3,5
7. Using the location data in 5. form a modified list of 'element' node labels based
on the optimised list in 6.:
element 1
element 2
element 3
element 4
element 5
8,9,7, 6,2,3, 7,9,5, 2,8,3, 3,8,7

8. Relate the node labels in 7. to locations in the original node list 4.:
element 1
element 2
element 3
element 5
4,2,3, 7,6,5, 3,2,1, 6,4,5, 5,4,3

9. List the minimum location value in 8. for each element:
element 4
2,5,1,4,3
10. The list in 9. is sorted into ascending order while the solution order in 3. is also
sorted as a dependent list:
list 9. => 1,2,3,4,5
list 3. => 3,1,5,4,2
11. The final sorted list in 10. is used with the list in 2. to give an optimised solution
order for the elements: 4,2,8,7,3
(iv) SLOAN OPTIMISER
The Sloan optimiser works in a similar way to the Cuthill-McKee optimiser in that the
algorithm seeks to optimise the element solution order by firstly re-ordering the node
numbers. A much more sophisticated method is used to find the node order which
provides the optimal profile and wavefront. Full details of this procedure are given in
[S12]. After the optimal node sequence has been established the element solution
order is computed in the same manner as that described for the Cuthill-McKee
optimiser. Both the Cuthill-McKee and Sloan optimisers will function with two or
more unconnected meshes.
14
Analysis Procedures
2.2.2.2 Constraints and slidelines using the Frontal Solver
When the finite element analysis contains constraint equations and/or slidelines the
solution frontwidth is affected since these are included into the solution in the form of
constraint and/or contact elements. These elements are inserted into the frontal
solution according to the following steps
1. If frontwidth optimisation is required then
obtain optimised solution order with all elements (normal, constraint and
contact).
obtain a list of normal elements in optimised solution order otherwise
obtain a list of normal elements in presented/numbered solution order
2. Insert contact elements into the solution order after the elements to which they are
connected.
3. Insert constraint elements into the solution order only when the constraint
equation can be eliminated (i.e. after all the required variables have been
assembled).
Penalty slidelines with constantly changing connectivity will constantly be generating
new contact elements and removing old ones. Therefore
with SOLUTION ORDER AUTOMATIC (optimisation is required) the
frontwidth will be re-optimised when necessary following the procedure
described above.
with SOLUTION ORDER the contact elements will be inserted
immediately after the normal elements as appropriate (as 2. above).
with SOLUTION ORDER PRESENTED, the contact elements will be
inserted at the end of the normal elements according to their higher
element numbers. This would cause an un-optimised order when slidelines
are in use.
Note that LUSAS Modeller does not set up the connectivities required to include the
constraint elements or the contact elements - hence differing frontwidths may be
obtained when computed in LUSAS Solver.
2.2.3 Iterative Solver

The advantage of the iterative solver implemented in LUSAS is related to the solution
of extremely large but well conditioned problems where size precludes the use of the
frontal technique. The iterative solver cannot be used in analyses involving
superelements, constraint equations or eigenvalue extraction and is very inefficient if
more than one load case is to be solved. The conjugate gradient method with an
incomplete Cholesky preconditioner is employed for an iterative solution in LUSAS.
15

2.2.3.1 The Conjugate Gradient method
The conjugate gradient method solves the equations defined as (2.2-1) by considering
the minimisation of the functional:
f (a ) =
1 T
T
a Ka R a + c
2
(2.2-3)
where the first term on the r.h.s. of (2.2-3) is the strain energy, the second term the
potential energy of the applied loads and c is an arbitrary constant corresponding to
some reference value. The gradient of f(a) is the vector:
f ( a ) = K a R = ( a )
(2.2-4)
where (a) is called the residual. In structural finite element applications the residual
can be viewed as the out of balance force vector which should be zero at equilibrium.
Since the functional f(a) decreases most rapidly in the direction opposite of the
gradient, it is advantageous to search in this direction for the minimiser of f(a). A
first-degree iteration is commonly written:
a k +1 = a k + k p k
where
(2.2-5)
p k is the search direction for the kth iteration and k >0 is a step length.
Hence, from the point

distance
a k , the approximation proceeds in the direction p k for a
ak along the surface f(a), attempting to choose ak and p k at each step so
as to approach the minimum point of f(a).

This forms the basis of iterative solution methods and in LUSAS the conjugate
gradient method is used which is an algorithm that seeks to accelerate 'the method of
steepest descent'. Full details of this method can be found in [M6], [C10] and [N3] but
the basic iteration procedure can be summarised as follows:
a o given (value at start of increment), o = R = K a o , p o = o

for
k = 0,1,..., kmax
K =
TK K
(2.2-6)
pK K pK
a k +1 = a k + k p k
(2.2-7)
k +1 = k k K p k
(2.2-8)
16
Analysis Procedures
|| k +1||
T
test for convergence - >
|| R||
< (default =1e-6)
if no convergence continue iterating
k =
Tk +1 k +1
(2.2-9)
Tk k
p k +1 = k +1 + k p k
(2.2-10)
2.2.3.2 Preconditioning
In the analysis of structural problems very ill-conditioned equations may arise. The
condition number of a symmetric matrix K can be related to its extreme
eigenvalues
(K ) =
N
1
(2.2-11)
If the condition number is large, then a small change in K or

change in the solution
R may cause a gross
a , and K a = R is said to be ill-conditioned. Rounding errors
and approximations make the solution a unreliable if the condition number is very
large. A further disadvantage of a large condition number is that it usually reduces the
rate of convergence of iterative methods.
Preconditioning is a method of clustering the eigenvalues more closely together and
thereby improving the efficiency of the iterative procedure. The basic idea of any
preconditioning method is to replace the system
Ka = R
(2.2-12)
~
~
K a~ = R
(2.2-13)
by
where
~
1
T
K = H KH ,
T
a~ = H a ,
~
1
R=H R
The aim of preconditioning is to make K a better conditioned matrix than K . In

LUSAS an incomplete Cholesky factorisation of K is used for the preconditioning
process and more details may be found in [M6],[C10] and [N3].
17
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Max. Frontwidth = 13 (1 freedom/node)

(a) Poor Solution Order
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
11
14
17
20
23
26
29
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
Max. Frontwidth = 6 (1 freedom/node)

(b) Efficient Solution Order
Fig.2.2-1 EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING POOR AND EFFICIENT SOLUTION
ORDERS
18
Analysis Procedures
1
Current front
Non-assembled
elements
Assembled elements
3
Neighbours of element 1
added to front
9 12
8 11
7 10
Neighbours of elements 2,3

and 4 added to front
Neighbours of elements 7,8

and 9 added to front
Frontwidth achieved = 7
Optimum frontwidth = 6
Fig.2.2-2 EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING STANDARD FRONTWIDTH

OPTIMISATION ALGORITHM
19
10
31
11
32
12
33
49
48
(a) Long Thin Mesh
47
46
45
44
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
(b) Square Mesh

Fig.2.2-3 EXAMPLES COMPARING THE MINIMUM FRONTWIDTHS
OBTAINED WITH THE STANDARD OPTIMISER WITH THE OPTIMUM
VALUES
3
12
11
10
FIG.2.2-4 WELL-ORDERED NETWORK OF 12 NODES
20
Analysis Procedures
wavefront
1
2
.
.
x
x
.
.
.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
maximum wavefront
1 2 n
The root mean square of the wavefront =
1 2
1 x
2 x x
x
.
x
.
. x
x
.
.
n
LM 1 wavefront OP
Nn
Q
2
n
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
bandwidth
The profile is given by
bandwidth
FIG.2.2-5 DEFINITION OF TERMS USED FOR OPTIMISERS
21

8
FIG.2.2-6 CUTHILL-MCKEE OPTIMISATION EXAMPLE
2.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis

Nonlinearities may arise in several forms including large deflections, large straining,
nonlinear stress-strain laws, deformation dependent boundary conditions, and
deformation dependent loading.
(i) MATERIALLY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
This type of analysis should be utilised if the material stress-strain relationship is

significantly nonlinear. Consider for example the idealised stress-strain relationship
for a steel bar (fig.2.3-1). This is linear in the elastic range so that an elastic analysis
would predict the correct deformed configuration provided the yield stress is not
exceeded. If yielding occurs then the stiffness of the bar decreases resulting in a
nonlinear stress-strain law. Therefore incremental loading is required to trace the
complete material response. This is illustrated for a simple two bar arrangement
(fig.2.3-2).
LUSAS has a number different material models which permit modelling of a variety
of physical materials including ductile metals, concrete, foam and soils.
(ii) GEOMETRICALLY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
In this analysis the changing effect of structural deformation on the structural stiffness
and on the position of applied loads is considered. A simple problem that illustrates
this is a simply supported beam with uniformly distributed loading (fig.2.3-3). The
linear solution would predict the familiar simply supported bending moment and zero
axial force. However, in reality, as the beam deforms so the angle of inclination of the
beam at the supports introduces an axial component of force. This force may become
significant if the deformations and consequently the angle of inclination become
large.
22
Analysis Procedures
Stress
Yield
point
Yield
Stress
Hardening
Loading
Elastic unloading/reloading
Strain
Fig.2.3-1 TYPICAL IDEALISED UNIAXIAL STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP

FOR STEEL
Bar 1
Force
Bar 2
Problem Definition
Force
Bar 1 Yield
stress
Displacement
Stress-Strain Relationship for Bar 1
23
Force
Bar 2
Yield
stress
Displacement
Stress-Strain Relationship for Bar 2
Force
Bar 2 yields
Ultimate
load
Bar 1 yields
Displacement
Combined Response of System

Fig.2.3-2 NONLINEAR RESPONSE OF A TWO BAR SYSTEM
Problem Definition Axial forces
Axial Forces Induced By Large Deflections

Fig.2.3-3 GEOMETRICALLY NONLINEAR RESPONSE OF A SIMPLY
SUPPORTED BEAM
24
Analysis Procedures
Another simple example is the bar assemblage of fig.2.3-4. As the load is increased,
the response exhibits softening until 'snap-through' occurs, after which the response
shows stiffening.
Another form of nonlinearity often associated with large deformations is that of
follower forces (or non-conservative loading). With large deformations, some loads
vary in both their spatial location and orientation. Failure to represent these changes
may lead to errors with certain load types, e.g. pressure loading on a surface, where
the pressure should always act normal to the deformed surface. Non-conservative
loading is modelled in LUSAS by continuously updating the load vector (Updated
Lagrangian or Eulerian formulations only [Section 3]).
(iii) DEFORMATION DEPENDENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
In this analysis the boundary conditions are modified during the course of the analysis
depending upon the deformed shape of the structure. This is illustrated by the
example shown in fig.2.3-5. The mass is subjected to a pressure P and is initially
supported by a single spring. As the load is increased, contact is established with a
second spring, which alters the load-deformation response of the structure.
Nonlinear boundary conditions are imposed by using joint elements or via the
slideline facility. In the above case a joint element with an initial gap and zero
stiffness is used to connect the mass to the spring. Once the gap has been closed the
element is given a stiffness so that it forms a rigid link.
Load
(a) Problem Definition
25

Load
Elastic
response
Displacement
at apex
Geometrically nonlinear response
(b) Load-Displacement Relationship

Fig.2.3-4 GEOMETRICALLY NONLINEAR RESPONSE OF A BAR
ASSEMBLAGE
Load
Gap
K1
Spring
Supports
K2
(a) Problem definition
26
Analysis Procedures
Load
K1 + K2
Contact
K1
Displacement
(b) Load-Deflection Response

Fig.2.3-5 RESPONSE OF A SPRING-MASS SYSTEM WITH NONLINEAR
SUPPORT CONDITIONS
2.3.1 Time Stepping And The Tangent Modulus Matrix

To trace the structural response of materially or geometrically nonlinear problems, a
time or load stepping procedure must be used. If a significant degree of nonlinearity
occurs during a load step, the stresses integrated through the volume of the structure
will not satisfy equilibrium with the external forces. Consequently, a residual force
vector q(a) will remain, defined by
( a )= t + t P t + t R
t + t
P = BT
v
and
t +t
t + t
(2.3-1)
dv
(2.3-2)
R is the external force vector.
Therefore, a correction procedure is required to restore equilibrium. The simplest

corrector may be derived by using a Taylor series expansion to obtain the
approximate solution, i.e. assuming that for iteration i-1 we have evaluated a
a i 1 + a i = a i1 +
i
i 1 a + K
a
27
i1
(2.3-3)
then

where a is the change in displacement for the ith iteration and the higher order
terms are neglected. Since we require a zero residual for iteration i, (2.3-3) becomes
i
L OP
a = M
N a Q
i
i 1
( a i 1 )
(2.3-4)
a i = K T1 ( a i 1 )
(2.3-5)
where KT is known as the tangent stiffness matrix. The next displacement

approximation is then obtained using
a =a
i
i 1
+ a
(2.3-6)
This equilibrium iteration procedure is known as Newton-Raphson iteration and is

illustrated in fig.2.3-6, which also shows the physical significance of the tangent
modulus as the tangent to the stress-strain relationship at the current configuration.
This also implies that, for zero deformation, the tangent modulus corresponds to the
elastic modulus.
28
Analysis Procedures
Load (R)
R
y(a2)
K 2T
y(a1)
K1T
P2
P1
Displacement (a)
Da1
Da2
Fig.2.3-6 Illustration Of Newton-Raphson Iteration For A One Degree Of Freedom

Response
2.3.2 Iteration Procedures

2.3.2.1 Newton iteration
Although Newton-Raphson iteration is stable and converges quadratically (provided
the initial estimate is close enough to the solution), it has the disadvantage that the
tangent stiffness matrix needs to be inverted during each iteration. Also, it may fail to
converge when extreme material nonlinearities are present in a structure. For this case
modified Newton iteration may be more effective.
29

With modified Newton iteration the current tangent stiffness matrix is replaced with a
previous stiffness matrix, say from the beginning of the increment. This reduces the
cost of the computation/iteration as the factorisation of the tangent stiffness matrix is
not required for every iteration. Three common forms of modified Newton-Raphson
are (fig.2.3-7)
initial stiffness method,
KT1 method,
KT2 method.
The convergence rate of modified Newton iteration is not quadratic and the procedure
often diverges. However, when coupled with the line search procedure it forms an
iteration algorithm that is particularly suitable for structures exhibiting extreme
material nonlinearity. Newton-Raphson iteration is more effective for geometrically
nonlinear problems than modified Newton iteration.
Load
t+tR
No stiffness reformulation
tR
Displacement
(a) Initial Stiffness Method
Load
t+tR
tR
Stiffness reformulation
Displacement
(b) KT1 Method
30
Analysis Procedures
Load
t+tR
tR
Stiffness reformulation
Displacement
(c) KT2 Method

Fig.2.3-7 Common Forms Of Modified Newton Iteration
2.3.2.2 Line searches
The line search technique is designed to improve the convergence rate of both full and
modified Newton iteration. It involves modifying the iterative displacement update
for iteration i to obtain
a =a
i
i 1
+ i a
(2.3-7)
where is the step length and is selected to minimise the potential energy.
corresponds to the parameter ETA output in the nonlinear logfile. The stationary
value may thus be obtained as
i
i ( i ) i ( i ) a i
=
=0
i1
a i i
(2.3-8)
The first term is the gradient of the potential energy, and partially differentiating
(2.3-7) with respect to enables (2.3-8) to be written as
i ( a i )T a = 0
(2.3-9)
Equation (2.3-9) is excessively strict and complete satisfaction would be numerically

expensive. Therefore, (2.3-9) is replaced by
i ( a i )T a < toline i 1 ( a i1 )T a
31
(2.3-10)

i
i1
Where EPSLN (the nonlinear logfile parameter) is computed for a a

and the
tolerance factor (corresponding to the parameter toline in the NONLINEAR
CONTROL data chapter) is usually set to between 0.4 and 0.8. If equation (2.3-10) is
not satisfied with the initial step length of unity, then a simple linear interpolation
(fig.2.3-8) is used to calculate a new step length. Typically, for line search step j+1
the step length is j+1 evaluated using
L a OP
= M
MN a ( ) PQ
i 1
i
j +1
i
j
i
j
(2.3-11)
i 1
The process is repeated until the convergence criterion (2.3-10) is satisfied or until a
preset maximum number of line searches per iteration (corresponding to nalps) is
exceeded. Line searches are not carried out if the computed length is close to unity or
close to zero. If the step length is close to unity, little would be achieved by the line
search. If the step length is close to zero, little progress would be made with the
solution, and the new iterative direction provided by re-solution would be beneficial.
Potential
energy
Satisfactory zone
Step
length
Exact solution a/a = 0

Fig.2.3-8 Line Search Procedure
32
Analysis Procedures
Load
t+2tR
t+tR
Iteration within each load step

tR
Displacement
Fig.2.3-9 Constant Load Level Incremental/Iterative Procedure

2.3.2.3 Convergence
When using incremental/iterative solution algorithms, a measure of the convergence
of the solution is required to define when equilibrium has been achieved. The
selection of appropriate convergence criteria is of utmost importance. An excessively
tight tolerance may result in unnecessary iterations and consequent waste of computer
resources, whilst a slack tolerance may provide incorrect answers.
Assigning tolerance values is very much a matter of experience. In general, sensitive
geometrically nonlinear problems require a tight convergence criteria in order to
maintain the solution on the correct equilibrium path, whereas a slack tolerance is
usually more effective with predominantly materially nonlinear problems in which
high local residuals may have to be tolerated.
There are many ways of monitoring convergence and within LUSAS the following
criteria are available
Euclidian residual norm,

Euclidian displacement norm,
Euclidian incremental displacement norm,
work norm,
root mean squares of the residuals,
maximum absolute residual.
33

A description of each of the above follows, in which the bracketed parameter
equivalis the ent variable in the nonlinear logfile.
(i) EUCLIDIAN RESIDUAL NORM (rdnrm)
The Euclidian residual norm
is
defined by the norm of the residuals as a
percentage of the norm of the external forces R and is written as
|| ||2
|| R||2
100
(2.3-12)
where R contains the external loads and reactions. Owing to the inconsistency of the
units of displacement and rotation, usually only translational degrees of freedom are
considered although all freedoms may optionally be included. For problems involving
predominantly geometric nonlinearity, a tolerance of
< 0.1
(2.3-13)
is suggested. Where plasticity predominates, a more flexible tolerance of

0.1 < < 5.0
(2.3-14)
is suggested.
(ii) EUCLIDIAN DISPLACEMENT NORM (dpnorm)
The Euclidian displacement norm d is defined by the norm of the iterative

displacements a as a percentage of the norm of the total displacements a and is
written as
d =
|| a||2
100 d
|| a||2
(2.3-15)
As in the residual norm, usually only translation degrees of freedom are considered
but all freedoms may be optionally included. The criterion is a physical measure of
how much the structure has moved during the current iteration. However, if
convergence is slow then false convergence may be obtained with this criterion.
Typical values are
01
. < d < 10
.
0.001 < d < 01
.
( reasonable )
( tight )
34
(2.3-16)
Analysis Procedures
(iii) EUCLIDIAN INCREMENTAL DISPLACEMENT NORM (dtnrm)
The Euclidian incremental displacement norm dt is defined by the norm of the

iterative displacements a as a percentage of the norm of the displacements a for
that increment, and is written as
dt =
|| a||2
100
|| a||2
(2.3-17)
As in the residual norm, usually only translation degrees of freedom are considered
but all freedoms may be optionally included. The criterion is a physical measure of
how much the structure has moved during the current iteration with respect to the
incremental displacement. Typical values are
01
. < dt < 10
.
( reasonable )
0.001 < dt < 01

.
(2.3-18)
( tight )
(iv) WORK NORM (wdnrm)
The work measure is defined as the work done by the residual forces on the current
iteration as a percentage of the work done by the external forces on iteration zero, i.e.
for iteration i
w=
where
( i )T a i
R a
T
100
(2.3-19)
is the current residual force vector, R is the external force vector for the
1
current increment, a is the iterative displacement for iteration 1, and

iterative displacement for the current increment.
ai
is the
The following are typical values
10
. e 3 < W < 10
. e 1
( slack )
10
. e 6 < W < 10
. e 3
( reasonable )
10
. e 9 < W < 10
. e 6
( tight )
Note Line searches attempt to minimise ( )
i T
(2.3-20)
ai
for the current iteration [Section
2.3.2.2]. Therefore, convergence of the work norm may occur to a local minimum for
iterations when line searches are used. Therefore, the work norm is normally
supplemented with an alternative norm when line searches are used.
35

(v) ROOT MEAN SQUARE OF RESIDUALS (RMS)
This criterion evaluates the root mean square value of all the residuals in the problem
=|| ||2
(2.3-21)
The criterion is dependent upon the units of the problem.

(vi) MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE RESIDUAL (MAR)
This criterion limits the maximum absolute residual in a problem
= max | |
(2.3-22)
The criterion is dependent upon the units of the problem. It is an extremely stiff
criterion, which may be useful near bifurcation points of sensitive geometrically
nonlinear problems where large residuals may pollute the solution.
2.3.3 Incrementation Procedures

To trace the nonlinear solution path a combined incremental/iterative procedure is
required. In LUSAS two methods are available
constant load level incrementation,
modified arc length incrementation (either Crisfield's or Rheinboldt's method)
2.3.3.1 Constant load level
With the constant load level incremental/iterative procedure (fig.2.3-9), the load is
applied in specified fixed increments and the chosen iterative algorithm is utilised to
obtain convergence of the solution at each load level. In LUSAS, the load levels may
be either specified manually as a series of load cases, or automatically using the
INCREMENTATION command.
With manual incrementation, convergence failure of the iteration algorithm will result
in termination of the analysis. However, this automatic termination of the analysis
may be overridden, so that the next load increment is applied to the current
unconverged configuration.
If the solution fails to converge with automatic incrementation, the increment size
will be reduced and convergence sought at this load new level. However this load
reduction may be overridden, so that the solution may be either terminated or
continued by the application of the next load increment.
The constant load level incremental/iterative methods fail when the solution reaches
the limit points (fig.2.3-10). These are points where either displacement or load
reversals occur, resulting in a singular or near singular stiffness matrix. At point A,
36
Analysis Procedures
for example, a small increase in load is matched by a large increase in displacement
and the solution, if one exists, will very often fail to converge.
The most common limit point occurs at A and may be crossed using displacement
control. In this approach, a known displacement pattern is incremented and the load
obtained from the reactions. However, if the displacement pattern is not known, such
as with pressure loading, then this method cannot be used.
Load
t+tR
A
B
tR
Iterative
procedure
diverges
Limit
points
Displacement
Fig.2.3-10 Illustration Of Limit Points For A One Degree Of Freedom Response

Load
t+tR1
Spherical path
constant
Load level
reduction
t+tR
tR
Displacement
Fig.2.3-11 Modified Arc Length Load Incrementation For A One Degree Of Freedom
Response
37

Therefore, in general, if limit points occur in the structural response, the modified arc
length incrementation procedure should be used.
2.3.3.2 Modified arc length control (Crisfield's method)
(i) GENERAL
A general method that may follow the solution path through both types of limit points
is the modified arc length method [R1,W1,C2]. The algorithm implemented in
LUSAS follows that proposed by Crisfield [C2] but has been modified to allow for
combinations of proportional and non-proportional loading.
The salient characteristic of the arc length method is that the load level does not
remain constant during each load increment, i.e. during the iteration procedure the
load level is modified so that convergence near limit points may be achieved (fig.2.311). A further benefit of the arc-length constraint is in stabilising the iterative process.
This is of particular importance when using the modified Newton iteration [Section
2.3.2.1]. The arc-length method may therefore improve the efficiency of the solution,
even when no limit points are involved.
(ii) THEORY
The residual force vector at a load level is defined as
( a, ) = P R = 0
(2.3-23)
where is the load level and R is the load vector and P is the vector of internal forces.
For a small change in load level D (2.3-23) becomes
( a, + ) = P ( + ) R
(2.3-24)
Using (2.3-23) equation (2.3-24) becomes
( a, + ) = ( ) R
(2.3-25)
1
However, substituting (2.3-5) in (2.3-25) and pre-multiplying by K T
(2.3-25)
becomes
a = a + a T
where
(2.3-26)
is the usual iterative displacement vector due to the residual forces and
a T is the iterative displacement vector due to the change in load level of

The incremental displacement vector for iteration i is updated as
a = a
i
i 1
+ i a
(2.3-27)
38
Analysis Procedures
where
is a step length, usually taken as unity.
In order to determine the change in load level , an arc length constraint equation is
utilised (fig.2.3-11). A circular arc is used and the constraint equation is derived using
the Pythagoras theorem as
( a i )T a i + 2 ( i1 )2 qT q l 2 = 0
(2.3-28)
A difficulty exists in selecting values for the scalars a and b due to inconsistency of
units. Since the aim of the constraint equation is to prevent the displacements from
becoming too large, Crisfield [C2] proposes that should be taken as unity and as
zero. This has been adopted in LUSAS, i.e. (2.3-28) becomes
( a )T ( a )T l 2 = 0
i
(2.3-29)
Substitution of equations (2.3-27) and (2.3-28) enables equation (2.3-29) to be written

as a quadratic in as
k12 + k2 + k3 = 0
where the constants
(2.3-30)
k1 , k2 and k3 are given by
k1 = ( i )2 a T a T
T
(2.3-31)
i 1
k2 = 2 i a T a T + 2( i )2 a T a
T
i 1
k3 = ( a )T a
(2.3-32)
i 1
T
+( i )2 a a + 2 i a a
i 1
l 2
(2.3-33)
Note For a general iteration i, the terms in square brackets cancel out.
Equation (2.3-30) may be solved for and the total load level for iteration i is then
updated as
i = i1 +
(2.3-34)
and the gradient of the potential energy becomes
i = f ( a i ) q 1 qT
(2.3-35)
39

(iii) IMAGINARY ROOTS
If the roots to equation (2.3-30) are imaginary, then no intersection between the arc
and solution path is implied. This is caused by the iterative displacement vector a
being too large.
Various options are available in order to recover from this situation. If the tangent
stiffness matrix was not formed for this iteration (MNR), then the stiffness matrix is
automatically reformed. This usually alleviates the problem, at least temporarily. If
the tangent stiffness matrix was formed for this iteration (NR), then the increment is
restarted with a reduced arc length, since the problem may be due to the load
increment being too large. However, if no real roots occur on the predictor, reducing
the arc length will be of no benefit, since the arc length must be large enough to
accommodate the iterative displacement vector a .
In this case, the solution should be manually restarted from the penultimate increment
with an alternative arc length. The value chosen is dependent upon the phenomenon
that is creating the convergence difficulties. Typically if a bifurcation is possible in a
geometrically nonlinear problem, increasing the arc length may cause the solution to
jump over the problem area and proceed along the required or a complementary path.
Alternatively, for a materially nonlinear problem, structural collapse may be
occurring near this load level, and a reduction of arc length will be required.
Therefore, assigning an alternative value is a matter of experience or trial and error.
Note Failure to find real roots may also be associated with structural problems such
as poor idealisation, element mechanisms or approximations in the nonlinear
formulations.
(iv) SELECTING THE CORRECT ROOT
Normally (2.3-30) has two real roots. In this case the correct root must be chosen
since one root will take the solution forward and the other backward. To move
forward, the angle between the old incremental displacement vector and the new
incremental displacement vector must be acute [C2]. This can be enforced by
selecting the root for which the cosine of is given as
i 1
( a )T a
cos =
i
i 1
|| a || || a ||
i
(2.3-36)
is positive. If both roots yield a positive value of Cos , then the root chosen is that
which is closest to the linearised solution
lin =
k3
k2
(2.3-37)
40
Analysis Procedures
where
k2 and k3 are the constants from equation
(2.3-28)
By default, loading or unloading is detected using
RS+ve loading
T -ve loading
sign(| K T | )
(2.3-38)
If the structure is loading, then the numerically larger root of (2.3-30) is used, whilst
if the structure is unloading, the numerically smaller root is used.
This criterion is generally a reliable criterion, however near bifurcation points the sign
of the determinant can become obscured by negative eigenvalues. If either a suitable
structural imperfection or a suitable loading perturbation is not present, the solution
will be unable to snap onto the alternative equilibrium path, and the use of (2.3-38)
will cause the solution to oscillate. An alternative criterion is
sign( a T qT )
T
RS+ve loading
T -ve loading
(2.3-39)
which is an unscaled version of the current stiffness parameter [B2]. This criterion is
not affected by bifurcation points but will always fail in situations where snap-back is
occurring. In this case both the loads and displacements become negative and hence
(2.3-39) is positive.
Selecting the incorrect root is more detrimental than finding no real roots as it is more
difficult to detect and will often manifest itself in the form of a rather jagged load
deflection curve or a looping finite element system.
Note The selection of an incorrect root, or failure to find real roots, is usually
associated with structural problems such as poor idealisation, element mechanisms or
approximations in the nonlinear formulation.
2.3.3.3 Arc length control (Rheinboldt's method)
The arc length method may be thought of as a generalised form of displacement
control which can be applied even though, physically, the problem does not involve
displacement control. This has effectively been achieved by Crisfield's arc length
method where the Euclidean norm of the incremental displacement has been
constrained to a fixed value.
Instead of this, it is possible to constrain the displacement increment at a particular
variable k to a specified value so that (2.3-29) is replaced by
aki = aki1 = D
(2.3-40)
41

where D is the fixed magnitude for the incremental displacement at variable k; the
iteration counter is given as i. Using equations (2.3-26) and (2.3-27) for the particular
variable k, may be obtained from
D aki1 iak
aT ,k
(2.3-41)
Note that, in contrast to standard displacement control, the variable k would be one
where physically there would be no real displacement control and hence no reaction.
Rheinboldt's method uses this approach with the variable k being changed for each
increment so that it relates to the variable with the largest predictor component.
2.3.3.4 Line searches with arc length methods
A mathematically rigorous implementation of the line search method with the
modified arc length method is quite complex, as the adjustment of the step length
causes the constraint equation to be violated. An approximate method is used in
LUSAS which iterates between the line search equation (2.3-5) and either of the arc
length equations (2.3-30) or (2.3-41) to seek values of and that satisfy both
equations.
Whilst the method is effective, it fails to account for the fact that an adjustment in the
load level during the line search actually changes the iterative direction in which the
minimum of energy is being sought. Furthermore, line searches should be used with
care when tracing unstable equilibrium paths, since the equilibrium position may not
coincide with the minimum energy state.
2.3.3.5 Automatic load adjustment
The incremental arc length (deltl) is adjusted for each increment, so that large load
increments will be used for load levels with little nonlinearity, and small load
increments will be used for load levels where the response is highly nonlinear.
This is achieved by attempting to maintain a constant number of iterations during
t +t
1 evaluated by
each load step. Typically, for increment t the arc length is
comparing the number of iterations required to converge on the t previous increment
t
N with a preset desired number Nd (itd) as
L N OP
l = l M
NN Q
1/ 2
t + t
(2.3-42)
A criterion to limit the maximum change in the arc length is also available. If the load
level at time t is
, the load level at time t+t must be within the limits
42
Analysis Procedures
|t |
< |t + t | < max |t |
max
(2.3-43)
This criterion is automatically converted from a load level limit to an arc length limit
using (2.3-30) giving
t + t
where
l < a T a T ( max )2 + 2 a T a max + 2 a a (2.3-44)

T
a is the incremental displacement vector for the previous increment and

are the tangential displacements evaluated using the current tangent matrix, i.e.
a T = ( K T ) 1 R T
(2.3-45)
In the event of convergence failure after a maximum number of iterations, the

increment is restarted with a reduced incremental arc-length.
2.3.4 Bracketing And Branching

It is often necessary to accurately calculate a critical point which may be either a limit
point (see Fig.2.3-12) or a bifurcation point (see fig.2.3-13). In the case of a
bifurcation point, it may also be necessary to compute the bifurcated or secondary
solution path. The accurate computation of the critical point is called bracketing since
a bisection method is used and, for obvious reasons, the tracing of the bifurcated
solution path is called branching. Although multiple bifurcation points are possible
the algorithms are considered for simple bifurcation only, i.e. the intersection of two
paths only.
43
Load
limit point
Cstiff<0
Pivmin<0
Cstiff>0
Pivmin>0
Displacement
Fig.2.3-12 Nonlinear Solution Path For One Degree Of Freedom Showing Limit Point
Load
Cstiff>0
Pivmin<0
Bifurcation point
Cstiff>0
Pivmin>0
Displacement
Fig.2.3-13 Nonlinear Solution Path For One Degree Of Freedom Showing Bifurcation
Point And Secondary Path
44
Analysis Procedures
2.3.4.1 Bracketing a critical point
A critical point is characterised by a change of sign of either the first eigenvalue or
the determinant of the tangent stiffness or the smallest pivot which is the method used
here [S10]. Assuming that we have started from a stable path the bisection method is
initiated once the smallest pivot becomes negative. The previous increment is then
halved and the new solution point is computed. This process is continued until the
smallest pivot obtained is reasonably small (note that too tight a tolerance will lead to
ill-conditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix).
The performance of the bisection method is greatly improved if the magnitude of the
smallest pivot is used as a guide to the 'distance' between the present solution and the
critical point. To avoid complicated and possible dangerous extrapolation a simple
linear interpolation is adopted: the interpolation is always done between a pair of
solutions closest to, and on either side of, the critical point.
For materials whose properties and behaviour depend upon loading history, this
technique has to be modified since artificial unloading, when the increment size is
halved, must be avoided. Under such circumstances the critical point must be
approached from one direction only (i.e. the stable solution). This is called nonreversible bracketing.
2.3.4.2 Branching onto a bifurcated path
Once the bifurcation point has been located it is possible to follow the secondary
solution path rather than the primary one using the branching algorithm based on a
predictor/corrector algorithm [S10]. The predictor which is adopted in this case can
be formed by one of two methods
Eigenmode injection
Here, a small perturbation is added to the current displacement field
a predictor = a current + c
(2.3-46)
where c is a specified constant and is the first eigenvector of the tangent stiffness
matrix at the bifurcation point. It can be shown [S10] that, in the case of symmetric
bifurcation, is the exact tangent to the secondary path. However, numerical
experience [S10] has confirmed that it is often a good predictor for asymmetric
bifurcations as well. This branching method is used in conjunction with the Crisfield
arc-length control method (see section 4.3.3.2).
Artificial force method
Here, a specified displacement perturbation is applied to the degree of freedom that
corresponds to the smallest pivot. This branching method is used in conjunction with
the Rheinboldt arc-length control method (see section 4.3.3.3).
45

Once the first point on the secondary path has been computed the remainder of the
path can be obtained using the normal nonlinear algorithms described in this section.
2.3.5 Modelling Considerations

Due to the cost of performing nonlinear analyses, the finite element model should be
initially constructed with the minimum number of elements required to represent the
salient features of the structure. Failure to adequately represent the physical situation
may result in an incorrect nonlinear response, triggered by the initial assumptions.
This type of behaviour may occur if a poor idealisation of the structure is used in
regions of loads in elasto-plastic analysis, e.g. displacement-based finite elements will
try to reproduce an infinite stress at the point of application of a point load (fig.2.314). A similar effect occurs with point supports. Moreover, if a large displacement
analysis is being performed, care must be taken to reproduce the response
characteristics of all structural joints in the structure. Failure to do so may result in
considerable errors in the predicted and actual response.
Furthermore, performing an initial analysis of the complete situation with all
nonlinear behaviour considered, may prevent the analyst from discerning the salient
features of the structural response. Therefore the analysis process should include both
linear analyses and a series of nonlinear analyses, with the gradual introduction of the
nonlinear characteristics of the problem.
When performing a nonlinear analysis on structures of unknown structural response,
the following steps should be undertaken
1. The aim of the analysis must be decided, e.g. do you require
Yield load (load where plastic deformation initiates)
Growth of plastic zones (elasto-plastic only)
Buckling response (large deflection/eigenvalue analysis)
Ultimate load capacity (large deflection/elasto-plastic)
Contact regions (large deflection/contact)
2. Once the aim of the analysis has been decided then a nonlinear analysis data file is
set up and an analysis undertaken with one load step and zero iterations selected.
The analysis is then linear elastic and will both
validate the data file preventing an abortive nonlinear analysis due to data
errors,
provide valuable insight into the response of the structure, e.g. areas of the
structure which may require redefinition of the element distribution, high
stress areas where plastic behaviour is likely to propagate, the load level for
initial yield in elasto-plastic analysis.
3. If buckling is expected a linear buckling analysis should be performed to obtain
the linear bucking load.
4. If the approximate nonlinear response of a structure is unknown, then an analysis
with large load steps and few equilibrium iterations should be performed. This
46
Analysis Procedures
will provide some indication of the nonlinear response and will aid the choice of a
suitable solution scheme, without incurring excessive computer costs.
5. The solution and load incrementation scheme suitable for the present analysis is
chosen and the nonlinear analysis or series of nonlinear analyses is performed. At
this stage, the solution may indicate that re-meshing of areas of the structure is
required. In this case the analysis process would return to 1.
6. The accuracy of the nonlinear analysis is then assessed by performing further
analyses with refined data, e.g. smaller load steps or finer discretisation in areas of
high stress. If no significant differences in the solution are observed, then the
solution is close to optimal for the given modelling assumptions.
Problem
definition
Point load
Infinite stress /
displacement as the
mesh is defined
Finite element
model
(a) Column Supported on a Foundation
47
Problem
definition
Infinite stress as mesh is

refined unless corner
curvature is modelled
Finite element
model
(b) Bracket Subject to a Shear Load

Fig.2.3-14 Examples Illustrating Stress Singularities
2.4 Linear Step By Step Dynamics

The equations of dynamic equilibrium of an elastic discretised body can be written in
matrix form as (2.1-16)
M a&& + Ca& + K a = R
t
(2.4-1)
In order to reproduce the complete time history response of a structure to the t forcing
function
R , step by step integration of (2.4-1) must be performed.
The theoretical basis for direct integration, using either implicit or explicit schemes, is
outlined in the following section together with guidance on the applicability of the
methods to certain classes of problems.
2.4.1 Direct Integration

In direct integration, is integrated using a numerical step-by-step procedure in the
time domain. The method utilises two basic concepts
1. The dynamic equilibrium equations are satisfied at discrete time points within the
solution time interval and these discrete points are t apart.
48
Analysis Procedures
2. The variation of displacement, velocity and acceleration within these time
intervals is postulated, giving rise to a series of direct integration schemes, each
possessing different accuracy and stability characteristics.
These assumptions transform the set of second order differential equations into a set
of simultaneous equations at each time interval t. Direct integration proceeds by
t
&& ,
advancing the solution in time from known conditions a
t +t
t +t
t
a& and a at time t to
t +t
unknown values
a&& ,
a& and
a at time t+t. If the solution at time t+t is
obtained by considering equilibrium conditions at time t then the integration scheme
is termed explicit. However, if the solution at time t+t is obtained by considering
equilibrium at time t+t then the scheme is termed implicit.
Explicit algorithms permit de-coupling of the equilibrium equations removing the
need to invert the stiffness matrix. However they are only conditionally stable, which
implies that the time step length t must be smaller than a critical value tcr , in
order for the solution process to converge.
Implicit algorithms require inversion of the stiffness matrix at every time step. They
are unconditionally stable, i.e. convergence to a solution is guaranteed, with the
maximum time step governed by accuracy considerations alone for linear elastic
material behaviour.
2.4.1.1 Explicit or implicit algorithm
The matrix inversion required at each time step of the solution for the implicit
algorithm, make the cost of each solution step very expensive relative to the explicit
method. However, the time step length may be significantly larger thereby reducing
the overall number of time steps. Therefore, both techniques have advantages and
disadvantages and the choice of algorithm will depend on the problem being solved.
Explicit algorithms are generally used for problems which require small time steps
irrespective of the stability requirements. These problems are classed as wave
propagation problems because the behaviour of the wave front, dominated by high
frequency components, is of engineering importance. This category includes the
shock response from explosive or impact loading.
Implicit algorithms are generally used for inertial problems where the response is
governed by the low frequency components. This category includes seismic response
and large deformations of elasto-plastic structures under ramp or step loading.
2.4.1.2 Selecting an accurate integration scheme
For explicit analysis the central difference scheme should be used with lumped mass
matrices (permitting the decoupling of the equations). The central difference method
is particularly effective with a uniform discretisation of low order elements.
49

For implicit analysis the time steps are generally much greater than the critical time
step and consequently the higher modes are not integrated accurately. Therefore, it
may be advantageous if the integration algorithm dampens the response of the higher
modes by progressive amplitude decay. This type of algorithm is termed a dissipative
algorithm. Ideally, the algorithm should exhibit no numerical dissipation in the lower
modes that govern the response of the structure, whilst providing high dissipation in
the higher modes which have not been integrated accurately.
The dissipative characteristics of many schemes are illustrated by examining the
relationship between their spectral radii and t/T for a one degree of freedom problem
(fig.2.4-1) [B1]. From the figure, the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm appears to have
better characteristics than the Newmark (with dissipation), Wilson-, and Houbolt
algorithms. These schemes are too dissipative in the lower modes. This implies that
time steps smaller than those demanded for accuracy alone are required in order to
prevent amplitude decay influencing the solution.
The Newmark scheme with =0.25, =0.5 (trapezoidal or constant-averageacceleration scheme) exhibits zero dissipation for all t/T ratios.
The aim of using dissipative algorithms is to reduce the background noise caused by
the response of the higher frequencies. However, these frequencies should only have a
small influence on the overall response. For the reasons given here the HilberHughes-Taylor scheme has been selected for use in LUSAS.
2.4.1.3 Algorithms available within LUSAS
In order to abbreviate the equations within the following sections we write
d n = d ( tn ), v n = v ( tn ), a n = a( tn ) and f n = f ( tn )
where
tn = nt
The following schemes are available within LUSAS

Explicit central difference integration scheme
For each timestep n=1,...N-1
M an = f n
V n +1/ 2 = V n 1/ 2 + 12 a n ( tn + tn1 )
d n +1 = d n + v n+1/ 2 t
(2.4-2)
Implicit Hilber-Hughes-Taylor Integration Scheme [H10,H11]

For each timestep n=1,...N-1
50
Analysis Procedures
M a n +1 + (1 + )C v n +1 C v n
+(1 + ) K d n +1 K d n
= (1 + ) f n+1 f n
t 2
d n+1 = d n + t v n +
(1 2 ) a n + 2 a n +1
2
v n +1 = v n + t (1 ) a n + a n +1
(2.4-3)
where , and are free parameters which govern the stability and numerical
dissipation of the algorithm. If =0 this family of algorithms reduces to the Newmark
family. If the parameters are selected such that
13 0,
= (1 )2 , = (1 2 ) 2
(2.4-4)
an unconditionally stable, second-order accurate scheme results. The parameter a

controls the amount of numerical dissipation - decreasing increases the amount of
numerical dissipation. If =0 and =1/2 then no dissipation exists.
For explicit analyses, the optimum (and mandatory in LUSAS) parameters are = 0,
= 0, = 1/2.
It is convenient to rearrange the equations (2.4-3) so that the displacements are solved
for at each time step. This substitution and rearrangement results in the following
system of equations that are used for linear dynamic analysis
K * d n +1 = f *
where
*
K =
1
(1 + )
M+
C + (1 + ) K
2
t
t
51
f * = (1 + ) f n+1 f n
LM 1 d + 1 v + (1 2 ) a OP
2
Q
N t t
L (1 + ) d + (1 + ) v + (1 + )t(2 ) aOP
+C M
2
N t
Q
+M
+ K d n
so that
a n+1 =
(1 2 )
1
( d n+1 d n t v n )
an
2
t
2
v n +1 = v n + t (1 )a n + a n +1
(2.4-5)
2.4.1.4 Selecting the time step

(i) EXPLICIT ALGORITHMS
When a conditionally stable integration scheme is used, the user has no choice but to
use a time step t tcr , where
tcr =
Tmax
max
(2.4-6)
and max is the maximum circular frequency of the system ( is the corresponding
eigenvalue). If the time step is larger than this value the higher frequencies will not be
integrated accurately and the errors will tend to grow, polluting the solution. For wave
propagation problems, uniform meshes of low order elements must be used, and the
time step length may be chosen as t < S/c where S is the shortest distance between
two nodes and c is the maximum wave speed of the material.
Note, however, that LUSAS will automatically compute an appropriate t if this is
not specified. It is computed automatically as follows.
At each time increment a time step value is computed for all elements using the
following equation based on a linear application of the Courant stability criterion
where
52
Analysis Procedures
Q = Q2c + Q1Lc Dkk

and K r is a time step reduction factor to ensure the time step remains below that
required by the Courant stability criteria (corresponding to the parameter tsfac in the
DYNAMIC CONTROL data chapter),
K r = 2/3 for 2 dimensional,

= 0.9 for 3 dimensional.
Here Q1 and Q2 are dimensionless viscosity coefficients which default to 1.5 and
0.06 respectively and may be modified as necessary via the SYSTEM command.
DKK is the trace of the velocity strain tensor and Lc is the characteristic length of
the element which is related to the smallest element diagonal (see section 7.3.3.6 for
2D elements and section 7.4.3.5 for 3D elements).
The smallest value of t cr is then taken as the time step for use in the next time
increment (this may be larger or smaller than the current time step).
There is no restriction on the decrease of the time step between each increment but
there is a restriction imposed on the increase of the time step according to
tcr = minimum ( tcrn , K cr tcrn1 )

where n is the time increment number.
Here K cr (parameter dtincf in the DYNAMIC CONTROL command section)
defaults to 2.0 so that doubling a time step is permitted.
(ii) IMPLICIT ALGORITHMS
Implicit algorithms are unconditionally stable, i.e. the solution for any initial
conditions does not grow without bound for any time step t. To accurately integrate
all the higher modes the time step would need to be less than the critical value (2.4-6).
However, for inertial problems only the lowest p frequencies significantly influence
the solution, where p << n the number of degrees of freedom. Therefore, we wish
only to integrate the first p equations accurately, provided that the effects of the
inaccurate integration of the p+1 to n equations does not significantly affect the
overall solution.
When postulating the number of frequencies p that may influence the solution the
frequency content of the loading should be considered [B1]. If a single degree of
freedom structure with frequency of oscillation is excited by a harmonic load of
frequency , the influence of the / ratio may be examined (fig.2.4-2). This shows
that if << then the static response is recovered and if > 4 then the dynamic
53

loading has little effect on the structural response. Therefore when selecting t, a
Fourier analysis of the loading should be performed to evaluate the maximum
frequency max contained in the loading. Then the maximum frequency of the modes
that may influence the solution are generally given as
max 4 max and t 0.5 max

Bathe [B1] considers a one degree of freedom problem with an analytical solution a(t)
= cos t, where is the frequency of vibration of the system. Examination of the
percentage period elongation and amplitude decay (fig.2.4-3), illustrates that, for this
problem, a t/T ratio of 0.01 is required to obtain an accurate solution, where T is the
period of vibration. From this analysis, an approximate accuracy requirement for the
time step is
1
20
(2.4-7)
Tmax
where Tmax is the period of oscillation of the highest mode which influences the
solution. This should ensure all the lower modes are integrated accurately. Note that
with the HHT scheme set to the default parameters, the amplitude decay will be zero
for all t.
54
Analysis Procedures
Newark =0.25, =0.6)
Hilber-Hughes-Taylor
( =-0.1, =0.3025, =0.6)
Newark =0.25, =0.5)
1.0
0.9
Spectral Radii
0.8
0.7
0.6
Wilson- (1.4)
0.5
0.4
Houbolt
0.3
0.2
10-2
10-1
10
102
103
t/T
Fig.2.4-1 Spectral Radii For Common Explicit Schemes Without Structural Damping
55

a + 2 a + 2 a = sin pt
4
Dynamic Load Factor
=0.0
3
=0.2
2
=0.5
=0.7
1
=1.0
p/
Fig.2.4-2 Dynamic Load Factor For A Single Degree Of Freedom Analysis [B1]
56
Percentage period elongation

PE/T*100%)
Analysis Procedures
19
Newark =0.25, =0.5)
15
Wilson- (1.4)
11
7
5
Houbolt
AD
PE
1
0.02
0.06
0.14
0.10
0.18
t/T
Percentage amplitude decay

(AD*100%)
(a) Percentage Period Elongation

19
15
11
Wilson- (1.4)
7
5
Houbolt
AD
PE
1
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.18
t/T
(b) Percentage Amplitude Decay

Fig.2.4-3 Percentage Period Elongation And Amplitude Decay For A Single Degree
Of Freedom Analysis [B1]
57

2.4.1.5 Automatic time step calculation
For explicit dynamics, the critical time step is automatically computed to ensure that a
stable solution is obtained. The automatic time-stepping procedure for explicit
dynamics has been described in the previous section 2.4.1.4. For implicit dynamics
analyses an option also exists for automatic time step selection. The algorithm used,
which was originally proposed by Bergan and Mollestad [B5], is based on the notions
of 'current frequency' and 'current period' of dynamic response.
Larger time steps may be used in implicit dynamics as the integration schemes
employed are referred to as being 'unconditionally stable'. However, the use of too
large a time step may lead to a loss of accuracy in the solution obtained. Moreover,
for nonlinear dynamics, large time steps often lead to non-convergence of the iterative
process and to some unexpected phenomena such as 'dynamic locking' and 'blowing
up' [C14]. Choosing appropriate time steps for a particular problem can be a difficult
task and it is considered to be a matter of experience. It is therefore desirable to have
an automatic time stepping algorithm for general applications.
In LUSAS, at the end of each time step, an extended form of the Rayleigh quotient is
computed from which the current frequency and period can be derived. The new
optimal time step is then computed using the current period.
The current frequency is computed from the expression:
=
2
n
d Tn K n d n
(2.4-8)
d n Md n
T
where:
Kn
is taken as the stiffness matrix at the start of the increment ( K n is
constant for linear problems)

is the mass matrix
d n is the incremental displacement vector

The current frequency, n , is generally not any particular eigenfrequency, but it
reflects rather the incremental response from all eigenmodes. A corresponding
measure for the 'current period' can then be found:
Tn =
(2.4-9)
| 2n |
It is worth noting that the current period changes with time for a non-stationary
response of a multi-degree of freedom system. Tn relates to the current stiffness and
58
Analysis Procedures
response and is not generally a measure of the time elapsed between zero amplitudes.
Knowing the current period, Bergan and Mollestad [B5] suggest using the following
formula to adjust the time step:
tn = Tn
(2.410)
is a prescribed quantity called the 'step length parameter'. For an unconditionally

stable algorithm typical values of would be in the range 0.1 > > 0.001.
Some comments on the implementation and use of this algorithm are given in [Z6]
and a summary of these observations is included here:
The input parameters required for the automatic time stepping algorithm are
the first step size t1 , the step length parameter , the maximum step size
tmax and the minimum step size tmin .

t1 should be given a value which is smaller than the expected optimum step
size. This is particularly important for transient problems for which the most
important dynamic events take place at the beginning.
depends on the particular time integration scheme and accuracy
requirements. Good accuracy can normally be achieved with =0.05,
corresponding to about 20 time steps for one full characteristic period. For
linear dynamics using the trapezoidal rule, this corresponds to a period of
elongation of about 1%.
It may also be necessary to prescribe bounds for the step size. For instance, the
loading may be changing very rapidly, while the dynamic response is
relatively slow, e.g. for earthquake problems. In such cases it may be
necessary to limit the step size by an upper value t max in order to ensure that
the load intensity is sampled at sufficiently close intervals. In other situations it
may be necessary to ensure that the step size does not go below a prescribed
lower limit t min in order to prevent excessive computational costs.
Sometimes the incremental displacements may become very small or vanish,

such as when passing through maximum amplitudes where the velocities tend
to zero. In such cases the current frequency is not computed and the current
step size will be used for the next time step.
To ensure a smooth response, the current time step will not increase by more
than twice the previous time step, nor twice the mean time step value.
However, there is no control over the maximum decrease that can be applied.
This is to ensure that the algorithm can react promptly to sudden changes in
dynamic response.
2.4.1.6 Starting conditions
Neither the explicit nor the implicit dynamic algorithms require any special starting
procedure but the initial conditions need to be defined.
59

For the explicit central difference procedure these are
d0 = 0
v n1/ 2 = v
f0= f
a0 = M
(2.4-11)
f0
These equations indicate that the initial velocity and force vectors need to be defined.
The initial acceleration will then be automatically computed.
For the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor implicit procedure these are
d0 = d
v0 = v
f0= f
a0 = M
( f 0 C v0 K d 0 )
(2.4-12)
These equations indicate that the initial displacement, velocity and force vectors need
to be defined. The initial acceleration will then automatically be computed if the
vector on the right hand side of equation (2.4-12d) is non-zero, otherwise the initial
accelerations will be assumed to be zero.
2.4.2 Load Conditions For Dynamic Analysis

An arbitrary load-time curve may be modelled by defining the loading conditions at
each time step (fig.2.4-4a).
The transient dynamic analysis may be started after a static analysis has been carried
out with the currently defined load case and boundary restraints. This permits the
specification of an initial deformed configuration due to some static loading.
If the dynamic loads are to be applied to an initially unloaded structure then the
displacements at time t=0 should be zero. This condition is generally assumed within
the dynamics algorithms (fig.2.4-4b).
Ramp loading may be approximated by initially applying zero load to the structure.
The load is then applied on the second time interval thus increasing the load to the
required value during one time step (fig.2.4-4c).
60
Analysis Procedures
Impulse loading may be approximated by applying the load pulse during one time
step and then removing it in the next time step. This is illustrated in fig.2.4-4d.
Alternatively, if the pulse is applied during the first time step then the structure may
be initially fully restrained with the pulse load, and then released with the load
simultaneously removed (fig.2.4-4e).
2.4.3 Damping
One of the most common models of damping used in finite element systems is
proportional damping. In this model no attempt is made to construct damping
elements, but instead the arbitrary assumption is made that the damping is a linear
combination of the mass and stiffness matrices. This is usually called Rayleigh
damping and defines the damping matrix C as
C = a R M + bR K
(2.4-13)
There is no real physical justification for this and in reality this assumption is made
for mathematical convenience as it simplifies the solution procedure [N2]. It should
be noted that the damping distribution is rarely known in sufficient detail to warrant
any other more complicated model. Proportional damping will serve to give each
mode of vibration the correct order of magnitude of damping and, provided that the
component of the response of interest is not controlled by the damping, it is often
sufficient. It ceases to be reliable when the damping within the system becomes
significant, say above 10% critical, or where the damping is concentrated in a small
region of the structure. This is especially the case if some damping has been included
into the structure with the specific purpose of controlling the dynamic response.
The values a R and bR may be chosen to give the correct order of magnitude for the
damping at two frequencies [N2]. If the required damping ratio at a circular frequency
of r is r and the required damping ratio at a circular frequency of s is s
then the values of a R and bR are
aR =
2 r s ( s r r s )
2r 2s
(2.4-14)
bR =
2( r r s s )
2r 2s
(2.4-15)
Figure 2.4-5 indicates how proportional damping varies with frequency for various
values of specified damping. Figure 2.4-5(a) shows that for the case where r < s
the damping increases rapidly with frequency. This assumption is often used when
proportional damping is being employed to provide numerical damping since it gives
61

rise to higher damping in the less accurate higher modes. Figure 2-4-5(b) shows that
for the case where r = s the damping between the two frequencies is less than the
specified values and that outside of this range it rises rapidly. Figure 2.4-5(c)
illustrates the variation of the damping when r > s where the high frequency
damping does not rise so rapidly although it still does increase. It can also be seen
from these diagrams that this model cannot really be physically correct since it gives
infinite damping at zero frequency.
Rayleigh damping has some notable characteristics which affect the way in which this
damping is applied to a structure. These characteristics arise from the following:
r is predominantly controlled by the

mass coefficient ( a R ) whilst, above s , the stiffness ( bR ) is more dominant.
The damping of frequencies below
A characteristic difference between the stiffness and mass matrices originates

in the amount of coupling between nodal degrees of freedom of adjacent nodal
points.
With the stiffness matrix, this coupling is significant and necessary in order that the
forces in the structure are self-equilibrating. This is not the case for the mass matrix.
As a result of these two factors, a damping matrix ( C ), based on the mass coefficient
( a R ) only, will provide a 'total damping' response and a damping matrix based on the
stiffness coefficient ( bR ) only, will provide a 'relative damping' response. Total
damping would cause rigid body motion to be restrained (e.g. fish in the sea).
Relative damping would permit rigid body motion but restrain any internal vibrations
within the structure (e.g. large structures under earthquake loading).
62
Analysis Procedures
(a) Arbitrary Loading
(b) Step Loading
(c) Ramp Loading
(d) Pulse Loading
(e) Pulse Loading
Fig.2.4-4 Loading For Dynamic Analysis
63
Damping
Frequency
Damping
Proportional damping withr < s
Frequency
Damping
Proportional damping withr = s
Frequency
Proportional damping withr > s

Fig.2.4-5 Proportional Damping For Dynamic Analysis
64
Analysis Procedures
2.5 Nonlinear Dynamics

Dynamic analysis of structures exhibiting nonlinear behaviour may be performed by
using direct integration to trace the nonlinear response in the time domain. The
nonlinearities may arise from large deflections, large straining, nonlinear stress-strain
laws, nonlinear boundary conditions and deformation dependent loading. The direct
integration may be performed using the explicit or implicit dynamics schemes.
2.5.1 Finite Element Equations

The finite element equation for the explicit central difference dynamics scheme are
the same as those defined for the linear step by step scheme so no further explanation
is given here.
For the implicit Hilber-Hughes-Talyor dynamic scheme the displacements at each
time step are computed using a Newton-Raphson iteration scheme to obtain the
equilibrium position. The nonlinearities in the problem enter the equilibrium
equations through the equivalent nodal forces, which must generally be evaluated at
the beginning of each time step, and the stiffness matrix which must be calculated for
each iteration within a time step.
The displacement solution is therefore written as:
( k +1)
(k )
d n+1 = d n+1 + d
( k +1)
(2.5-1)
with
(0)
d n+1 = d n
where (k) indicates the iteration number and n the time step number as before.
Substituting equations (2.5-1) into equations (2.4-3) and rearranging we obtain the
equations that are to be solved at each iteration. The non-linear solution process and
equations are given below.
For each timestep n=1,...N-1:
For each iteration k=0,1,... solve:
K *( k ) d ( k ) = f *( k )
where
*( k )
(1 + )
1
M+
C + (1 + ) K
2
t
t
65
f *( 0 ) = (1 + ) f n +1 f n
LM 1 v + (1 2 ) a OP
2
N t
Q
L (1 + ) v (1 + )t(2 ) a OP
+CM
2
N
Q
+ M
int
+ fn
f *( k ) = R( k 1)
int
here f
denotes the internal force vector and R the residual vector.
Then compute:
( k +1)
(k )
d n+1 = d n+1 + d
( k +1)
a n+1 =
(k )
1
(1 2 )
( k +1)
d n +1 d n t v n
an
2
t
2
( k +1)
v n +1 = v n + t (1 ) a n + a n+1
(2.5-2)
The residual vector and reaction computations are closely linked in nonlinear
analysis, consequently a dynamic force vector can be computed as
( k +1)
( k +1)
f n+1 = M a n +1 + (1 + )C v n +1
dyn
k +1)
C v n (1 + ) f int(
n +1
+ f int
+ f n
n
and an external force vector (summation of applied forces and reactions) is computed
as
( k +1)
f n+1 = f n +1 + r n +1
ext
from which the residual vector can be computed as
(k )
= (1 + ) f n +1 f n+1
ext
dyn
(2.5-3)
66
Analysis Procedures
2.5.2 General Considerations

Within LUSAS both materially nonlinear and geometrically nonlinear analysis may
be undertaken. The iteration procedure used for solving (2.5-2) is input using the
NONLINEAR CONTROL command. The convergence checks used in static analysis
may be used in an identical manner in dynamic analysis.
Note The iterative equations with implicit time integration are exactly the same form
as those in static analysis except that inertia effects are included in the stiffness and
force matrices. Therefore the iterative procedures used in static nonlinear control, i.e.
Newton-Raphson and modified Newton-Raphson may be utilised in an identical
manner. Also, the inertia effects tend to smooth the solution such that convergence of
the iterative process should always occur and will be at a faster rate than for static
analyses.
The time step is chosen using the same considerations as for linear dynamic analysis.
However, the eigenvalues continually change due to the nonlinear behaviour so care
has to be taken to account for this phenomenon. If convergence difficulties occur in
the equilibrium iterations then the time step is generally too large.
Damping can be included in the same way as described for linear dynamic analyses.
2.6 Eigenvalue Extraction

In LUSAS, two methods are available to extract the eigenvalues and eigenvectors
from large equation systems
Subspace iteration
Guyan reduction
Both techniques have been designed for structural applications in which the lowest
eigenvalues and eigenvectors are typically required. The techniques efficiently
evaluate the lowest p eigenvalues and eigenvectors of large sparse systems of order n
where n >> p. In general, subspace iteration is more effective than Guyan reduction.
2.6.1 Subspace Iteration

The subspace iteration procedure [B1] is utilised in natural frequency, linear buckling
and field analyses to solve generalised eigen-problems of the form
K = M
(2.6-1)
where is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues

corresponding eigenvectors i .
67
and contains the

Efficient evaluation of the lowest p eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors is
achieved by performing simultaneous inverse iteration using a set of iteration vectors,
followed by a projection of the problem matrices onto the subspace formed by these
vectors. This produces a reduced eigen-problem which is solved using Jacobi
iteration. The eigenvectors of the reduced problem are then transformed back to the
full space to form new iteration vectors. The process is then repeated until the
iteration vectors converge on the lowest p eigenvectors of the full problem. The
method therefore has three stages
1. Establish q starting iteration vectors where q (> p) is the number of required
eigenvalues.
2. Use simultaneous inverse iteration on the q vectors and Ritz analysis to extract the
best eigenvalue and eigenvector approximations from the q iteration vectors.
3. After convergence, use the Sturm sequence check to verify the correct eigenvalues
and eigenvectors have been found.
2.6.1.1 Starting iteration vectors
The first step in the procedure is to establish q (nivc) starting iteration vectors, where
q should be greater than p (nroot), the number of required eigenvalues, due to
convergence considerations.
Note. The i
th
column of the i
convergence rate
th
iteration vector converges linearly to i with
i q+1 . Therefore increasing q increases the convergence rate to
the first p eigenvectors. However, the computer effort per iteration increases with an
increase in q so that a balance is required.
It is also important to note that the number of starting iteration vectors cannot exceed
the number of free degrees of freedom of the system. Bathe [B1] suggests that q
should be determined from
q = min (2p, p+8, N)
(2.6-2)
where N is the number of free degrees of freedom in the structure.

There are two means of providing the starting vectors
Automatic system choice. The starting iteration vectors are formed
automatically so that they excite all the mass degrees of freedom with
emphasis placed on the degrees of freedom with large mass to stiffness ratios.
This has the effect of minimising the Rayleigh quotient. The starting algorithm
constructs the iteration vectors such that M X 1 contains
vector 1 - the diagonal of
excited),
M (ensuring all mass degrees of freedom are
68
Analysis Procedures
remaining vectors - unit vectors with a unit value located by searching M for
the largest mii kii ratio.
The algorithm also utilises a simple procedure to prevent poor spacing between the
unit entries of the starting vectors in uniform meshes.
Guyan Reduction vectors. The starting iteration vectors can be obtained
from a Guyan reduction analysis (see section 2.6.2). This allows greater
flexibility in selecting the starting iteration vectors; all the vectors may be
determined by specifying "master" freedoms or a combination of "master" and
"automatic master" freedoms which are determined by the program.
2.6.1.2 Iteration process
The first step of the iteration process is to perform one step of simultaneous inverse
iteration using q iteration vectors, i.e For k = 1,2,.... iterate from Ek to Ek +1
K X k +1 = M X k
(2.6-3)
where X k +1 are effectively Ritz basis vectors. The projections of K and M onto
Ek +1 are then evaluated, i.e.

T
K$ k +1 = X k +1 K X k +1
(2.6-4)
T
$
M
= X k +1 M X k +1
k +1
(2.6-5)
This provides a reduced system of order q
K$ k +1 Q
where Q
k +1
k +1
$
=M
Q
k +1
k +1
k +1
(2.6-6)
and k +1 are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the reduced system
which is then solved using the generalized Jacobi method (this is ideal as K$ k +1 and
$
tend to become diagonal as the solution converges because the iteration
M
k +1
vectors, X k +1 approach the full system eigenvectors).
The eigenvectors Q
k +1
are then used to obtain an updated approximation for the
iteration vectors
X k +1 = X k +1 Q
(2.6-7)
k +1
69

With successive iteration
k +1 tends to eigenvalues of the full system

and
X k +1 tends to eigenvectors of the full system
Subspace iteration is repeated until convergence is obtained. This is measured by
| k+1
ki |
i
k+1
i
i = 1, p
rtol
(2.6-8)
where rtol is typically 10 .

2.6.1.3 Sturm sequence check
The subspace algorithm is very stable but does not necessarily converge to the lowest
p eigenpairs. Therefore the Sturm sequence check has been incorporated into the
method. This is an extremely stable procedure which indicates the number of
eigenvalues below a given eigenvalue and is utilised to test for missing values, e.g. if
p eigenvalues have been found and the Sturm sequence check indicates that r > p
eigenvalues exist below the highest eigenvalue, (r-p) eigenvalues have been missed. If
some eigenpairs are missing, the analysis must be repeated with a different number of
starting iteration vectors and/or a different convergence tolerance.
2.6.1.4 Error estimate
Having calculated all the required eigenpairs, the solution is completed by calculating
error estimates of the precision to which the eigenvalues and eigenvectors have been
evaluated. The specific error quantities for each eigenpair are as follows
i =
|| K Q i - i MQ i ||2
(2.6-9)
|| K Q i ||2
where i and i are the ith eigenvector and eigenvalue of the solution. This
estimate effectively states that, for an accurate solution, the norm of the out of balance
forces divided by the elastic nodal forces should be small.
2.6.2 Guyan Reduction

Finite element approximations to low frequency natural vibrations may often be
obtained by considering only those freedoms whose contribution is of most
significance to the oscillatory structural behaviour.
70
Analysis Procedures
This characteristic may be utilised in the condensation of the full discrete model to a
reduced system in which the remaining equations adequately encompass the required
vibrational modes. Such a procedure is often termed Guyan Reduction or Guyan
Condensation [G1], and may be used to significantly reduce the overall problem size.
In typical Guyan reduced eigenvalue extractions, the mass contribution of those
freedoms whose inertia effect is considered relatively insignificant (designated slave
freedoms) is progressively condensed from the system, leaving the reduced equation
system dependent on those remaining freedoms (designated masters).
The effective selection of the master freedoms is therefore central to the accuracy of
the simulated structural response.
2.6.2.1 Theory
The Guyan reduction procedure [G1] is utilized in natural frequency, linear buckling
and field analyses to solve generalized eigen-problems of the form
K = M
(2.6-10)
and contains the
corresponding eigenvectors i .The solution of (2.6-10) yields
( K M )a = 0
(2.6-11)
Equation (2.6-11) may be written in partitioned form as
F LK
GH MN K
mm
T
ms
OP LM
Q N
K ms
M mm
T
K ss
M ms
M ms
M ss
OPI RSa UV = 0
QJK T a W
m
(2.6-12)
where the subscripts (m) and (s) refer to the "master" and "slave" degrees of freedom
respectively.
For Guyan reduction/condensation it is assumed that, for the lower frequencies, the
inertia forces on the slave degrees of freedom are insignificant compared to the elastic
forces transmitted by the master degrees of freedoms. Hence we may discard all mass
terms except that relating directly to the master freedoms
F LK
GH MN K
mm
T
ms
K ms
K ss
OP LM M
Q N0
mm
OPI RSa UV = 0
0QJK T a W
(2.6-13)
and from the lower partition
K Tms a m + K ss a s = 0
(2.6-14)
71

and hence
a s = K ss1 ( K Tms a m )
(2.6-15)
In terms of the full system, and the (m*m) unit matrix I
a=
RSa UV = X~ a = RS I UV
Ta W
T K K W
m
ss
ms
(2.6-16)
~T
Substitution into (2.6-12) and premultiplication by X
allows the condensed system
to be written as
K c m = c M c m
(2.6-17)
where the condensed stiffness and mass matrices are given by the expressions
~T ~
Kc = X K X ,
and
~T ~
Mc = X M X
(2.6-18)
Hence progressive condensation of the equations associated with the slave freedoms
results in a reduced equation system in terms of the master freedoms which has the
solution
( K c M c )a m = 0
(2.6-19)
The fully condensed stiffness and mass matrices are (m*m) symmetric and are
generally full. The condensed system is solved using either implicit QL or Jacobi
iteration for the master eigenvalues.
2.6.2.2 Manual selection of master freedoms
The master and slave freedoms may be selected by hand. The selection of these
master freedoms is central to the accuracy of the solution and consideration should be
taken of the following points
The master freedoms must accurately represent all the significant modes of
vibration.
Master freedoms should exhibit high mass to stiffness ratios, hence rotational
freedoms are usually inappropriate masters.
Master freedoms should, where appropriate, be as evenly spaced as possible.
The ratio of master to slave freedoms should generally be within the range
1:10 to 1:2.
Poor selection of the master freedoms will have a detrimental effect on the
accuracy of the solution.
72
Analysis Procedures
2.6.2.3 Automatic master selection
The manual selection of master freedoms has a number of disadvantages
For large structures the data input is laborious.
Poor selection of the master freedoms will detrimentally affect the accuracy of
the solution.
The automatic masters selection procedure utilised follows the algorithm of Henshall
and Ong [H8]. Since it is required to retain only those equations which have a high
mass to stiffness ratio, the diagonal components of the stiffness and mass matrices are
scanned, and the equation with the highest K ii M ii ratio is condensed out.
Scanning of the progressively condensed matrices is repeated until the fully
condensed matrices contain only those components associated with the specified
number of master freedoms. Furthermore, since the remaining equations will have
been automatically sorted they will contain only those components associated with
the lowest stiffness to mass ratios as required.
2.6.3 Comparison Between Subspace Iteration and

Guyan Reduction
The subspace iteration and Guyan reduction algorithms have several similarities
Both methods start by examining which degrees of freedom will provide the
greatest contribution to the structural response, i.e. the q degrees of freedom
with the highest mass to stiffness ratios.
X
is formed, and a reduced set of q equations are
A transformation matrix
formed.
The reduced set of equations are solved using either the implicit QL or Jacobi
iteration to obtain the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the reduced system.
The eigenvectors of the full system are obtained using the transformation
matrix
Further, for certain special cases, Guyan reduction and the first subspace iteration are
equivalent and provide identical solutions [B1].
The major advantage of the subspace iteration technique is that the starting basis is
improved with each update of the subspace, whereas the Guyan reduction procedure
is a "one off" solution. Consequently, a poor choice of initial master degrees of
freedom may only necessitate more iterations to convergence in subspace iteration,
whereas it would be detrimental to accuracy in Guyan reduction. Therefore, subspace
iteration is, in general, the more effective algorithm.
73
2.6.4 Shifting
An important procedure that may be used in eigenvalue extraction is shifting. If rigid
body modes are present in the system the stiffness matrix will be singular and cause
numerical problems in the inversion of the stiffness matrix of (2.6-6). This may be
overcome by applying a shift to form a modified stiffness matrix. Let
(2.6-20)
which leads to a modified eigenproblem of the form
(K + M ) = M
(2.6-21)
The calculated eigenvalues will then all be positive. To obtain the actual
eigenvalues the shift is subtracted from the calculated eigenvalues (2.6-18). This is
done automatically within LUSAS.
The value used for the shift should ideally be between 1/2 to 1/10 of the fundamental
eigenvalue. If is too small K will still be almost singular and if is too large, the
convergence of the eigenproblem will be slow. In a LUSAS analysis, singularities
will cause solution failure with negative or zero eigenvalues. If the approximate value
of the fundamental frequency is not known, it is suggested that a shift equal to 1/2 of
the lowest non-zero frequency is used.
2.6.5 Eigenvector Normalisation

As the eigenvectors appear on both sides of the generalised eigenvalue equation their
values may be arbitrarily scaled, therefore they are usually normalised to a reference
value for presentation purposes. In LUSAS they are, by default, normalised to the
largest term in the vector, i.e eigenvector i is normalised as
i =
i
max( ij )
j=1,m
(2.6-22)
where m is the order of the eigen-system.

Alternatively, the eigenvectors may be normalised such that the generalised mass is
unity
i =
i
M i
T
i
(2.6-23)
1/ 2
74
Analysis Procedures
Eigenvectors must be normalized to the mass if a spectral or harmonic response is to
be performed using the eigenvectors from a natural frequency analysis.
2.6.6 Evaluation of the Highest Eigenvalues

Subspace iteration may be used to solve for the highest eigenvalues by swapping K
and M of equations (2.6-3) and (2.6-6) in the iteration process. This facility is useful
for estimating the critical time step values for explicit transient field and dynamic
structural analyses. However, it demands that the specific heat matrix C and the
mass matrix M must be positive definite. The solution algorithm will then converge
on the smallest eigenvalues of this new system which are the inverse of the largest
eigenvectors of the original system, i.e. we solve
M = K
(2.6-24)
where is diagonal and contains terms of the form
max( i ) =
1
min( i )
i , where i = 1 i
and
(2.6-25)
2.6.7 Eigenvalue Bracketing

Eigenvalue bracketing involves the use of an inverse iteration method which allows
all eigenmodes that lie within a specified frequency or eigenvalue range to be
extracted. Most often only the lower frequencies of vibration are required for a
particular structure. Consequently most eigenvalue solution algorithms have been
written for this specific purpose. For example, the subspace iteration technique is very
effective in computing the lowest frequencies of vibration [B1]. Unfortunately it can
only be used to compute modes within a certain range if reasonable approximations to
the lower modes are already available [B4].
The inverse iteration method can be shown to converge to any eigenmode provided a
reasonable shift is applied. This method does not make use of any other eigenmodes
and for this reason is very effective in computing a few eigenmodes within a specified
range. Natural frequency, buckling and stiffness matrix eigenvalues can be extracted
using this method and eigenmodes which have the same eigenvalue can also be
obtained.
The basic problem is to find eigenvalues , and eigenvectors u, (eigenmodes) for
mK M ru = 0
(2.6-26)
75

within a certain specified range. Both K and M are symmetric matrices but they can
be singular.
The inverse iteration method with shifts can be shown to converge to the eigenmode
that is closest to the shift defined [B1]. Defining
= 0 +
(2.6-27)
where 0 is a defined constant called the shift point, equation (2.6-26) can be
rewritten as
nc K M h M su = 0
(2.6-28)
which can be solved for and hence can be extracted. Using this equation with
inverse iteration only allows a single eigenmode to be extracted for each shift point
and it therefore becomes an inefficient and cumbersome process if many modes are to
be extracted within a desired frequency range without knowing approximately where
the eigenvalues exist within the range defined.
The inverse iteration method also has known defects that include:
Awkwardness of procedure in the presence of zero eigenvalues.
Slow convergence rates for closely spaced eigenmodes.
Deterioration of accuracy in the higher modes as more eigenmodes are found.
This method has thus been modified to overcome these problems and to enable
eigenmodes within a defined range to be extracted efficiently. The method utilised
here is based on the Inverse Power Method using an iteration algorithm from [B1].
This method is general enough to extract a nominal number of eigenmodes in the
region of a defined shift point.
There is a possibility that the inverse power method may miss eigenmodes
particularly if they are clustered in groups within a small frequency band. This
problem has been overcome in the LUSAS implementation by the use of Sturm
sequence checks in order to make sure that this is not the case. Additional passes over
the shiftpoints are also carried out which will also alleviate this problem.
2.6.7.1 Inverse iteration algorithm
The inverse iteration method utilises the following iterative algorithm to compute one
eigenvalue and eigenvector. It is used in the general algorithm described above to
compute the eigenmodes.
Start with an initial u0 and compute f = M u0 .
0
Then for iterations n=1, ... until convergence:
76
Analysis Procedures
( K 0 M )w n = f n1
(2.6-29)
u n = wn i M wn i
(2.6-30)
f n = Mun
(2.6-31)
i =1
n
n
eu f j
=
eu f j
= eu f j
fn=
Here
T
n
n 1
T
n
T
n
(2.6-32)
1/ 2
(2.6-33)
fn
(2.6-34)
i are k normalised eigenvectors that have been previously found. It may be
shown that
converges to
, the shifted eigenvalue closest to the shiftpoint and
that u n = u n / n converges to the corresponding mass normalised eigenvector.

The equation (2.6-30) is a sweeping operation which removes all previously found
eigenvectors from the iteration vectors. This ensures that different eigenvectors are
computed and that all eigenvectors are orthogonal. It must be noted that even
eigenvectors found outside the range are stored and swept from the solution. For
example, if 2 eigenmodes have already been computed and the above iteration loop is
being used in order to compute a third, equation (2.6-30) will become
un = w n 1T M w n 1 T2 M w n 2
(2.6-35)
2.6.7.2 Computing the Eigenmodes for the frequency range

Eigenmodes within the frequency range specified will automatically be computed as
follows:
1. Sturm sequence checks will be carried out on min and max to determine the
number of eigenmodes, Ne, that exist within the range.
2. The frequency range will then be divided into Ns shiftpoints according to
Ns-1 < Ne/Nn < Ns
(2.6-36)
77

The n=1,...,Ns shiftpoints are distributed evenly across the range with their locations
given by
sn = min + ( n 0.5)*( max min ) Ns
(2.6-37)
Each shiftpoint has a defined range which is given as

sn
< 0.55 *
( max - min ) / Ns
(2.6-38)
The value 0.55 allows the range of each shiftpoint to overlap the neighbouring range
by 10%.
3. For each shiftpoint a maximum of Nn eigenmodes are computed. If less
eigenmodes exist near a shiftpoint then the process moves onto the next shiftpoint.
If more modes exist near a shiftpoint then the process automatically updates the
shiftpoint so that further eigenmodes can be computed as efficiently as possible.
4. The process is terminated only when the desired number of eigenmodes have been
computed or when Ne eigenmodes have been located, whichever occurs first.
2.6.7.3 Computing multiple Eigenmodes
The method of computing multiple eigenmodes from a particular shiftpoint is as
follows:
1. Find the first eigenmode from an arbitrary starting vector (e.g. a vector of 1's).
2. Use the second last trial vector obtained during step 1. as the starting vector for
the second eigenmode. This vector will be swept as in equation (2.6-30) and
provides a good starting point because it will be quite "rich" in the eigenvector
that is next closest to the shiftpoint. Two iteration vectors are required for the
convergence checks so that this information will always be available.
3. Continue until an eigenvalue is found that lies outside the computed range of the
shift point.
4. At this stage use a new arbitrary selected starting vector and compute one
eigenmode.
5. If the eigenvalue found in step 4. lies outside the range of the shifting point go to
a new shifting point since all eigenmodes within the range have been computed.
If the eigenvalue does not lie outside the range repeat steps 2, 3 and 4. until the
eigenvalue found in step 4. does lie outside the range. This ensures that all
eigenvalues within the range are computed even for eigenmodes that have the same
eigenvalue. The maximum number of times that steps 2., 3. and 4. will be repeated
is equal to the maximum number of eigenvectors that have a common eigenvalue.
2.6.7.4 Convergence checking
A number of convergence checks are utilised in order to enhance the efficiency of the
algorithm. These convergence checks determine if:
78
Analysis Procedures
The inverse iteration algorithm has converged; in this case the eigenvalue and
eigenvector have been computed to sufficient accuracy.
The inverse iteration algorithm is converging rapidly; in this case the iteration
sequence is continued and a simple convergence check is applied until a
converged solution has been attained.
The inverse iteration algorithm is not converging; in this case tests are carried
out to determine if the shift point should be moved to enable a better
convergence rate to be achieved. If this needs to be done then the inverse
iteration algorithm must be restarted utilising this new shift point in order to
compute the eigenmode.
2.6.7.5 Recommendation on usage
The major advantages of this method are obtained when a few eigenvalues of higher
frequency are required for a well-banded structural system; these higher modes can be
extracted without computing all the lower modes (although some are computed and
swept from the solution). In many cases too many lower modes would have to be
computed with subspace iteration and the method will therefore become
uneconomical. Another advantage that inverse iteration has over the subspace
iteration method is that only the frequency (or eigenvalue) range of interest needs to
be known and there is no need to estimate how many eigenmodes lie below that
range.
Inverse iteration does not require that the matrices are non-singular. This is important
for buckling analyses since it is possible that the stress-stiffness matrix may be
singular. If this is the case then a special alternative buckling procedure is utilised
with subspace iteration to ensure correct results. With inverse iteration this is not the
case and therefore knowledge of what these matrices may be like is not required.
2.7 Natural Frequency Analysis

The equations of dynamic equilibrium of an elastic discretised body can be written in
matrix form as (2.1-16)
M a&& + Ca& + K a = R( t )
(2.7-1)
For natural frequency analysis, we consider the damping C and the external force
R(t) both to be zero. Each freedom is assumed to excite harmonic motion in phase
with all other freedoms
a = a sin t
and
a&& = 2 a sin t
(2.7-2)
where is the circular frequency. Then (2.7-2) yields
(K - i M ) a = 0 where i = 2i
79
(2.7-3)

This is equivalent to the generalised eigen-problem defined by
K = M
(2.7-4)
and contains the
corresponding eigenvectors i .
Neglecting the trivial solution = 0 the values of
and i that satisfy (2.7-4)
are defined as the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the problem respectively, which
are evaluated using subspace iteration [section 2.6]. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors
are the resonant vibration frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of a
structure respectively.
2.7.1 Mass Matrices

Mass matrices may be either full 'consistent' or diagonalised 'lumped' matrices within
LUSAS (although some elements only allow lumped matrices). The consistent mass
matrix is formed using
M = N T t N dv
(2.7-5)
where
N is the element shape function array and is the density matrix.
Typically, for a 3D shell element
LM
MM
=M
MM
MMN
0
0
0
0
h 2
12
sym
h 2
12
OP U|
0 V translational DOF
P|
0P W
(2.7-6)
P
0P
U
0 P | rotational DOF
PPQ V|
W
0
h 2
12
where h is the thickness of the shell.

The lumped mass matrix is formed by scaling the diagonal terms of the consistent
mass matrix such that the total mass of the element is preserved, i.e. for translational
degrees of freedom
80
Analysis Procedures
mii =
N iT t N i dv
n
i =1
dv
(2.7-7)
N N i dv
Tt
i
and for rotational degrees of freedom
mii =
N iT
m
i =1
h3
12
N i dA
T t h3
i
12
h 3
12
A
t
dA
(2.7-8)
N i dA
where n and m are the number of translational and rotational degrees of freedom
respectively.
Neither consistent or lumped mass matrices are ideal for all applications. It is known
that if the finite element mesh correctly represents the volume of a structure, the
elements are compatible and not softened by low order integration, so that consistent
mass matrices will provide an upper bound to the natural frequencies. On the other
hand diagonalised matrices generally yield natural frequencies less than the exact
values. In general, consistent mass matrices are usually most accurate for flexural
problems and lumped mass matrices are usually more effective for wave propagations
problems.
2.7.2 Stress Recovery

(i) STRESS RECOVERY FOR GEOMETRICALLY LINEAR ANALYSIS
For linear analysis, once the eigenpairs have been obtained, the stress distribution
for each mode shape
i is evaluated using
i = D B i
(2.7-9)
where D and B are the elastic constitutive and strain-displacement matrices

respectively. It should be noted that since the eigenvectors are normalised to an
arbitrary constant, the stress values cannot be used directly for design purposes.
(ii) STRESS RECOVERY WITH GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY
When an eigenvalue extraction is performed after a geometrically nonlinear analysis

an alternative method of stress evaluation is utilised to prevent the effects of the
eigenvector magnitude from influencing the solution.
Total Lagrangian Formulation
81

If a structure that has current strain E due to displacements a is subjected to a small
displacement increment a the incremental strain E is defined as
E = Bo a + B1 ( a ) a + 12 A
(2.7-10)
where B o , B1 , A and are defined in detail in section 3.3.1.

To remove the effect of eigenvector displacements on the strain-displacement
relationship we require the second order term to be zero. Therefore, the displacements
are scaled by the system variable EIGSCL (default value 1.0E-20) before evaluating
the strain increment E . Once the stresses have been evaluated using
S = D E
(2.7-11)
they are scaled up using the inverse of EIGSCL.

Updated Lagrangian and Eulerian Analyses
For Updated Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations the strain-displacement
relationship is evaluated in the current configuration. Therefore the stress increment
may be evaluated directly using
= D Bo a
(2.7-12)
where B o is the strain-displacement matrix in the current configuration.
2.7.3 Centripetal Stiffening Effects

In rotating machinery, load correction terms that arise from the effects of rotation may
significantly influence the natural frequencies of vibration. Within LUSAS the load
correction terms due to centripetal acceleration are considered. The load correction
terms due to Coriolis and angular acceleration result in non-symmetric damping and
stiffness matrices respectively and are ignored [Section 5.1.3].
The centripetal load correction terms result in a modified stiffness matrix of the form
K = BT D B dv + G T S$ G dv + N T N dv
v
(2.7-13)
where is the skew-symmetric angular velocity tensor.

The first two terms are the standard linear and geometrically nonlinear contributions
and the third term represents the additional stiffness due to the centripetal
acceleration.
82
Analysis Procedures
Notes
Centripetal stiffening effects are limited to 2D-continuum, axisymmetric solid,

3D-continuum, semiloof shell, and 3D numerically integrated beam elements.
Centripetal stiffness effects are only included in nonlinear analyses via the
Total Lagrangian geometric nonlinearity facility.
2.8 Eigenvalue Extraction For Buckling

Linear buckling analysis is a technique that can be applied to relatively "stiff"
structures to estimate the maximum load that can be supported prior to structural
instability or collapse. The basic assumptions of linear buckling analysis are that the
linear stiffness matrix does not change prior to buckling and that the stress stiffness
matrix is simply a multiple of its initial value. Accordingly, the technique can only be
used to predict the load level at which a structure becomes unstable, provided the prebuckling displacements have negligible influence on the structural response. Also,
because a stress stiffness matrix is required, this technique is only available for
elements that have a nonlinear capability.
2.8.1 Finite Element Equations

If the stress stiffness matrix is a multiple of its initial value
K , and neither the
stress or conventional stiffness matrix K is a function of displacements, then the

application of a virtual displacement
constant to give
is applied while the load R remains
d K + K i a = d K + K i ba + a g = R
(2.8-1)
Subtraction of the first equation from the second yields the generalised eigenproblem
dK + K i = 0
(2.8-2)
where
are the eigenvalues which are used as multipliers to evaluate the buckling
loads and are the eigenvectors which give the associated buckling modes shapes.
The critical loads,
Rcrit , are obtained using the following equation
Rcrit = 1 R
(2.8-3)
where 1 is the smallest eigenvalue of the system and R is the initially applied load
vector. The eigenvalue problem is solved using the subspace iteration method
[Section 2.6].
83

Occasionally the computed stress stiffness matrix may be non-positive definite
causing both negative and positive eigenvalues. To overcome this problem (2.8-2)
may be recast in the following form
K =
If a shift of 1
= 1
(2.8-4)
is applied, then
dK + K i = K
(2.8-5)
where now we seek the smallest positive eigenvalue g. The critical load
given by
1 =
1
(1 1 )
factor is
(2.8-6)
Notes
In certain situations the eigenvalues may be very closely spaced, causing

convergence problems in the iterative solution.
When shifting is used, if
is large then
will be close to 1.0 and an error
1 . Thus, the applied load must be reasonably

close to the buckling load to yield a small value of 1 .
in
can yield a large error in
Negative eigenvalues may indicate bifurcation in tension or bifurcation that

would occur if the loading is reversed in sign.
2.9 Eigenvalue Extraction Including Damping

To obtain a solution to the damped natural frequency problem, an eigensolver must be
capable of dealing with real, non-symmetric matrices. When non-proportional
damping is considered such matrices are generated and the solver furnishes solutions
that consist of complex numbers. The algorithm adopted in LUSAS to solve the nonsymmetric eigenvalue problem is referred to as the Arnoldi Method which is a
variation of the Lanczos method for non-symmetric problems.
The problem of finding natural frequencies and mode shapes in a given structure
amounts to solving the differential equation
M a&& + Ca& + K a = R( t )
(2.9-1)
84
Analysis Procedures
where a is the displacement vector, M is the mass matrix, K is the stiffness
R( t ) = 0 for natural (as opposed to

forced) oscillations. For undamped motion, C = 0 and the resulting generalised
matrix and C is the damping matrix, with
eigenvalue problem takes the form
Ka = Ma
(2.9-2)
where both K and M are real, symmetric matrices such that M
K is symmetric,
and thus the standard eigenvalue problem

1
M K a = a
(2.9-3)
is readily solved by a variety of methods, for example the Lanczos method.
For damped motion, C is a real non-zero matrix that may or may not be symmetric,
and may also be non-proportional i.e. the product matrix = C M
K is non-
symmetric. Examples of this include localised Rayleigh damping where

C = i K + i M , with the constants i and i dependent on the location in the
structure, and problems involving rotating machinery, where gyroscopic effects cause
C to be skew-symmetric (such that cij = c ji for i j ). This leads to the
following generalised eigenvalue problem
A = B
where A , B and
(2.9-4)
are given by
A=
LM M 0 OP ,
N 0 KQ
LM x OP
NxQ
B=
LM 0
N M
OP
CQ
M
(2.9-5)
and
(2.9-6)
which in turn reduces to the standard eigenvalue problem
85
~
A =
(2.9-7)
where A is given by
LM
MN
M C M K
~
A=
I
0
OP
PQ
(2.9-8)
~
A is clearly not symmetric, and thus and can now be complex, with
corresponding conjugate solutions
and
. Note that the dimension of the problem
has doubled due to the addition of damping.

Full details of the use of the Arnoldi method to solve this complex eigenvalue
problem can be found in [S15].
2.10 Modal Analysis

Modal analysis techniques have arisen as an alternative to solving the full set of n
equations for n unknown displacements. Instead they seek to use a reduced number of
unknowns to represent the global behaviour of the structure. The success of the
method depends on the type of problem analysed and whether it is dominated by local
or global displacements. For example, the earthquake loading of a frame will result in
oscillation of the whole structure, whilst the impact of a car causes high local
deformation at the point of contact. Modal analysis is applicable to the first analysis,
but not to the second.
An arbitrary n dimensional vector a can be written as the sum of n orthogonal
vectors
a = y1 1 + y2 2 + y3 3 + ... + yn n = Y
where
(2.10-1)
yi are the factors applied to the vectors so that their sum equals a . The
choice of orthogonal vectors is arbitrary. However, the use of the eigenvectors
of
the system
cK M h = 0
2
(2.10-2)
has advantages, where

displacement vector
have been scaled to the mass matrix. Writing the
a as
86
Analysis Procedures
a = Y
(2.10-3)
where the matrix contains m eigenvectors which may be some or all of the
eigenvectors of the system (2.10-2). The equation of linear dynamic equilibrium is
M a&& + Ca& + K a = R
t
(2.10-4)
Substituting (2.10-3) gives

t
M Y&& + C Y& + K Y = R
(2.10-5)
. This is the numerical equivalent to a

least mean square fit of the modal eigenvectors to the displacement vector a .
which is then multiplied by the transpose of
T
T
T
Tt
M Y&& + C Y& + K Y = R
(2.10-6)
The advantage of using the eigenvectors of (2.10-2) is now apparent, as pre and post
multiplying the mass and stiffness matrices, M and K , by results in their
diagonalisation. Provided the damping matrix C is diagonal, the reduced equilibrium
equations are uncoupled
T
T
T
Tt
i M iY&&i + i C iY&i + i K iYi = i R
(2.10-7)
Since the eigenvectors were normalised with respect to the mass matrix the following
relationships apply
i M i = 1 i=1,m
T
i C i = 2 i i
T
i=1,m
(2.10-8)
i K i = 2i
T
i=1,m
where i are the modal damping ratios and i are the circular frequencies of the
system. Using these relationships (2.10-7) becomes
Y&&i + 2 i iY&i + i2Yi = Ti t R
i=1,m
(2.10-9)
The reduced linear equations in the form of (2.10-9) are particularly useful since
methods for their explicit solution are readily available in standard mathematical
87

texts. The major limitation of the method is that the response is restricted to linear
small displacement theory in accordance with the principles of mode superposition.
Modal damping may be specified directly with unique damping coefficients
associated with each mode or for a frequency range from which the modal damping
will be interpolated. Alternatively, the Rayleigh damping parameters (2.4-13)for each
mode may be specified. These are then automatically converted to the equivalent
modal damping using the relationship
i =
1
2
LM a
N
R
i
+ bR i
OP
Q
(2.10-10)
Modal damping factors may also be computed to model the physical distribution of
damping in a structure. This may be done for viscous and/or structural damping and
utilises the element damping matrices together with the eigenmodes to compute the
modal damping coefficient. Unique Rayleigh damping coefficients may be specified
for a frequency range from which the coefficients will be interpolated for the required
modal frequency and the distributed damping factor computed. Alternatively, the
Rayleigh damping coefficients may be extracted from the material properties input.
Element damping matrices are then computed using equation (2.4-13) which are
assembled allowing the equivalent modal damping coefficients to be obtained using
the damping relationship in equation (2.10-8).
Two modal analysis types are implemented in LUSAS and are detailed in the
following sections.
2.10.1 Spectral Response Analysis

To study the effects of ground motion excitations on structures it is necessary to
measure the intensity of the motion. One practical measure can be obtained from a
knowledge of the response spectra for a generic ground motion. The spectral response
analysis seeks to estimate the maximum displacement or pseudo velocity or
acceleration of the structure during a "design" earthquake without recourse to direct
integration of the model over the complete duration of an event.
2.10.1.1 Single Degree of Freedom Structures
Consider a single degree of freedom structure consisting of a mass connected to earth
by a spring and dashpot as shown in figure 2.9-1. Two coordinate systems, one
&&g , the other the motion of the mass a&&m , are also shown.
defining the ground motion a
88
Analysis Procedures
M
am
C
ag
Fig 2.10-1 ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEM SUBJECT TO GROUND

MOTION
Force is transmitted to the mass from the earth via the spring and dashpot.
If there are no other applied loads, the equation of motion of the mass M is
Ma&&m + C( a& m a& g ) + K ( am a g ) = 0
(2.10-11)
where the force in the spring is induced by relative displacement between the earth
and mass. Similarly, the viscous force is developed when there is a relative velocity
between the ground and mass. If a relative displacement coordinate system is now
defined as
a = am a g =>
a& = a& m a& g =>
a&& = a&&m a&&g (2.10-12)
and, substituted into (2.10-11), this gives
Ma&& + Ca& + Ka = Ma&&g
(2.10-13)
which defines the relative motion of the mass with respect to earth arising from the
earthquake. Dividing (2.10-11) by M recovers the reduced modal equation (2.10-9)
for a multi-degree of freedom system
a&& + 2a& + 2a = a&&g
(2.10-14)
2.10.1.2 Design Spectra

The response of the structure, characterised by and the modal damping , to a
particular earthquake can now be calculated from (2.10-14) by prescribing the
recorded acceleration history. Integrating over the period of the earthquake gives the
maximum displacement and hence the maximum strain in the spring. Additional one
degree of freedom structures can be analysed by varying from which a graph
89

relating to maximum displacement at fixed damping for the earthquake can then be
plotted. This graph relates the response of one degree of freedom systems to a
particular earthquake.
Earthquakes are unique events. Therefore, for design, spectra have been evaluated
which envelope the peak responses of one degree of freedom systems to a series of
earthquakes. Such design spectra are given in terms of the maximum displacement or
pseudo velocity or acceleration of the structure for a range of circular frequencies.
2.10.1.3 Relationships Between Displacement, Pseudo Velocity
and Acceleration
At the maximum displacement of the spring S d , the velocity is zero and the
acceleration a maximum. Equilibrium of the mass at this point is then
KS d = Ma&&m
(2.10-15)
or
a&&m = Sa =
K
Sd = 2Sd
M
(2.10-16)
where Sa is the absolute acceleration of the mass. The true velocity of a& the mass is
a which is not readily obtainable from the formulation. Instead a pseudo velocity is
introduced S v which relates the kinetic energy of the mass to the maximum energy
stored in the spring
1
2
MS v2 = 12 KS d2
(2.10-17)
or
S v = S d
where
(2.10-18)
S v is the pseudo velocity. The three quantities are related by
Sa = S v = 2 S d
(2.10-19)
2.10.1.4 Finite Element Equations

The generalisation of the above development to the finite element model follows from
(2.9-9) where the modal solution is now written
&&
Y&&i + 2 i iY&i + 2i Yi = Pa
i g (t )
i=1,m
90
(2.10-20)
Analysis Procedures
where Pi = i M X is known as the participation factor for mode i. X is a vector
T
defining the direction of excitation. For the single degree of freedom structure the
ground acceleration acts in the same direction as the displacement of the mass. An
equivalent procedure for the modal solution would require that the acceleration acts in
the direction of the amplitude of the mode, which is not a realistic assumption.
Instead, defining the direction in which the ground acceleration acts, selectively
excites the associated inertial components of the eigenmode. The accelerations are
applied directly to the mode rather than being transmitted through the supports of the
structure so that the structure is considered to be rigid during loading.
By a comparison of (2.10-20) and (2.10-14) it can be seen that to relate the design
spectra to the mode of the actual structure, the response of the single degree of
freedom system with an identical must be scaled by the participation factor Pi .
Thus for example, the maximum modal displacement is given by
Yi = PS
i di
(2.10-21)
where S di is obtained for the modal frequency i by interpolation from the design
spectrum. Where the damping inherent in the spectral curve differs from the viscous
damping specified a damping correction can be applied. The use may select from the
following formulae.
Eurocode formula
=
where
and
+2
+2
(2.10-22)(2.10-22)
is the damping correction factor,
is the specified spectral curve damping
is the specified viscous damping.
Kapra formula
F I
=G J
HK
0. 4
(2.10-23)(2.10-23)
Tolis & Faccioli [T3] proposed a modified version of the equation, which they state is
only applicable for damping values of 5% and greater:
15
10 +
(2.10-24)
91

Bommer & Elnashai [B11] also proposed an alternative equation, which lies between
the original EC8 formulation and the proposal of Tolis & Faccioli (1999):
10
5+
(2.10-25)
The mass participation factor is also output and is defined as
M Pi =
Pi 2
XT M X
(2.10-26)
Once the Yi are known for all modes the displacements for the finite element model
can be obtained by using (2.10-3).
To obtain an approximate solution, only part of the modal contributions need to be
included in the superposition. In general, the lower modes make the principal
contributions to the response and good approximations can frequently be obtained by
considering only the first few modes in the analysis.
2.10.1.5 Mode Combination
As the modal maxima do not necessarily occur at the same time, they may not be
superimposed directly to obtain design values. Therefore two averaging methods have
been incorporated within LUSAS.
(a) SRSS METHOD
Where design displacements, stresses, forces are evaluated as the square-root-of-thesum-of-the-squares (SRSS), i.e. for a typical displacement component u
uk design =
(u
k 2
i
i =1
(2.10-27)
2
(b) CQC METHOD
The complete quadratic combination (CQC) method is based on random vibration

theory which gives a combination formula that includes all cross modal terms, i.e. for
a typical displacement component u
uk design =
u u
k
i
i =1
j =1
ij
k
j
(2.10-28)
2
92
Analysis Procedures
The cross modal coefficients
ij
are functions of duration and frequency content of
the loading and of the modal frequencies and damping ratios of the structure. Within
LUSAS the coefficients are evaluated from
ij =
where
8( i j )1/ 2 ( i + r j )r 3/ 2
(2.10-29)
(1 r 2 )2 + 4 i j r (1 + r 2 ) + 4( 2i + 2j )r 2
is the damping associated with mode i, and r = i
j.
The CQC method has been shown to be superior to the SRSS method as the cross
modal coupling accounts for the difference in sign of modes, which is lost in the
SRSS method. The default modal damping is taken to be 5%.
Note. For zero damping, the CQC method will provide identical results to the SRSS
method.
(c) Absolute Sum
The absolute sum method simply computes the sum of the absolute values. This
method is usually over conservative.
2.10.2 Harmonic Response Analysis

The steady state response of a structure subject to one or more periodic loads of
constant frequency is described by the following equation
M a&& + Ca& + ( i + 1) K a = ( F R + iF I )eit
(2.10-30)
where the loading R is given in terms of a real and imaginary function.

For zero damping and the real component of load, the structural response is in phase
with the harmonic loading with maximum displacement occurring at the same time as
the peak in the applied loading. If viscous damping is introduced, the structural
response is delayed, with the maximum displacement now occurring after the peak in
the applied loading. This phase difference between the loading and response leads to a
complex solution for (2.10-30). To generalise the loading to allow out-of-phase loads,
the loading is represented by real and imaginary parts. Similarly, the structural
damping is given an imaginary component.
The harmonic response system of dynamic equilibrium equations may be solved
directly using a complex equation solution algorithm to invert the equivalent stiffness
matrix for each loading frequency of interest. However, this is expensive and it is
generally more efficient to transform to a system of normal (modal) coordinates, as
the excitation of the lower modes of vibration is usually of interest.
93

The reduction of (2.10-30) to the modal form gives
Y&&j + 2 j jY&j + ( i + 1) 2jYj = ( f R + i f I )eiit

where f
= j F R and f I = j F I are the real and imaginary components of force

T
(for j=1,m)(2.10-31)
for mode j.
The solution of (2.10-31) consists of the complementary function plus the particular
integral. The complementary function defines the behaviour of the structure
independent of the load (i.e. the transient effects when the harmonic loading is
activated and de-activated), whilst the particular integral represents the steady state
response to the harmonic load.
The particular integral of (2.10-31) is
Yj = (YR ) j + i(YI ) j eiit
(2.10-32)
where
(YR ) j =
( 2j i2 ) f R + ( 2 j j i + j 2j ) f I
( 2j i2 )2 + ( 2 j j i + j 2j )2
(2.10-33)
and
(YI ) j =
( 2j 2i ) f R + ( 2 j j i + j 2j ) f R
( 2j i2 )2 + ( 2 j j i + j 2j )2
(2.10-34)
The real and imaginary structural displacements are then obtained as
a R = (Y R )
a I = (Y I )
and
(2.10-35)
Alternatively, rather than use the resolved real and imaginary components, the
amplitude and phase angle of the response may be used. The particular integral is then
Yj = a j e
eiit
(2.10-36)
where the real and imaginary components are related to the phase and amplitude by
2
a j = ( a R + a I )1/ 2
and
j = arctan( a R a I )
(2.10-37)
It can be seen that, in the absence of any system damping

94
Analysis Procedures
(YR ) j =
fR
( 2i )
(YI ) j =
2
j
fI
( 2i )
2
j
(2.10-38)
As the loading frequency approaches the (j)th modal frequency (i.e. the loading
frequency is that of the natural harmonic frequency of the (j)th mode) then
i => j
(2.10-39)
and the case of perfect harmonic resonance is created with the generalised modal
displacements and, hence, the structural displacements tending to infinity. However,
since in reality some form of damping is present at each mode, displacements
resulting from the resonant condition are generally large but finite. Furthermore, since
the higher natural modes tend to be subject to a higher degree of damping it is usually
only the lower modes of vibration which are significant.
2.11 Steady State Field Analysis

The general procedures developed for an elastic continuum can also be applied to a
number of non-structural problems. One class of problem is governed by the general
'quasi-harmonic' equations, and a list of the more common problems which fall into
this category is given in table 2.11-1.
The quasi-harmonic equation is defined as
LM
N
OP
Q
LM
N
OP
Q
K X ()
KY ( )
+
X
X
Y
Y
KZ ()
+
+ Q( ) = 0
Z
Z
LM
N
OP
Q
(2.11-1)
where, typically, for thermal conduction

K() = thermal conductivity,
Q() = rate of internal heat generation,
= temperature.
The quasi-harmonic equation for heat conduction is based on the following

assumptions
The material particles in the body are at rest, i.e. convective terms are ignored.
The thermal and stress response are completely uncoupled, i.e. thermalstructure interaction is ignored.
95

The thermal response is independent of time.
The boundary conditions for heat conduction problems in field analysis have the
following form
Prescribed Temperatures. The temperature may be prescribed at individual
nodal points.
Field Problem
Unknown ()
Heat
Conduction
Temperature
Thermal
Conductivity
Internal Heat
Generation
Seepage Flow
Hydraulic Head
Permeability
Storage
Incompressible
Flow
Stream Function
Unity
Twice the vorticity
Soap Film
Deflection
Surface Tension
Pressure
Elastic Torsion
Warping
Function
Unity
+2
Elastic Torsion
Stress Function
Electric
Conduction
Voltage
Electric
Conductivity
Internal Current
Source
Electrostatics
Voltage
Permittivity of Free
Space
Charge Density
Magnetostatics
Magnetic
Potential
Reluctivity
Current Density
(Shear Modulus)
Twice the rate of

twist
TABLE 2.11-1 Problems Described By The Quasi-Harmonic Equation

Prescribed Heat Flow. The heat flow across any surface may be prescribed as
K X ()
LX + KY ( )
LY + K Z ( )
L
Y
Y
Z Z
(2.11-2)
= q + qc ( ) + qr ( )
where
LX , LY and LZ are the direction cosines between the outward normal and
the X,Y and Z axes respectively. q is the imposed heat flux, qc is the convective
heat flux and qr is the radiative heat flux. The convective and radiative heat flux are
generally defined as
qc = hc ( )( e )
and
qr = hr ( )( 4 e4 )
96
(2.11-3)
Analysis Procedures
where hc and hr are the convective and radiative heat transfer coefficients
respectively, and
e is the temperature of the surrounding environment.
2.11.1 Linear Steady State Analysis

After finite element discretisation, and assuming the material properties are
independent of temperature, equation (2.11-1) has the form
K = R
(2.11-4)
where typically for thermal problems, K is defined by
K = B K B dv + hc
v
and
R as
R = N Q dv +
v
sc
N s N s ds
N q ds + hc
sc
(2.11-5)
N s e ds
(2.11-6)
where N and B are the shape functions and shape function derivatives and k is the
matrix of thermal conductivities.
Equation (2.11-2) has an identical form as the static analysis equilibrium equation,
therefore the solution algorithm is identical.
Notes
The conductance matrix and flux vector are formulated directly from the
quasi-harmonic equation in which the only degree of freedom is the field
variable .
The conductance matrix is dependent on the boundary heat transfer conditions,
this may limit the analysis to one load vector.
2.11.2 Nonlinear Steady State Analysis

If a significant degree of nonlinearity occurs (i.e. the material properties or boundary
heat flow are dependent on ) when the flows are integrated through the structure,
equilibrium will not be satisfied and a residual flow, (), will exist, defined as
() =
t + t
P( )
t + t
K ( )
(2.11-7)
where
97

t + t
P= B
T t + t
q dv
(2.11-8)
t +t
R is the applied flux vector. A Newton iteration procedure is therefore

and
utilised (see section 2.5). Using this procedure, the discretised equations become
t + t
i 1
t + t
i =
i 1
t + t
i 1
(2.11-9)
where
t + t
K i1 =
t + t
in which
t + t
t + t
i 1
Kk
i 1
Kc
z
z
i 1
Kr
T t + t
t + t
i 1
K ic1 +
t + t
K ir1
N dV
(2.11-10)
(2.11-11)
t + t
hci1 N S N S dS
(2.11-12)
t + t
hri1 N S N S dS
(2.11-13)
and
t + t
K ik1 +
Further
t + t
Ri-1 =
t + t
Q i-1 +
t + t
Q i-1
+
c
t + t
ext
Q i-1
r
(2.11-14)
ext
in which the applied heat flow is

t + t
Q i-1 =
t + t
q N S dS
+
where
and
t +t
t +t
i-1
N dV +
q is the boundary heat flux,
t +t
t + t
Q con
(2.11-15)
Q is the rate of internal heat generation
Q con is the concentrated nodal heat flux. Also the heat flow due to
convection is
t + t
t + t
Q i-1
=
c
ext
t + t
hci1 N S N S
t + t
e dS
98
(2.11-16)
Analysis Procedures
and the heat flow due to radiation
t + t
Q i-1
=
r
ext
t + t
hri1 N S N S
t + t
e dS
(2.11-17)
The internal flux or internal heat flow is defined as

t + t
where
Fi-1 =
t +t
t + t
Q i-1
+
c
t + t
int
Q i-1
=
c
int
Q i-1
=
r
int
and
t + t
Q i-1
k
Q i-1
=
k
int
z
z
z
t + t
S
t + t
t + t
t + t
t + t
hri1 N S N S
i 1
t +t
Q i-1
is the internal
r
Q i-1
is the internal heat flow due to conduction.
k
t +t
hci1 N S N S
T t + t
(2.11-18)
int
Q i-1
is the internal heat flow due to convection,
c
in which
t + t
t + t
int
heat flow due to radiation, and
t + t
Q i-1
+
r
i-1
i-1
i-1
dS
(2.11-19)
dS
(2.11-20)
dV
(2.11-21)
The NONLINEAR CONTROL command should be used to specify a modified or full

Newton procedure with convergence on either the temperature and residual norms.
2.11.3 Load Conditions for Steady State Analysis

The field and equivalent structural load cases are given in table 2.10-2. Note that if an
element face is not assigned an environmental temperature it will be assumed to be
perfectly insulated.
Field Loading
Equivalent Load Case
Q field loading at nodes
Concentrated Load
Q coefficient for element, defined per

unit volume
Constant Body Force
Q coefficient, constant body force

defined at nodes
Body Force Potential
q (Q/unit area), defined at nodes

Positive q defines heat input
Face Load
99
e , external fluid temperature defined
Environmental Temperature
Loading
at nodes
TABLE 2.11-2 Thermal And Equivalent Structural Load Cases
2.12 Transient Field Analysis

For non-structural problems, such as heat transfer, field problems and fluid flow, the
transient effects may need to be considered. For example, the heat flow input in a
thermal analysis may be time dependent in which it is important to account for the
rate at which heat is stored in the material.
Heat capacity effects can be included in the analysis as part of the rate of heat
generated loading to the transient heat conduction equation
LM
N
OP
Q
LM
N
OP
Q
K X ()
KY ( )
+
X
X
Y
Y
KZ ()
+
+ Q ( ) = C ( )
Z
Z
t
LM
N
OP
Q
(2.12-1)
where c is the specific heat and is the density. Here K is the thermal conductivity,
is the temperature and Q is the heat supply. After discretisation this equation has the
form
& + K + R = 0
C
(2.12-2)
where C is the specific heat matrix defined by
z
z
z
C = N c( )N dv
(2.12-3)
K is the conductivity matrix defined by

T
K = B B dv
(2.12-4)
R is the flux vector defined by

T
R = N Q dv
(2.12-5)
100
Analysis Procedures
Here N and B are the shape functions and shape function derivatives and
is the
matrix of thermal conductivities. The solution of (2.12-2) is performed in a step-bystep fashion.
2.12.1 Linear Transient Analysis

Within LUSAS a general two-point recurrence scheme has been implemented which
embraces most of the conventional procedures, including Crank-Nicolson and Euler
[Z1]. It is assumed that the material properties are independent of temperature, thus
1
t
C + K
t + t
C + K (1 )
1
t
t + t
(2.12-6)
R + (1 ) R = 0
t
By use of the BETA facility on the CONSTANTS command in TRANSIENT

CONTROL, LUSAS gives the user the facility to vary the time integration constant ,
allowing a variety of procedures to be specified. Some of the more common
procedures are listed in table 2.11-1.
Beta ()
Scheme
Crank-Nicolson scheme
1/2
Forward Euler scheme
Galerkin scheme
2/3 (default)
Backward Euler scheme
TABLE 2.12-1 Values For Commonly Used Integration Schemes

When choosing an integration scheme and an increment of time the stability of the
integration scheme must be examined. The stability of (2.11-6) is defined by [Z1] as
i t ( 2 1) > 2
(2.12-7)
where i is the circular frequency of mode i of the eigenproblem obtained from

(2.11-2). This condition is always satisfied for 1/2 which provides unconditionally
stable algorithms regardless of the value of t. The Crank-Nicholson, Galerkin and
Backward Euler schemes are of this form. When < 1/2 then the algorithm is only
conditionally stable with the maximum time step length defined by
t <
2
(1 2 ) max
(2.12-8)
where max is the maximum circular frequency of the system. Violation of this
criterion results in divergence of the solution algorithm.
101

For = 0, the integration scheme becomes explicit. If the C matrix is also diagonal, a
trivial solution without a matrix inversion is obtained. For = 0, the integration
schemes are termed explicit.
Theoretically, the Crank-Nicholson scheme should provide the greatest accuracy of
the implicit algorithms. However, for < 1 all algorithms are susceptible to
oscillatory effects in the solution as the time step becomes large and these are most
pronounced with the Crank-Nicholson scheme. Therefore, the Galerkin scheme is
recommended as this scheme also provides better accuracy than the backward Euler
scheme and is less susceptible to oscillations than the Crank-Nicholson scheme. The
backward Euler scheme provides the greatest resistance to oscillations although, for
cases in which a ramping of the thermal load is used, a subsequent reduction in
oscillation will normally be seen.
The time step used for implicit algorithms is dependent upon the number of modes
that influence the response of the system. Generally, the major part of the response is
governed by the lower modes so that
t <
where
1
3p
(2.12-9)
is the circular frequency of the p
th
mode where p << n and corresponds
to the highest mode that is likely to influence the solution. Alternatively, an

approximate time step may be obtained from the diffusivity of the system as
t =
2 c
(2.12-10)
4k
where is the smallest length of an element side.
2.12.2 Nonlinear Transient Analysis

2.12.2.1 Solution algorithm
Nonlinear transient heat conduction is governed by (2.12-2) in which C , K and Q
all depend on
, and the boundary conditions may depend on both and t.
Consequently, the solution of (2.12-2) requires an iterative strategy. The temperature

t +t
is replaced in (2.12-2) by
t + t
t + t
i 1
t + t
where
(2.12-11)
so that
102
Analysis Procedures
t + t
i t + t
&i +
t + t
t + t
i 1
i 1
t + t
(2.12-12)
i 1
The integration of the rate term is performed using the backward Euler method.
Consequently, the rate term is approximated as
t + t
&i = 1
t + t
i 1
+
i
(2.12-13)
and, utilising a Newton-Raphson iterative procedure
LM 1
N t
t + t
C +
i
t + t
t + t
i 1
OP
Q
t + t
1 t + t i
C
t
t + t
i 1
(2.12-14)
i1 t
whilst for Modified Newton-Raphson procedures, (2.11-14) becomes
LM 1
N t
OP
Q
C + K
t
t + t
1 t + t i
C
t
t + t
t + t
i 1
i 1
(2.12-15)
2.12.2.2 Phase changes

The transformation of a material between phases is accompanied by either liberation
or absorption of latent heat in the phase transition zone, i.e. the temperature gradient
is discontinuous. The methods proposed by Del Giudice [D3] and Lemmon [L3] have
been implemented to represent this transition state.
With this class of method, the latent heat evolution is treated in terms of temperature
dependent specific heat. This is achieved by introducing enthalpy which is defined as
the sum of the sensible and latent heat contents, i.e.
For a Pure Substance (fig.2.12-1a)
103
H=
c1 ( ) d
< f
ref
(2.12-16)
H=
c1 ( ) d + L + c2 ( ) d
ref
(2.12-17)
and for alloy substances (fig.2.12-1b)
H=
c1 ( ) d
< f
ref
(2.12-18)
H=
c1 ( ) d
ref
f ( f + )
ref
dL
+ c f ( ) d
d
(2.12-19)
H=
c1 ( ) d
ref
f + f
cf ( ) d +
> f
c2 ( ) d
f + f
(2.12-20)
where c1 , c2 and cf are the specific heat values below, above and during the phase
change respectively.
The transient term in the governing equation for transient heat flow (2.12-1) may be
rewritten as
H dH d * d
=
c
t d dt
dt
(2.12-21)
104
Analysis Procedures
*
where c is the effective heat capacity including the effects of the latent heat of
evolution.
*
Averaging algorithms are utilised to evaluate c so that the temperature at a point

cannot pass through the phase change temperature without including the effect of the
phase change in the analysis. This is achieved by including space and temperature
derivatives in the formula utilised to evaluate the specific heat. Two alternative
expressions for the specific heat have been implemented and are as follows
Del Giudice et al. [D3]
c =
(H x )(T x ) + (H y )(T y )
(T x )2 + (T y )2
(2.12-22)
Lemmon [L3,L4]
L (H x ) + (H y ) OP
c = M
N (T x ) + (T y ) Q
2
2 1/ 2
(2.12-23)
where the enthalpy H is interpolated from nodal values using the element shape
functions, i.e.
n
H = N i Hi
i 1
so that
H x = N i x H i
(2.12-24)
i 1
2.12.3 Load Conditions for Transient Analysis

An arbitrary load-time curve may be modelled by defining the loading conditions at
each time step (fig.2.12-2(a)).
The first step of the starting procedure used in LUSAS is a steady state analysis with
the currently defined load case and boundary conditions. This permits the
specification of an initial distribution of the field variable due to some steady state
load conditions.
If the transient loads are to be applied to an initially unloaded structure then the field
variable at time t=0 should be zero. This may be achieved by either of the following
Fully restraining the structure whilst applying the desired initial load.
The restraints are then removed and the analysis proceeds with the actual
boundary conditions. This is effectively a step load, as the effects of the
loading are considered immediately the restraints are removed (fig.2.12-2(b)).
Initially applying a zero load to the structure.
105

The load is then applied on the second time interval. This is effectively a ramp
loading as the load is increased to the required value during one time step
(fig.2.12-2(c)).
Temperature
Impulse loading may be approximated by applying the load pulse during one time
step and then removing it in the next time step. This is illustrated in fig.2.11-2(d).
Alternatively, if the pulse is applied during the first time step, the structure may be
initially fully restrained with the pulse load and then released with the load
simultaneously removed (fig.2.11-2(e)).
f
Transition
region
Enthalpy H
Temperature
(a) Pure Substance
Solid temperature f
Liquid temperature f + f
f
Transition
region
Enthalpy H
(b) Alloy Substance

Fig.2.12-1 Enthalpy-Temperature Relationship In The Region Of Phase Changes
106
Analysis Procedures
(a) Arbitrary Loading
(b) Step Loading
(c) Ramp Loading
(d) Pulse Loading
(e) Pulse Loading
Fig.2.12-2 Loading For Transient Analysis
2.13 Thermo-Mechanical Coupling

Thermo-mechanical coupling analyses may be sub-divided into two classes
depending on the nature of the problem.
107

For most problems, thermal effects only influence material properties so that the
thermal analysis may be run independently of the structural analysis. The
corresponding structural analysis, therefore, reads in the thermal data at appropriate
time intervals to give the displacements corresponding to this thermal data. The
evaluation of residual stresses induced in a cooling plate is a good example of such a
problem. Conversely, the changing geometry derived from a structural analysis may
significantly affect a thermal analysis without the change of body temperature
affecting the structural analysis. In this way the structural analysis can be run
independently of the thermal analysis.
In some cases, however, both analyses may be strongly linked, e.g. the impact of a hot
and cold body. Before contact, heat transfer is via radiation and convection across the
intervening medium. After contact, heat transfer will increase markedly, with direct
heat flow via conductance across the contact region.
Therefore, two forms of coupling are implemented
Partially coupled or semi-coupled analyses, in which the structural response
is influenced by the temperature field, but the thermal response is independent
of the structural response (or vice versa).
Fully coupled analyses, where the thermal and structural analyses must be
performed simultaneously with a continuous transfer of information between
the two analyses.
2.13.1 Semi-Coupled Analysis

One analysis is performed prior to the other, and either a single or series of nodal data
tables are created. These are read during the second analysis at the required load case
or time step. The analyses are, therefore, performed independently so that the field
modules may be utilised directly.
2.13.2 Fully Coupled Analysis

In addition to modelling the influence of the thermal field on the structural response,
the affect of the structural response on the thermal field may also be represented.
The flow of information between the two analyses may include
Thermal to structural. Current temperature field to generate thermal strains
and evaluate temperature dependent properties.
Structural to thermal. Updated structural geometry to update geometry of
the thermal analysis.
For true coupling of two nonlinear fields, information transfer has to occur on an
iteration level during each increment. This preserves equilibrium of the local thermal
and structural fields, as well as that of the combined system. For strongly coupled
systems, e.g. structure-structure contact, this is essential. For weaker thermo108
Analysis Procedures
mechanical coupling, however, information transfer at an increment level has
provided adequate solutions.
The approach adopted for the solution of the coupled problem is to partition the
structural and field analyses either sequentially or in parallel. The time integration
process is performed over each system component.
Communication is achieved via a data transfer file which is common to both analysis
modules. Reading and writing of datasets occurs from or to this file at defined
intervals throughout the analysis. Information transfer occurs at an incremental level
if the analyses are performed independently. If two analyses can be run concurrently
information may be transferred either on an iterative or an incremental level.
2.13.3 Thermal Softening

The thermo-mechanical coupling algorithms can be used to determine thermal
softening in a material. The plastic work done in the structural analysis is converted to
a heat flux which is used by a thermal analysis to compute the diffusion through the
body. The updated thermal field is then transferred back to the structural analysis for
application as a temperature load. The coupling can take place on an iterative basis
(fully coupled) or transfers can be made for specified increments (partially coupled).
The analyses may also be run consecutively (semi-coupled), where the structural
analysis must be the first to be performed.
This type of analysis is appropriate when extensive plastic deformation is occurring in
a material whose mechanical properties are temperature dependent. Of particular
importance is the rate at which this plastic straining takes place. If the plastic straining
occurs very rapidly so that the heat generated does not have time to diffuse, an
uncoupled, adiabatic analysis would be appropriate. For a very slow plastic straining
rate the heat generated has time to dissipate so that an uncoupled isothermal analysis
would be sufficiently accurate. Thermo-mechanical coupled solutions involving a
steady state or transient thermal analysis are to cater for simulations between these
extremes.
The thermal softening facility is available for the following element types
Bars
Two and three dimensional continuum
Axisymmetric solids
2.13.3.1 Computation of plastic work
The plastic work will be computed in the post-solution element routines in the
structural analysis. An increment in plastic work is given by
w p = 12 Tp
t + t
+t
(2.13-1)
109

where
w p
= increment in plastic work
= increment in plastic strains
t +t
= stresses at time t
= stresses at time t+t
Equation (2.13-1) is evaluated at the Gauss points and may be distributed to the nodes
in a manner similar to that when dealing with body force potentials so that
R = Nw p dv
(2.13-2)
where N are shape functions
N = {N1 , N 2 , N 3 ,K}T
(2.13-3)
and
R will contribute towards the element right hand side in the thermal analysis.
The vector R will be passed to the thermal analysis so that the heat flux will be given
by
Q=
hf
tint
(2.13-4)
where h f is the heat fraction,
tint the time interval over which the work is generated
and Q the heat flux. Q can now be added into the element right hand side in the
same manner as a 'concentrated load'.
2.13.3.2 Time interval for computing heat generation
This section details the assumptions that are made in relation to the rate at which
plastic work is considered to be done. There are four combinations of analysis type
which may be used to carry out a coupled analysis
110
Analysis Procedures
Option
Structural
Thermal
Dynamic
Steady State
Dynamic
Transient
Static
Steady State
Static
Transient
TABLE 2.13-3-1 Coupled Analysis Type Combinations

Option 1 In this instance the current time is always available in the dynamic
analysis so that the time over which the load is applied is known. However, the
field analysis dictates the time increment over which the heat flux is to be
applied. The use of a steady state thermal analysis means that the heat build up
is assumed to be instantaneous as time is not considered.
Option 2 Times are available at every stage of the analysis, allowing
interpolation between dumps and direct correlation between the two analyses.
If the time interval for data transfer is specified, the user defined timestep will
be adjusted so that the exact transfer times can be achieved.
Option 3 Using this option both thermal and structural equilibrium are
considered to be achieved instantaneously.
Option 4 This option is appropriate if inertia effects are not significant in the
structural analysis. The use of a transient thermal analysis allows control over
the diffusion rate for heat generated due to plastic work.
General considerations
1. The heat flux generated due to plastic work is a function of the time increment
over which the work is done. For a meaningful solution to this type of problem the
thermal analysis should be transient. This allows control over the rate at which the
plastic work is assumed to be done.
2. It is important not to miss data by inconsistent data transfers during an analysis.
This could result in the heat due to plastic work being applied over a different
period in the thermal analysis to when it was generated. It is recommended that
reading and writing to the data transfer file are carried out at the same point in the
analysis to prevent this occurring.
3. The structural analysis must be run first when problems involving semi-coupled
analysis are run. In general, for analyses run in parallel, the thermal analysis must
wait for the structural analysis to write before attempting to read from the data
transfer file (or DTF).
4. A fully coupled analysis involving iterative transfers will give the best solutions
but the extra expense in computation may not be justified in some cases. Iterative
coupling is justified when the temperatures generated produce significant thermal
strains or when the material properties are temperature dependent. The option of
running problems in parallel but coupling on an incremental basis should prove to
give the most efficient solutions in terms of accuracy and computer cost.
111

5. It may prove necessary to read and write to the data transfer file at different times
on the initial load step for some problems. If this is not done the situation could
arise where both analyses are waiting to read new data in the data transfer file
before anything has been written. Care should be taken in this respect when the
type of analysis is required to perform a 'static' step before commencing the actual
solution.
6. When using explicit elements in the structural analysis a driven timestep should be
specified in an accompanying transient field analysis.
7. The thermal softening facility will not be available if OPTION 118 is disabled by
the user.
2.13.3.3 Iterative strategy
For a fully coupled analysis the iterative path for a thermal softening problem would
be
Time
Structural
Thermal
c
4
1,5
t+t
This iterative strategy is different from that usually in force for a coupled analysis in
the sense that values computed at time t+t in the structural analysis are used at time t
in the thermal analysis. The heat flux due to plastic work done over the time step t is
computed (points a to b). This flux is transferred to the thermal analysis (points b to c)
and used at time t (points c to d). The first temperature distribution is then transferred
to the structural analysis (points d to a). New temperature dependent properties and a
thermal loading are now applied to the initial structural analysis (points a to b) and the
iterative cycle continues until convergence is achieved.
112
Analysis Procedures
2.14 Fourier Analysis

2.14.1 Fourier Analysis Concept
The analysis of non-axisymmetric loading with axisymmetric elements is achieved by
representing the circumferential variations of the applied loads and structural
displacements as the sum of harmonics of a Fourier series.
u=
uns ( X , Y )cos n +
n=0
v=
u ( X , Y )sin n
a
n
n =1
v ( X , Y ) cos n + v ( X , Y )sin n
s
n
a
n
n=0
w=
(2.14-1)
n =1
w ( X , Y )sin n w ( X , Y )cos n
a
n
s
n
n =1
n=0
where u,v and w are defined in the cylindrical coordinate system with axial, radial
and tangential displacements, as opposed to the more familiar displacements U,V,W
in global cartesian system. Note that for all references to Fourier analyses and
elements, capital letters, U,V,W,X,Y,Z refer to the global cartesian system whilst
lower case letters refer to the cylindrical coordinate system.
An analysis is performed for each harmonic component n, and the solution of the
original problem is obtained by combining the response of each harmonic. This is
consistent with the principle of superposition for linear elastic structural response.
By using this semi-analytical approach, the three dimensional analysis is reduced to a
series of two dimensional analyses, with the consequent saving in computational
effort being dependent upon the number of harmonics required to accurately
reproduce the structural response. Further details may be found in references [C1] and
[Z1].
2.14.2 Interpretation of Harmonics

The first two harmonics n=0 and n=1 can be associated with particular 'global' modes
of deformation and loading of the structure.
2.14.2.1 n=0 Harmonic
Symmetric term - standard axisymmetric analysis in which radial and axial
deformations are modelled
Asymmetric term - torsional deformation of structure
113

The n=0 Fourier load component is the net radial, axial and torsional components
of the loading applied to the structure.
The boundary conditions that must be applied on the axis of symmetry are
axisymmetric about X axis:
axisymmetric about Y axis:
2.14.2.2 n=1 Harmonic
v = 0, w = 0
u = 0, w = 0
Combinations of the tangential and radial displacements model the global

displacement of the cross-section in a direction perpendicular to its axis of symmetry;
this is the bending deformation of the structure.
Symmetric terms - bending about global Y axis
Asymmetric terms - bending about global Z axis
The decomposition of the loading into the n=1 Fourier components, resolves the
load in the global X and Y directions.
axisymmetric about X axis: u = 0
axisymmetric about Y axis: v = 0
Further harmonics characterise cross-sectional deformation.

2.14.2.3 n>1 Harmonics
Symmetric/Asymmetric - cross-sectional deformation due to applied loads.
The higher harmonics refine the displacements calculated from the global modes
of deformation modelled by the first two harmonics. As a solution converges, the
contribution of the higher order harmonics decreases as n increases.
axisymmetric about X axis: u = 0, v = 0, w = 0
axisymmetric about Y axis: u = 0, v = 0, w = 0
For a solid structure such as a circular shaft, the most important modes are the n=0
and n=1 terms; the complete engineering beam theory is encompassed by these first
harmonics. As the structure tends towards thin-walled, the global modes become less
dominant, and the local deformations modelled by the higher order harmonics
become increasingly important.
114
Analysis Procedures
2.14.3 Fourier Decomposition of Loads and Exact

Solutions
The Fourier representation of the load restricts it to a function that is single valued
and continuous except for a finite number of discontinuities. The Fourier expansion of
the loading then converges at all points where the load is continuous and to the
average value at a discontinuity.
If the loading is exactly represented by a set of harmonics, then the exact
circumferential results are available by considering only these harmonics. This
follows from the orthogonality of the load to the remaining harmonics; that is, as
there is no load, no displacement is produced. For example, if the structure is equally
loaded at 0, 90, 180 and 360, then only the symmetric harmonics, 0,4,8,... need be
considered. The accuracy of the solution then depends on the finite element
representation of the axisymmetric structure.
The integrations of the load, either defined using user curve input (linear piece-wise),
or system curve input (Cosine, Sine, Square wave), are computed from exact
solutions; there is no error associated with the evaluation of the Fourier loading
coefficients.
It is important to emphasise that the series representation must be complete with the
sequential processing of all the harmonics in increasing order of frequency. A
measure of the accuracy may then be obtained by comparing the magnitude of the
displacement of the latest Fourier component relative to the preceding ones.
2.14.4 Factors Influencing the Number of Harmonics

Required
As the series expansion of the load converges to the true load, the magnitude of the
loading coefficients decrease and the corresponding displacements decrease.
Consequently, the faster the series expansion converges to the true load, the fewer the
terms required to obtain an accurate solution.
Circumferential stiffness is also a factor that influences problem convergence. It
appears in the stiffness matrix with components multiplied by factors of n and n*n;
consequently, as the harmonic number n increases, the structure provides increasing
resistance to load. For thin walled structures such as storage tanks, the circumferential
stiffness is small and contributes little to reducing the number of terms required for
convergence. On the other hand, a structure such as beam, has a high circumferential
stiffness and for most purposes can be modelled by considering the first few
harmonics only.
For point loads the evaluation of the Fourier load coefficient approximates to
115
f( )cos n d Pi
cos n
(2.14-2)
n=0
where
Pi are point loads and i their point of application.
The Fourier load coefficient is therefore practically independent of the harmonic n.

Since only the circumferential stiffness is increasing, the convergence of Fourier
analyses involving point loads are notoriously slow, particularly for thin walled
structures.
2.14.5 Interpretation of Reactions

The reactions output from LUSAS are Fourier components, thus
Rx =
Rx ns cos n +
n=0
Ry =
Rx
a
n
sin n
a
n
sin n
n =1
Ry ns cos n +
n=0
Rz =
Ry
(2.14-3)
n =1
Rz ns sin n
n =1
Rz
a
n
cos n
n= 0
The reactions have units of force per unit length.

The following formulae are derived for axially symmetric structures about the global
X axis. Similar expressions hold for structures axially symmetric about the global Y
axis.
For the n=0 harmonic
Symmetric - the total axial reaction which will be equal and opposite to the
axially applied loads PX , can be calculated from
PX =
NNodes
2r Rx
j
(2.14-4)
j =1
where
NNodes is the number of restrained nodal reactions
rj
is the radius of node j (note rj = 1 for centre line nodes)
Rx j
is the axial reaction at node j
116
Analysis Procedures
Asymmetric - the total torque reaction which will be equal and opposite to the
structural torque TZ , can be calculated from
TZ =
NNodes
2r Rz
j
(2.14-5)
j =1
where
rj
Rz j
is the torsional reaction at node j
For the n=1 harmonic,

The total force applied in the global Y and Z directions can be calculated by
resolving the reactions in the radial and tangential directions.
Symmetric mode
PY =
NNodes
r Ry
j
rj Rz j
(2.14-6)
j =1
where
rj
Ry j
Rz j
is the radial reaction at node j

PY
is the load in the global Y direction
Asymmetric mode
PZ =
NNodes
r Ry
j
rj Rz j
(2.14-7)
j =1
where
rj
is the radial reaction at node j
Ry j
Rz j
PZ
is the load in the global Z direction
117
2.15 Analysis With Superelements

2.15.1 Advantages of Using Superelements
Superelements permit the finite element model to be divided into smaller, more
manageable components which are then added together to form the complete
structure. Each superelement is defined as a group of elements together with a list of
exterior freedoms which will represent the superelement once it has been reduced.
The facility has the following advantages
Cost reduction for re-analysis
Better scheduling by use of several medium size runs rather than one large run
Simpler model generation. In the case of user modal data no model generation
is required - only input of the boundary nodes and freedoms
Reduced peripheral storage and high speed memory requirements for each run
Efficient coupling of components analysed by several organisations
Reduced cost of nonlinear analyses where a linear portion of the structure is
represented using substructures
2.15.2 Restrictions on Use of Superelements

The use of superelements is restricted to linear static, linear steady state field and
natural frequency analysis. In addition the following restrictions apply
Elements should be linear.
If nonlinear elements are used, e.g. nodal joints or radiation, the initial
status is used.
Plasticity, creep and damage capabilities are ignored.
Fourier elements cannot be used.
Material properties must be constant.
If temperature dependent properties are specified then the values
corresponding to the initial temperature will be used.
Superelement generation/recovery is limited to one superelement per analysis
run
Superelements are not accounted for in load combinations/enveloping.
User modal data must be in the structure global axes.
2.15.3 Static Reduction

This method is used to reduce equations in both static and dynamic analysis. Ignoring
the effects of time derivatives of displacement, the governing equations become
K ff a f = P f
(2.15-1)
118
Analysis Procedures
where f denotes the set of statically independent 'free' variables. This is then
partitioned as
LM K
NK
mm
sm
OPL O L O
QMN PQ MN PQ
K ms a m
P
= m
K ss a s
Ps
(2.15-2)
where subscript m denotes the active set which includes all exterior freedoms and
subscript s denotes the omitted set which includes all interior freedoms. Note that
subscripts denote the type of variables that matrices relate to.
Rewriting the second set of equations gives
a s = K ss1 P s + G sm a m
(2.15-3)
where
G sm = K ss1 K sm
(2.15-4)
Therefore the equations for the active set become
K mm a m = P m
(2.15-5)
where
K mm = K mm + K ms G sm
(2.15-6)
P m = P m + G Tsm P s
(2.15-7)
and
Here K mm represents the stiffness of the substructure and P m represents the the
boundary loads transmitted to the rest of the structure.
No approximation has been performed in the static condensation so that for a static
analysis the substructure solution will be identical to a solution that does not use the
substructuring technique.
2.15.4 Guyan Reduction

The governing equations for dynamics (ignoring damping) in the modal domain are
K ff a f 2 M ff a f = P f
(2.15-8)
119

For this case the mass contribution of the internal or slave nodes are neglected to
permit the equations to be reduced in the same manner. This results in an identical
expression for the stiffness and mass being defined as
T
T
M mm = M mm + G Tsm M ss G sm + M msGsm + Gsm
M ms
(2.15-9)
A similar expression may be derived for the damping matrix. Unlike the condensation
of the stiffness matrix which is exact, the condensation of the mass matrix is only
approximate. The accuracy of the solution obtained will depend on the suitability of
the external or master freedoms to represent the response of the structure. Further,
dynamic analyses will require internal master nodes in order to reproduce the correct
response.
2.15.5 Transformations
The freedoms at a node associated to a superelement may be transformed at both the
superelement generation and use stages. Therefore transformation of the superelement
stiffness, mass and force vectors between the superelement generation and
superelement use axes systems is defined as
Stiffness: K u = T u T g K g T g T u
(2.15-10)
Mass: M u = T u T g M g T g T u
(2.15-11)
= T uT g f
(2.15-12)
Force: f
where subscripts 'u' and 'g' refer to values defined in the use and generation phases
respectively.
2.15.6 Component Mode Synthesis Using Superelements

Component mode synthesis provides a method of evaluating the natural frequencies
of a large structural system by utilising the eigen-solutions of the component parts.
This procedure has three powerful attributes:
It permits detailed analysis of the modes of each component without the
expense of solving the eigen-problem of the complete system.
Provided the eigen-analysis of each component is accurate, only the lower
modes of each component are required to determine the lower modes of the
complete structure.
Components that have been modelled experimentally may be included in the
analysis.
120
Analysis Procedures
The algorithm introduces additional generalised exterior freedoms (or modal
coordinates) which allow an enhanced representation of the reduced mass and
stiffness for each superelement to be computed. The superelement matrices are then
combined and the eigen-solution for the complete structure is evaluated. Effectively
the procedure utilises the mode shape characteristics of each superelement as Ritz
vectors during the reduction phase for the complete structure.
The eigenvalues evaluated using this method of analysis will always be an upper
bound on the corresponding exact values of the system. However, the accuracy of
each eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector is dependent upon the suitability of
the Ritz basis vectors used in reducing the component matrices. This in turn is
dependent on how accurately the boundary conditions are represented in the eigenanalysis of the components.
Generally the master freedoms are assumed to be either fixed or free, however a
better approximation is usually obtained by utilising point masses and stiffnesses to
represent the effects of the remaining structure. It is possible to invoke an automatic
procedure for distributing the stiffness and mass of the remaining structure to the
boundary nodes. This is achieved by modifying the master freedoms for each
superelement in turn and then performing a Guyan reduction analysis. This provides
the reduced stiffness and mass from which the superelement stiffness and mass are
subtracted to give the boundary mass and stiffness.
2.15.7 Guide to Using Modal Synthesis

Component mode reduction permits generalised coordinates to be introduced to
represent some of the local inertia effects discarded when the master freedoms were
chosen. The generalised coordinates correspond to vibration modes evaluated using
either Guyan reduction or full/reduced subspace iteration.
The component mode reduction can be done during the definition of a superelement,
or as an updating procedure if the superelement has already been defined. During this
phase the natural frequencies of the superelement are computed. By using this eigensolution the reduced stiffness and mass in terms of the master freedoms and the
generalised coordinates will be computed for the superelement. For these
computations the number of generalised coordinates must be defined together with
the modal supports for the master freedoms. In general, the modal supports will be
different from the static supports at these freedoms. The modal support conditions
may be defined as 'free', 'fixed' or as 'spring stiffness and mass'. The usefulness of
these options is described below.
If master freedoms are retained in a superelement, the choice as to whether they are
'fixed' or 'free' during the evaluation of the superelement natural modes is problem
dependent. Consider, for example, a structure consisting of a slender pipe intersecting
with a massive pipe. If each pipe is modelled using one superelement, then the master
freedoms of the slender pipe should be 'fixed', as the deformations in the slender pipe
121

will have little effect on the massive pipe. Conversely, when the massive pipe is
analysed, then the master freedoms should be 'free', as the slender pipe will provide
little resistance to the movement of the massive pipe.
For many structures the alternatives of 'fixed' or 'free' are not sufficient for accurate
modelling. In order to improve modelling it is possible to:
introduce spring stiffnesses and masses on the exterior freedoms to
represent the effects of the remaining structure,
automatically reduce the stiffness and mass of the remaining structure to
the exterior freedoms.
Both methods use the same concept, however the first requires the user to estimate the
stiffness and mass of the remaining structure.
Once the component mode reduction has been carried out for each superelement the
residual structure can be assembled and the natural frequencies computed. At this
stage it will also be possible to automatically distribute the mass and stiffness of the
residual structure to each superelement. This is useful when computing the natural
frequency solutions for the individual superelements since it allows more accurate
interface stiffnesses and masses to be utilised. It is possible to insert spring masses
and stiffnesses into these interface variables as described above but these values could
be difficult to calculate by hand. It should also be noted that the distribution of
stiffness and mass could be carried out before any natural frequency computations are
done at the superelement level. Once this redistribution has been carried out, the
natural frequencies of the individual superelements can be computed more accurately.
Note that when interface freedoms are defined as masters on the superelements,
compatibility between the superelements is ensured. This is true even though the
eigenvectors defining the generalised variables of the individual superelements may
be incompatible. If no interface freedoms are retained in the superelement then the
relationship between the interior freedoms and the generalised coordinates is fully
defined by the eigenvectors (see equations (2.15-15) and (2.15-16)). Consequently,
compatibility has to be ensured by utilising eigenvector components of the variables
along the common interface between the two superelements.
2.15.8 Component Eigen-Analysis

The eigen-problem for a superelement is governed by the following equation
( K ff M ff ) f = 0
(2.15-13)
If q eigen-solutions (, ) where i=1,...,q are obtained from the solution of this

equation, it is possible to relate the free variables (f) of the superelement ( a s , a m ) to
the modal (or generalised) coordinates a q by
122
Analysis Procedures
LMa OP = LM OP a
Na Q MN PQ
s
sq
mq
(2.15-14)
2.15.9 Component Mode Reduction

In order to introduce the generalised coordinates into the complete structure it is
necessary to evaluate the enhanced stiffness and mass matrices of the superelements
that correspond to these degrees of freedom. These are evaluated by recognising that
we wish to represent the response for the internal (or omitted) freedoms in terms of
the master freedoms as well as the generalised freedoms. This representation can be
written as
a s = G sm a m + G sq a q
(2.15-15)
It remains to evaluate the matrices G sm and G sq required for this equation and to
use these to transform the governing equations (2.15-1) and (2.15-13) into a form that
only uses the master freedoms and generalised coordinates.
From the static reduction equation (2.15-14) we have already determined
G sm = K ss1 K sm
(2.15-16)
By substituting equation (2.15-14) into equation (2.15-15) we obtain
sq a q = G sm mq a q + G sq a q
(2.15-17)
and since a q is independent this equation results in
G sq = sq G sm mq
(2.15-18)
This makes it possible to form a transformation matrix T(s+m)(m+q)
relating ( a s ,
a m ) to ( a s , a q ) defined as
LMa OP = LG
Na Q MN I
s
sm
OPLM OP
QN Q
G sq a m
aq
0
(2.15-19)
which can be used to compute the reduced stiffness and mass matrices which
adequately represent the characteristics of the superelement.
The transformations can be written generally as
123
Z$ ( m+ q )( m+ q ) = T (Ts+ m )( m+ q ) Z ff T ( s+ m )( m+ q )
for any matrix Z ,
T
b$ ( m+ q ) = T ( s+ m )( m+ q ) b( s+ m )
for any vector b .

(2.15-20)
It should be noted at this point that if no generalised coordinates exist in the problem
then equation (2.15-15) reduces to equation (2.15-3), noting that for natural frequency
analysis the external loads are zero. This equation was obtained in the static reduction
and therefore the static properties of the structure will be properly represented at the
exterior degrees of freedom. Using equations (2.15-20) we obtain the following
reduced matrices for a superelement
reduced stiffness matrix
LM K
MN
mm
+ K ms G sm
G sq K ss G sq
OP
PQ
(2.15-21)
Note that equation (2.15-16) has been used to zero the off diagonal terms.
reduced mass matrix
LMG
MN
T
sm
M ss G sm + G sm M sm + M ms G sm + M mm
G sm M ss G sq + M ms G sq
G sq M ss G sm + G sq M sm
T
G sq M ss G sq
(2.15-22)
reduced damping matrix (for dynamics)
LMG
MN
T
sm
C ss G sm + G sm C sm + C ms G sm + C mm
T
G sq C ss G sm + G sq C sm
T
G sm C ss G sq + C ms G sq
T
G sq C ss G sq
(2.15-23)
OP
PQ
reduced load vector (for dynamics)
LMG P + P
MN G P
T
sm
sq
OP
PQ
(2.15-24)
These matrices fully represent the superelement characteristics and can be assembled
with the residual structure in order to obtain the solution for the full structure.
124
OP
PQ
Analysis Procedures
2.15.10 User Modal Data

The reduced mass and stiffness matrices for a component used within a component
modal reduction can be computed from frequencies and mode shapes supplied by the
user. This modal response may be obtained from experiment or some other technique.
The reduced mass and stiffness matrices that are computed from this user modal data
can be combined with other reduced matrices (obtained from superelements or more
user modal data) to obtain natural frequencies of the larger structural model.
The receptance (frequency response function) of a modal model is defined as [E1]
1
= 2 2 T
where
(2.15-25)
is the receptance frequency response function matrix,
normalised mode shape,
is the mass
is the whole structure frequency of vibration and
is
the component frequency of vibration.

The receptance matrix must not be rank-deficient so that its inverse does exist. In
order for this condition to be satisfied, it is necessary that the number of modes
included in the modal model is at least as great as the number of boundary freedoms
used to describe that particular component.
For a component A, equation (2.15-25) can be written as
A =
nn
2A 2 T
(2.15-26)
nm
mm mn
where n is the number of freedoms and m is the number of modes. The inverse of the
receptance matrix is then
A1 = T 2A 2
A
(2.15-27)
where
T
T
A = ( ) 1
A
(2.15-28)
mn mn mm
and it is assumed n is less than or equal to m. The impedance matrix can therefore be
expressed in the form:
Z A = A1 = K A 2 M A
(2.15-29)
125

where
K A = A 2A A
T
(2.15-30)
and
M A = A A = ( A A ) 1
T
(2.15-31)
The reduced stiffness K A and mass M A matrices for a component A can, thus, be
computed from the natural frequencies and mass normalised eigenvectors via
equations (2.15-30) and (2.15-31) respectively.
2.16 Activation and Deactivation Of Elements

This facility is sometimes referred to as 'birth and death' and is used for modelling a
staged construction process such as excavation/tunnelling. To achieve this simulation
process elements are removed and/or introduced as the analysis progresses. All
elements are defined at the outset but may be activated or deactivated as necessary. A
deactivated element remains in the solution with a scaled down stiffness matrix so
that it has little effect on surrounding elements. If an element is to be deactivated, any
internal forces that exist in that element prior to deactivation are stored for
redistribution. When an element is activated it is introduced with updated geometry in
an unstressed/unstrained state (unless initial values are defined) and strains are
incremented from the time at which elements are activated.
This facility may be used with linear and nonlinear materials, in static and implicit
dynamic analyses and with creep and damage models. However, elements cannot be
activated or deactivated in the following circumstances:
In field analyses.
In explicit dynamics analyses.
In Fourier analyses.
When using updated Lagrangian or Eulerian geometric nonlinearity.
Elements adjacent to slideline surfaces cannot be activated or deactivated.
2.16.1 Basic Assumptions

An assembly of elements is subjected to an applied load so that an internal stress field
exists. The system is in equilibrium if the applied loading is balanced by the internal
forces in the elements. The out of balance nodal force vector (or residual) is given by:
( t ) = R i ( t ) R e( t )
(2.16-1)
where:
126
Analysis Procedures
(t )
= residual nodal force vector at time t
Ri ( t ) = nodal forces 'equivalent' to the internal stress state at time t

Re( t ) = external nodal loading at time t
for equilibrium:
(t ) = 0
(2.16-2)
If an element is subsequently deactivated in a system which is in equilibrium a force

imbalance will be created. This residual force exists because the internal forces in
neighbouring elements will no longer be balanced by the internal forces in elements
which have been removed. In a 'birth and death' facility it is possible to control the
way in which this residual force is redistributed in the remaining element mesh. In
addition, the subsequent introduction of elements in an unstressed/unstrained state is
permitted.
Consider the equilibrium of an assembly after the removal of elements (external
loading remains constant):
( t +1) = Ri ( t +1) Re( t +1)
(2.16-3)
There is now a force imbalance in the system as:
Ri ( t +1) = Ri ( t ) Rr ( t )
(2.16-4)
Re( t +1) = Re( t )
(2.16-5)
where
Rr ( t ) ' = nodal forces 'equivalent' to the internal stress state for the elements
removed (i.e. stress state just prior to removal)
For equilibrium to be maintained:
( t +1) = R i ( t +1) Re( t +1) = 0
(2.16-6)
where:
Re( t +1) = Re( t ) R r ( t )
(2.16-7)
127

If the residual forces, R r ( t ) ' , are preserved in the system the internal stress state in
the active elements will remain the same as it was prior to deactivating some of the
elements. In the case of tunnelling, it may be necessary to redistribute some of these
equilibrating forces to the remaining material prior to the introduction of a tunnel
lining. This relaxation can be achieved by redistributing a fraction of the residual
prior to activating the elements representing the tunnel lining. For example,
( t +1) = Ri ( t +1) Re( t +1) + ( t +1)
(2.16-8)
where:
Re( t +1) = Re( t ) + f Rr ( t )
(2.16-9)
( t +1) = (1 f ) Rr ( t )
(2.16-10)
f is a factor (1>f>0) which dictates the fraction of residual to be redistributed to the

unexcavated material prior to the introduction of the tunnel lining while the residual
force in the system is now given by
. The remaining residual force, , can now
be redistributed in the final assembly after the activation of elements representing the
tunnel lining:
( t +2 ) = Ri ( t +2 ) Re( t +2 )
(2.16-11)
where:
Re( t + 2 ) = Re( t +1) (1 f ) Rr ( t )
(2.16-12)
At convergence all residual forces will be distributed:
( t +2 ) = 0
(2.16-13)
It should be noted that residual forces only exist at the boundary nodes between active
and deactivated elements. All internal forces and loading at nodes which exist solely
on deactivated elements will be zero.
128
Geometric Nonlinearity
3 Geometric
Nonlinearity
3.1 Introduction
Four geometrically nonlinear formulations are available in LUSAS
Total Lagrangian formulation,

Updated Lagrangian formulation,
Eulerian formulation.
Co-rotational formulation
In the Lagrangian formulations all variables are referred to a reference configuration.

This will be the undeformed configuration in what is termed Total Lagrangian, or the
configuration at the last converged solution in what is termed Updated Lagrangian. A
Lagrangian approach tends to be preferred in structural problems where it is required
to monitor the path of a particular particle through space. It is thus termed a
referential or material description. The derivation which follows applies to both Total
and Updated versions except where the differences are highlighted. The limits of
integration are carried out over the undeformed configuration for the Total approach
and the configuration at the last converged solution for the Updated approach.
In the Eulerian formulation all variables are referred to the deformed configuration. In
the past this has been preferred for fluid problems where it is required to monitor the
path of fluid through a particular control volume and not the path of one particle in its
entirety. It is thus termed a spatial description. For structural problems its use has
been limited as the deformed configuration is unknown. The formulation used in
LUSAS is not Eulerian in the strictest sense but the term is used to avoid confusion
with the Lagrangian description.
In the co-rotational formulation all strains are computed in a local frame which
follows the element as it deforms. This approach is generally applicable, but is
especially useful when used to formulate elements with rotational degrees of freedom.
At present, this formulation is available for one beam element and for all 2D and 3D
continuum elements including the solid composite elements.
129
3.2 Virtual Work Equation

The virtual work equation and its variation form the basis of the stiffness matrix and
nodal residual force vector for each of the different strain measures used in LUSAS.
Considering a set of virtual displacements
u , the work done by the external surface
tractions t and body forces f is given by
We
u t dA +
u f dV
(3.2-1)
and considering a corresponding set of virtual strains

internal stresses
Wi
the work done by the
is given by
T
dV
(3.2-2)
where and represent general strain measures and may be replaced by any
specific work conjugate strain measures. The virtual work equation can then be
written as
u T dV =
dV -
u T t dA -
u T f dV
(3.2-3)
where the left hand side represents the work done by the residual or out of balance
force vector . The variation of the virtual work equation can now be obtained by
taking the variation of equation (3.2-3). If the loading is assumed to be conservative,
the variation of the external work terms due to the surface and body loadings can be
ignored. The variation of equation (3.2-3) can then be written as
d u dV =
V
d( ) dV +
Td dV +
T d(dV)
(3.2-4)
3.3 Lagrangian Geometric Nonlinearity

The stress and strain measures utilized in Lagrangian geometric nonlinearity are the
Second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor and the Green-Lagrange strain tensor. These
stress and strain measures are referred to a reference configuration, which is the
undeformed configuration in Total Lagrangian analysis, or the configuration at the
last converged solution in Updated Lagrangian analysis.
The salient property of these tensors is that their components are invariant under rigid
body rotation of the material, i.e. they remain constant for rigid body rotation of the
130
material. They are therefore objective and suitable for large deformation analysis
where the configuration of the body is continuously changing.
However, a disadvantage of using Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses is that, for general
motions, they have limited physical meaning and are therefore not as easy to interpret
as Cauchy stresses.
3.3.1 Green-Lagrange Strain-Displacement Relationship

The Green-Lagrange strain measure is defined as
ds2 - dS2
2dS2
E =
(3.3-1)
where dS is the length of a vector dX in the reference configuration and ds is the

length of the corresponding vector dx in the deformed configuration. Equation (3.3-1)
can be written in tensor notation in terms of displacement gradients as
E ij =
LM
MN
u j
1 u i
u k u k
+
+
2 X j
X i
X i X j
OP
PQ
(3.3-2)
Equation (3.3-2) is exact for arbitrary large deformations. For the specific case of the
3-D continuum strains, equation (3.3-2) becomes
R|
||
S|
||
T
xx
yy
zz
xy
yz
zx
R| u U| R| 12 LM Xu OP + 12 LM Xv OP + 12 LM Xw OP U|
|| N Q N Q N Q ||
X
|
|
v
U| |Y | | 1 LM u OP + 1 LM v OP + 1 LM w OP |
|| ||w || || 21 NLYu QO 12 NLYv OQ 12 LNwY OQ ||
V| = |S| Zu v |V| + |S| 2 MNZ PQ + 2 MNZ PQ + 2 MN Z PQ |V|
|| ||Yv + wX || || Xu Yu + Xv Yv + Xw wY ||
W |Z + Y | | Yu Zu + Yv Zv + wY wZ |
|| w + u || || u u v v w w ||
TX Z W |T Z X + Z X + Z X |W
2
(3.3-3)
where all derivatives are evaluated with respect to the reference configuration.
The specific form of (3.3-3) is given for each element in Section 6.
131

The standard finite element strain-displacement matrix is formed by the discretisation
of (3.3-3) giving
1
E = Bo a + A
2
(3.3-4)
where Bo is a matrix of suitable shape function terms, a is the discretised nodal
displacement vector, and A and
are a matrix and vector of slopes respectively
whose product forms the nonlinear part of equation (3.3-3).

The vector of slopes is defined as
= Ga
(3.3-5)
where G is a matrix of suitable shape function terms.

The variation of the Green-Lagrange strain-displacement relationship may be defined
by taking the variation of equation (3.3-4) as
dE = B da + A d
(3.3-6)
similarly the virtual variation may be defined as
E = B a + A
(3.3-7)
and finally the variation of the virtual variation may be defined by taking the variation
of equation (3.3-7) as
d( E ) = dA
(3.3-8)
3.3.2 Constitutive Relationship

The constitutive model for the material generally defines the relationship between the
true stress and the logarithmic strain.
The elastic material description used with the Lagrangian formulations is
dS = D dE
(3.3-9)
where D is the infinitesimal elastic modulus matrix.

Provided that the deformation involves large displacements and rotations but small
strains, (3.3-9) is a natural description of the material response. This is a consequence
of the invariance of the stresses and strains under rigid body rotation.
132
The invariance of the stresses also implies that any material description that has been
developed for infinitesimal displacement analysis using engineering stress and strain
measures may be employed directly in a Lagrangian large deformation analysis with
Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses and Green-Lagrange strains, provided that the strains
are small. Therefore nonlinear material models, e.g. elasto-plastic models, may be
utilized directly for both Total and Updated Lagrangian analysis.
3.3.3 Tangent Stiffness Matrix

The tangent stiffness matrix is derived from the variation of the virtual work equation.
By substitution of equations (3.3-6) and (3.3-8), and noting that the volume remains
constant, equation (3.2-4) may be discretised as
aT
da = a
a
T
T
G S$ G + B D B dV da
(3.3-10)
where the matrix B defined as
B = Bo + A G
(3.3-11)
$ is the stress matrix [Z1]. Therefore from (3.3-10) the tangent stiffness matrix
and S
may be identified as
KT =
G S$ G dV +
B D B dV
(3.3-12)
Note. If a constitutive relationship appropriate for large strains had been utilized in
(3.3-9), then equation (3.3-11) would have included a term for the variation of the D
matrix which in turn would have resulted in an additional term in the tangent stiffness
matrix.
3.3.4 Nodal Residual Force Vector

The nodal residual force vector is derived from the virtual work equation. By
substitution of equation (3.3-8), equation (3.2-3) may be discretised as
a T N dV = a T B S dV - a T R
V
(3.3-13)
where the matrix B is given by equation (3.3-11) and R is a vector of discretised

nodal external loads. Cancellation of the nodal displacements identifies the nodal
residual force vector as
133
B S dV - R
(3.3-14)
The external force vector R may contain non-conservative loads, i.e. loads that vary
with structural deformation e.g. body forces and surface tractions.
In LUSAS, deformation dependent loading cannot be represented by the Total
Lagrangian formulation, however they may be approximately represented for the
Updated Lagrangian formulation, by integrating the forces at time t+t in the
configuration at time t as
zc
Body forces:
t + t
tV
zc
Surface forces:
t + t
tV
T t + t
f dV
T t + t
(3.3-15)
t dV
(3.3-16)
Note. Non-conservative loading is only available for two and three dimensional
continuum elements when using this formulation.
3.3.5 Strain Computation

Since equation (3.3-2) is exact for arbitrary large deformations, the incremental strain
( i)
may be computed using
E
where
( i)
t+ t
t+ t
(i)
- tE
(3.3-17)
(i)
E is the current iterative strain,
and E is the Green-Lagrange strain at time t.
3.3.6 Stress Evaluation

( i)
For linear materials, the incremental stresses S

are evaluated using the
generalised Hooke's law and the incremental Green-Lagrange strains so that
( i)
= D E
(i)
(3.3-18)
The iterative Second Piola-Kirchhoff stress at time t+t is then updated as

t + t
(i)
( i)
= t S + S
(3.3-19)
134
t
where S are the Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses at time t.

Note. For nonlinear material models, (3.3-19) is replaced with the relevant stress
update algorithm [Section 4].
3.3.7 Updating the Reference Configuration

In the Total Lagrangian formulation (TLG) the reference configuration remains the
undeformed configuration during the entire solution. In the Updated Lagrangian
formulation (ULG) the reference configuration is updated at the end of each
increment. This update consists of three separate operations
(i) COORDINATE UPDATE
The structural geometry is updated by adding the incremental displacement vector

a to the nodal coordinates as
t + t
x = t x + a
(3.3-20)
where x are the nodal coordinates at the end of the last converged increment.
(ii) STRESS UPDATE
The Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses referred to the old reference configuration are
transformed to Cauchy stresses, i.e. stresses referred to the current configuration.
Before further deformation, these are equivalent to the Second Piola-Kirchhoff
stresses in the new reference configuration.
Consideration of the mapping between the Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses and
Green-Lagrange strains enables [B1] the new Cauchy stress to be computed from
t + t
t + t
t
FT t + t S F
(3.3-21)
where F is the deformation gradient defined as
t + t x
F =
tx
(3.3-22)
and the ratio of the mass density is computed as
1
.
Det F
Note. Equation (3.3-21) is only valid for small strains.
135

If the element constitutive relationship is formed using global stresses, omission of
equation (3.3-21) would limit the formulation to small rotations as well as small
strains, as (3.3-21) rotates the stresses from the old configuration to the current
configuration. However, if the constitutive relationship is defined in terms of a local
convected coordinate system, then the stresses will be rotated as a consequence of the
geometry update and the omission of equation (3.3-21) will lead to a limitation of
small strains only.
(iii) THICKNESS UPDATE
For plane stress situations the thickness should be updated due to the effect of
Poisson's ratio. For elastic materials the out of plane strain increment is defined as
t + t
-
1 -
E zz =
gd
t + t
E xx +
t + t
E yy
(3.3-23)
or for isochoric plasticity

t + t
EZZ =
b gd
t + t
Exx + t + tE yy
t + tE p xx t + tE p yy
(3.3-24)
t +t
However,
EZZ may also be defined in terms of the thicknesses at time t and
time t+t, i.e.
t + t
t + t
E zz =
h2 - th2
2t h 2
(3.3-25)
Therefore, the thickness may be updated as

t + t
h = t h 1 + 2t + t E zz
1/ 2
(3.3-26)
3.4 Eulerian Geometric Nonlinearity

3.4.1 The Logarithmic Strain Measure
The logarithmic strain or natural strain tensor is utilised with the Cauchy stress tensor.
This stress and strain measure is related to the current configuration and updated
during each iteration.
136
Although the Cauchy stress tensor is not objective, incremental objectivity is obtained
by removing the rigid body rotation. This is achieved by either using polar
decomposition and a rate formulation to evaluate the Cauchy stresses or using a rate
formulation to integrate the rotated strain increment. A major advantage of this
formulation is that the stress and strain measures naturally describe the material
response. In this manner the infinitesimal elastic and inelastic material models may be
used directly in the presence of large strains.
The logarithmic or natural strain measure is defined in terms of the change in length
dS per unit instantaneous length S as
dS
S
d =
(3.4-1)
and the total logarithmic strain

length of the fibre as
S0
may then be determined by integration along the
dS
S
dS = ln
= ln
S
So
where ln denotes the natural logarithm,

stretch of the material.
(3.4-2)
So is the fibre original length and is the
In 3D, the principal stretches may be evaluated from the right stretch tensor as
U =
(3.4-3)
where
= [N1 , N 2 , N 3 ]
(3.4-4)
and N i are the direction cosines of the principal stretch directions with respect to the
global and hence, unrotated, configurations.
The tensor is defined as diag [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] where is the magnitude of the
principal stretch in the
N i direction.
The direction of the principal stretch and the principal strain coincide
(3.4-5)
where is a diagonal tensor containing the principal logarithmic strains. These are
evaluated as
137
i = ln i
(3.4-6)
The total logarithmic strain may also be evaluated [M1] by integrating the rate of
deformation tensor D over some time interval dt
tO
D dt
(3.4-7)
where D comprises the symmetric part of the velocity gradient defined as
LM
MN
1 v
D =
+
2 x
LM v OP OP
N x Q PQ
T
(3.4-8)
Integration of the rate of deformation tensor (or velocity strain tensor) is performed at
the midpoint configuration, which provides a second order appproximation to the
logarithmic strain.
3.4.2 Polar Decomposition

The polar decomposition algorithm is used to isolate the rigid body rotation from the
stretch so that the constitutive relationships may be formulated in the material system.
This is achieved by decomposing the deformation gradient tensor F to give
F = RU
(3.4-9)
where R is a rotation tensor that defines the rigid body rotation of the principal
directions of strain, and U is the right stretch tensor that completely defines the
deformation of the material particles.
The right stretch tensor is evaluated by noting that [M1]
1/ 2
U = C
where C = F F
(3.4-10)
1/ 2
Since C is a second order tensor, the eigenvectors of C

1/ 2
C and the eigenvalues of C
are identical to those of
are the roots of the eigenvalues of C .
Therefore the eigen-problem
cC - Ih N = 0
2
(3.4-11)
138
may be solved for i , the principal stretches and N i , the corresponding
eigenvectors which define the principal directions of strain. The right stretch tensor
U is then given by
U = NN
(3.4-12)
where is a diagonal matrix containing
R = FU
i . The rotation tensor is
-1
(3.4-13)
3.4.3 The Rotated Logarithmic Strain Formulation

The Updated Lagrangian Hencky formulation [B1] or rotated logarithmic strain
algorithm is utilised. The algorithm is a total formulation in that no integrations
including spin tensors are required. This permits large incremental steps and,
furthermore, eliminates the accumulation of strain energy when integrating stresses
through a closed elastic path.
3.4.3.1 Tangent stiffness matrix
Equation (3.2-4) may be discretised as
aT
da = a
a
T
T
T
B $$ B + G $ G + B D B dV da
(3.4-14)
where $$ and $ are stress matrices [H3] and B is evaluated in the current
deformed configuration.
Note. A stiffness contribution due to the variation of the volumetric strain has been
neglected in (3.4-14) as it leads to a non-symmetric tangent matrix.
The tangent stiffness matrix may be identified from (3.4-14) as
KT =
T
B $$ B dV +
G $ G dV +
B D B dV
(3.4-15)
Note. By default, the first term in 3.4-15 is neglected. This improves the convergence
rate of the iteration process when the rigid body rotation is removed exactly in the
strain computations.
139

3.4.3.2 Stress update algorithm
The rotated logarithmic strain procedure is implemented as follows
t
1. Form the deformation gradient and deformation tensors F , C

2. Evaluate the rotation tensor using polar decomposition
t
o
R = ot Ft U 1
(3.4-16)
3. Transform the stress and strain to the unrotated system

t
R = ot R T t ot R
(3.4-17)
R = ot R T t ot R
(3.4-18)
4. Update the total displacements

t + t
u = u + u
(3.4-19)
5. Form the deformation gradient and deformation tensor at time t+t and use the
t+ t
polar decomposition theorem to evaluate

u
6. Form the strain tensor from the stretch tensor
t+ t
R = T and
d i
ii = ln i1/2 , ij = 0
(3.4-20)
7. Compute the strain increment in the unrotated configuration
R =
t+ t
R - t R
(3.4-21)
8. Compute the stress increment in the unrotated configuration
R = D R
(3.4-22)
9. Update the current stress in the unrotated configuration

t+ t
R = t R + R
(3.4-23)
10. Rotate to the Cauchy stresses for internal forces and output
t+ t
t+ t
o
R t+ t R t+ ot R T
(3.4-24)
11. Rotate the total strain for output

t+ t
t+ t
o
R t+ t R t+ ot R T
(3.4-25)
140
3.4.4 Stress Rate Formulation

For stress rate formulations, the stresses are integrated incrementally in time as
t+ t
= t + & t
(3.4-26)
in which the dot denotes the material time derivative. Because of the non-objective
nature of this derivative, various stress rates have been introduced which do satisfy
the objectivity requirements. Two measures are used.
The Green-Naghdi rate, for which the material behaviour is treated in an
unrotated configuration.
The Jaumann rate, for which the material stress rates are accounted for by
applying approximate spin terms.
3.4.4.1 The Green-Naghdi formulation
At each time t+t, the rotation matrix
t
o
R is evaluated from ot F using the polar
decomposition theorem. This matrix is then used to rotate the current total stress into
the unrotated R configuration as
t
R = ot R T t ot R
(3.4-27)
The deformation gradient is then updated to the midpoint configuration by integrating

the deformation gradient rate over half the current time step
t+ t/2
o
F = ot F + F& t / 2
from which the rotation matrix
(3.4-28)
t+ t/2
o
R is computed as before. The current strain
increments are evaluated from the velocity strain and may be rotated at this midpoint
configuration as
R =
t+ t/2
o
R T t+ t/2o R
(3.4-29)
whence, the total strain is updated in the unrotated configuration

t+ t/2
R =
t- t/2
R + R
(3.4-30)
The total stress is also updated in the unrotated configuration

t+ t
R = t R + D R
(3.4-31)
141

where D is the material constitutive matrix. The deformation gradient matrix is
updated to the current configuration as
t+ t
o
t+ t/2
F =
F + F& t / 2
and the rotation matrix
t+ t
o
(3.4-32)
R computed. Finally, the new Cauchy stress is rotated
back to the current rotated configuration

t+ t
t+ t
t+ t
t+ t
RT
(3.4-33)
The total strain measure may also be rotated in a similar manner for
output/restart/plotting purposes as
t+ t/2
t+ t/2
t+ t/2
t+ t/2
RT
(3.4-34)
3.4.4.2 The Jaumann formulation

The Jaumann rate has also been implemented, since
it is significantly more computationally efficient than the Green-Naghdi rate,
it does not perform poorly relative to the Green-Naghdi rate for strains less
than approximately 0.4.
Using the Jaumann rate in its simplest form, the stress at time t+t is evaluated using
t+ t
+ & t
t
& t + t
& T + & t
= +
J
(3.4-35)
& is the spin or vorticity

where & J is the Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress, and
evaluated from the rate of deformation. The stress update procedure is as follows
& at t + t / 2
& and spin tensor
1. Compute the strain rate
2. Compute the Jaumann increment of Cauchy stress from
t+ t/2
&
& J = D t+ t/2
(3.4-36)
3. Update the stress at time t+t as

t+ t
= t + t+ t/2 r + t+ t/2 & J
(3.4-37)
where
142
t+ t/2
r =
t+ t/2
t+ t/2
& t + t
&T
t+ t/2
(3.4-38)

As the constitutive relationship is formed using logarithmic strains and Cauchy
stresses, the generalised Hooke's law may be utilized, so that
d J = D d
(3.4-39)
where D is the infinitesimal modulus matrix and
d J is the Jaumann variation of
the Cauchy stress.

Similarly, any nonlinear constitutive model formulated with engineering stress and
strain measures is valid, even in the presence of large strains.
3.4.6 Nodal Residual Force Vector

The nodal residual force vector is derived from the virtual equation, so that equation
(3.2-3) may be discretised as
B dV
(3.4-40)
where the matrix B is evaluated in the deformed configuration and the
is a vector
of Cauchy stresses.
The external force vector q may contain non-conservative loads i.e. loads that vary
with structural deformation, e.g. body forces and surface tractions. These are
represented by integrating the forces at time t+t in the current iterative configuration
at time t+t as
Body Forces:
Surface Forces:
z
z
gc
gc
t+ t
t+ t V i-1
t+ t V i-1
t+ t
h
uh
u
T t+ t
T t+ t
f dV
(3.4-41)
t dV
(3.4-42)
Note that non-conservative loading is only available for use with two and three
dimensional continuum elements when using this formulation.
143
3.4.7 Updating the Reference Configuration

In the Eulerian formulation all variables are referred to the current iterative
configuration, consequently the coordinates and thickness must be updated on each
iteration.
3.4.7.1 Coordinate update
The structural geometry is updated by adding the iterative displacement vector a
to the nodal coordinates as
t+ t
bg
x i = x + a b i g
t
big
(3.4-43)
where x are the nodal coordinates at the end of the last converged increment.
3.4.7.2 Thickness update
For plane stress situations, the thickness should be updated due to the effect of
Poisson's ratio. For elastic materials the out of plane strain is defined as
bzzig =
-
bxxig + byyig
1-
b ge
(3.4-44)
or for isochoric plasticity
bzzig =
-
bxxig + byyig - pxxb i g - pyyb i g
1-
b ge
(3.4-45)
big
However, zz may also be defined in terms of the thickness at time t and time
t+t, i.e. using a mid-point rule
bzzig =
LM
N
1 h b i g
+
2 th
h b i g
t
h + h b i g
OP
Q
(3.4-46)
rearrangement of (3.4-46) gives the thickness update as
bg
LM
N
LM e
N
t + t h i = t h bzzig + 1 + bzzig
144
j OQP OPQ
2 1/ 2
(3.4-47)
3.4.8 Approach based on the left stretch tensor

The Eulerian formulation given above may be recast by consistently applying
(spatial) Cauchy (or Kirchhoff) stress tensor and the spatial logarithmic strains
stemming from the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient
where
F =V R
is the so-called left stretch tensor, rather than from the polar decomposition
F = RU , given earlier in Section 3.4.2. In some sense, such a formulation is neater,
as it circumvents unrotating the Cauchy stresses during the update and rotating the
logarithmic strains obtained from the right stretch tensor for output purposes. See
steps (iii) and (vii)-(xi) in Section 3.4.3.2. Furthermore, such a set-up provides a
framework, in which it is easier to linearise the governing nonlinear equations and
obtain a fully consistent tangent stiffness matrix. This approach is currently available
for two 2D continuum elements.
3.4.8.1 Polar decomposition using the left stretch tensor
In the present approach, the deformation gradient tensor F is decomposed to give
F = VR
where
(3.4-48)
is a rotation tensor that defines the rigid body rotation of the principal
directions of strain, and

is the left stretch tensor, which is defined in the Eulerian
(spatial) triad. The above decomposition of the deformation gradient may be viewed
as rotation followed by stretching, rather than the stretching followed by rotation,
given in Section 3.4.2.
The left stretch tensor is given as [C16]
1/ 2
V = b
where b = F F
(3.4-49)
is the so-called left Cauchy-Green tensor, and the eigen-problem
c b - Ih n = 0
2
(3.4-50)
may be solved for i , the principal stretches and n i , the corresponding eigenvectors
which define the principal directions of strain in the spatial coordinate system. The
left stretch tensor V is then given by
V = nn
(3.4-51)
145

where is again a diagonal matrix containing
obtained as
i .
The rotation tensor is then
-1
R = V F
(3.4-52)
3.4.8.2 Stress update in terms of Kirchhoff stresses

The most straightforward implementation of the present approach utilises Kirchhoff
(nominal) stress , rather than the Cauchy (real) stress . The two stress tensors are
related via
= J , where J
denotes the determinant of the deformation gradient
F . The actual stress update algorithm is performed as follows

1. Update the total displacements
t + t
u = u + u
(3.4-53)
2. Form the deformation gradient and deformation tensor at time t+t and use the
polar decomposition theorem to evaluate
t+ t
t+ t
V to get principal stretches and directions of the

3. Perform eigen analysis of
Eulerian triad
4. Update the current Kirchhoff stress on the basis of step 3 and the actual
constitutive model
5. Form the strain tensor from the stretch tensor (only needed for output purposes)
t+ t
= n n T and
d i
ii = ln i1/2 , ij = 0
(3.4-54)
6. Scale Kirchhoff stress to get Cauchy stress for output

t+ t
1
J
t+ t
(3.4-55)
3.4.8.3 Internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix

The nodal internal force vector is derived from the virtual work equation, so that
equation (3.2-3) may be discretised as
B dV0
(3.4-56)
where the matrix B is evaluated in the deformed configuration,

Kirchhoff stress and V0 is the initial volume of the element..
146
is a vector of
Equation (3.2-4) may be discretised as
aT
da = a
a
V0
T
T
G $ G + B D tTK B dV0 da
(3.4-57)
where $ = J $ , and $ is the stress matrix [H3] and B is evaluated in the current
deformed configuration.
The tangent stiffness matrix may then be identified as
KT =
V0
G G dV0 +
V0
B D tTK B dV0
(3.4-58)
where D tTK is tangent constitutive matrix associated with the Truesdell rate of
Kirchhoff stress. This matrix is obtained by rotating the tangent constitutive matrix
associated with the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress D tTKE , which is defined in
principal directions of the Eulerian triad into the base (spatial) triad. Matrix D tTKE
depends on the actual constitutive model applied.
3.5 Co-Rotational Geometric Nonlinearity

The co-rotational approach provides a simple expedient for avoiding the complexities
of nonlinear mechanics. At present, this type of formulation is available for beam
element BTS3 and QPM4M, QPN4M and HX8M continuum elements. The
formulation is also available for the HX16C solid composite element. In this
approach, strains are expressed with respect to a follower frame which is 'fixed' to the
element and rotates with it in 3-D space. In the case of a beam element, this allows
standard linear beam theory to be used with respect to the follower frame. If small
strains are assumed then engineering stress and strain measures are appropriate for
this formulation. For a continuum, the idea is to separate the rotations from the
stretches using the polar decomposition theorem and, as for the beam, the formulation
allows the use of linear elements within a co-rotational framework.
The nonlinearity of the system is introduced by the rotation of the follower frame or
local axes. This approach is in contrast to total or updated Lagrangian formulations
where the reference configuration used to establish the governing equations is fixed
as the initial or last equilibrium configuration respectively.
147
3.5.1 Co-Rotational Formulation for the Beam Element

3.5.1.1 Updating the follower frame or local axes
The co-rotational approach is especially useful for formulating elements with
rotational degrees of freedom. The co-rotational concept depends on a suitable
algorithm for updating the local axes as the element deforms. In two dimensional
space this problem is trivial as rotations may simply be summed as vectors to define
the current orientation of the local axes. In three dimensions the problem is
complicated by the non-vectorial nature of large rotations. There are numerous
methods of updating a set of axes in three dimensional space [S5]; the method
adopted in LUSAS involves the use of Euler parameters which are updated using
quarternion algebra.
Any set of local axes may be related to the global axes by means of a rotational
'pseudovector' [A6]. This actually means that if a rigid body is rotated into a new
configuration about a fixed point, then there is only one line passing through that
point (i.e. the axis of the rotation) which remains invariant during the motion.
This may be stated mathematically as
e = Re
(3.5-1)
where R represents the local axes and e the axis of rotation or unit vector in the
direction of the pseudovector. Defining the pseudovector as
= e
(3.5-2)
Argyris [A6] has shown that the local axes may be expressed as
R =
LMI +
MN
sin
S ( ) +
c1 - cos h S( )Sb gOP
PQ (3.5-3)
2
where S ( ) represents the skew symmetric matrix of the vector
LM 0
Sb g = M
MN
- 3
0
3
2
OP
P
0 PQ
2
1
(3.5-4)
The values i , i=1,3 represent the global components of the pseudovector . It

should be noted that these components must not be treated like the components of a
vector.
148
The Euler parameters relating to equation (3.5-2) may be expressed as
q =
R|S cos c / 2h U|V

|Tsin c / 2h e|W
(3.5-5)
Note that Euler parameters form a unit quarternion and as the name implies there are
four components, one scalar and 3 sine scaled components of the rotation
pseudovector. (3.5-5) can therefore be expressed as
q =
RSq UV
Tq W
o
(3.5-6)
Using (3.5-5) and (3.5-6) in (3.5-3) allows the local axes to be expressed in terms of
Euler parameters
bg
R = q o 2 - q T q I + 2qq T + 2q 0 S q
(3.5-7)
The local axes representing the current configuration are therefore not updated
directly but are defined by an updated set of Euler parameters. It is the updating of the
Euler parameters which involves the use of quarternion algebra, in particular, the
quarternion product is required. If the Euler parameters qo relate an original set of
local axes to the global frame and qi is formed from an iterative rotation increment
then the updated parameters are given by the quarternion product
qu = qiqo
(3.5-8)
The quarternion product may be expanded to give
qu = qi 0qo0 + qo0 qi + qi 0 qo + qi qo - qi T qo
(3.5-9)
In the initial configuration the local axes are derived from nodal geometry. The initial
Euler parameters are then extracted from these axes using an algorithm due to
Spurrier [S6]. The parameters are then updated as the solution proceeds so that the
local axes may be defined in the current configuration.
The use of Euler parameters and quarternion algebra appears to be the most efficient
and singularity free approach for updating a set of local axes. More information on
this approach including details of how this method has been implemented in LUSAS
may be found in [C6].
149

3.5.1.2 Consistency and the co-rotational approach
Using the co-rotational approach it is possible to write the equilibrium equations in
terms of local variables and form the stiffness matrix with respect to the local frame.
The stiffness matrix could then be transformed to relate to the global axes and global
variables. Using this approach the variation of the transformation matrix is not taken
into account when forming the stiffness matrix. Such an approach would be
inconsistent for a co-rotational formulation since the local frame, and hence
transformation matrix is moving with the element. The importance of 'consistency' in
the derivation of the tangent stiffness is a consequence of the method chosen to solve
the nonlinear equilibrium equations, the Newton Raphson method. A consistently
derived set of equations should display a quadratic rate of convergence in the limit
when this method of solution is adopted. This means that less iterations will be
required when the solution is close to convergence. However, amore attractive benefit
is the ability of a consistently formulated element to handle larger load increments.
It appears, therefore, that although the complexities of nonlinear mechanics and the
use of more complicated strain measures are avoided, a penalty must be paid by the
inclusion of the variation of transformation matrices. The general approach taken in
LUSAS follows that described by Crisfield [C7] and may be outlined as follows
The virtual variation of strains relative to the local frame are related to virtual
variations in global nodal displacements by a strain-displacement matrix B . This
matrix implicitly contains a global to local transformation matrix
= Ba
(3.5-10)
where are local engineering strains and a are global nodal displacements. Using
(3.5-10) in the virtual work equation (3.2-3) allows the out of balance force vector to
be written as
B P dV - R
(3.5-11)
P represents the local internal forces which are work conjugate to . A consistent
derivation of the stiffness matrix will now involve taking the variation of all terms in
(3.5-11). Assuming conservative loading this gives
d =
zn
V
BTdP + dBT P dV
(3.5-12)
where the first term on the right hand side of (3.5-12) gives rise to the material or
linear tangent stiffness and the second term the geometric stiffness. The derivation of
these matrices is quite involved and further details of this procedure relating to beam
150
elements may be found in [C6], [C7] and [C8]. Non-conservative loading is available
with this formulation.
3.5.2 Co-Rotational Formulation for Continuum Elements

The co-rotational technique defines a procedure from which the standard linear
element is embedded into a formulation that applies an element-attached local coordinate frame. The local frame continuously moves and rotates with the element.
The geometric nonlinearity is then incorporated via the rotation of this local system.
The technique when used for a continuum allows the separation of rotations and
stretches by the use of the polar decomposition. In this way, rotations (mainly
emanating from rigid body movements) and stretches can be disconnected and
therefore treated independently. The resulting formulation can be suitably employed
in analysis involving large displacements and large rotations (the formulation can also
adequately be used to analyse large strains using hyperelastic materials). However,
the current procedure does not follow a conventional continuum mechanics approach
in which the polar decomposition is applied at each Gauss point but instead the
decomposition is only applied at the centroid of the element.
If we assume that the local element stiffness matrix is established, we can include this
element into a co-rotational framework. The first step is to determine the local nodal
co-ordinates for the element. This can be obtained via the translation of the origin of
the global system to node 1 of the element, i.e.,
1
X i = X i - X1
(3.5-13)
where X i are the original local co-ordinates of node i , X i are the original global
co-ordinates of node i and X1 are the original global co-ordinates of node 1. Note
that throughout this section the original configuration is expressed in upper case
characters whereas the current configuration is written in lower case.
Now, it is necessary to establish the local axes within the nonlinear process. This
local frame is used to map the initial configuration of the element onto its final
configuration. The approach used is to compute the rotation tensor R , as defined in
(3.4-9), at the centroid which gives the rotation from the original i1, i 2 , i3 frame into
the current e1, e2 , e3 frame (co-rotating base vectors), as shown in fig.3.5-1, hence
producing the desired local co-ordinate system. The demonstration of the assertion
given above can be seen in [M4] and [M5]. The rotation matrix is therefore given by
R = [e1, e2 , e3 ]
(3.5-14)
151

The 2D equivalent of the above can be obtained simply by eliminating the third
dimension.
The current local co-ordinates can then be expressed via
1
X i = X i + a i = R x i - x1 = R x i1
(3.5-15)
where a i is the local displacement vector for the node i .

To obtain R above the polar decomposition of (3.4-9) is employed. The deformation
gradient matrix F can be calculated via the global displacement gradient vector
which is obtained from the variation
element. From
u / x
and the shape functions of the
the global displacement derivative tensor is formed and F can be
computed. The right stretch tensor U is computed with the help of (3.4-10).
In order to obtain a relationship between the variation of the local displacement and
the variation of the global displacement it is necessary to compute the differentiation
of (3.5-15) which results in
b g
a1i = R T S x i1 + R T a i = zi + R T a i
b g is the skew symmetric matrix of the vector x

variation of the `pseudovector' of rotation = b , , g .
where S x i1
Now,
has to be established. In 2D, the angle
(3.5-16)
i1
and
is the
is used to evaluate the local
frame (fig.3.5-1). It can be computed via a procedure in which the local `spin' at the
centroid is set to zero. In fact this means that defines the set of axes for which the
spin at the centroid is zero. This is equivalent to saying that
1 =
u 1
v 1
1 1
+
= A a = 0
1
1
y
x
T
(3.5-17)
1
where is the local spin at the centroid and A is a vector obtained from shape
functions. Note, however, that for a 2D analysis the rotation only involves an angle
which is a scalar, i.e., e1 =
cos , sin and e2 = -sin , cos . For a
3D case, a similar expression to that of (3.5-17) can be written but now it relates the
pseudovector
to the matrix A as
152
1T
1 = A a = 0
(3.5-18)
The differentiation of (3.5-18) above produces d and after some algebraic

manipulations, the transformation matrix T can be expressed as
a1 =
RSddiag R i - zLeA zj
MN
T
T
1T
1T
ddiag R iOPQUVW a = T a
T
(3.5-19)
At this stage the principle of virtual work is applied to derive the relationship between
local and global internal force vectors. Hence, equating the virtual work in the local
and global systems leads to
T
P = T P
(3.5-20)
where P and P are the global and local internal force vectors, respectively. The
differentiation of (3.5-20) results in the consistent tangent stiffness matrix, with the
variation of the local internal force vector leading to the standard local stiffness
matrix K1 for the linear element. The final equation can be written as
P = K T a + K a
(3.5-21)
where K T = T K1 T is the global tangent stiffness matrix and K is the initial
stress stiffness matrix. The latter is derived from the variation of the transformation
matrix T , as previously described in section 3.5.1.2.
It should be emphasised here that the stress measure used within this co-rotational
technique for continuum elements is a `non-conventional' stress type and it is difficult
to visualise [M4]. Therefore, the local Biot-type stresses applied in the formulation
should be converted into a more standard measure. The approach utilised is to
transform the local stress into Kirchhoff stress which is equivalent to Cauchy stress
but related to the original volume or configuration of the element rather than the
current volume or configuration [C11]. This can be accomplished via the definition of
the principal Kirchhoff stresses with respect to the principal Biot stresses, so that,
i = i bi
where
(3.5-22)
are the principal Kirchhoff stresses,
are the principal stretches and
bi are the principal Biot stresses. The Kirchhoff stress tensor can be written as
153
= R b U RT
(3.5-23)
1
If the U tensor is approximated via U = I + ( is the local engineering

strain tensor) and using the rotation matrix R at the centroid, an approximation for
the Kirchhoff stress can be expressed by
= R b I + 1 R T
(3.5-24)
The Kirchhoff tensor computed as above recovers its exact value for a homogeneous
stress state within the element.
Non-conservative loading is available with this formulation.
Original
Configuration
i2
Y1
Final
Configuration
e2
e1
X1
i1
X
Fig.3.5-1 Local and Global Co-ordinate Systems
3.6 General Comments

For elements in which the internal displacement field is defined exactly in terms of
nodal displacements, i.e. elements without rotational degrees of freedom, the TL, UL
and Eulerian formulations will yield identical displacements for arbitrarily large
displacements provided the strains are small.
Each formulation, however, has limitations when applied to more complex problems,
e.g. when elements with rotational degrees of freedom are used or large strains are
present. Therefore, this section provides some general comments on the applicability
of each formulation.
154
3.6.1 Total Lagrangian (TL) Formulation

The Total Lagrangian formulation is based on Green-Lagrange strains which
are only applicable to small strains.
For all beam, plate and shell elements in LUSAS, the out of plane derivatives
are linked to the rotations in radians. With this relationship, the formulation
will theoretically break down in 2-D when the rotations reach one radian. In
practice, the limiting rotation may be more severe.
In general, for 3-D problems, the non-vectorial nature and hence noncommutivity of finite rotations, causes the limitation to be much more severe,
with a limiting rotation in the order of 0.1 radians. However, the Total
Lagrangian formulation for the thick shell elements (QTS4,QTS8,TTS3,TTS6)
has been implemented in such a way that large rotations can be accounted for.
The formulation cannot be utilised with non-conservative loading.
Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses and Green-Lagrange strains are output rather
than Cauchy stresses and natural strains.
Note. For shell elements, local coordinate axes are used. Therefore the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses are a reasonable approximation to the Cauchy stresses.
3.6.2 Updated Lagrangian (UL) Formulation

The Updated Lagrangian formulation is based on Green-Lagrange strains
which are only applicable to small strains.
For all beam, plate and shell elements in LUSAS, the out of plane derivatives
are linked to the rotations in radians. With this relationship, the formulation
will theoretically break down in 2-D when the rotations in an increment reach
one radian. In practice, the limiting rotation may be more severe.
For 3-D problems, the non-vectorial nature and hence non-commutivity of
finite rotations, causes the limitation to be much more severe, with a limiting
rotation in the order of 0.1 radians per increment.
The formulation provides approximate non-conservative loading, which is
updated at the end of each increment.
Note. The stresses output for the UL formulation are the Cauchy stresses obtained
from the Second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses using (3.3-21).
3.6.3 Eulerian Formulation

The Eulerian formulation is currently only available with 2D and 3D
continuum elements.
It is applicable for large direct strains but is less accurate if large shear strains
are present.
The formulation provides non-conservative loading, which is updated at the
end of each increment.
155
3.6.4 Co-Rotational Formulation

This formulation is recommended for geometrically nonlinear problems
involving large rotations. The co-rotational formulation overcomes the
problems associated with the nonvectorial nature of large rotations in three
dimensions. Currently this formulation is available for beam element (BTS3),
and for all 2D and 3D continuum elements including the solid composites.
The co-rotational formulation for continuum elements should be used for
analyses involving rubber material models.
An option exists to specify non-conservative loading for all elements that use
the co-rotational formulation.
Note. The stresses output for the co-rotational formulation for continuum elements
are the Kirchhoff stresses obtained from the local co-rotated stresses using (3.5-24).
3.6.5 Conclusions
In general it is suggested that the TL formulation is used, unless
The elements contain rotational degrees of freedom and large rotations are
present. In this case the UL or co-rotational formulation should be more
effective.
Large strains are present. In this case the Eulerian formulation is most
effective.
Cauchy stresses are required with elements formulated with global constitutive
relationships, e.g. continuum elements. In which case either the UL or
Eulerian formulations should be employed.
Non-conservative loading is required, in which case any of the other
formulations should be employed.
Rubber materials are being used with continuum elements in which case the
co-rotational technique has to be applied.
156
Linear Elastic Models
4 Constitutive
Models
4.1 Linear Elastic Models
Within LUSAS, the continuum and resultant elastic constitutive models available are
Isotropic linear elastic (available with all elements)
Orthotropic linear elastic (available with 2D continuum, plates, shells,
axisymmetric solids and 3D solids)
Anisotropic linear elastic (available with 2D continuum, plates, shells,
axisymmetric solids and 3D solids)
In addition, rigidity or resultant modulus matrices may be defined directly for plate,
space membrane and shell elements. This permits the representation of sandwich and
voided cross-sections by defining equivalent continuous resultant moduli.
Each material type may also be used in conjunction with the thermo-elastic model,
which permits specification of temperature dependent material properties.
4.1.1 Isotropic Model

For isotropic linear elastic materials, two material properties are utilised in forming
the element modulus matrix:
Young's modulus (E),
Poisson's ratio ().
The explicit forms of the modulus matrices for each element are given in section 7.
The modulus matrices are identical for linear and geometrically nonlinear analysis.
The material properties remain constant throughout the analysis unless temperature
dependent material assignments are utilised with a varying temperature field [section
4.1.5].
157
4.1.2 Orthotropic Model

The orthotropic linear elastic constitutive model assumes that the material constants
in two or three principal directions may differ (fig.4.1-1). Therefore the number of
independent material constants required to form the modulus matrix is greater than
those for the isotropic constitutive model (typically, four for 2-D continuum elements
and nine for 3-D continuum elements).
The principal material directions are defined by either
1. an angle of orthotropy relative to the global system axes (fig.4.1-1),
2. a local material Cartesian system defined using the CARTESIAN SET command
(fig.4.1-2).
The modulus matrix is formed in the local material directions and then transformed to
the global Cartesian system before it is used in the element formulation.
The explicit forms of the modulus matrices for each element are given in section 7.
Note. The material constants are used to form a compliance matrix C which relates
the stresses to the strains
= C , so that = D , where D = C
-1
(4.1-1)
Y
y
FIG.4.1-1 DEFINITION OF AN ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL IN 2-D USING AN

ANGLE OF ORTHOTROPY
158
Y
y
Local Cartesian Set

x
Z
z
FIG.4.1-2 DEFINITION OF AN ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL IN 3-D USING A

CARTESIAN SET
Therefore the C matrix must be non-singular in order to evaluate D . This imposes
restrictions on the values assigned to the material constants [J1]. The restrictions are
given for each element in Section 7.
When using orthotropic materials, directionally dependent coefficients of thermal
expansion a may also be utilised.
The angle of orthotropy and the orientation of the Cartesian sets are independent of
deformations. Therefore, for geometrically nonlinear analysis with orthotropic
materials the Total Lagrangian formulation should be used.
159
4.1.3 Anisotropic Model

General anisotropic materials may be modelled by direct definition of each term in
the modulus matrix and thermal expansion vector
LM D
M
D =M
MM
MNsym.
1
D2
D3
.
.
.
.
D4
D5
D6
.
.
.
.
Dm
OP
PP
PP
PQ
R| U|
|
|
b g = TS V
|| . ||
|T |W
1
and
o t
(4.1-2)
where Di , i = 1, m are the upper triangular terms of the modulus matrix, i , i = 1, n
are the coefficients of thermal expansion, and n is the order of the modulus matrix so
that m = n(n+1)/2. The value of n is element dependent and the value for each
element is defined in the LUSAS Element Library.
4.1.4 Rigidity model

Rigidity or resultant modulus matrices may be defined directly. The stress resultants
are then related directly to the strains, e.g. for thin plate flexure,
M = D - o - M o
where
(4.1-3)
M = M Y , M X , M XY , M o = M Y0 , M X0 , M XY0
= Y , X , XY , o = Y0 , X0 , XY0
(4.1-4)
(4.1-5)
and the modulus matrix and coefficient of thermal expansion vector are,
LM D
D= M
MNsym.
1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
OP
PP
Q
b g
and o
b g R|S U|V
|T |W
1
T
2
=
z
3
(4.1-6)
where D i , i = 1,6 are the upper triangular terms of the modulus matrix,
are the coefficients of thermal expansion.
160
i , i = 1,3

The type and number of terms in the modulus matrix (m) and in the thermal
coefficient vector (n) is element dependent. The value of n for each element is defined
in the LUSAS Element Library and the stress resultants and strains are defined in
section 7.
The definition of rigidity matrices necessitates analytical integration in the throughthickness direction prior to the finite element analysis. Therefore additional effort is
required by the analyst. However in this manner, structures with sandwiched and
voided cross-sections may be analysed by evaluating the equivalent resultant moduli
[H1].
4.1.5 Thermo-Elastic Model

The thermo-elastic material model may be employed to represent the influence on the
structural response of both
1. the straining due to thermal expansion,
2. the dependence of material properties on the temperature distribution.
The temperatures are input via nodal or element temperatures and the current
t
temperature T at point
i , i
within the element obtained using
b gT
where N b , g is the element shape function vector, and
t
T = N i , i
i
(4.1-7)
t
T is the vector of
current element nodal temperatures.

t
The temperature rise T is then given by

t
T = t T - Tref
(4.1-8)
where Tref is the reference temperature.

The thermal strains are obtained using the temperature rise and the coefficient of
thermal expansion. Explicit forms of the temperature strains for each element are
given in section 7.
Temperature dependent material properties are defined to be piecewise linear
functions of temperature. This is achieved by specifying a table of material properties
with corresponding temperatures. The current material properties at each Gauss point
t
are then interpolated from the table using the current temperature T .
The thermo-elastic model may be employed in geometrically nonlinear analyses with
the Total Lagrangian formulation. It may also be employed in materially nonlinear
analyses with the continuum elastoplastic models.
161
4.2 Elasto-Plastic Models

The elastoplastic models available within LUSAS can be broadly divided into two
families. The older models are based on classical continuum formulations in which
the plastic strains are integrated according to a strict interpretation of the flow rules
governing their evolution. Recent developments in numerical analysis have reinterpreted the classic laws in a search for greater numerical efficiency and have led
to the concept of "consistency" of formulation. These methods have the advantage of
improved stability for large load steps and quadratic convergence in the global
Newton-Raphson iterations. Within the framework of the consistent formulation, time
dependent inelastic straining has also been modelled.
The models available within LUSAS are as follows:
Continuum formulation
von Mises, Tresca, Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager

stress resultant models for beams and shells
models for sliding interfaces
Rate independent formulations, e.g. Hoffman, modified von Mises, Hill,

von Mises
Rate dependent formulations, e.g. Uniaxial creep laws generalised to
multiaxial states
Consistent formulation
Both families of models also approximately represent the variation of material

properties with temperature.

The rate independent component of the plastic strain is based on the following
assumptions
the constitutive response is independent of the rate of deformation or straining,
the elastic response is not affected by the plastic deformation,
an additive decomposition of the total strain defines the material response, i.e.
= +
e
(4.2-1)
The formulations then use three basic concepts

a yield condition to specify the onset of plastic deformation,
a flow rule to define the plastic straining,
a hardening rule to define the evolution of the yield surface with plastic
straining.
162
Elasto-Plastic Models
4.2.1.1 Yield condition
The yield function F (fig.4.2-1) defines the limit of the region of elastic response and
is written at time t as
t
where
F t ,t T,t
i0
(4.2-2)
t
are the current stresses, T is the current temperature, and

t
is the state
variable dependent upon equivalent plastic strain e . In classical plasticity, stress

states that provide a positive value of the yield function cannot exist. However in
numerical models, positive values of the yield function indicate that yielding should
occur and the stress state is modified by accumulating plastic strains until the yield
criterion is reduced to zero. This process is known as the plastic corrector phase or
return mapping.
Non-associated
flow
Associated
flow
Elastic zone
Yield surface
Plastic potential
surface
Inadmissable
zone
FIG.4.2-1 YIELD SURFACE AND FLOW RULE
163

4.2.1.2 Flow rule
The flow rule (fig.4.2-1) defines the plastic straining and is given by
tQ
d = t
where
tQ
t
(4.2-3)
defines the direction of plastic straining,
and is the Lagrangian plastic multiplier defining the magnitude of plastic straining
and is determined by enforcing the yield criterion (4.2-2)
The function Q is known as the 'plastic potential' [O1] and is usually defined in terms
of stress invariants. For all LUSAS models Q = F , T, which is termed
'associated flow', that is, the direction of the plastic strain vector is orthogonal to the
yield surface.
4.2.1.3 Hardening rule
The hardening rule defines the enlargement of the yield surface with plastic straining
as the material yields. For the Hoffman and modified von Mises models, different
hardening rules may be prescribed in tension and compression, other models are
governed by a single hardening rule. A nonlinear hardening function may be
approximated by using a series of straight line segments (fig.4.2-2), i.e.
c h
ce h =
c h
+ H ce h e
t e p = ot + H t e p e p
c
where
co
and
c
c
o
ot
(4.2-4a)
(4.2-4b)
are the initial yield stresses in compression and tension

t
respectively. H and H are the corresponding tangent hardening parameters. For

the standard isotropic case
c h
c h
ep = o + H ep ep
where
is the initial yield stress and
(4.2-4c)
H is the isotropic hardening tangent.
A kinematic hardening law is also available for plane strain in which the centre of the
yield surface is defined by
164
t +t
where
c h
= t + 2 / 3H e p e p
(4.2-5)
is the position in stress space of the centre of the yield surface. H is the
kinematic hardening tangent.
H3
H2
1
ep1
ep2
ep
FIG.4.2-2 DEFINITION OF THE NONLINEAR HARDENING LAW
4.2.2 Integration of Plasticity Models

In LUSAS, one of three algorithms is utilised to integrate the constitutive relations
Continuum formulations Explicit forward Euler algorithm with subincrementation [O1]
Consistent formulations
Implicit backward Euler algorithm
[O2,C5,O3,S2,S3,W3]. Or 'steepest descent' algorithm [O2]
The fundamental difference between the three algorithms is illustrated in figure 4.2-3.
165

Direction of plastic flow
evaluated at elastic
predictor stress point
Stress return
path
(a) Explicit Algorithm
Stress return
path
Direction of plastic
flow evaluated at
final stress point
(b) Implicit Algorithm
Direction of plastic
flow evaluated at
contact stress point
Stress return
path
(c) Steepest Descent Algorithm
Fig.4.2-3 UPDATE OF THE PLASTIC STATE VARIABLES FOR THE THREE

INTEGRATION ALGORITHMS
166
For the explicit algorithm, the hardening data and direction of plastic flow are
evaluated at the 'contact stress' point, i.e. the point at which the elastic stress
increment crosses the yield surface. Whereas, for the implicit algorithm, evaluation
occurs at the final stress point and at the elastic predictor stress point for the steepest
descent algorithm.
The explicit algorithm is relatively simple and integrates the stresses directly, i.e. no
iterations are required at a Gauss point level. However, it suffers from three
disadvantages
It is only conditionally stable
Sub-incrementation is required during the stress update to maintain acceptable
accuracy
An 'artificial return' method is required to correct for drift from the yield
surface
Further, a tangent modulus matrix consistent with the return algorithm cannot be
formed. This results in the loss of the quadratic convergence rate for the NewtonRaphson iteration process.
The implicit algorithm furnishes sufficient accuracy without either subincrementation or 'artificial return' and it is also unconditionally stable. However, for
general yield criteria, iterations may be required at the Gauss point level to update the
stresses. Tangent matrices consistent with the return algorithm may be evaluated, so
that the quadratic convergence rate of the Newton-Raphson iteration process is
maintained. Therefore, the algorithm is usually computationally more efficient than
the explicit algorithm, even when iteration is performed at the Gauss point level.
The steepest descent method is a return mapping algorithm applicable to a very large
class of elastoplastic constitutive models. The models may exhibit non-associated
flow and be defined by arbitrary yield criteria and hardening laws. For many yield
criteria, including the von Mises criterion with linear isotropic hardening, the steepest
descent algorithm and implicit algorithm coincide. For these cases, the algorithm has
the same advantages as the implicit algorithm over the explicit method.
Where an implicit or steepest descent algorithm is available for a LUSAS model, it
should prove more effective than the explicit algorithm.
4.2.2.1 Explicit formulation (forward Euler)
The explicit algorithm is formulated using the theory presented in [O1]. The
constitutive relations at time t + t may be written as
Stress
t + t
= D
Plastic strain
t + t
= + t a
t + t
167
t+ t
(4.2-6)
(4.2-7)
a = tF / t
where
Hardening law
t+ t
= y + H te p te p
Equivalent plastic strain
t+ t
ep
t+ t
F= F
c h
L2 O
= M : P
N3 Q
Yield criterion
Consistency condition
p t
t+ t
(4.2-8)
1/ 2
(4.2-9)
,t+ t T,t+ t = 0
(4.2-10)
The constitutive relations involve plastic state variables evaluated at time t and may
therefore be integrated directly.
STRESS INTEGRATION ALGORITHM
The stress update algorithm within LUSAS is as follows.

1. Evaluate the total strain increment
t + t
= + s u
(4.2-11)
2. Evaluate the elastic trial stress state

trial
= D
t+ t
- t p
(4.2-12)
3. If the trial stress lies within the yield surface the stress update has been completed.
Otherwise, the stress lies outside the yield surface and must be returned to the
yield surface by plastic straining.
4. The contact stress c is now evaluated. This is defined as the stresspoint where
the elastic stress vector crosses the yield surface. The elastic stress increment
e , is divided into an admissible stress increment 1 r e and a non-
b g
admissible stress increment r e . The contact stress is then given by
b g
c = t + 1- r e
where
r =
(4.2-13)
i
Fd , i - Fd , i
F
trial
trial
(4.2-14)
5. Physically, further straining would cause the stress point to traverse the yield
surface. This is approximated by sub-dividing the excess stress into m smaller
168
b jg
stress increments exc which are applied consecutively (fig.4.2-4). Each stress
increment moves the stress point into the inadmissible zone, and a corrector
stress increment, formed by plastic straining, is used to return the stress to the
yield surface. The direction of plastic straining is normal to the yield surface at
the point of application of the elastic stress increment (fig.4.2-5). The updated
stress
t + t
t +t
= c +
is then given by
m
b g
j
exc
j=1
- db jg D a b jg
(4.2-15)
The number of sub-increments m is directly related to the magnitude of the error

incurred by a one step return, i.e.
bg c h
m = min 200 1- F / e p + 1 , 200
(4.2-16)
Notes
The position of the yield surface is updated using the hardening law at the end
of each sub-increment j.
The stress state after the application of each plastic strain increment is
corrected for drift from the yield surface by direct scaling.
Unloading is assumed to be elastic.
r
(1-r)
trial
Excess stress is divided

into sub-increments
Yield
surface
Sub-increments are applied

consecutively
t
t+t
FIG.4.2-4 SUB-DIVISION OF THE EXCESS STRESS
169
Return path is normal to

the yield surface at the
point of application of the
sub-increment
Correction for
drift
FIG.4.2-5 INTEGRATION OF THE STRESSES

4.2.2.2 Implicit backward Euler
The implicit backward Euler algorithm integrates the stresses from time t to time t +
t, by solving for the plastic state variables at time t + t. Therefore the constitutive
relations may be written as
t+ t
Stress
= D
t + t
t + t
(4.2-17)
Plastic strain
t + t
where
t + t
Hardening laws
t + t
= +
t + t
(4.2-18)
t+ t F
a = t + t
- t + t
h
= + Hc e h e
= + 2 / 3H c h
t+ t
170
p t + t
t+ t
p t + t
(4.2-19)
ep =
t + t
F= F
Yield criterion
Consistency condition
LM 2
N3
t + t
t + t
t + t
p t + t
t + t
T,
OP
Q
1/ 2
t + t
(4.2-20)
t + t
= 0
(4.2-21)
INTEGRATION OF STRESSES
Equations (4.2-17) to (4.2-21) are a set of nonlinear algebraic equations, unique to

t +t
, and . For the

each Gauss point, which have be solved for the unknowns
general case, Newton iteration is used to evaluate the unknowns by iteratively
enforcing the consistency condition (4.2-21). However, for many cases, the algebraic
equations may be solved exactly or the number of unknowns may be reduced, e.g. for
a 3-D continuum the von Mises criterion with linear isotropic hardening is solved
exactly, whereas for plane stress situations, the number of unknowns is reduced to
one variable. Once the algebraic equations have been solved, the current stress state is
updated, so that the return-mapping is accomplished using a single step.
4.2.2.3 Steepest descent algorithm
The method is a return-mapping algorithm based on an elastoplastic operator split.
This entails initially integrating the elastic equations to obtain the 'elastic predictor'
(which is taken as the initial conditions for the plastic constitutive equations), and
then evaluating a 'plastic corrector', whereby the elastically predicted stresses are
relaxed to the updated yield surface.
For associated flow and uncoupled elastic response, the stress trajectories of the
plastic corrector follow the steepest descent paths corresponding to the yield criterion
(fig.4.2-6). Further, for the von Mises model with constant isotropic elastic moduli,
the algorithm reduces to the radial return algorithm [W3,S3].
171
t+t (1)
t+t
FIG.4.2-6 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE STEEPEST DESCENT

ALGORITHM
STRESS INTEGRATION ALGORITHM
The aim of the operator split method is to take advantage of the additive nature of
elastoplastic constitutive relations to decompose the equations of evolution into
elastic and plastic parts. The equations are then integrated by
1. 'Freezing' the inelastic material response and applying the total strain. This
permits the evaluation of a trial stress.
2. 'Freezing' the geometry of the structure whilst using a relaxation process to satisfy
the consistency condition and update the stresses and plastic variables.
For constant elastic moduli, associated flow and isotropic hardening the constitutive
relations become:
ELASTIC PART (where superscript (1) denotes value at end of elastic predictor)
172
Stress
t + t
b1g = t + D
(4.2-22)
Plastic strain
t + t
b g =
(4.2-23)
Hardening law
t +t
b1g = t
(4.2-24)
t +t
e p b1g = t e p
(4.2-25)
p1
PLASTIC PART (where superscript (i) denotes values for iteration (i))
Stress
t + t
b i+1g =
Plastic strain
t + t
P i +1
b g =
t + t
b i g - D p b i g (4.2-26)
t + t
P i
t + t
i
b g - b i g a b g
(4.2-27)
t + t
Hardening law
P b i +1g =
t + t
Pb i g -
e
bg
p i
bg
p i
(4.2-28)
t + t
e Pb i +1g =
t + t
e P b i g + b i g
t + t
P b i g:t + t Pb i g
1/ 2
(4.2-29)
The relaxation of the stresses and plastic strains is achieved in a step by step manner
(fig.4.2-6), by linearising the yield function or consistency condition at each iteration
about the current values of the state variables. The yield function in general form is
defined as (neglecting temperature)
b g = F( ) - ce h = 0
(4.2-30)
Linearising at time t + t and iteration (i),
t+ t
t+ t
t + t F
ig
ig
b
b
F + t + t b i g + t+ t p b i g e p b i g = 0
e

(4.2-31)
For associated flow the stress increment is defined as
b g =
i
t+ t
b i +1g -
t+ t
b i g = - D t + t a b i g
The equivalent plastic strain increment is defined as
173
(4.2-32)
LM 2
N3
e p = b i g a where a =
t + t
a b g:
i t + t
ab g
i
OP
Q
1/ 2
(4.2-33)
Also noting that
t + t
t + t
t+ t
=
e bg
p i
H big
(4.2-34)
Then the plastic multiplier is defined as
t+ t
t + t
abig D
T
Fb i g
t+ t
(4.2-35)
abig - H a
Substitution of into (4.2-26) and (4.2-27) yields the updated plastic state. The
iteration then continues until plastic consistency is restored to within a prescribed
tolerance, i.e.
t + t
Fb i+1g Tol
(4.2-36)
Note. For models where the algorithm coincides with the implicit backward Euler
algorithm, convergence is obtained with a single iteration.
4.2.3 Temperature Dependent Properties

The influence of temperature on the elastoplastic response of materials is represented
in an approximate manner by calculating the elastic stresses using the updated
temperature dependent properties
The elastic predictor or trial stress at time t + t is evaluated by
1. Elastically unloading the structure at time t using the material moduli interpolated
at temperature T, i.e.
* = t - t D t e where
= -
(4.2-37)
2. Elastically re-load the structure at time t + t using the material moduli

interpolated at temperature
t + t
= +
where =
t+ t
t+ t
t +t
e
T , i.e.
D +
(4.2-38)
174
The stresses are then integrated in the normal manner using one of the three
integration algorithms.
Notes
Temperature dependent material properties are limited to the von Mises,

Tresca, Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, Hill, modified von Mises and
Hoffman materials. This facility is not applicable to the stress resultant
models.
Temperature dependent material properties are also restricted to formulations
based on total strains, i.e. infinitesimal and total Lagrangian formulations.
The variation of temperature over an increment is fixed.
4.2.4 Plasticity Models

Seven general continuum plasticity models are currently available in LUSAS
von Mises, Tresca Suitable for ductile materials which exhibit little
volumetric plastic strain, e.g. metals
Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager
Suitable for materials that exhibit
volumetric plastic strains, e.g. concrete, rock and soils
Hoffman Suitable for ductile anisotropic materials that exhibit volumetric
plastic strains
Modified von Mises Suitable for ductile materials with different yield
stresses in compression and tension that exhibit volumetric plastic straining
Hill Suitable for anisotropic ductile materials which exhibit little volumetric
plastic straining of which the von Mises yield criterion may be used in
conjunction with the time dependent creep formulation
4.2.4.1 Von Mises criterion
The von Mises criterion (fig.4.2-7) is the most universally accepted yield criterion for
metals. The criterion is based on considerations of distortional strain energy. The
yield function can be written as
b g = - ce h = 0
where = 3 bJ g
F ,
(4.2-39)
1/ 2
(4.2-40)
and
is known as the equivalent, generalised or effective stress.
175

plane
1+ 2+ 3=0
Hydrostatic axis
1= 2 = 3
von Mises
1
Tresca
2
3
von Mises
2- 3
Tresca
von Mises
Tresca
1- 3
2
FIG.4.2-7 VON MISES AND TRESCA YIELD CRITERIA

The integration algorithms available for the model are
Explicit Forward Euler algorithm All stress types i.e. uniaxial, plane stress,
plane strain, axisymmetric solid, axisymmetric shell, and 3-D solid. Hardening
is restricted to linear isotropic.
176
Implicit Backward Euler algorithm All stress types. Hardening is restricted
to nonlinear isotropic.
Steepest Descent algorithm All stress types except plane stress. Hardening is
restricted to linear isotropic/kinematic.
4.2.4.2 Tresca criterion
The Tresca criterion (fig.4.2-7) is suitable for ductile materials which exhibit little
volumetric plastic strain, e.g. metals. The criterion states that yielding begins when
the maximum shear stress reaches a specified value. Thus if the principal stresses are
1, 2, 3 where 1 2 3 the yield function is given by
b g=
F ,
c h
3 ep
(4.2-41)
Equation (4.2-41) may be re-written in terms of the stress invariants as
b g = 2 bJ g
F ,
1/ 2
c h
cos e p
(4.2-42)
The material is integrated using the explicit forward Euler algorithm and is available
for all stress types, i.e. uniaxial, plane stress, plane strain, axisymmetric solid,
axisymmetric shell, and 3-D solid . Hardening is restricted to linear isotropic.
177
t+t
F(,T,)=0
(a) Implicit Algorithm
t+t (1)
t+t (2)
F(,T,) = Constant
t+t (3)
t
F(,T,) = 0
(b) Steepest Descent Algorithm
FIG.4.2-8 STRESS RETURN IN THE REGION OF A DISCONTINUITY OF THE

YIELD SURFACE
Numerical difficulties are encountered when the stress point lies at a singular point on
the yield surface, as the direction of plastic straining is indeterminate. This occurs for
the Tresca criterion as the lode angle approaches 30. Therefore, the stress
178
integration algorithms are modified for this case. When a value of > 29 is
encountered, the von Mises criterion is used to form the flow vector, for both
evaluating the modulus matrix and integrating the stresses.
4.2.4.3 Non associative Mohr-Coulomb criterion
The Mohr-Coulomb criterion (fig.4.2-9) is suitable for materials which exhibit
volumetric plastic straining, e.g. concrete, soil and rock. The Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion is a generalisation of the Coulomb friction law defined as
b g = - bc -
F ,
tan = 0
(4.2-43)
where is the magnitude of the shearing stress, n is the normal stress, c is the
cohesion, and the angle of internal friction. The Mohr-Coulomb yield function can
be written in terms of the stress invariants as
b g=
F ,
b g LMNcos -
sin + J 2
1/2
OP
Q
1
sin cos - c cos
3
(4.2-44)
where both the cohesion, c and the friction angle, depend upon the strain hardening
parameter .
The model is integrated using the explicit forward Euler algorithm for all stress types,
i.e. uniaxial, plane stress, plane strain, axisymmetric solid, axisymmetric shell, and 3D solid. Hardening is restricted to linear isotropic.
Numerical difficulties are encountered when the stress point lies at a singular point on
the yield surface, as the direction of plastic straining is indeterminate. This occurs for
the Mohr-Coulomb criterion as the lode angle approaches 30 and also at the apex.
Therefore, the stress integration algorithms are modified for these two cases. When a
value of > 29 is encountered, the Drucker-Prager criterion is used to form the flow
vector for both evaluating the modulus matrix and integrating the stresses. When a
stress point passes beyond the apex, it is returned directly to the apex and the tangent
modulus matrix is initialised for this stress point.
179

3
Drucker -Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
c cot
2
3
Mohr-Coulomb
Drucker -Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
FIG.4.2-9 MOHR-COULOMB AND DRUCKER-PRAGER CRITERIA

4.2.4.4 Drucker-Prager criterion
The Drucker-Prager criterion is suitable for materials that exhibit volumetric plastic
straining, such as soil, concrete and rock. The criterion itself is an approximation to
the more general Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The approximation is achieved via a
modification to the Von Mises criterion and includes the influence of hydrostatic
stress by including an additional component.
180
The general form of the Drucker-Prager yield function is
b g = I
F ,
J2 k
(4.2-45)
where I1 is the first stress invariant, J 2 is the second stress invariant and
are constants that define the yield surface.
I1 = xx + yy + zz
J2 =
1
xx m
2
g + d
2
yy
and
(4.2-46)
i + b
2
zz
+ xy + yz + zx
(4.2-47)
where
m =
1
I1
3
(4.2-48)
The Drucker-Prager yield surface takes the form of a circular cone (see figure 4.2-10).
By making the cone coincide with the outer apices of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
(figure 4.2-11), the yield function can be re-written as [O1]
b g = 3b32 sin sin g I
F ,
where is the angle of friction and

Drucker-Prager criteria used in LUSAS.
J2
6 cos
c (4.2-49)
3 3 sin
c is the cohesion. This is the form of the
There is another form of the Drucker-Prager material model that coincides with the
inner apices of the Mohr-Coulomb model [O1], see figure 4.2-11, and is given by
b g = 3b32 sin+ sin g I
F ,
J2
6 cos
c (4.2-50)
3 3 + sin
It is possible to modify the outer Drucker-Prager cone in figure 4.2-11 so that it

coincides with the inner corners of the Mohr-Coulomb model. This is achieved by
modifying the angle of friction and the cohesion used in the outer cone form of the
yield function in (4.2-49) so that it simulates the form for the inner cone.
The first step is to compute values for and k in (4.2-45) that represent the inner
cone formulation. Comparing the formulation in (4.2-50) with the more general
formulation in (4.2-45)(4.2-45), gives
181
2 sin
3 3 + sin
int =
and
k int =
6 cos
c (4.2-51)
3 3 + sin
Next, by comparing the inner cone formulation in (4.2-49) with (4.2-45),
int
and
k int can then be used to derive an angle of friction and a cohesion that simulates the
inner cone, from
3 int 3
2 + int 3
sin =
c =
k int 3 3 sin
6cos
(4.2-52)
(4.2-53)
In the computation of the cohesion in (4.2-53) the value of
computed from (4.2-52)
is used. Using the values for and c computed from (4.2-52) and (4.2-53) in
LUSAS will simulate the inner cone form of the Drucker-Prager material model.
The procedure outlined above can be used to simulate other forms of the DruckerPrager yield criterion in LUSAS. The different forms of the yield criterion actually
correspond to different states of stress. The most significant cases are summarised
here.
Triaxial compression
In this case the Drucker-Prager cone touches the outer apices of the Mohr-Coulomb
hexagonal pyramid (compression meridian mc, figure 4.2-12). The angle is 60o. This
situation is encountered in common laboratory triaxial testing conditions [M8]. This is
the form used in LUSAS and the yield function is given in (4.2-49). The parameters
and k are given by
2 sin
3 3 sin
k =
6 cos
c
3 3 sin
(4.2-54)
(4.2-55)
Plane shear
For plane shear the Drucker-Prager cone is formulated to match the shear meridian
when the angle is 30o (figure 4.2-12). The parameters and k for this case are
given by [M8]
182
2
sin
3
(4.2-56)
k =
2 c cos
(4.2-57)
Tension
In this case the Drucker-Prager cone touches the inner apices of the Mohr-Coulomb
surface, with an angle of 0o (figure 4.2-12, tension meridian mt). The yield
function is given in (4.2-50) and the parameters and k for the tension case are
given by [M8]
2 sin
3 3 + sin
k =
6 cos
c
3 3 + sin
(4.2-58)
(4.2-59)
There is also a proposed modification for plane strain corresponding to an

adjustment of failure loads in which
= sin
and
k = c cos
(4.2-60)
Each of these forms of the Drucker-Prager yield criterion can be modelled in LUSAS.
To do this, the angle of friction, , and the cohesion, c , used to define the material
properties in LUSAS should be modified using the procedure outlined earlier.
The approximation that the Drucker-Prager yield criterion gives to the true failure
surface can sometimes be poor for certain stress combinations [O1]. Care is,
therefore, needed in identifying the dominant stress state and adjusting the DruckerPrager material parameters accordingly.
Associative plasticity is utilised with the Drucker-Prager material model in LUSAS.
The point at which the apex of the cone meets the hydrostatic axis, however,
introduces a singularity into the definition of the plastic flow vector. Numerical
difficulties can then be encountered since the direction of plastic straining is
indeterminate. When a stress point passes beyond the apex, it is returned directly to
the apex and the tangent modulus matrix is initialised for that stress point.
The model is integrated using the Explicit forward Euler algorithm and is available
for all stress types, i.e. uniaxial, plane stress, plane strain, axisymmetric solid,
axisymmetric shell, and 3-D solid. Hardening is restricted to linear isotropic.
183

A useful reference for the analysis of geotechnical materials using material models in
LUSAS, including details of the Drucker-Prager material model, is [D5].
Drucker-Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
c cot
2
FIG 4.2-10: Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb yield surfaces in principal stress

space.
1
Drucker-Prager
inner cone
Mohr-Coulomb
Drucker-Prager
outer cone
FIG 4.2-11: Two dimensional representation of Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager

yield cretieria in deviatoric space, showing the two forms of the Drucker-Prager
material model. The outer cone coincides with the outer apices of the Mohr-Coulomb
model while the inner cone coincides with the inner apices of the Mohr-Coulomb
model.
184
1
Mohr-Coulomb
mc
mt
Drucker-Prager
FIG 4.2-12: Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria in deviatoric space. mt

is the tension meridian and mc is the compression meridian. is the loading angle.
4.2.4.5 Hoffman Criteria
The Hoffman criterion is a general failure criterion describing pressure dependent
yield of anisotropic materials. Several criteria, including the well-known von Mises
yield criterion section 4.2.4.3, are special cases of this model.
The yield function for the Hoffman material model is defined as
f =
1
1 T
T
P + p
fc ft = 0
2
3
(4.2-61)
fc and ft represent the generic yield stresses in compression and tension

respectively. The definitions of the projection matrix P and the projection vector p
where
reflect the orthotropic nature of the model [B1].
185
LM b + g

b + g
MM
b + g
MM 0
0
0
MM 0
0
0
0
0
MN 0
1
3
31
1
3
P =
1
3
12
1
3
12
1
3
12
23
1
3
13
1
3
31
1
3
23
12
1
3
23
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 44
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 55
0
(4.2-62)
pT = 11 , 22 , 33 ,
where
FG 1 + 1
H
F 1 + 1
= f fG
H
F 1 + 1
= f fG
H
f f F I
=
G
JK
3 H
f f F I
=
G
JK
3 H
f f F I
=
G
JK
3 H
12 = f c f t
13
23
11
22
33
0,
44 =
c t
11 11
c
22
t
22
c t
c t
11 11
c
33
t
33
c t
c
22
c t
t
22
c
33
c
11
t
33
t
11
c t
11 11
c t
c
22
t
22
c
22
c t
t
22
c
33
t
33
c
33
t
33
fc ft
3 223
0,
0
1

c
33
t
33
1
t
22
c
22
c t
11 11
IJ
K
IJ
K
IJ
K
(4.2-63)
(4.2-64)
(4.2-64b)
(4.2-64c)
(4.2-64d)
(4.2-64e)
(4.2-64f)
(4.2-64g)
186
2 66
OP
PP
PP
PP
PQ
55 =
fc ft
2
3 31
(4.2-64h)
66 =
fc ft
2
3 12
(4.2-64i)
cii and iit are compressive and tensile yield strengths in the axes of orthotropy and
ij i j are the shear yield strengths.
b g
Both the tensile and compressive yield stresses, fc and ft , may harden as functions
of the equivalent plastic strain. Hardening for the Hoffman material model is assumed
to be proportional in both tension and compression. The following relationships are
therefore enforced for the component directions.
ft
=
h
fc
=
h
bf g
bh g
bf g
bh g
t x
t x
c x
c x
bf g
bh g
bf g
bh g
t y
t y
bf g
bh g
bf g
=
bh g
c y
c y
t z
= ct
(4.2-65)
= cc
(4.2-66)
t z
c z
c z
where h , h c and h t are the hardening gradients. Figure (4.2-13a) shows an initial
yield surface which hardens proportionally with c t equal to c c from equations

(4.2-65) and (4.2-66). In this instance the shape of the initial yield surface is
maintained.
The plastic strain vector is defined as
p = a
where
(4.2-67)
a is the flow vector and is defined as

a =
f
= P + p
(4.2-68)
Substituting (2.10-2) into (2.10-2) gives
p = P + p
(4.2-69)
187

The term involving P in (4.2-69) is the deviatoric component of the plastic strain for
which there is no change in volume following plastic straining. The term involving
in (4.2-69) is the pressure dependant component and defines the plastic volumetric
change.
Using a work hardening approach, the effective plastic strain increment is defined as
ps =
T ep =
where the effective stress,
T Ps + p
(4.2-70)
, is defined as
3 T
P
2
(4.2-71)
The work hardening approach ensures that the uniaxial case is correctly recovered and
also ensures that ps is always positive at a converged state on the yield surface.
The backward Euler algorithm is used to integrate the stresses. The equation for
ps in (4.2-70) is non-linear and is solved via a Newton Raphson iterative
procedure in each iteration of the backward Euler algorithm. To ensure global
quadratic convergence, a consistently linearised tangent modulus matrix is used.
Since the modulus matrix is non-symmetric, the non-symmetric solver (LUSAS
Solver Option 64) is switched on by default whenever the Hoffman material model is
used.
The Hoffman material model can be used alongside all creep and damage laws as well
as the viscoelastic material model.
188
Initial yield
surface
Strain hardened
yield surface
(a) Strain hardening of Hoffman Criterion
(b) Strain hardening of Modified von Mises Criterion
FIG 4.2-13 STRAIN HARDENING OF PRESSURE DEPENDENT CRITERIA
189

4.2.4.6 Modified von-Mises
The modified von Mises material model incorporates the effects of pressure into the
yield function as
f =
where fc and
respectively.
1 T
1
T
P + p
fc ft = 0
2
3
(4.2-72)
ft represent the generic yield stresses in compression and tension
The material model is characterised by the same tensile yield strength in the three
component directions x, y and z and the same compressive yield strengths in the three
component directions. This isotropic nature of the model makes it a special case of
the more general Hoffman material model section 4.2.4.5, with [B1]
and
c
11c = c22 = 33
= fc
(4.2-73)
t
t
11t = 22
= 33
= ft
(4.2-74)
12 = 23 = 31 =
fc f t
3
(4.2-75)
The projection matrix P for the modified von Mises material is, therefore, defined as
LM
MM
MM0
MM 0
MN 0
P =
13
where
0
0
2
3
1
3
13
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
while the projection vector
p =
0
0
1
3
13
13
2
3
(4.2-76)
p is defined as
1
fc f t j
3
OP
P
0P
P
0P
0P
P
2 PQ
0
0
(4.2-77)
jT = 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0
190
(4.2-78)
An alternative expression for the yield function can be obtained by noting that the
effective stress, , and the mean stress or hydrostatic pressure, m , are defined as
3 T
P
2
(4.2-79)
m =
1 T
j
3
(4.2-80)
Using these in (4.2-72) enables the yield function for the modified von-Mises model
to be rewritten as
f =
1 2
1
+ fc f t m f c f t = 0
3
3
(4.2-81)
Both the tensile and compressive yield stresses, fc and f t , may harden as functions
of the equivalent plastic strain. Figure (4.2-13) shows the case of different hardening
in tension and compression. In this instance, the shape of the yield surface evolves in
a non-proportional manner.
The plastic strain vector is defined as
p = a
(4.2-82)
where a is the flow vector and is defined as
a =
f
= P + p
(4.2-83)
p = P + p
(4.2-84)
The term involving P in (4.2-84) is the deviatoric component of the plastic strain for
which there is no change in volume following plastic straining. The term involving p
in (4.2-84) is the pressure dependant component and defines the plastic volumetric
change.
Using a work hardening approach, the effective plastic strain increment is defined as
ps =
T p =
T P + p
191
(4.2-85)

The work hardening approach ensures that the uniaxial case is correctly recovered and
also ensures that ps is always positive at a converged state on the yield surface.
The backward Euler algorithm is used to integrate the stresses. The equation for
ps in (4.2-85) is non-linear and is solved via a Newton Raphson iterative
procedure in each iteration of the backward Euler algorithm. To ensure global
quadratic convergence, a consistently linearised tangent modulus matrix is used.
Since the modulus matrix is non-symmetric, the non-symmetric solver (LUSAS
Solver Option 64) is switched on by default whenever the modified von Mises
material model is used.
The modified von Mises material model can be used alongside all creep and damage
laws as well as the viscoelastic material model.
4.2.4.7 Hill Criteria
The Hill criterion represents a material model with orthotropic yield. The yield
stresses are the same in tension and compression but not the same in each component
x, y and z direction. This makes the Hill material model a special case of the more
general Hoffman material model in section 4.2.4.5. The orthotropic nature of the
model is retained but the pressure dependency in the yield function now disappears.
The yield function for the Hill criterion is
1
1 T
P 2 = 0
2
3
f =
(4.2-86)
where represents the generic yield strength. The definition of the projection matrix
P can be found in equation (4.2-62) in section 4.2.4.5, noting that properties in
tension and compression are the same. For the hardening of the yield surface the
following relationships are enforced for the component directions.
x
hx
y
hy
z
hz
= c
(4.2-87)
where h is the hardening gradient.

The remaining comments in section 4.2.4.5 beyond equation (4.2-67) also apply to the
Hill material model.
4.2.4.8 Creep
The inelastic deformation of a material which causes a permanent change in the
material once the loading is removed can be considered as the product of two
independent processes, one of which is time independent and is known as plastic
192
straining and the second, a time dependent process, which is known as creep. Plastic
straining requires that the equivalent stress in a body exceeds a certain value before an
inelastic deformation is produced. Creep, on the other hand, occurs as soon as the
body is stressed, is independent of a yield criterion, and takes place over a (usually
prolonged) period of time.
rupture
creep
strain
time
Fig 4.2-14a CREEP OF BAR UNDER CONSTANT LOAD
stress
time
Fig 4.2-14b STRESS RELAXATION OF BAR UNDER PRESCRIBED

DISPLACEMENT
193

Two basic characteristics of creep can be illustrated by considering a bar subject to a
constant load, and a second bar subject to a prescribed displacement.
In the first case of a bar subject to constant load, a large portion of time dependent
straining takes place at an initial stage, known as primary creep (shown as [a] on fig.
4-2-14a). This stabilises with a constant rate of straining occurring over a prolonged
period of time, termed secondary creep (shown as [b] on fig. 4.2-14a). Finally, there
is an abrupt increase in strain rate leading to material rupture, denoted as tertiary
creep (shown as [c] on fig. 4.2-14a).
In the second case the bar is stretched, introducing an initial stress. As the material
creeps a greater portion of the elastic strain is replaced by inelastic creep strains and
consequently the stress reduces in the bar. This process is known as relaxation (see
fig. 4.2-14b).
A combination of the two behaviours will take place within a general structure; the
particular behaviour at a point is determined by the degree of constraint provided by
the surrounding material and the applied loading pattern.
Many creep laws have been proposed to model particular materials or particular parts
of the creep behaviour. The laws are produced for uniaxial behaviour and then
generalised to multiaxial formulations. The two classes of simpler models are
time hardening laws,
strain hardening laws.
(i) TIME HARDENING LAWS
If primary or tertiary creep is of interest then the corresponding hardening and

softening must be included in the creep law. Then for time hardening
& c = f& q, T, t
(4.2-88)
Typical laws include
& c = At m + Bt + Ct n and
& c = AeCt + Be Dt
(4.2-89)
where A, B, C and D are functions of stress and temperature and 0 < m < 1
(hardening) with n > 1 (softening)
The time hardening equation is a response function giving the development of strain
for a constant stress.
It is possible to use relaxation tests to compute the parameters. In this case, provided
the response is of a similar form to the response in the relaxation test, a reasonable
solution will be produced.
194
(ii) STRAIN HARDENING LAWS
Strain hardening is a simple way of avoiding dependence on time whilst still

representing the shape of the curve. Further, the strain hardening formulations are
usually derived directly from the time hardening laws so that no special test data is
required. The general form is
& c = f& q, T, c
(4.2-90)
Considering the power law (see next section)
& c = A q ntm
(time hardening)
(4.2-91)
where A, n and m are temperature dependent constants. Integrating equation (4.2-91)

and assuming constant stress with respect to time and no initial creep strain
c =
1
A q n t m+1
m +1
(4.2-92)
so that
L bm + 1g OP
t=M
N Aq Q
c 1/ m +1
(4.2-93)
Then substituting in equation (4.2-91) gives the equivalent strain hardening power
law as
b g
& c = A qn m +1 ec
b1/ m +1g
(strain hardening)
(4.2-94)
The material parameters defining the creep behaviour are usually very sensitive to
stress and temperature. Further, the data is often sparse so care has to be taken in
interpreting the results.
Three creep laws are included in LUSAS.
(i) POWER CREEP
The power creep law is defined as
c = A q n t m
(4.2-95)
where A, n and m are temperature dependent constants. This leads to time and strain
hardening forms of the creep rate as
195

Time Hardening
& c = m A q n t m 1
Strain Hardening
& c = m A q n c
c h
(4.2-96)
m 1 1/ m
(4.2-97)
Notes
In differentiating (4.2-93) with respect to time, the variation of the equivalent

stress q and parameter A with respect to time is ignored.
By setting m = 1 the Norton law for steady state creep is recovered.
(ii) EXPONENTIAL CREEP
The exponential creep law includes the effects of both primary and secondary creep
and is defined by
bg
bg
= A q 1- e-Bb q g t + C q t
(4.2-98)
= cp + sc
(4.2-99)
where
bg
pc = A q 1- e-Bb q g t
(4.2-100)
is the primary creep which tends to the constant
bg
pc A q
(4.2-101)
as t goes to infinity. And
bg
sc C q t
(4.2-102)
which is the secondary creep strains and which grows linearly with time. A, B and C
are functions defined as
bg
b g
Bbq g = c q
Cbq g = e exp bfq g
A q = a exp bq
d
(4.2-103)
and a-g are constants. The creep strain rate is obtained by differentiating (4.2-100)
with respect to time
196
bgbg
bg
& c = A q B q e Bb q g t + C q (4.2-104)
Time Hardening
bg
Note. If C q is set to zero then the law defines a visco-elastic creep law.
(iii) EIGHT PARAMETER LAW
The eight parameter law may include primary, secondary and tertiary creep and is
defined as
c = Aq b t c + Dt d + Et f e g/T
(4.2-105)
where A, D, E, a - g are constants and T is the temperature in Kelvin. The creep strain
rate is obtained by differentiating (4.2-105) with respect to time.
Time Hardening
c = Aq b ct c-1 + dDt d-1 + fEt f -1 e g/T

(4.2-106)
4.2.4.9 Integration of creep equations

The creep formulation may be used with any elastic material model. Additionally, it is
fully integrated with the von Mises plasticity model, providing efficient solutions of
combined creep and plasticity problems. The formulation is consistent so that
quadratic convergence is achieved for the implicit integration scheme.
Both explicit time integration (using conditions at the start of the increment) and
implicit time integration (using conditions at the end of the increment) schemes are
available. From the point of view of stability and efficiency of solution it is
recommended that the implicit scheme is used.
4.2.4.10 Automatic timestepping
The initial timestep is evaluated using the formula proposed by Cormeau [C9] which
calculates the stable timestep for an explicit scheme as
t crit
b g
4 1+
&c
d
3E
dq
(4.2-107)
Some creep laws predict an infinite rate of creep at time t=0. To overcome this, the
initial evaluation of the required creep gradients is performed at a small time offset
from t=0 (the offset is the input timestep t). Given these gradients (4.2-107) then
predicts the initial timestep.
197

Subsequent timesteps are evaluated by limiting the difference of the max incremental
max
creep strain c
increment
calculated using conditions at the beginning and end of the
& ct + t
& ct
cmax = ct + t ct = t
(4.2-108)
thus
cmax
t = c
& t + t
& ct
(4.2-109)
Two alternative automatic step control formulae are available in addition to

Cormeau's and the above methods.
1. t is calculated as a function of the total strain and the current creep strain [O1]
L . OP
t = M
N & .& Q
t
1
2
(4.2-110)
where is a factor 0.01 < < 0.15 explicit analysis

< 1.0 implicit analysis
In areas where the creep strain rate is high, the step size is reduced.
2. t is calculated as a function of the total elastic strain and the creep strain rate
[Z1]
L . OP
dt = M
N & .& Q
e
1
2
(4.2-111)
Equation (4.2-109) severely restricts the timestep in regions where there is a high
degree of nonlinearity in the rate of creep straining. Equally, if the rate is
approximately linear (4.2-109) it predicts an infinite timestep. The timestep is
therefore subject to two constraints
The growth of the timestep from one timestep to the next is restricted to be a
factor of the old timestep
t new = t old x restriction factor

A maximum timestep is imposed
198
Plasticity Models For Beams And Shells
tnew tmax
Equation (4.2-109) requires that the time derivative of e is known at the end of the
increment. In practice t is calculated using data from the preceding timestep. During
the iterations, the updated timestep is monitored and if it is less than the assumed
value (subject to a prescribed tolerance) the time is cut
tassumed > t
iteration x restriction factor
The restriction factor corresponds to the parameter "dtincf", and t max corresponds
to the parameter "dtmax" in the VISCOUS CONTROL command section.
4.3 Plasticity Models For Beams And Shells

Two elastoplastic material models are available for the beam and shell elements
The continuum model
With this model the shell is effectively split up into a number of discrete layers
through the thickness, and the beam cross-section is split up into either a number
of layers in 2-D or a number of fibres in 3-D. The elastoplastic response is then
evaluated separately for each layer. This permits the modelling of a gradual spread
of yielding through the cross-section.
The stress resultant model
This model is formulated directly with the beam or shell stress resultants.
Therefore, the gradual spread of plastification through the thickness cannot be
traced. However, the model considers the nonlinear effects of torsion in beams
which are neglected in the continuum formulation. It is also computationally much
cheaper for beam elements than the continuum model.
4.3.1 Continuum Model

The beam and shell elements that may use the continuum elastoplastic model are
listed in table 4.3-1 together with the corresponding through-thickness or crosssection integration rules (fig.4.3-1).
199
Area associated
with Gauss
point 3
(a) 5-point Newton-Cotes for

2-D Elements
(b) 5*5 Newton-Cotes for

3-D Elements
(c) 5-Point Newton-Cotes for Shell Elements
FIG.4.3-1 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THROUGH-THICKNESS

INTEGRATION RULES USED WITH THE CONTINUUM MODEL
200
Type
Description
Integration Rule
BMX3
Curved 2D Beam
5-point Newton-Cotes
BSX4
Curved 3D Beam
5*5 Newton-Cotes
BXL4
Semiloof Beam
5*5 Newton-Cotes
BXS3
Curved axisymmetric Shell
TSL6,
QSL8
Semiloof Shell
TABLE 4.3-1 ELEMENTS AND INTEGRATION RULES AVAILABLE WITH

CONTINUUM ELASTOPLASTIC MODEL
Once the displacements have been evaluated, the continuum strain is calculated at
each integration point. For the beam elements, the fibres are considered to be subject
to uni-axial strain only, whilst for the shell elements the fibres are considered to be
subject to in-plane strains only, i.e. plane stress conditions.
Once these strains have been evaluated, the elastoplastic formulation used to integrate
the stresses is identical to that of the general continuum models [Section 4.2.4]
(fig.4.3-2). Cross-section or through-thickness integration is then performed to
evaluate the stress resultants.
Note. The formulation neglects the effects of through-thickness shear stress and
torsional stress on the nonlinear response.
4.3.2 Resultant Model

The elastoplastic stress resultant model may be used with all nonlinear beam
elements, the axisymmetric shell element and the Semiloof shell elements. The model
reduces the storage and computational cost of the analysis and also accounts for the
influence of torsion on the yield function in 3-D beams.
Note. As plastification occurs across the whole section instantaneously, the extreme
fibre or layer stresses may exceed the yield criterion prior to yield (fig.4.3-3).
201

0
Theoretical
stress
distribution
Finite element stress

distribution
(a) Elastic Stress Distribution
Yielding
zones
Stress distribution
after yielding
(b) Yield Zones and Stress Distribution After Yielding
Fig.4.3-2 SPREAD OF YIELD ZONES IN A 2-D BEAM REPRESENTED WITH

THE CONTINUUM ELASTOPLASTIC MODEL
202
Line of action of
stress resultant
Fibre stress > 0
Stress along line

of action < 0
Note: The line of action of the stress resultant remains

constant at a position 2/3 up from the neutral axis.
Fig.4.3-3 STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN A 2-D BEAM ILLUSTRATING A FIBRE
STRESS GREATER THAN THE YIELD STRESS WHILST THE SECTION
REMAINS ELASTIC
(i) STRESS RESULTANT BEAM MODEL
The stress resultant beam model is based on an 'exact' (within the approximating
assumptions) yield surface [C3], which has been derived for rectangular solid sections
and circular hollow sections. Other cross-sections may be treated as a combination of
these. The yield criteria has been derived using the following initial assumptions
The von Mises yield criterion is used as the basis of the model.
The stress-strain curve is linear elastic/perfectly plastic.
Plastification is an abrupt process with the whole cross-section transformed
from an elastic to fully plastic stress state.
The fully plastic torsional capacity is constant.
Transverse shear distortions are neglected.
203

The yield surfaces defined by these assumptions are
Rectangular Solid Section
3 2
p2 + r m z + m y + t 2 = 1
4
for
my
2
1 p m z (4.3-1)
3
3
p 2 + m 2z + rm y + t 2 = 1
4
for
mz
2
1 p m y (4.3-2)
3
b g
b g
6
3
4p 2 9
rp + p 2
r - p my + mz
+
5
5
5r 10
9
m ym z + t 2 = 1
20
b gd
my
for
2
1 p
3
b g
mz
and
(4.3-3)
2
1 p
3
b g
Thin-walled Circular Hollow Section
m 2y + m 2z r 2 sin 2
LM FG1 p IJ OP = 0
N2 H r KQ
(4.3-4)
where
m y = M y / M py ,
c h
r = 1- t 2
1/ 2
m z = M z / M pz ,
p = P / Po ,
t = T / To
and
P is the axial force

M y is the bending moment about the y-axis
M z is the bending moment about the z-axis
T is the torque,
Po is the uniaxial yield force, = so A p
d i
is the fully plastic moment for bending about the z-axis, c= s Z h
M py is the fully plastic moment for bending about the y-axis, = so Z pyy
M pz
204
p
zz
To is the fully plastic torsional moment = so Z py + so Z zp
so is the uniaxial yield stress

The fully plastic section moduli for non cross-sectional beams are defined as
A p is the fully plastic area

Z pyy is the fully plastic bending modulus about the y-axis
Z pzz is the fully plastic bending modulus about the z-axis
Z py is the fully plastic torsional modulus about the y-axis
Z pz is the fully plastic torsional modulus about the z-axis
(ii) SHELL RESULTANT MODEL
The shell resultant model used in LUSAS is based on work by Ivanov which was
reported by Robinson [R2]. The criterion has the form
LM
N
1
1
Q t + Q m + Q 2m + Q 2tm
2
4
OP
Q
1/ 2
Q t Q m Q 2tm
=1
4 Q t + 0.48Q m
(4.3-5)
where
Qt =
M
MN
N
, Q m = 2 , Q tm =
2
No
Mo
MoNo
(4.3-6)
and
N = N 2x + N 2y N x N y + 3N 2xy
(4.3-7)
M = M 2x + M 2y M x M y + 3M 2xy
(4.3-8)
1
1
MN = M x N x + M y N y M x N y M y N x + 3 M xy N xy
2
2
(4.3-9)
where N o is the uniaxial yield force/unit width and M o is the uniaxial yield
moment/unit width.
The constant is used to overcome the numerical problems caused by the
discontinuity in the slope of the yield criterion as
205
1 2
Q m + Q 2tm tend to zero
4
is, in general, unity but is set to zero at the discontinuity.
Note. M o and N o is evaluated automatically by LUSAS from the uniaxial yield
stress.
The resultant model is implemented using a very similar procedure to that of the
continuum model with two exceptions:
1. The contact stress c cannot be computed directly and is found using an iterative
process.
2. The reduction to the yield surface at the end of the sub-incremental return
algorithm is also an iterative process.

Generally for beam analyses, the stress resultant model is superior to the continuum
model in that
it utilises a yield criterion that includes the nonlinear effect of torsion,
it is computationally more efficient.
Generally, for shell analysis, the continuum model is more effective than the stress
resultant model as
it produces a more accurate solution,
it is computationally competitive with the stress resultant approach.
4.4 Interface Models

This is an elastoplastic model for representing the friction-contact relationship
between two discrete bodies. The model is embedded in the plane membrane, plane
strain and solid elements and its primary purpose is to reproduce the nonlinear
response of a system containing planes of weakness governed by Mohr-Coulomb type
laws.
The elastic material properties are defined in the local basis, permitting differing
values to be specified normal and tangential to the plane of the interface. The
nonlinear behaviour is governed by an elastoplastic constitutive law, which is
formulated with a limited tension criterion normal to the interface plane, and a MohrCoulomb criterion tangential to the interface plane.
The model cannot be used with a geometrically nonlinear analysis.
206
Interface Models
4.4.1 Material Cartesian System

The model is embedded within the standard element formulation by automatically
generating a Cartesian reference frame at each quadrature point, such that either one
(2-D) or two (3-D) axes are tangent to the plane of the joint or interface (fig.4.4-1).
This requires the correct ordering of the element topology (fig.4.4-2).
The relationship between the local strain
then defined as
( ) and the global displacement ( a ) is
= B a
(4.4-1)
where B is the local strain-global displacement matrix.
207
e2
e1
(a) 2-D System
e3
e2
e1
(b) 3-D System
Fig.4.4-1 MATERIAL CARTESIAN SYSTEM FOR INTERFACE MODEL
208
Interface Models
6
7
OUT
IN
4
(a) 2-D Interface
18
19
17
16
20
14
13
15
OUT
IN
11
12
IN
10
5
7
4
8
1
(b) 3-D Interface
Fig.4.4-2 ELEMENT TOPOLOGY DEFINING THE IN-PLANE AND OUT-OFPLANE DIRECTIONS FOR THE INTERFACE MODEL
209

4.4.2.1 Elastic constitutive relationship
The elastic constitutive relationship is defined as
' = D' '

where
'
(4.4-2)
and ' are the local stress and strain vectors and D' is the matrix of
elastic properties. The modulus matrix is orthotropic and is defined by the following
properties
Ein , Eout , G ,
(2D)
Ein , Eout , Gin , G out , in , out
(3D)
(4.4-3)
where E, G and are the Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and shear modulus of the
material, and subscripts 'in' and 'out' denote properties in and out of plane respectively
(fig.4.4-3).
210
Interface Models
Mohr-Coulomb
criterion
Limited
tension
criterion
(a) 2-D Yield Surface
yz
xz
Mohr-Coulomb
criterion
Limited
tension
criterion
z
(a) 3-D Yield Surface
FIG.4.4-3 YIELD SURFACE FOR THE INTERFACE MODEL
211

4.4.2.2 Nonlinear constitutive relationship
(i) Yield Criteria
The nonlinear constitutive relationship is elasto-perfectly plastic and utilises a limited

tension criterion normal to the plane of the interface and a Mohr-Coulomb criterion
tangential to the plane of the joint (fig.4.4-4). Therefore the yield surface is defined
by
bg
F =0
where
(4.4-4)
bg
bg bg
F = F1 , F2
b g is the limited tension criterion defined as

F b g =
(4.4-5)
and F1
where
n
and
(4.4-6)
is the stress normal to the plane of the interface ( y in 2-D model
in 3-D model)
is the allowable tensile stress.
bg
F b g = bc
F2 is the Mohr-Coulomb criterion defined as
where
c
f
t
tan
(4.4-7)
is the cohesive strength,

is the friction angle,
is the maximum shear stress between the two surfaces of the element
(i.e. out of plane).
The maximum shear stress is known directly for the 2-D model and is evaluated for
the 3-D model using
d i d i
2
= xy + yz
2 1/ 2
(4.4-8)
(ii) Integration of Stresses
A modified form of the steepest descent algorithm is used to integrate the stresses.
This algorithm utilises sub-incrementation with the flow vectors being evaluated at
the projected stress point of each sub-increment. The algorithm is based on a method
proposed by Lade and Nelson [L1], which also incorporates the two vector return
212
Damage
method [C5] to accomplish stress return near yield surface discontinuities. Associated
flow rules are used for both yield criteria.
4.5 Damage
Continuum damage analysis is based on the thermodynamics of an irreversible
process. To model an isotropic damage process it suffices to consider a scalar damage
variable d.
The damage models available within LUSAS fall under a type of stress-based elasticdamage model, in which the damage is determined by a norm of elastic
complementary energy. They are
Simo's damage model
Oliver's damage model
Simo's model allows damage to occur equally in tension and compression but the
difference between tensile and compressive damage strength may be accounted for in
Oliver's model.

Both the Simo and Oliver models are based on the complementary free potential of
the thermodynamic equilibrium equations and result in an additive split of the strain
vector into elastic and inelastic parts
= e + i
(4.5-1)
with the elastic strain vector being defined as
e = d
(4.5-2)
The damage variable d is defined in terms of the primary damage variable d as
d =
1
1 d
(4.5-3)
For the material with linear elastic behaviour the elastic complementary energy can be
written as
b g=
1 T 1
De
2
(4.5-4)
then the elastic strain vector will have the form

213
e = d D 1
(4.5-5)
The formulations are then derived from the following requirements

a damage condition to specify the onset of damage deformation,
a further damage flow rule to define the damage softening.
4.5.2 Damage Condition
b , r g defines the limit of the region of undamaged response
The damage function g
and is written at time t as

t
cgb , r gh = b g brg 0
t
(4.5-6)
where the undamaged complementary energy norm is defined as

t
b g =
20
e b gj
t
(4.5-7)
For Simo's damage model = 1, whilst for Oliver's damage model it is given as
FG
H
= +
1
n
IJ
K
(4.5-8)
where
3
i =1
3
(4.5-9)
i =1
cd
n = t
d
(4.5-10)
where d and d are the initial damage strengths in tension and compression.
(i = 1,2,3) are principal undamaged stresses and
t
i =
RS
T0
if i 0
otherwise
(4.5-11)
214
Damage
t
brg in the damage function (4.5-6) is the current damage strength measured with an
energy norm and can be given as
brg = maxo brg, b gt

where b r g denotes the initial damage threshold of the material.
0
(4.5-12)
4.5.3 Damage Rule

The damage flow rule defines the damage softening and is given by
d& = t &
e c hj
t G t , d
(4.5-13)
& 0 is the damage consistency parameter and defines damage loading/

where
unloading conditions according to the Kuhn-Tucker relations
b g
b g
& 0 , g , r 0 , & g , r = 0
(4.5-14)
&
In addition, to simplify the calculations in damage analysis, the damage multiplier
is defined so that
& = &r
(4.5-15)
From the consistency of the damage condition in (4.5-6) and the definition in (4.2-69)
it is given that
& = &r = &
(4.5-16)
0
According to (4.5-16), the definition (4.5-7) and the form of in (4.5-4), we have
& =
t
2 T 1
D e &
b G g
(4.5-17)
defines the damage rate with respect to the undamaged elastic
complementary norm. If the damage potential function G is assumed to be

independent of d, substitution of (4.5-16) into (4.5-13) will lead to
d = G
(4.5-18)
with the undamaged condition being enforced so that

215
R|G r
S| c h b g
T
t
U| = 0
V
b g |W
(4.5-19)
r =0 r
Simo suggested for concrete materials [S1] that
e b gj
t
= 1
br gb1 Ag
br g
t
e br g br gj
A exp B
where A and B are characteristic material parameters and
(4.5-20)
br g denotes the initial
damage threshold. Alternatively Oliver proposed the damage accumulation function

G with a form as [O1]
e b gj
t
= 1
br g expLMAFG1 br g IJ OP
br g MN H br gK PQ
t
(4.5-21)
where A is a characteristic material parameter and

threshold for Oliver's damage model.
br g
is the initial damage
4.6 Viscoelastic Models

A viscoelastic facility has been included which can be coupled with the linear elastic
and non-linear plasticity, creep and damage models currently available in LUSAS.
The model implemented is similar to that described by Browning et al. [B1], whereby
the viscoelastic effects are restricted to the deviatoric component of the material
response. This enables the viscoelastic material behaviour to be represented by a
viscoelastic shear modulus Gv and a decay constant b. Viscoelasticity imposed in this
way acts like a spring-damper in parallel with the elastic-plastic, damage and creep
response, as shown in Figure 4.6.1. Coupling of the viscoelastic and the existing
nonlinear material behaviour enables hysteresis effects to be modelled.
216
Viscoelastic Models
Elastic + Damage
Plastic
F()
Creep
F(,t)
Viscoelastic (Maxwell)
Viscoelastic
Elastic-Plastic and
Damage
Figure 4.6.1 LUSAS viscoelastic model
4.6.1 Notation
t
t
G(t)
Gv
Current time
Current time step increment
Stress relaxation function
Viscoelastic shear modulus
Viscoelastic decay constant
Deviatoric viscoelastic stress tensor
Cv
Incremental strain tensor

Incremental deviatoric strain tensor
Viscoelastic component of fourth order constitutive tensor C
Dv
Viscoelastic component of constitutive matrix D

217
tr[a]
The trace of the tensor a
4.6.2 Deviatoric Viscoelastic Stresses

At the current time t, the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses are obtained from the
deviatoric strain rate as [A5,D1,N1];
bg
v t =
b g dds
2G t s
(4.6-1)
ds
where the stress relaxation function G(t) is assumed to be a function of the

viscoelastic shear modulus, Gv, and a decay constant, , as [F4];
bg
G t = G v e t
(4.6-2)
Using equation (4.2-68), the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses at an updated position,

t+t, can be expressed as;
v t + t =
t + t
2 G t + t s
g dds
This expression may be rewritten as;
v t + t =
2G t + t s
g dds
(4.6-3)
ds
ds +
t+ t
2G t + t s
g dds
ds
(4.6-4)
Substituting equation (4.2-67) into (4.2-83) and introducing the assumption that the
strain rate is constant over a time increment t gives;
v t + t =
(4.6-5)
2Gv e b t + t s g

d
ds + 2Gv
ds
t
t + t
e b t + t s g ds
Recalling equations (4.2-82) and (4.2-83) enable the first term on the right hand side
of (4.2-84) to be rewritten as;
2Gv e b t + t s g
t
d
d
ds = e t 2Gv e b t s g
ds
0
ds
ds
= e t v t
bg
(4.6-6)
In addition, the integral in the second term emerges after some simple algebra as;
218
Viscoelastic Models
t + t
e b
t + t s
t
g ds = 1 e
(4.6-7)
Equations (4.2-53) and (4.2-64) can now be combined with equation (4.2-67) to yield
an expression for the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses at the updated position t+t as;
bg
v t + t = v t e t + 2Gv
c1 e h
t
(4.6-8)
This recursive relationship for the calculation of the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses
can be utilised in both implicit and explicit integration schemes. At each iteration, the
viscoelastic stresses are assembled into the elemental stress tensor, ( t + t ) , after
the plasticity, creep and damage have all been processed. In this way stress states
outside the yield surface are permissible. However, under constant load these
viscoelastic stresses will relax to give a state of stress equivalent to that of the
underlying elastic-plastic material.
It is assumed that the viscoelastic stresses play no part in causing the material to yield,
or in the calculation of damage and creep. The viscoelastic stresses are therefore
stored separately and deducted from the total stress tensor at each iteration prior to
any plasticity, creep or damage computations. Note that this applies to both implicit
and explicit integration of the creep equations.
4.6.3 Viscoelastic Component of the Constitutive Matrix

With the implicit elements, viscoelastic constitutive components are assembled into
the fourth order elemental constitutive tensor, denoted here by C . To obtain
expressions for these components first note that the updated viscoelastic stress tensor
can be expressed as the sum of the component at time t and an increment in
viscoelastic stress v as;
bg
v t + t = v t + v
(4.6-9)
Combining equations (4.2-50) and (4.2-45) enables an expression for v to be

obtained in terms of the viscoelastic stress at time t and the incremental deviatoric
strain tensor as;
h bg
v = e t 1 v t + 2Gv
c1 e h
t
219
(4.6-10)

Noting that the viscoelastic component, C v , of the fourth order constitutive tensor
relates the increment in viscoelastic stress to the incremental strain tensor as;
v = C v ;
v
ij
= Cv
(4.6-11)
ijkl
kl
(4.6-12)
and the incremental deviatoric strain tensor, , is obtained in terms of the

incremental strain tensor, , as [C1];
1
= tr
3
(4.6-13)
1
ij = ij kk
3
(4.6-14)
enables the components of the viscoelastic constitutive tensor C v to be determined

from the second term on the right hand side of equation (4.2-49). These can be more
conveniently expressed using standard matrix-vector notation, in terms of a
viscoelastic component D v of the constitutive matrix, or D matrix, which for a 3D
solid element emerges as;
Dv = Gv
FG 1 e
H t
LM
M
IJ MM
KM
MM
MN
4
3
- 23
4
3
- 23
- 23
4
3
1 0
1
sym
OP
PP
P
0P
0P
P
1PQ
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
LM
MM
=M
MM
MN
xx
yy
zz
xy
yz
zx
OP
PP
PP
PP
Q
(4.6-15)
To be consistent with the assembly of the elemental stress tensor, the viscoelastic
components of the constitutive matrix are assembled into the elemental D matrix
after the plasticity, creep and damage have all been processed.

Implementation of the viscoelastic model has been restricted to elements which have
a full triaxial state of stress such as solid elements and 2D solid axisymmetric/plane
220
Viscoelastic Models
strain elements. Elements that have reduced states of stress; such as bars, 2D plane
stress continuum elements, shells, membranes and beams are not valid for use with
the viscoelastic model. This is due to the fact that in LUSAS the x-sectional area or
thickness of these elements is not updated during an analysis. As a consequence of
this there is no procedure available for obtaining the three components of strain at any
gauss point. These are required in equation (4.2-45) when determining the trace of the
incremental strain tensor. The relevant incremental deviatoric strain components
cannot therefore be calculated for use in equation (4.6-8).
Recalling equation (4.2-62), the viscoelastic material model assumes that the
viscoelastic effects are restricted to the deviatoric component of the material response.
Consequently, in analyses where viscoelastic properties are coupled with an isotropic
linear elastic material, the bulk modulus, K, will remain constant. In the event that the
loads remain constant during such an analysis, the linear properties E and defined as
data input, relate to the long term elastic material properties at time , denoted by E
and . These properties can be used to obtain the long term shear modulus of the
material G. The instantaneous or short term shear modulus G0 is obtained simply as
the sum of G and Gv, and may be combined with K to obtain the short term elastic
properties E0 and 0. Under constant loading, the shear modulus of the material at
time t may therefore be expressed using (4.2-45) as;
G t = G + G v e t
(4.6-16)
Note that this is equivalent to the linear viscoelastic models currently implemented in
LS-DYNA3D [D1], NIKE2D [N1] and ABAQUS [A5]. Finally, when the
viscoelastic properties are coupled with a nonlinear material, constant loading will
also result in the relaxation of the viscoelastic effects and the stress and strain states
will return to that of the underlying material properties.
Due to the nonlinear constitutive behaviour inherent with the viscoelastic model, even
when coupled with a linear elastic material, NONLINEAR CONTROL (Option 80)
must always be used when viscoelastic properties are assigned. In addition, due to the
rate dependence of the model, a time increment is always required. Consequently, for
implicit analyses either VISCOUS CONTROL (Option 213) or DYNAMIC
CONTROL (Option 43) must also be used. If these are not specified, the viscoelastic
properties will be ignored.
4.6.4.1 Viscoelastic Models

The only element in this group that may be assigned viscoelastic properties is a
uniaxial bar element when coupled with a linear elastic material (material model 1).
Note that these elements assume a Poissons ratio of zero and therefore give results
corresponding to a 2D solid axisymmetric element under axial loading, with constant
cross-section and u=0.
221
4.7 Multi-Crack Concrete Model

The difficulties relating to concrete material modelling are various and manifold;
these include: increasing deviatoric strength with increasing triaxial confinement,
non-linear behaviour in compression, loss of tensile strength with compressive
crushing, softening in tension leading to the formation of fully formed stress-free
cracks, aggregate interlock on partially and fully formed cracks, and crack opening
and closing with both shear and normal crack surface movements. The model
developed by Jefferson [J4-J7] attempts to address these complexities.
The model uses a fully implicit approach and unlike most plastic damage models
([D6], [J5], [A7]) does not use scalar damage variables but instead requires the
computation of the derivative of the principal stress and projection tensors with
respect to the Cartesian stress components. In this respect the plastic-damage model
of [M1] is perhaps the most relevant to the one implemented here.
In the model described in [J4-J7], embedded damage-contact planes are integrated
with a plasticity component by using a thermodynamically consistent plastic-damage
framework. The essential elements of the model can be summarised as follows:
A local stress strain relationship, which here is a damage-contact model;
A function from which local strains can be computed such that the local and
global constitutive relationships are both satisfied. This is termed the totallocal function;
A triaxial plasticity component for simulating frictional behaviour and

strength increase with triaxial confinement;
A thermodynamically consistent global stress-strain relationship.
The model couples directional damage with plasticity and employs contact mechanics
to simulate crack opening and closing and shear contact effects. The model uses
damage planes; stresses on these damage planes are governed by a local constitutive
relationship and the static constraint is also satisfied such that the local stresses are the
transformed components of the local stress tensor. A key aspect of the model is the
derivation of a so-called Total-local condition that ensures that both the local and
total constitutive relationships are satisfied.
Planes of degradation (POD) that can undergo damage and separation but which can
regain contact according to a contact state function are employed here. The model is
thermodynamically consistent, i.e. non-negative energy is produced on any loading
cycle, and this is proven analytically for simple 2-D cases whereas numerical proof is
sought for more complicated problems as described in [J5, J6, J7].
222
Multi-Crack Concrete Model

The damage, or contact matrix is generated from the POD each of which is formed
when a damage criterion is satisfied. The POD aspect of the model employs some of
the transformation relationships and theory of earlier non-orthogonal crack models
([D5], [R3]) although the difference here is that this model is developed in a formal
plastic-damage-contact framework. This means that the response of all POD are
coupled together via a new consistency condition that enforces the total and local
governing constitutive equations and employs a new crack model which simulates
normal and shear degradation as well as crack closure effects.
A relatively simple, but powerful, plasticity component is included in the present
model. A smooth triaxial yield surface is developed from the yield function used by
[L5] and from the smoothing function of [W7]. A relatively simple yield surface with
straight meridians is used.
Friction hardening and softening is included in the model to account for pre- and post
-peak non-linear behaviour. Work hardening is used such that the total work required
to reach the peak stress envelope is a function of the mean stress. A dilatancy
parameter that allows plastic flow to be associated or non-associated is also included
in the model.
The crack plane model that relates the local stresses to the local strains is a simplified
version of a general crack plane model which uses contact mechanics to simulate
crack closure with both shear and normal displacements, and thereby aggregate
interlock [J6, J7]. Thus, the introduction of contact theory provides the model with the
ability to simulate the type of delayed aggregate interlock behaviour exhibited by
fully open crack surfaces that subsequently undergo significant shear movement.
The accuracy of the model reduces with stress states with a high triaxial confinement
because the model does not simulate non-linearity under hydrostatic compression and
the fact that the yield function has straight meridians. In [J5, J6, J7] a confining limit
is suggested beyond which the model is considered inaccurate.
The sections below will summarise some of the main aspects of the model; a more
complete description can be found in [J4-J7].
4.7.1 Theory
4.7.1.1 Global local stresses and strains
The global stress-strain relationship is given by
F
= D G( ) N
H
np
j =1
T
j
(I M x )e j
j
223
I
JK
(4.7-1)

in which D is the elastic tensor,
e
the stress vector, the strain vector and p the
plastic strain vector, np is the number of damage planes, M

contact matrix, and e the local effective strains.
is a local damage-
The plane of degradation POD, along with its defining local and global coordinate
systems, is shown in Figure 4.8-2.
y
s
t
x
z
Figure 4.7-2: POD. Local and Global co-ordinate systems
Local stresses ( s ) are related to global stresses ( ) by the following transformation;
si = N i
(4.7-2)
where the subscript i represents the POD number.

T
s = sr ,ss ,st
LMr
N = Ms
MN t
2
1
2
1
2
1
= xx , yy , zz , xy , yz , xz
OP
PP
2t t Q
r22
s22
r32
s23
2 r1r2
2s1s2
2r2 r3
2s2 s3
2r1r3
2s1s3
2
2
2
3
2t 1t 2
2t 2 t 3
1 3
(4.7-3a-c)
r1 , r2 , r3 are the x, y and z components of the unit vector r d , normal to the POD
surface, similarly for sd and t d , the in-plane vectors forming an orthogonal set. sd is
generated in the same [H14] generated shear directions for micro-planes, in that the
directions are chosen orthogonal to r d and to each of the reference axes in turn.
The local stresses are related to the normal and principal shearing stresses on the POD
as follows,
224
n = sr
and
= ss + st
(4.7-4a-b)
Effective local strain and total global strain vectors are as follows
e = er
es
et
and = xx
yy
zz
xy
yz
xz
(4.7-5a-b)
The global stress- elastic strain relationships are given by
= De e
(4.7-7)
e = Ce
(4.7-8)
in which D and C are the standard 6 6 matrices of elastic constants in stiffness

e
and compliance form respectively.

The local elastic relationships are given by
s = D L ee
and
ee = C L s
(4.7-9a-b)
where
LME
=M0
MN 0
0
E
0
DL
0
0
E
OP
PP
Q
and C L
LM 1 E
=M 0
MM
MN 0
0
1
E
0
OP
0 P
P
1 P
E PQ
0
The relationship between the local effective strains e and the local stresses is given
by
si = D L M x e i = D ls e i
i
(4.7-10)
in which M is a local damage-contact matrix.

x
The fracture component of the local strain is obtained as
e fi = M x1 I C L si = I M x e i = C lsf si
i
225
(4.7-11)
4.7.2 Local damage-contact relationships
eful
er
Open
g
Interlock
Interlock
es
g
Closed
Figure 4.7-1 Local contact states

Three states of contact are defined for a crack plane that are termed open, interlock
and closed. These are illustrated in Figure 4.7-1 in local strain space. Experimental
evidence suggests that once a crack has opened on a plane, contact can be regained
with shear, as well as normal, movement and that the contact surface can be
reasonably simulated with a linear function in strain space, as shown in Figure 4.7-1.
In the open state the stress in the debonded component is assumed zero. In the
interlock state the debonded stress is derived from a contact law in which the stress is
assumed to depend upon the distance (in local strain terms) to the contact surface that
is denoted by the vector g and which is termed the embedment. In the closed state,
g is equal to the local strain vector since the contact point coincides with the origin of
the local strain space. The interlock and closed functions used to identify which state
is active are
bg
int e = mg e r e s2 + e 2t
(4.7-12)
226
bg
If beg 0, state = closed.
If beg > 0, and beg < 0 and e < e
If beg 0 or e e , state = open.
cl e = e r + mg e 2s + e 2t
(4.7-13)
cl
cl
int
int
ful
, state = interlock.
ful
The constant mg can be obtained from experimental data from tests in which shear is
applied to an open crack, for example from the tests conducted by [W6]. The default
value of mg is taken as 0.425 but it is considered that a reasonable range for mg for
normal strength concrete is 0.3 to 0.6. It was found that a low value of 0.3 could lead
to second cracks forming at shallow angles to the first, due to the development of
relatively large shear forces.
It is assumed that there is a crack opening strain beyond which no further contact can
take place in shear and this is denoted eful.. In this implementation of the model, eful is
made a multiple of 0, i.e. eful=mful 0. Trials suggest that when concrete contains
relatively large coarse aggregate i.e. 20 to 30mm, a value of mful in the range 10-20 is
appropriate, whereas for concrete with relatively small coarse aggregate, i.e. 5 to
8mm, a lower value is appropriate, in the range 3 to 5. This variation is necessary
because the relative displacement at the end of a tension-softening curve (related via
the characteristic dimension to 0) is not in direct proportion to the coarse aggregate
size, whereas the clearance displacement is roughly in proportion to the coarse
aggregate size. Thus eful is not in a fixed ratio to 0.
4.7.3 Smooth pre and post peak damage evolution

function
As a crack opens the relative proportion of debonded material that can regain contact
in shear reduces as crack opening increases. The damage evolution function employed
here is designed to improve the numerical performance of the model, and for this
purpose a completely continuous exponential softening curve, which has a smooth
transition from undamaged to damaged states and from the pre-peak to the post-peak
region has been introduced. The model assumes that the material can soften, and
eventually lose all strength in positive loading, in any one of the predefined cracking
directions.
The function, which is illustrated in Figure 4.7-2 in terms of the fracture stress fs and
the strain parameter , has -as control parameters- the stress at first damage fti, the
associated strain ti, the uniaxial strength ft, the strain at peak stress k and the strain at
the effective end of the curve 0. The basic function for a damage plane is as follows;
227
fs = f ti . func() = (1 ()) E
(4.7-14)
with
= 1
ti c1
e (a be c1m ce c1mp )
(4.7-15)
Figure 4.7-2 Damage evolution function

The form used to derive the constants is the direct relationship between fs and :
fs = f ti e c1 (a be c1m ce c1mp )
in which =
(4.7-16)
ti
0 ti
c1 and p are both assumed to be fixed at 5. The constants a, b, c and m are determined
from the following four conditions;
fs = f ti at = 0
(4.7-17)
f s
= E at = 0
(4.7-18)
fs = f t at = k
(4.7-19)
228
f s
= 0 at = k
(4.7-20)
in which E is Youngs modulus and k is at = k .

The damage evolution function is solved numerically and full details of the iterative
procedure are provided in [J7].
The decision of whether a localised or distributed fracture model is used is left to the
user. If the effective end of the softening curve parameter, 0 , is set to zero in the
data file, it will be calculated from (4.7-21). Otherwise, if a finite value is given for
0 , G f will be ignored.
e0
5G f
w c ft
(4.7-21)
A POD is formed when the principal stress reaches the fracture stress (ft); the POD is
formed normal to the major principal axis. Thereafter, it is assumed that damage on
the plane can occur with both shear and normal strains. The damage surface, shown in
Figure 4.7-3, is similar to that used by [K4].
es 2 + e t 2
Damage surface
1
Figure 4.7-3 Local damage surface

The damage surface is given by
229
er
LM F I OP 1
MN GH JK PQ + 2r dr
e
e, = r 1 +
2
r
b g
2 e 2r + 4 r2 e 2s + e 2t
(4.7-22)
The material constants r and are the strain equivalents of the relative shear stress
intercept r = c / f t and the asymptotic friction factor , noting that c is the shear
stress intercept. These, the stress ratios, are set to 0.8 and 0.5 respectively.
4.7.3.1 Implications of this damage function on the consistent

tangent algorithm
The first damage plane at any numerical integration point occurs when the major
principal stress exceeds the initiation stress f ti . This same criterion can be used to
form the second and subsequent planes. This criterion presents a problem for the
formation of the second and subsequent planes when a permanent damage plane is
already present, if the damage evolution function has a pre-peak. This is because the
major principal stress may be in (or close to) the first plane direction, whilst a second
plane may be required to form. Assuming that a lower limit is applied to the
directional proximity of adjacent planes, then the situation can arise when the normal
stress on a would-be second plane exceeds the formation limit but the major principal
stress is too close to the first plane direction for the plane to form. An alternative
approach, when the major principal stress exceeds fti, but the associated principal
direction is too close to the first plane, is to form a second plane when the damage
function on the nearest permissible plane to the first is exceeded. The same approach
can be applied to subsequent planes. This however creates a further problem in that
the consistent algorithm requires damage planes to form in principal directions, since
the rate of change of the principal directions is taken into account in the consistent
tangent matrix.
If I is the stress tensor upon which the crack direction is based, then the derivative
of the stress transformation matrix with respect to I is required i.e.
N i
I
. This is
calculated using the chain differentiation rule, such that if a new plane is associated
with the major principal value 1 of I , and the normal and shear directions are given
by the unit vectors
r d , sd and t d , then
230
is given by
N i
I
FG N
H r
IJ
K
rd N i sd N i t d 1
+
+
1 sd 1 t d 1 I
(4.7-23)
When the alternative criterion, of the damage function being greater than zero on the
nearest plane to the existing and the major principal stress planes, is used the above
no longer applies. A scheme to deal with this case for the formation of a second
damage plane with one existing plane having the normal r e is briefly explained here.
The criterion is applied that a new plane cannot form within an angle of p from an
existing plane. If the major principal direction of the stress state under consideration
( r ) is within p of
d i
r e i.e. r e r > cos p , then the damage function is checked
on a plane which has a normal which lies in the same plane as r e and r but is at an
angle of p to r e . The unit vector in the plane of r e and r orthogonal to r e is

denoted
r o and may be calculated as follows
ro =
re r
re
re r
(4.7-24)
The normal to the required plane ( r n ) at an angle p to r e is then given by
r n = cos( p ) r e + sin( p ) r o
In this case (4.14-23) still applies but
constructed from the new direction r n .
(4.7-25)
r n replaces r d , and both sd and t d are
When two or three planes form in one increment, the above problem does not arise
because the directions are orthogonal to each other since they are all based on
principal directions.
4.7.4 Triaxial behaviour

Experiments on concrete in compression show a number of characteristic features
[K3], which include;
Significant non-linearity up to a peak stress with post-peak softening

thereafter,
Increased deviatoric strength with triaxial confinement,
Unloading-reloading (u-r) behaviour that is near elastic until well into the
post-peak range, except under high confining pressures.
231

A relatively simple, but powerful, plasticity component is included in the present
model. A smooth triaxial yield surface is developed from the yield function used by
[L5] and from [W7] smoothing function. Since a consistent formulation is to be used
in the final implementation, the second derivative of the yield function is required,
and therefore it was considered expedient to use a relatively simple yield surface with
straight meridians.
The model includes friction hardening and softening to account for pre and post peak
non-linear behavior, and uses work hardening in which the total work required to
reach the peak stress envelope is made a function of the mean stress. The model is
developed with a dilatancy parameter that allows plastic flows to be associated or
non-associated, although to simulate experiments accurately non-associated flow is
required.
The accuracy of the model reduces for stress states with high triaxial confinement
because the model does not simulate non-linearity under hydrostatic compression and
the yield function has straight meridians. This is quantified in [J7], where a confining
limit is suggested beyond which the model is considered inaccurate.
4.7.5 Failure and yield functions

The yield function adopts the same meridians, in octahedral stress space, as those
used in the compressive part of the model of [L5] however, to avoid having
discontinuities in the pi-plane, as in the Lubliner surface, the smoothing function of
[W7] is employed. This smoothing function simplifies considerably if the eccentricity
parameter () is set to a constant value of 1
FG
H
IJ
K
. The resulting function is as follows
F( , Z( )) = J 2 A r () + +
I Z fc Z (1 )
3 1
(4.7-26)
where
A r () = c
F 2 cos()2 + b2 I
GG
J
2 +cJ
+
cos(
)
b
2
cos(
)
H
K
and I1 = 1st stress invariant, J2 = 2nd deviatoric stress invariant, is the Lode angle
(with range 0 to 60o) and is a friction hardening factor, which is a function of the
work hardening parameter . varies from a possible value of 0, at which the yield
surface degenerates to a line on the hydrostatic axis, up to 1 at the peak surface
position. The initial position of the yield surface is governed by the initial value of
=0 . For most situations in which the degree of triaxial confinement is relatively
low, a value of between 0.5 and 0.6 is considered appropriate for 0 however, for
higher confinements a lower value of 0.25 is better.
232

The material parameters required to define the constants are the uniaxial compressive
strength fc and the ratio between the biaxial and uniaxial strengths br, which is
generally in the range 1.05 to 1.3 ([K5], [V2]). The constants in (4.7-26) are then
obtained, in the manner described by [L5], using the following expressions
=
br 1
2b r 1
, b = 2 1, c =
3(1- )
5
, c = 3 +
2 2, = 1 , =
2
2 -1
2
3
(4.7-27)
A comparison with the surface of [L5] in the pi-plane is shown in Figure 4.8-1.
Comparisons with the curves and the meridians form the yield surface of the yield
function used by [K3] are made in [J6, J7].
90
120
60
150
Lubliner
30
180
Craft
210
330
240
270
300
Figure 4.7-4: Yield function on the pi-plane
4.7.6 Plastic potential and flow rule.

The plastic potential function, given below, is obtained directly from (4.7-26) but an
additional parameter () is added which can be used to control the degree of
dilatancy. Associated flow is achieved if =1, but it was found that values in the
range -0.1 to 0.3 were required to match experimental data. Generally is set to
0.1, but for high degrees of triaxial confinement 0.3 provides a better match to
experimental data.
c b gh =
G ,Z
b g FGH
J2 Ar + +
IJ I Z f Z b1 g
3K
(4.7-28)
The flow rule is derived from the plastic potential in the standard way as follows
233
& p =
G &
(4.7-29)
& 0.
is the plastic multiplier, which obeys the condition
The restriction on may be expressed as
G
0
(4.7-30)
and is satisfied if -1.
4.7.7 Hardening/softening relationships.

A work hardening hypothesis is made for the present model, and it is assumed that the
amount of work to achieve peak stress increases with the mean stress, according to a
parameter . This parameter performs essentially the same role as the ductility
parameter of [E2]. The work hardening parameter, expressed in rate form, is given by
& = X( ) T & p
(4.7-31)
A single friction hardening/softening function for has been adopted which gives a
smooth transition from pre to post peak behaviour, as follows
Z = Z0 +
b1 Z g e e1 e j
a
0
c c1
c c2
(4.7-32)
where =/p, ,p = value of at the peak yield surface position.
To ensure that the peak occurs at = 1, the constants of (4.7.32) must satisfy the
following relationships c c1 =
c c2 e c c2
c c2
and a c = e c c1 (1 e c c2 ) . The actual values
1 e
used are cc2= 5, cc1 = 0.0339182745 and ac = 0.9601372615.
The following expression for p was derived by integrating the equation in [S15] over
a uniaxial stress strain curve in compression and then removing the elastic
component, using data typical for structural concrete
FG
H
p = f c 0.72 c
fc
2E
IJ
K
(4.7-33)
in which c is the uniaxial compressive strain at the peak uniaxial compressive stress
(fc).
234
Resin Cure Model

The expression used for the enhancement factor is as follows
X = e + e 1 + X I
where =
(4.7-34)
I1
+ 0.55 and X I = 0.0022
0.9f c
The enhancement factor will never be required for stress states for which I1 is
positive i.e. tensile.
4.7.8 Constitutive matrix and stress update
computations
For the finite element implementation of the model, a consistent algorithm was
developed for the tangent matrix and stress recovery computations following the
principles established for computational plasticity by [S14], but extending the
approach to the present plastic-damage-contact model. The approach adopted in the
stress recovery algorithm employed is first to update the effective local strains and
then account for any plastic flow, with the latter computation employing the updated
secant elastic-damage-contact constitutive matrix. The plasticity equations are then
satisfied using a multi-surface plasticity adaptation of the Tangent Cutting algorithm
of [O2]. Full details of this procedure are provided in [J5, J6, J7].
4.8 Resin Cure Model

This model is intended for use in predicting the deformations of thermoset composites
that occur during a hot cure manufacturing process. It is utilised in a transient thermomechanical coupled analysis and the High Precision Moulding product is required to
provide suitable input parameters for a selection of resin types. The model is derived
from thermo-viscoelastic theory and the fundamental assumption is that whilst the
resin temperature is above the glass transition temperature the stresses relax
immediately to their long-term values [S17].
In viscoelastic theory the constitutive equation for a single stress component is
written
( t ) = G ( t ) d
(4.8-7)
where d is an applied strain increment and G(t) is the stress relaxation function as
shown in Figure 4.8-1. For an applied strain d the stresses relax with time according
to the stress relaxation function.
235
Figure 4.8-1 Relaxation of function

Using thermo-viscoelastic theory a pseudo time is introduced. If G(t) is valid at a
reference temperature Tref it is assumed that at a higher temperature G(t) is still valid
but that the relaxation occurs over a shorter timescale, ie faster. Similarly if the
temperature is lower than Tref the relaxation takes longer. This variation in time leads
to the concept of reduced time in which t in (2.10-8) is replaced with s where s is
defined as
s=
t
aT ( T )
(4.8-8)
aT is known as the shift function and is a function of temperature T. When the
temperature is higher than Tref the shift function is smaller than 1 and conversely if
the temperature is lower than Tref the shift function is greater than 1. A sketch of a
simple shift function is shown in Figure 4.8-2.
236
Resin Cure Model
Figure 4.8-2 Shift function

Using (2.4-13) the viscoelastic function (2.4-13) in thermo-viscoelastic theory
becomes
( s ) = G ( s ) d
(4.8-9)
The relaxation function can be written in terms of the time dependent and time
independent parts as
bg
G (t ) = G + G (t )
(4.8-10)
Two material states are assumed as indicated in Figure 4.8-1. In the glassy state it is
assumed that the shift function aT tends to infinity and that no relaxation occurs.
Whilst for the rubbery state it is assumed that aT tends to zero and that the relaxation
is completed instantaneously. This means that the shift function depends on the
degree of cure as well as temperature and two equations are used to represent the
resin
Rubbery: aT => 0
Glassy:
aT =>
G (t ) => G ( )
G (t ) => G ( ) + G (0)
Generalising to a three dimensional stress state gives
237
(4.8-11)
(4.8-12)

Rubbery: = D
r
Glassy:
(4.8-13)
= D g
(4.8-14)
Where the appropriate values of G(t) are inserted into micromechanic equations
which model the resin/fibre interaction of the composite.
In an incremental elastic analysis procedure the stresses are calculated according to
the formulae
Rubbery:
Glassy:
t + dt = t + D r
(4.8-15)
t + dt = t + D g
(4.8-16)
Finally, a record of the relaxable stresses which accumulate whilst the resin is in its
glassy state are computed
t +dt
= + D g Dr
t
(4.8-17)
On passing from the glassy state to the rubbery state, these relaxable stresses are
instantaneously relaxed by subtracting them from the current stresses
t + dt = t + D g t
t + dt = 0
(4.8-18)
This model retains a constant modulus from the gel point to the vitrification point
when it switches from its rubbery to glassy properties. The accuracy of this approach
depends on the speed at which the stresses relax and that the time independent part of
the stress relaxation function remains constant.
Using a thermally coupled method (in which the temperature and degree of cure are
separately evaluated) a phase change can occur within a time step. The use of a single
set of material properties over the time step to define the material in this instance is
approximate and could, potentially, produce quite different answers for a small
parameter change.
238
Resin Cure Model
Figure 4.8-3 Phase change within a timestep

The incremental mechanical strain
m is calculated from
m = T S
(4.8-19)
Where T and S are the incremental thermal and shrinkage strains respectively.
These strains can be decomposed into two parts corresponding to the change in phase
T + S = r r T + r LS + (1 r ) g T + g LS
(4.8-20)
Where it has been assumed that the change in incremental temperature T as well as
the linear shrinkage LS occurs uniformly across the timestep. The symbols r,g and
r,g represent the coefficients of thermal expansion and shrinkage of the resin in the
rubbery and glassy states. Similarly, the total strain increment , is split into two
components corresponding to the strain before and after the transition point
= + (1 )
(4.8-21)
The factor can be, but is not necessarily, equal to r. The incremental change of
stress is now written
= (1 ) DG + Dr rDr r T + r LS
(1 r ) Dg g T + g LS
h
(4.8-22)
The first term on the right of the equals sign is the effective material modulus matrix
whilst the second term transfers to the RHS as a load. If we assume that the material
is unrestrained then the mechanical strain is zero. Working in terms of strains we can
write
239
= Tr + rS
b1 g =
T
g
+ Sg
(4.8-23)
Eliminating the total strain increment gives
Tr + rS
Tg + Sg + Tr + rS
(4.8-24)
As can be seen the value of depends on the values of the thermal and shrinkage
strains which in turn depend on the particular values of ii and ii corresponding to the
strain component. Equation (2.10-11) relates the stress increment to the strain
increment and implies a single value of and r. This is accurate for the load/strains
but it is not for the resulting stresses. A precise representation requires that each strain
component has its own factoring value i which a priori cannot be evaluated. In the
above calculation the mechanical strains have been ignored as they cannot be known
before solving. For simplicity, it has been assumed that =r in the implementation.
The degree of cure (which dictates when rubbery and glassy properties are used) and
the exothermic heat of reaction are computed in a separate thermal (field) analysis
and are read into the structural analysis via a data transfer file in a coupled analysis.
The input parameters to the curing kinetics equation that controls the evolution of
degree of cure and heat of reaction are read from a database of properties for selected
resins. This database also contains the mechanical properties of resins and fibres that
are available to be used. To access this database the High Precision Moulding product
is required.
4.9 Shrinkage
The cure of materials such as concrete and thermoset resins is accompanied by an
isotropic shrinkage. It is a consequence of a chemical reaction and results in a
reduction in volume which takes place over a period of time. Shrinkage in a
geometrically restrained element which prevents free movement, leads to the
development of stress.
The shrinkage of concrete has been addressed in the design code CEB-FIP 90, the
equations of which are given in section 4.10.4. The shrinkage of a thermoset resin is
normally related to the degree of cure assuming a linear or bilinear relation. The
degree of cure (DOC) is calculated in a transient thermal analysis in which the rate of
heat generation from the reaction and heat flows are taken into account. The resulting
DOCs are then read into a structural analysis in which the effect of the shrinkage is
evaluated.
240
CEB-FIP Creep and Shrinkage Model

For a homogeneous material the shrinkage is equal in each of the coordinate
directions. Therefore the implementation of shrinkage is described by
bg
sxx = syy = szz = F
(4.9.1)
where F is the linear shrinkage function and may be time or degree of cure
depending on the analysis type. For non-composite beams and shells shrinkage only
produces inplane stresses. It does not induce bending or shear stresses as it is constant
through the thickness.
4.10 CEB-FIP Creep and Shrinkage Model

Concrete is unique among structural materials in that it undergoes complex physical
and chemical changes over time, resulting in deformations and constitutive properties
that are time dependent under practical service conditions. Creep can be computed via
a linear or nonlinear constitutive relationship. A simplified linear approach can be
taken by assuming that service stresses will not be exceeded. In this range concrete
acts like a linear material, or more precisely when considering time effects, like an
aging linear viscoelastic material. The theory for such a linear viscoelastic material is
based upon the principle of superposition.
The CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [C20] is based on such linear assumptions and
predicts the mean behaviour of a concrete section due to shrinkage and creep effects.
The model is valid for ordinary structural concrete (12-80 MPa) that has been loaded
in compression to less than 40% of its compressive strength at time of loading, t0.
Relative humidities in the range 40-100% and temperatures in the range 5-30oC are
assumed.
4.10.1 Definitions
The CEB-FIP Model Code 90 assumes that the total strain in a concrete member,
which is uniaxially loaded at time t0 with a constant stress
components:
, can be split into four
= t0 i + t c + t s + t T
(4.10-1)
=t +t n
(4.10-2)
where
is the initial strain at loading
is the creep strain at time t>t0
t0
t0
241

t
is the shrinkage strain
is the thermal strain
is the stress dependent strain:
= t0 i + t c
is the stress independent strain:
n =t s +t T
In LUSAS Solver the thermal strains are dealt with in the usual manner and this
section will concentrate on the computation of creep and shrinkage strains. For
simplicity the theory will be written for the uniaxial case as the procedure is identical
for each stress (resultant) component [K4].
4.10.2 Creep Strain Assumptions in CEB-FIP Code

Within the range of service stresses there is assumed to be a linear relationship
between creep and stress. For a constant stress at time t0 this leads to:
t ,t 0
=
c
t0
t ,t0
Eci
(4.10-3)
where
t ,t 0
Eci
is the creep coefficient which is the ratio of creep deformation to elastic

deformation
is the modulus of elasticity at 28 days which can be estimated according to
[C20]
The stress dependent strain,

t ,t 0
= t0
, may then be expressed as:
LM 1 + OP=
NE E Q
t ,t0
t0
t0
t ,t0J
(4.10-4)
ci
where
t ,t 0
t0
is the creep function or creep compliance, representing the total stress

dependent strain per unit stress
is the modulus of elasticity at the time of loading, t0; hence,
represents the initial strain per unit stress at loading.
the following manner:
242
t0
t0
E 1 ,
E is computed in

t0
E = t cc 0.5 Eci
where
cc
cc
(4.10-5)
is a coefficient that depends on the age of concrete t:
R| L F 28 I
= exp Ss M1 G
|T MN H t / t JK
1
1/ 2
OPU|
PQV|W
(4.10-6)
with
s
is a coefficient which depends on the type of cement: s = 0.20

for rapid hardening high strength cements RS, 0.25 for normal
and rapid hardening cements N and R, and 0.38 for slowly
hardening cements SL.
=1day
t1
For variable stresses the principle of superposition is assumed to be valid. The

principle of superposition, which is equivalent to the hypothesis of linearity, states
that a response to a sum of two stress (or strain) histories is the sum of the responses
to each of them taken separately. According to this principle, the strain due to any
stress history ( t ) may be obtained by regarding the history as the sum of
increments d ( ) applied at times
( t0 , t )
and summing the corresponding
strains which equal d ( ) J ( t , ) . On the basis of the assumptions and definitions

given above the constitutive equation for concrete may be written as:
t
= J +
t0
t ,t 0
z
t
t ,
t0
d + t n
(4.10-7)
The creep coefficient can be calculated in the following manner:

t ,t 0
= 0 c ( t t0 )
(4.10-8)
where
creep
is the coefficient to describe the development of creep with time after

loading, equation (4.10-13)
is
the
notional
Error! Reference source not found.
coefficient,
is the age of the concrete in days at the moment considered
243
equation

t0
is the age of the concrete at loading
In the CEB-FIP Code the notional creep coefficient is estimated from:
0 = RH ( f cm ) ( t0 )
(4.10-9)
with
RH = 1 +
1 RH / RH0
0.46( h / h0 )1/ 3
(4.10-10)
( f cm ) =
53
.
( f cm / f cmo )0.5
(4.10-11)
( t0 ) =
1
. + ( t0 / t1 )0.2
01
(4.10-12)
where
is the notional size of the member (mm) = 2Ac/u (where Ac=area of cross
section, u= length of the perimeter of the cross section which is in contact
with the atmosphere)
fcm
is the mean concrete compressive strength (MPa) at 28 days.
fcmo
=10MPa
RH
is the relative humidity of the ambient environment (%)
RHo
=100%
ho
=100mm
The development of creep with time is given by:
L (t t ) / t OP
(t t ) = M
N + (t t ) / t Q
c
0.3
244
(4.10-13)

with
R| F RH I
.
= 150S1 + G12
RH JK
H
T|
18
U| h
V| h + 250 1500
W
(4.10-14)
4.10.3 Rate Form Of Creep History Integral

4.10.3.1 Basic approach
Direct integration of the constitutive equation (4.10-7) is not practical in a step by
step finite element analysis as the complete stress-strain history would need to be
stored. This problem is eliminated if the integral type creep law (4.10-7) can be
converted to a rate type creep law, i.e. a creep law given by a system of first order
differential equations. This can always be done, not exactly but to any desired
accuracy, by approximating the kernel of the integral in (4.10.7) by the so called
degenerate kernel [B9,Z8]. The general form of this kernel is a sum of products of
functions of t and functions of t0. The number of products included in the sum dictates
the accuracy of the approximation via the number of Kelvin (in the theory that
follows) elements used to compute the viscoelastic effects. Many forms of degenerate
kernel have been proposed [B9,B10,K4,Z8].
Bazant and Wu [B10] have shown that the creep compliance function can be
expressed as a Dirichlet series. The most general form of this series can be written as:
t ,
J = ai ( ) 1 e( yi ( ) yi ( t ))
(4.10-15)
i =1
To obtain a more familiar form of equation (4.10-15) the following substitution can
be made to give a specific value to the general function yi ( t )
yi ( t ) = t / i
(4.10-16)
which results in
t ,
J = ai ( ) 1 e ( t )/ i
(4.10-17)
i =1
where i are known as retardation times which govern the shape of the creep curve
and ai ( ) are creep compliance coefficients which depend upon the age of loading
. The selection of appropriate coefficients and retardation times is described in
Section 4.10.3.2.
245

It can be seen that equation (4.10-17) takes the form of a series of Kelvin rheological
units as shown in Figure 4.9-1.
Gm
G2
G1
m
Kelvin unit m
2
Kelvin unit 2
1
Kelvin unit 1
Figure 4.10-1: A series of Kelvin units used in the definition of creep strain. Each
Kelvin unit is made up of a spring in parallel with a linear viscous damper. Gi
represents the spring stiffness of the i'th Kelvin unit while i is the viscosity.
The total creep strain at time t idealised with m Kelvin units can then be defined as
t
c =
where
t
t
i
i=1
(4.10-18)
is the strain of the ith Kelvin unit which, using (4.10-15), is given by:
i =
a ( ) 1 e(yi ( ) yi ( t ))
0 i
( ) yi ( )
d
yi ( )
(4.10-19)
The following derivation takes the form described in [K4]. Equation (4.10-19) can be
rearranged to give:
t
i =
a i ( )
t
where
( ) yi ( )
d t g i
yi ( )
gi =
a i ( )e(yi ( ) yi ( t ))
(4.10-20)
( ) yi ( )
d (4.1-21)
yi ( )
In order to derive the creep strain increment the relationship between creep strain at
time t + t with that at time t is needed.
bg
Considering (4.10-21) to begin with, at time t + t we have
246

t+ t
gi =
t + t
a i ( )e( yi ( ) yi ( t + t ))
( ) yi ( )
d
yi ( )
(4.10-22)
Splitting the integration in (4.10-22) to isolate the current time step gives
t+ t
z
z
( ) yi ( )
d
0
yi ( )
t + t
( ) yi ( )
+
a i ( )e( yi ( ) yi ( t + t ))
d
t
yi ( )
gi =
a i ( )e( yi ( ) yi ( t + t ))
(4.10-23)
Substituting equation (4.10-16) for the function yi to relate it more directly to the
basic Kelvin unit, equation (4.10-23) becomes:
t+ t
z
z
-(t+ t)/ i i t
/ ( )
g i = ed
a ( )ec i h
d
0 i
/ ( )
-(t+ t)/ i h t + t
a i ( )ec i h
d
+ ec
t
(4.10-24)
t
Recognising the definition of g i in (4.10-21) leads to

t+ t
t/ i i t
( t + t)/ i i
g i = ed
g i + ed
t + t
a i ( )ec
/ i
h ( ) d
(4.10-25)
If the stress varies linearly over a time step and the material properties remain
constant, then
t+ t
t / i h t
( t + t )/ i h
g i = ec
g i + ec
ai (t )
t
t + t
ed
/ i
i d
(4.10-26)
The integration of the second term in (4.10-26) leads to

t+ t
LM
N
t / i i t
t / i i
g i = ed
g i + a i ( t )i
1 ed
t
247
OP
Q

(4.10-27)
Returning to equation (4.10-19) to complete the evaluation of creep strain at time
t + t :
t + t
i =
t+ t
a i ( )
( )
d
t+ t
gi
(4.10-28)
Splitting the integration in (4.10-28) as before to isolate the current time step gives
t + t
i =
a i ( )
( )
d +
t+ t
a i ( )
( )
d
t+ t
gi
(4.10-29)
Using the assumptions of a linear variation of stress over a time step and constant
material properties, after some manipulation leads to
t + t
i = t i + t g i + t a i
t+ t
gi
(4.10-30)
The creep strain increment for the ith Kelvin unit is then obtained from
i =
t+ t
i t i
t+ t
Substituting for
(4.10-31)
g i from (4.10-27) and subtracting t i gives
i = t a i t a ii 1 e t / i
+ t g i 1 e t / i
t
(4.10-32)
The total creep strain increment is then obtained from
c =
i=1
or
m
LM
N
c = t a i
i =1
(4.10-33)
ai
i 1 e( t / i )
t
OP + g 1 e
Q
m
i=1
( t / i )
(4.10-34)
248

4.10.3.2 Evaluation of creep compliance coefficients
The material parameters required for creep strain computation are the creep
compliance coefficients, ai , and the retardation times i . The method of evaluating
the coefficients is the same whether the creep strains are measured in the laboratory
or computed using a formula for their estimation. The CEB-FIP Code 90 equations
reproduced in section 4.10.2 can be used for this purpose. The data required for the
t
t ,
concrete are the values of total creep strain under unit stress (= J ) for a number of
loading ages and observation times t. The following procedure [K4] is then
followed in order to make a best fit approximation of the creep data with the
degenerate kernel, equation Error! Reference source not found..
1. The number of retardation times is taken as m=4 and these were set to m = 1, 10,
100 and 1000 days. It was found that these retardation times provided the best
curve fit to a wide range of observation times.
2. 32 loading ages,
0 , are taken ranging from 3 days to 9125 days (25 years).
3. 40 observation times, n, are also taken ranging between 7 days and 25 years after
initial load 0 . The observation times t j , j = 1,2,..., n are generated at log10
equivalent intervals as are the loading ages.
t ,
4. Values of j 0 J are computed at j = 1,2,..., n points using the equations given

in Section 4.10.2.
5. The following system of equations is set up:
LM1 e
MM1 e
MM1 e
N
( t1 0 )/ 1
( t2 0 )/ 1
( t n 0 )/ 1
1 e( t1 0 )/ 2 K 1 e ( t1 0 )/ m
1 e ( t2 0 )/ 2 K 1 e( t2 0 )/ m
M
M
( tn 0 )/ 2
( t n 0 )/ m
K 1 e
1 e
OPR|
PP|S
PP||
QT
U|
|V
||
W
a1
0
a2
=
M
0
am
R|
|S
||
T
U|
|V
M |
J |W
t1 , 0
t2 , 0
J
J
tn , 0
(4.10-35)
or in symbolic form:
An m a m1 = bn1, n > m
(4.10-36)
6. The method of least squares is applied to solve the overdeterminate system of

equations for the values of a .
ATm n An m a m1 = ATm n bn1
249
(4.10-37)

Solution of equation (4.10-37) for the unknown vector a gives the classical
least squares solution:
a m1 = AT A
1
m m
AT b
(4.10-38)
m1
The acceptability of the curve fit can be can be assessed by the following:
The least squares error.
m
ai
i =1
, which should closely match the ultimate creep strain.

The sum
Steps 1 to 6 are repeated for a number of loading ages to cover the total time of
the analysis.
It was found that this combination of number of loading ages, observations times etc.
provided acceptably small errors for the curve fitting process over a wide range of
data input values. Typically, the highest percentage error in the least squares fit is less
than 2% over the loading age range taken.
4.10.4 Shrinkage Strain Assumptions in CEB-FIP Code

The total shrinkage or swelling strains,
t ,t s
cs , are computed from:
cs = cso s ( t ts )
(4.10-39)
where
cso
s
is the notional shrinkage coefficient
(4.10-40)
is the coefficient to describe the development of shrinkage with time (4.10-41)
t is the age of concrete (days)
ts is the age of concrete (days) at the beginning of shrinkage or swelling

The notional shrinkage coefficient may be obtained from:
cso = s ( f cm ) RH
(4.10-42)
with
s ( f cm ) = 160 + 10 sc 9 f cm / f cmo 106

where
250
(4.10-43)
sc
is a coefficient which depends on the type of cement:
sc = 5
hardening cements SL,

and
sc = 4
for slowly
for normal or rapid hardening cements N and R,
sc = 8 for rapid hardening high strength cements RS,

RH = 155
. sRH
for 40% RH < 99%
RH = +0.25 for RH 99%
(4.10-44)
where
sRH
F RH I
= 1 G
H RH JK
(4.10-45)
The development of shrinkage with time is given by:
L
OP
(t t ) / t
(t t ) = M
N 350( h / h ) + (t t ) / t Q
s
0.5
(4.10-46)
4.10.5 Implementation of CEB-FIP Model

The implementation of this material model follows methodology described in [K4].
The total creep strain increment in (4.10-41) has two unknowns, the incremental
creep strain and the incremental stresses
c
The creep strain computation for this material model takes the following form:
1.
During the very first pass through a time step, the incremental stresses are
estimated to be zero, so that
t + t
= t
(4.10-47)
c
In the presolution, the incremental creep strain, e , is computed from

(4.9-34) and is applied as an equivalent nodal load:
t + t
Ri =
BT Dt + t c dV
(4.10-48)
The matrix
is the elastic modulus matrix and remains constant for a time
step but varies with time throughout the analysis.
251

2.
The following system of equations is solved for the iterative change in

displacements:
t + t
3.
(4.10-49)
From the displacements the incremental and total strains,

t +t
4.
pi = K
and
, are computed.
In the post solution, the incremental creep and shrinkage strains are treated
in the same manner as thermal strains when an incremental stress change,
, is computed which in turn is updated to account for the change in
creep strain during the iteration. The incremental non-mechanical strain,
t +t
n , is computed via:
t + t
n =
c +
s +
t + t
t + t
t + t
is the incremental shrinkage strain,

where
incremental thermal strain.
t +t
5.
t +t
(4.10-50)
t +t
is the
The total non-mechanical strain can be updated via:

t + t
n = tn +
t + t
6.
The total stresses are computed via
t + t
= t + D n = t + D m
where
(4.10-51)
(4.10-52)
is the incremental mechanical strain
4.11 Generic Polymer Material

The Generic Polymer Material (GPM) model is used to account for strain rate
behaviour and irrecoverable damage in the modelling of polymers and other
materials. The GPM model consists of a number of Maxwell units in parallel for
modelling viscoelasticity, coupled with an Eyring dashpot that introduces viscoplastic
effects and a Visco-Scram [H15] damage component. A strain-based damage model
has also been implemented to allow for different damage in tension or compression.
With the incorporation of damage, the GPM model is able to model three key
behaviours viscoelastic, permanent deformation/creep and damage. A
representation of the model using mechanical analogues can be found in Figure 4.111, where the set of Maxwell units in parallel model viscoelasticity, the Eyring dashpot
252

models time dependant permanent deformation and creep, and the final component on
the left hand side models damage.
Linear external
spring
Eyring
dashpot
damage model
Maxwell element
Figure 4.11-1: Two Maxwell unit rheological model for the GPM model.
Unlike linear Newtonian dashpots, the Eyring dashpot behaves nonlinearly and is able
to account for temperature and strain rate effects. The inclusion of the Eyring dashpot
enables the constitutive model to include the irrecoverable, or permanent,
deformation and account for strain rate and temperature effects. The Visco-Scram
model [H15] is used to provide a basis for the cracking of the material.
Component
Purpose
Properties
< Git, it > i = 1, n

Maxwell element
Visco-elastic effects
< Gic, ic > i = 1, n

(n Maxwell elements)
Eyring dashpot
Visco-plastic effects
Att, tt
At c, t c
Visco-Scram damage model
Damage effects
a, c, K0, m, Vmax, s
Linear spring
Elastic effects
Gspr t
Gsprc
Table 4.11-2:Individual component description in model.

A summary of the purpose of each individual component in the model of Figure 4.111 is given in Table 4.11-1. The material property (or properties) that needs to be
specified prior to the finite element analysis for each component of the unit is also
given in Table 4.11-1. Superscripts c and t imply compression and tension
properties respectively. The model implemented here allows the inclusion of different
properties in tension and compression for the Maxwell unit, the Eyring dashpot and
the external spring. Some generic properties, applicable to all stress states, such as the
Bulk Modulus and the damage parameters also need to be defined.
253

The arrangement in Figure 4.11-1 is only for illustrative purposes and consists of two
Maxwell units. Increasing the number of Maxwell units provides a better
representation of the behaviour over a wider range of time-periods.
It is possible to have different combinations of springs and dashpots with or without
damage. Thus the linear external spring, like the Eyring dashpot or the damage
model, can be removed whilst the viscous properties of one of the Newtonian
dashpots comprising the Maxwell unit could be set to zero, leaving just a spring in
parallel with other Maxwell elements. The latter arrangement for the Maxwell unit is
recommended in the Visco-Scram model [H15].
Various failure criteria have been implemented in order to allow for degradation of
the material. These failure criteria act on an individual Maxwell element basis in
order to provide a better representation of the material.
4.11.1 Governing DE for Generic Polymer Material model

The GPM model is developed in the deviatoric plane; the strain and stress tensors are
split into their deviatoric and volumetric components by the following relationships:
ij = e ij + m ij
1
ii
3
ij = sij + m ij
m =
m =
(4.11-1)
1
ii = 3K m
3
where
m = mean stress
m = mean strain
ij = Kronecker delta
K = bulk modulus
The individual components of the model are described separately and then assembled
to form the GPM model. Understanding how each component in the model interacts
with each other is the key to deriving the governing differential equation for the
model and hence the finite element implementation. In the case considered here, the
strain rate of the model is the sum of the strain rates from the Maxwell unit, the
Eyring dashpot, the external linear spring and the Visco-Scram damage element as
can be seen from Figure 4.11-1. Thus, the total deviatoric strain rate is the sum of the
strain rate from the Eyring dashpot, the damage model, the spring, and the Maxwell
units:
254

& dam
e& ij = e& ijve + e& eyr
+ e& spr
ij
ij + e
ij
(4.11-2)
& dam
e& ijve = e& ij e& eyr
e& spr
ij
ij
ij e
where
e& ijve = Maxwell unit deviatoric strain rate,
e& eyr
ij = Eyring dashpot deviatoric strain rate,
e& dam
= Damage deviatoric strain rate,
ij
e& spr
ij = External spring deviatoric strain rate
The equations for each of these components are derived and explained below.
4.11.1.1 Maxwell element
The linear Maxwell element in the model implemented here consists of a linear spring
in series with a Newtonian dashpot as shown in Figure 4.11-2. The Maxwell element
provides a means to simulate viscoelastic effects in the model.
Figure 4.11-2: Maxwell element - one-dimensional idealisation.

For the single element Maxwell model represented in 1-D in Figure 4.11-2, the
relationship between the deviatoric stress and deviatoric strain in the elastic spring
element is given as:
sij = 2Ge ij
(4.11-3)
and for the viscous element as:
sij = 2 e& ij
(4.11-4)
The total viscoelastic strain rate is the sum of the spring strain rate and the viscous
damper strain rate. From (4.11-3), the spring strain rate is given as
e& ij =
s& ij
(4.11-5)
2G
255

Therefore, for a single Maxwell element, labelled n, the stress strain relation using
(4.11-4) and (4.11-5) is
&sijn = 2G n e& ijve
sijn
(4.11-6)
where e& ijve is the deviatoric viscoelastic strain rate and is the sum of the strain rate in
the Maxwell spring and the viscous damper. The retardation is defined as,
n =
(4.11-7)
Gn
For a generalised deviatoric Maxwell element consisting of N such units, the

deviatoric stress rate can then be expressed as:
N
s& ij =
(2G n e& ijve
n =1
sijn
n
(4.11-8)
where, as in the one-dimensional case, the deviatoric stresses for each Maxwell
element are additive and can be evaluated from (4.11-3) and (4.11-4).
4.11.1.2 Eyring dashpot
The Eyring dashpot model of viscous flow obeys an Arrhenius type relation which in
1-D is of the form
FG kT IJ e
H hK
F IJ
= A sinhG
H RT K
& eyr = 2 X
F
RT
sinh
FG IJ
H RT K
(4.11-9)
where A is associated with the activation energy and is the activation volume [S16].
The other quantities in (4.11-9) are as follows:
X
flow parameter
Boltzmann constant
temperature (K)
Plancks constant
Energy barrier
Universal gas constant
256

The Eyring dashpot provides the viscoplastic or permanent deformation response of
the model.
Another equation relating the strain rate for the Eyring model to the stress in 3-D is
required. This relation is defined below as in [B6]:
e& eyr
ij =
where t =
3A sij
sinh t e
2 e
and
RT
(4.11-10)
e , the effective deviatoric stress, is defined as:
F3 I
=G s s J
H2 K
1
2
(4.11-11)
ij ij
The Eyring dashpot is capable of producing an asymmetric response depending on the

direction of the applied stress [B6]. This can be understood by considering the fact
that the activation energy barrier for flow in the direction of the applied stress is lower
than that for flow opposing the applied stress.
4.11.1.3 Damage models
Visco-Scram
The ViscoScram model by Hackett and Bennett [H15] is used to incorporate damage
behaviour into the Generic Polymer Material model. The damage component in
ViscoScram is a simplification of SCRAM, a physically based micromechanical
model developed for the arbitrarily large deformation and cracking of brittle
materials. The SCRAM model is based on a statistical crack mechanics approach and
seeks to account for the effect of defects such as cracks whose individual behaviour is
understood at the meso level, in the macroscopic definition of the material. These
meso-effects are incorporated into the macroscopic behaviour using statistical
arguments. The SCRAM model makes two main assumptions, that during the
deformation process the distribution of cracks remains random and that the initial size
distribution of the cracks is exponential [A8]. Full details of the model and its
generation can be found in [A8, H15].
For the ViscoScram damage model, the relationship between the cracking deviatoric
crack
strain, e ij
, and the deviatoric stress, sij , is defined as [A8]
e crack
= c 3sij
ij
(4.11-12)
where c is the average crack radius.
257

In the work of Hackett and Bennett [H15], a single definition for is used. The
single definition implies the use of a single damage function and a single damage
surface across tensile and compressive regions. From [H15] is defined as
1
(4.11-13)
2Ga 3
where a is the initial flaw size and G is the shear modulus. With the GPM model
the shear modulus is approximated as G , the sum of the Maxwell shear modulii.
N
G =
(4.11-14)
n=1
where G is the shear Modulus of the spring in the nth Maxwell element and N is the
total number of Maxwell elements.
Equation (4.10-12) can be re-written to identify terms that are dependant on time.
Thus,
bg
bg bg
3
e cr
ij t = c t sij t
(4.11-15)
The time derivative of (4.11-15) gives the cracking deviatoric strain rate as
e crack
ij
t
= 3c 2
sij
c
sij + c 3
t
t
(4.11-16)
Using equation (4.11-14) in (4.11-13) and substituting for in (4.11-16) gives the
cracking deviatoric strain as
e& crack
=
ij
FG IJ
HK
3 c
2G a
FG IJ
HK
c&
1 c
sij +
a
2G a
(4.11-17)
s& ij
Equation (4.11-17) is in a particularly convenient form that can be integrated into the
GPM model directly.
The various quantities in (4.11-17) are now defined. The cracking rate is defined as
FG K IJ when
HK K
F FK I I
GG1 GH K JK JJ
H
K
m
c& = Vmax
c& = Vmax
KI < K
(4.11-18)
when
258
KI K
(4.11-19)

where
KI =
3c
sijsij
2
KI =
3c
ij ij
2
m < 0
for
(4.11-20)
m 0
for
(4.11-21)
where m is the mean stress, defined as

m = 3K m
(4.11-22)
The definition for K I in (4.11-20) and (4.11-21) is dependant on the sign of the mean
stress, and therefore introduces an element of pressure dependency into the
ViscoScram damage model via the cracking rate. The definition in (4.11-20) applies
in compression whilst the definition in (4.11-21) applies in tension.
The remaining definitions are
+
m
2
(4.11-23)
K = K o 1 +
2
m
(4.11-24)
K o = K o 1
m c1 2
m c1 2
1
Ko
Ko
K1 = K
m1
45 s
2 3 2 2s
F
GH
I
JK
(4.11-25)
(4.11-26)
where
Vmax
Ko
m
s
maximum value of the rate of growth of the average crack

radius
threshold value of stress intensity
cracking parameter
static coefficient of friction
Since the ViscoScram damage model defines the damage behaviour of the material,
the damage strain and strain rate are equivalent to the cracking strain and strain rate in
the model.
259
e& dam
= e& crack
ij
ij
e dam
= e crack
ij
ij
(4.11-27)
Strain-based damage model
Two general damage functions can be input, one to describe the damage in tension
and the other to describe the damage in compression. The damage function requires
the effective strain rate & eff , the deviatoric strain e and the mean strain m to
b g
bg
b g
be passed on to the material routines.

The damage function can be defined as follows
cb
3
gh FGH ac IJK
Q d m ,& eff =
(4.11-28)
where d is the damage function defined in [L1].

The cracking strain can now be rewritten as
e crack
=
ij
bg
1
Q d sij
2G
(4.11-29)
These are the starting point for the damage formulation developed.
4.11.1.4 Damage functions
The Strain-based damage model relies on extracting the level of damage, Q , at the
current strain or stress, depending on the choice of the state variable d . At the
moment, the damage model is derived in terms of the effective strain represented here
by d . A series of piecewise linear functions have been derived and these are
available in Solver via their respective identifier as shown in Table 4.11-2 Some of
these functions are illustrated in Figure 4.11-3.
260
Tension
identifier
Compression
identifier
Description
ITDAM
1
2
3
4
5
Description
ICDAM
No damage
Redistributed stress
Redistribution based on failure strain
Linear tensile failure
User Defined
1
2
3
4
No damage
Total strain
Deviatoric
Useri defined
Table 4.11-2: Damage functions available in Solver.
Figure 4.11-3: Typical damage functions in tension and compression.

261
4.11.2 Incorporating various components into GPM

governing differential equation in 3-D
To incorporate the various components defined above into the GPM model, we
substitute the viscoelastic strain rate from (4.11-2) into equation (4.11-8) for the
generalised Maxwell model. Thus, the deviatoric stress rate for the material model is
F
= G 2G b g ee&
GH
N
s& ij
ij
e& eyr
ij
e& dam
ij
e& spr
ij
i =1
I
J
b g JK
sbij g
n
(4.11-30)
Note that deviatoric stress rate for each Maxwell element in (4.11-28) is affected by
the presence of damage.
4.11.3 Switch between tension and compression

properties
The Maxwell material properties can switch between either tension or compression
for the whole unit based on the mean stress at the start of an increment. It is also
possible to switch material properties based on an individual Maxwell element basis.
The deviatoric stress component for each individual Maxwell element,
s11 , s 22 , s33 , is assessed at the end of a converged increment and flags are set to
indicate which set of material properties to use for the next increment depending on
the value of the deviatoric stress component in a particular direction for each Maxwell
element. This method of switching material properties on an individual Maxwell
n
element basis takes the form: if s ii 0 , set tension properties for the i direction for
th
n Maxwell element, else use compression properties. This is illustrated in Figure
4.11-4 where the Maxwell element is shown in the three directions the deviatoric
stresses act. The shear modulii G11 , G 22 , G 33 can be switched from tension to
compression or vice-versa based on the values of the respective deviatoric stress

component.
Figure 4.11-4 Maxwell element showing the three deviatoric stress components and
the associated shear modulii.
262

4.11.3.1 Determining the Eyring parameters
The Eyring parameters can be obtained from stress strain curves at varying strain
rates. Using the Eyring equation, which relates the strain rate to the effective stress as
in equation (4.11-31) below, the parameters for the Eyring dashpot can be
determined. Since,
e& eyr
ij =
e
3A sij
sinh t e
2 e
F3 I
=G s s J
H2 K
h
(4.2-31)
1
2
ij ij
Taking the natural logarithm of both sides of equation (4.2-31),
FG 3A IJ + lnFG sij sinhc t e hIJ

H 2 K H e
K
F sij sinhc hI
ln e& eyr
t e J
ij = ln C + lnG
H e
K
ln e& eyr
ij = ln
(4.2-32)
where C is a constant. Equation (4.2-32) can be further simplified if the experiment is

carried out under uniaxial conditions and fairly high stresses are developed such that;
e =
3
sxx
2
sinh t e
1
exp t e
2
h
(4.2-33)
Therefore equation (4.2-32) can be simplified to
ln & eyr
xx ln
F
GH
I
JK
1
C + t xx
6
(4.2-34)
Plotting the natural logarithm of the strain rate against the stress yields a straight line
with a gradient linked to the activation volume and an intercept on the y-axis
1
.
equivalent to the activation energy multiplied by a factor of
6
4.11.4 Failure criteria

The failure criteria work over individual Maxwell elements depending on the total
strains and stresses acting over it. Thus, individual Maxwell elements can be
263

degraded according to whether they have reached the limit set by the failure
criterion or not.
The Maxwell element properties are set to zero once failure is detected. This is
similar to the de-activation of individual Maxwell elements within the Maxwell
unit. If failure is assessed on a value of a limiting stress for an individual Maxwell
element then the deviatoric stress components s11 , s 22 , s 33 can be compared to
this limiting value and the degradation carried out on a directional basis i.e. the
Maxwell element can have zero-stress carrying capability, or no stiffness, in one
direction but maintain its stiffness in the other directions.
Since most of the failure criteria implemented here use the principal stresses or
strains, the total stress acting on each Maxwell element has to be determined. This is
done by assuming that the mean stress acting over the Maxwell unit can be split
between the individual elements as follows:
G nkl
=s +
mean mn
G
n
ij
n
ij
(4.11-35)
where
G = sum of Maxwell elements shear stiffness
mean = mean stress

Degrading individual Maxwell elements as opposed to the global element should
allow a gradual failure of the element. This is thought to be more in line with
experimental observations. The approach proposed here would seem suitable for
tension and for modelling debonding. The failure flag for each Maxwell element is
stored in the state variable array and can be accessed for plotting purposes in
Modeller.
4.11.5 Stress-based criteria

These are dependent on whether the material is brittle or ductile. Some materials have
been shown to have different behaviour, including fracture type, in tension and
compression and it would then seem likely that a different criterion is needed
depending on the state of stress of the material. Ideally, the failure criteria should
allow for a smooth transition between tension and compression.
The following stress based criteria are available:
Maximum shear stress
von Mises
Maximum normal stress (or Coulomb or Rankin)
264
Mohrs circle
4.11.6 Strain-based criteria

4.11.6.1 Maximum strain theory
The maximum strain theory is quite similar to the maximum stress theory but instead
of stresses, strains are limited. The material is said to have failed if one or more of the
following inequalities is satisfied:
1 1tu
2 2tu
12
(4.11-36)
u
12
in tension and
1 1cu
(4.11-37)
u
2 2c
in compression, where
u
1 = maximum tensile / compressive normal strain in the 1st principaldirection

2u = maximum tensile/compressive normal strain in the 2nd principal direction
u
12 = maximum shear strain in the 1 - 2 plane

Failure is therefore predicted when at least one of the strain components along the
principal material axis exceeds the ultimate strain in that direction. This is illustrated
in Figure 4.11-4 where the allowable strains are all within the shaded region for a 2-D
stress state.
The maximum strain theory is normally applied to predict the tensile behaviour of
brittle materials.
265
Figure 4.11-4: Envelope for allowable strain using the Maximum strain theory.
4.11.6.2 Critical strain criterion
This is based on a limiting value for the equivalent shear strain. The latter is given as
eq =
2
3
LMb 1 2 g2 +b 2 3 g2 +b 3 1g2 OP
N
Q
(4.11-38)
The choice of the above criterion limits the accumulation of local strain in the
material at a given strain rate by comparing the value of the equivalent strain from
(4.11-38) to a critical value. The latter will be based on experimental data for the
material under consideration.
The critical strain criterion is normally applicable to ductile materials.
4.11.6.3 Strain rate dependency
Strain rate dependency is included by specifying criteria in piecewise linear fashion at
different strain rates.
4.11.7 Energy-based failure criteria

The strain energy based criterion should in concept be a function of both stress and
strain and therefore be applicable in almost all types of analysis unlike the stress or
strain-based criteria which are limited in their range of applications. Since both
and are functions of damage and coupled with the model for the crack evolution
this should give an indication as to whether the material has reached failure.
266

The integration of the area under a stress-strain curve yields a scalar quantity called
the strain energy density. This can be represented as
U = ij d ij
(4.11-39)
ij
The dissipated energy in the material is mostly due to damage and viscous effects.
The strain energy density can therefore be written as:
Strain energy density = ij d ij (w) ve (w) cr
(4.11-40)
ij
where
w ve = viscous work per unit volume

w cr = damage work per unit volume
All energy or work quantities in the derivation below are per unit volume and the
latter description will be dropped for simplification.
The viscous work rate for an N-component Maxwell model is
af
&
w
ve
= s e& =
n ve
ij ij
n =1
n =1
s ijns ijn
(4.11-41)
2G n n
ve
where s ij and e ij are the deviatoric viscoelastic stresses and strains; G and
shear modulus and retardation time. The cracking damage work rate is
aw& f
cr
= s ij e& crij
(4.11-42)
For the Visco-Scram model , this is given as
aw& f
cr
LM F I
NH K
1
c
=
3
a
2G
FI
HK
3
c&
c
s ijs ij +
s ijs& ij
a
a
OP
Q
(4.11-43)
and for the Strain-based damage model as
aw& f
cr
LM
N
1 Q &
es ijs ij + Qs ijs& ij
2G d
OP
Q
(4.11-44)
The total work rate can in turn be computed using
& total = ij& ij

(w)
(4.11-45)
267
are

The elastic strain energy rate can be evaluated as the difference between the total
work rate and the sum of the viscous and damage work rates. Thus,
& = (w)
& total (w)
& ve (w)
& cr
(w)
(4.11-46)
The
incremental
strain
energy
Error! Reference source not found. as
is
easily
computed
( w) = ( w) total ( w) ve ( w) cr
from
(4.11-47)
Using Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.
and Error! Reference source not found., the incremental strain energy can be
written as
awf = (
ij
+ ij ) ij
cs
n =1
LM F I c& cs
NH K a
1
c
3
2G
a
n
ij
hc
+ s ijn s ijn + s ijn

2G
n
c
+ s hcs + s h + F I cs
H aK
3
ij
ij
ij
ij
ij
h OPQ
+ s ij s ij
(4.11-48)
Visco-plastic
work
should
also
be
subtracted
from
Error! Reference source not found. if the Eyring dashpot is used. The strain energy
density can then be equated to a maximum user specified value to determine if failure
has occurred.
4.12 Joint Models

Joint elements may be introduced into the structural idealisation in order to model
releases, springs or restraints between any two nodes in arbitrary directions.
Joint elements are available for use in two and three dimensions and comprise a range
of nonlinear material and boundary condition models. These nonlinear models enable
the realistic modelling of hardening elastoplastic compressive and tensile joint
behaviour as well as contact and friction types of nonlinear boundary condition.
The specification of mass and damping properties enables joint elements to be used in
linear or nonlinear, dynamic analyses (typically to simulate lumped masses).
4.12.1 Joint Elastic Constitutive Relationship

The elastic constitutive relationship is formed directly from the spring stiffnesses
specified in the user input, e.g. if nodes i and j are two nodes in a plane membrane
analysis which are connected by a joint element (fig.4.12-1)
bF g = K du u i = K
x i
b g
x = Fx
268
(4.12-1)
4.12 Joint Models
dF i = K dv v i = K
y i
d i
y = Fy
(4.12-2)
where
u and v are the joint displacements in the local x and y directions,

Fx and Fy are the joint forces in the local x and y directions,
K x and K y
are the spring stiffness in the local x and y directions,
x and y are the spring strains in the local x and y directions.
Equations (4.12-1) and (4.12-2) may be written in matrix form as
f = k a'
(4.12-3)
where
bF g , dF i , bF g , dF i
is the local force vector
a'
k
is the local displacement vector u1 , v1 , u 2 , v 2
x 1
y 1
x 2
y 2
is the local stiffness matrix
LM K
0
K=M
MM-K
N0
-K x
Ky
0
-K y
0
Kx
0
OP
-K
P
0 P
P
K Q
0
(4.12-4)
Both f and k are transformed to the global Cartesian system before assembly. The
mass and damping matrices are formed in an identical manner to the stiffness matrix.
Alternatively, the complete stiffness, mass and damping matrices may be specified
directly, by using the MATRIX PROPERTY command
LM K
K=M
MM
NSym.
1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
.
.
.
Km
OP
PP
PQ
(4.12-5)
where
K i = 1, m
are the upper triangular terms of the stiffness matrix,

269
b g
m = n n +1 / 2
where n is the order of the stiffness matrix.
The value of n is element dependent and specific values for each element are given in
the LUSAS Element Library.
Note. Connected nodes must be coincident to maintain equilibrium when rotational
degrees of freedom are present.
y
QPM4 elements
Local Cartesian
system
Y
Kx
Ky
JNT3 joint element
X
FIG.4.12-1 TWO NODES CONNECTED BY A JOINT ELEMENT
4.12.2 Nonlinear Joint Models

Within this category are the elastoplastic linear strain hardening models (fig.4.12-2).
These models may be used, for example, with joint and the linear elastic engineering
beam elements (BEAM) in order to model the effect of a plastic hinge formation on
the response of a frame or truss type of structure. The joint response is initially
assumed to be linear so that the force
updated as
t + t
FE = t F + K
t +t
t + t
FE in each spring at time t + t is

(4.12-6)
where
270
4.12 Joint Models

t
F is the spring force at the end of the previous increment

K is the spring stiffness
t + t
is the current strain increment
t
The current yield stress Fyld is defined by

t
Fyld = 0 Fyld + t p
(4.12-7)
where
0
Fyld is the initial yield stress
is the hardening parameter

t
p is the plastic strain at the end of the previous increment
If
t + t
FE > t Fyld then yielding occurs and the force is returned to the yield surface
by plastic straining, i.e.

t+ t
F = t Fyld + t+ t p
(4.12-8)
where
t+ t
p =
t+ t
FE t F / t Fyld t F
(4.3-9)
F
yld
-F
yld
271

FIG.4.12-2 ELASTOPLASTIC LINEAR STRAIN HARDENING MODEL
4.12.3 Contact/Spring Joints With Initial Gap Model

The contact/spring with initial gap model (fig.4.12-3) may be utilised to represent
spring or solid restraints, which only influence the structural response once an initial
clearance gap has been closed, e.g. a propped cantilever with a sunken support
(fig.4.12-4).
The joint element is initially assumed to be in a contact state, so that the force in any
spring
t+ t
t+ t
FE at time
FE = K c
t+ t
t+ t
FE t + t is updated as
+g
(4.12-10)
where
K c is the spring stiffness when in contact,

g is the initial gap
t+ t
is the current total strain.

If
t+ t
FE > Fyld then lift-off occurs. Lift-off strain 1 is defined by
1 =
Fyld
Kc
(4.12-11)
The force is then updated as

t+ t
F = Fyld + K1
t+ t
(4.12-12)
272
4.12 Joint Models

Force F
x
Liftoff
Fyld
Strain
g
K
FIG.4.12-3 CONTACT SPRING WITH INITIAL GAP

Load
Sunken support
Beam elements
Joint element
Initial gap
Contact
stiffness Kc
FIG.4.12-4 CANTILEVER WITH A SUNKEN SUPPORT
273
4.12.4 Friction/Gap Model

The friction/gap model is able to represent frictional and gap connections between
adjacent nodes whereby on the closure of a specified initial gap, frictional forces are
allowed to develop (fig.4.12-5).
F
x
Kx
(a) Normal Stress-Normal Strain relationship

Fyld
Fx
(b) Shear Stress-Normal Stress relationship

xy xz
Fyld
Ky Kz
xy xz
-Fyld
(c) Shear Stress-Shear Strain relationship
FIG.4.12-5 STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP FOR FRICTION-GAP

MODEL
274
4.12 Joint Models

The elastic force-strain relationship at time t + t is defined as
t+ t
fE = k
t+ t
+ g
(4.12-13)
where for 3-D joints
LM F OP L O LK
f = M F P, = MM PP, k = MM 0
MNF PQ MN PQ MN 0
x
xy
xy
yz
xz
0
Ky
0
OP
0 P and
K PQ
0
LMgOP
g = M0P
MN0PQ
(4.12-14)
and
LM OP LM u OP LM u OP
MM PP = MM v PP - MM v PP
N Q N w Q N w Q
x
xy
xz
(4.12-15)
Two yield conditions are then assessed

t+ t
x + g > 0 in which case all joint forces and

Lift-off, which occurs if
the tangent stiffness matrix are set to zero.
Frictional sliding, which occurs if
t+ t
Fs
t+ t
Fyld > 0
(4.12-16)
where for 3-D joints
t+ t
i +c
2
t+ t
Fs =
t+ t
Fyld = t+ t Fx
Fxy
t+ t
Fxz
2 1/ 2
(4.12-17)
and
(4.12-18)
where is the coefficient of friction.

If sliding occurs the shear stresses are updated as
LM
N
t+ t
Fxy
t+ t
Fxz
OP =
Q
t+ t
Fyld
t+ t
Fs
LM
N
t+ t
FExy
t+ t E
F xz
OP
Q
(4.12-19)
275

and the tangent rigidity matrix is evaluated as
b g
Fs
a k ka
where a =
T
f
a ka
T
k=k
t+ t
(4.12-20)
and is the Lagrangian plastic multiplier.

The friction/gap model only utilises the translational degrees of freedom, and the
shear terms Fxy and Fxz should be substituted for the direct terms Fy and Fz
throughout the analysis.
4.12.5 Nonlinear Viscous Damping Joint Model

Viscous dampers are utilised in structures in areas where seismic activity is prevalent.
They are designed to ensure optimum energy dissipation over a wide range of
velocities while attempting to mobilise a reasonably constant reactive force during a
seismic event. The aim of these systems is to ensure that a threshold of force between
structural components cannot be exceeded, for example, at a pier/bridge deck
interface.
Nonlinear viscous damping models may be used to simulate a seismic isolation
system that consists of hydraulic damping devices at discrete points in a structure.
Step by step dynamic analyses are carried out in which damping forces for joints take
the general form:
F = Fp + K a + Ca& v
(4.12-21)
Where Fp is a preload force vector, K the stiffness matrix for the joint, a the
displacement vector, C the damping or viscosity coefficient matrix, a& the velocity
vector and v a constant typically taking a value between 0.1 and 1.0. The preload
force is usually the result of the initial pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the damper.
The preload force does not exert a force on the structure but defines the force that
must be exceeded before piston movement takes place. For a viscous damper device,
the stiffness term defines the change in pressure due to the stroke of the piston.
The behaviour law can be expressed by introducing the concept of nominal force, Fn,
and nominal velocity, Vn, where for a one degree of freedom system:
C=
Fn
Vn v
(4.12-22)
The value required for Fn depends on the location of the damper in the structure and
the applied loading. Vn depends on the results of the expected seismic reponse. Fn and
276
4.13 Field Models

Vn define the setting point of the damper, in other words, the maximum force and
velocity expected during the seism.
As the components of a joint are uncoupled, the dynamic component of damper force
can be introduced by rearranging equation Error! Reference source not found. to
the following form:
F = Fp + K a + C' a&
(4.12-23)
where
C' = Diag[a&
v 1
]C
(4.12-24)
To incorporate the preload facility a high artificial stiffness has been introduced for
net displacements less than 0.0001. The second term in equation (4.12-23), K a , is
evaluated in the usual manner. Note that Fp and K may be specified as zero (if the
structural stiffness permits) so that a pure viscous damper is defined.
4.13 Field Models

4.13.1 Isotropic Materials
FIELD ISOTROPIC materials should be utilised for field problems in which the
properties are constant for any given material angle.
Typically, for heat conduction, the following variables may be input
K - Thermal conductivity
C - Specific heat capacity
H Enthalpy
Note that the specific and latent heat coefficients should be multiplied by the density
prior to input.
t
4.13.2 User Orientated Material Orthotropy

The contribution of the conductivity to the stiffness matrix is evaluated as
Kk =
B k B dV
(4.13-1)
277

where, for orthotropic materials, the matrix of field coefficients k is defined as
T
k = T . k' .T
(4.13-2)
and, typically for heat conduction problems, k' is the thermal conductivity matrix in
the local Cartesian system, i.e.
for 2-D
Lk
k' = M
N0
OP and for 3D k' = LMk0

MM
k Q
N0
0
ky
0
OP
PP
Q
0
0 (4.13-3)
kz
and T is the transformation matrix from the local to the global Cartesian system
defined as
for 2-D
T = e x' e y and for 3D T = e x' e y' e z
(4.13-4)
and e x' e y' e z are the direction cosines of the x, y and z axes of the local Cartesian
system relative to the global Cartesian system.
For the 2-D case, the direction cosines are evaluated from an angle of rotation,
measured anticlockwise from the global axis. For the three dimensional case, the
cosines are formed directly from a Cartesian set.
For orthotropic materials, the flow rates are evaluated as
q = TT k' T B
(4.13-5)
where B is the gradient-field matrix.

Note that the specific heat coefficients should be multiplied by the density prior to
input.
t
are then interpolated from the table using the current temperature T . Furthermore,
the axes of orthotropy should be independent of the field variable.
278
4.13 Field Models
4.13.3 Material Properties Field Link

This model may be used to represent the effects of gap conduction, gap radiation or
gap convection/radiation to the environment. The model may use both temperature
dependent properties and also properties dependent upon the gap opening distance.
The field link model 18 permits the variation of conductive, convective and radiative
heat transfer to be related to an initial value at full closure, and a linear change in the
value with increasing gap opening (fig.4.13-1).
K, hc, hr
hr o
Ko
-dhr/dL
-dK/dL
hc o
-dh /dL
c
Gap distance L
FIGURE 4.13-1 MATERIAL PROPERTY/GAP DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP

FOR FIELD LINK 18
Where
Ko
hco
hro
gap conductance at origin

convective heat transfer coefficient at origin
radiative heat transfer coefficient at origin
dK dL variation of gap conductance with opening distance

dhc dL variation of convective heat transfer coefficient with opening distance
dH r dL variation of radiative heat transfer coefficient with opening distance
The field link model 19 permits the variation of conductive, convective and radiative
heat transfer to be related to the gap opening distance in an arbitrary manner by
utilising a series of straight line segments to define the values of the properties for all
opening distances (fig.4.13-2).
279

K, h , h
c r
K1
Kn
h
c1
hr 1
cn
hr n
L1
L2
L3
Ln
Gap opening distance L
FIGURE 4.13-2 MATERIAL PROPERTY/GAP DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP

FOR FIELD LINK 19
Where
Ki
hci
hri
Li
n
T
gap conductance for point I

convective heat transfer coefficient for point I
radiative heat transfer coefficient for point I
distance for point I
number of point used to define the variation of material properties with
the gap opening distance
reference temperature (temperature dependent analysis only)

t
4.14 Composite Models

The combination of several materials to form a single bonded composite enables the
engineering properties of high strength and low weight to be economically achieved.
The composite material model may be used if detailed information is required
regarding the state of individual material laminates and the possibility of material or
lamination failure.
280
4.14 Composite Models
4.14.1 Local Coordinate System

Both layers and laminae are described in terms of the local element coordinate system
b,, g and b,, g in which

1 < b , , g > +1 within an element
1 < b , , g > +1 within the (k)th layer of an element
k
(4.14-1)
(4.14-2)
and are defined by their midsurface curvilinear plane such that
=
and
constant
k = 0
(4.14-3)
(at the layer midsurface)
(4.14-4)
4.14.2 Constitutive Law

Composite models allow the specification of individual lamination sequences within
each composite layer. Each sequence may comprise of arbitrary geometry and
material properties.
4.14.3 Integration of Element Matrices

The elemental stiffness matrix is evaluated by performing a numerical integration
over the domain of the element with respect to the local coordinates
K=
B D' Bdv =
where 1
zzz
+1
+1
+1
b,, g
B D ' B J d d d
T
(4.14-5)
b,, g +1 within an element.
For composite or layered shells it is convenient to separate the in-plane and throughthickness integrals. Since the through-thickness stress distribution is generally a
discontinuous function of z it is necessary to evaluate the elemental stiffness by
integrating independently within the domain of each layer. The elemental stiffness
contribution at a typical Gauss point is therefore obtained as a summation of the
contribution from each of the constituent layers. The above volume integral may be
modified by replacing the elemental through-thickness local coordinate with an
equivalent layer coordinate which varies from -1 to +1 within the (k)th layer of the
element
281
K=
B D' B dv =
Lz
MN
k=1
+1
zz
+1
+1
'
Bk D k B k J
OP
Q
hk
ddd k
t
(4.14-6)
where:-
1 +1 within the (k)th layer of the element.

h k is the thickness of the (k)th layer
t is the total thickness of the shell
Transformation between the elemental and layer through-thickness local coordinates
are obtained at any time via the relationship
= -1 +
LM b g
N
k
1
h k 1- k + 2 h j
t
j=1
OP
Q
(4.14-7)
and
d = h k / t d k
(4.14-8)
A mid-ordinate numerical integration is adopted. The midsurface of the layer is

defined by the local coordinate
k = 0
(4.14-9)
and equation (4.10-7) becomes
= -1 +
LM
N
k
1
h k + 2 h j
t
j=1
OP
Q
(4.14-10)
or, in terms of the relative thickness (h') of each layer
L
= -1 + M h
N
'
k
+ 2 h 'j
j=1
OP
Q
(4.14-11)
Similarly, the mid-ordinate integration weights may be obtained in terms of the

absolute or relative thicknesses of each layer from the expressions
Wk = 2h k / t and
Wk = 2 h 'k
282
(4.14-12)
4.15 Rubber Models

The internal elemental force contribution at a typical Gauss point may be obtained in
a similar manner from the summation of the contribution from each of the constituent
layers
K=
B s dv =
Lz
MN
k=1
+1
zz
+1
+1
Bk s k J
OP
Q
hk
ddd k
t
(4.14-13)
where:-
1 +1 within the (k)th layer of the element,

h k is the thickness of the (k)th layer,
t is the total thickness of the shell
Note that the mid-ordinate integration utilised within each layer provides a constant
distribution of stress within each layer. Therefore, very thick lamina may require
subdivision into several layers.
4.15 Rubber Models

Several representations of the mechanical behaviour for hyper-elastic or rubber-like
materials can be used for practical applications. Within LUSAS, the usual way of
defining hyper-elasticity, i.e., to associate the hyper-elastic material to the existence
of a strain energy function that represents this material, is employed. There are
currently four rubber material models available:
Ogden material model:
p
1
2
1 + 2 + 3 3 + k J -1
2
p=1 p
b g
(4.15-1)
Mooney-Rivlin material model:
h c
1
2
b g
= C1 I 1 3 + C2 I 2 3 + k J -1
(4.15-2)
Neo-Hookean material model:
1
2
b g
= C0 I 1 3 + k J -1
(4.15-3)
Hencky material model:
283
c h c
h c
= G ln 21 + ln 22 + ln 23
b g +
1
G ln J
3
(4.15-4)
where
is the strain energy function,
and
are the Ogden constants, C1 and
C2 are the Mooney-Rivlin constants, C0 is the Neo-Hookean constant, G is the

shear modulus, k is the bulk modulus and J = det F = 1 2 3 is the volume
ratio. For the Hencky material model, the bulk strain energy
1
2
b g . This is redefined as
k = k ln J
b g
k is
defined as
1
2
k J 1 (i.e. the same as for the
2
other hyper-elastic material models) for the elements employing the mixed
displacement-pressure formulation, where such a definition of the bulk strain energy
ensures the symmetry of the tangent stiffness matrix.
The modified strain invariants and stretch quantities are defined as
I1 = I1 I-1/3
3
(4.15-5)
I2 = I 2 I-2/3
3
(4.15-6)
Ii = J -1/3 i
(4.15-7)
I1 = 21 + 22 + 23
(4.15-8)
I 2 = 2122 + 2123 + 2223
(4.15-9)
with
I3 = 21 22 23
(4.15-10)
The Neo-Hookean and Mooney-Rivlin material models can be regarded as special

cases of the more general Ogden material model. In LUSAS these models are
reformulated in terms of the Ogden model by setting:
Neo-Hookean
n = 1 1 = 2
1 = 2 C0
Mooney-Rivlin
n=2
1 = 2
1 = 2 C1
2 = -2 2 = -2 C2
284
4.16 Volumetric Crushing Model

Note that the strain energy functions expressed above include both the deviatoric and
volumetric parts and therefore are suitable to analyse rubber materials where some
degree of compressibility is allowed. To enforce strict incompressibility, J = 1, the
bulk modulus tends to infinity and the resulting strain energy function only represents
the deviatoric portion. This is particular useful when the material is applied in plane
stress problems where full incompressibility is assumed. However, such an
assumption cannot be used if plane strain or 3D analyses are involved because
numerical difficulties can occur if a very high bulk modulus is used. In these cases, a
small compressibility is mandatory but this should not cause concern since only
`near-incompressibility' needs to be ensured for most of the rubber-like materials. A
different way of tackling the near-incompressibility is provided by applying a mixed
displacement/pressure formulation, where the (large) bulk modulus is expressed in
terms of the volume change and the new pressure variable, which is finite and
depends on the applied traction.
The stress tensor for a given strain energy function can be written as
(4.15-11)
or, using the principal strains,
T
hi hi
i=1 i
3
(4.15-12)
where is the strain tensor, i are the principal strains and h i are the vectors of
principal directions, which either define the Lagrangian triad ( h i = N i ) for the
material setting of the problem or the Eulerian triad ( h i = n i ) for the spatial setting.
The second variation of the strain energy function with respect to the strain produces
the tangent modulus matrix used in the computation of the tangent stiffness matrix.
Hence,
D=
2
2
(4.15-13)

The volumetric crushing model is described in terms of deviatoric and volumetric
behaviour which are combined to give an overall material response. The user is
allowed to define the volumetric behaviour of the material by means of a pressurevolumetric strain curve that can be input as a series of co-ordinate points. The
deviatoric behaviour of the material is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic with the
285

yield stress being defined in terms of the volumetric pressure. This formulation is
applicable to plane strain, axisymmetric and 3D stress states. The stresses and strains
may be split into deviatoric and volumetric parts in the following way:
(4.16-1)
l q = lSq pR|1U|
||11||
S|0V|
||0||
T0W
(4.16-2)
lq = l'q + + 3 + R|1U|
||11||
S|0V|
||0||
T0W
where l q and lq are total stress and strain vectors, lSq and l'q are deviatoric
11
22
33
stress and strain vectors and p is the pressure (positive in compression).
This material may behave volumetrically in a nonlinear elastic manner or may include
volumetric crushing in which unloading takes place along a straight line defined by
the unloading bulk modulus which is different to the loading curve. In both cases a
tensile stress cut-off value is employed to limit the amount of stress the material may
sustain in tension. The volumetric behaviour is defined by a pressure-logarithm of
relative volume curve (fig.4.16-1) where pressure is denoted by p and relative
volume by V / V0' If there is no volumetric crushing, loading and unloading takes
place along the same nonlinear curve. There is a maximum (or cut-off) tensile stress
Pcut that the material is capable of bearing whilst still undergoing tensile straining.
However, if volumetric crushing is included then unloading takes place along a
straight line, defined by the unloading bulk modulus K , which is regarded to be the
same as the tensile bulk modulus, but in general different from the initial compressive
bulk modulus, which is equal to the initial slope of the curve.
286

p
compression
tension
-ln(V/V )
0
K
pcut
FIGURE 4.16-1 PRESSURE - LOGARITHM OF RELATIVE VOLUME CURVE

The deviatoric behaviour is governed by the following yield criterion which is
dependent upon the volumetric pressure p:
l q L lSq ca
1
S
2
+ a1p + a 2 p 2
(4.16-3)
lq
where S is the deviatoric stress vector, L is defined as
LM1
MM00
L =M
MM0
MN00
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
OP
PP
PP
PP
Q
(4.16-4)
p is the volumetric pressure and a 0 , a1 , a 2 are user defined constants. If
ca , a p, a p h is replaced by 1 / 3
2
2
y
in equation (4.12-3) it can be seen that this yield criterion is identical to the classical
von Mises yield criterion with uniaxial yield stress y .
For plane strain, axisymmetric and 3D stress states the elastic-plastic deviatoric stress
vector S is defined by the expression
lq
287
lSq = lS q + 2G L el& 'q m& rj

1
(4.16-5)
where G is the shear modulus, S0 is the deviatoric stress vector at the end of the
lq
m r is the
& ' is the incremental deviatoric strain vector and

&
previous increment,
incremental plastic strain vector, defined as
m& r = L lSq
p
(4.16-6)
Here l is the plastic multiplier (zero if no yielding) and there is no hardening in this
material model. It should be noted that, due to the definition of the plastic strains in
equation (4.12-6), non-associative plasticity is assumed and a radial stress return
algorithm is utilised. The relative volumes computed for each formulation are defined
as follows.
Infinitesimal strains:
V
= 1+ 11 + 22 + 33
V0
(4.16-7)
Total Lagrangian formulation:
V
= A1 A 2 + A 3
V0
(4.16-8)
where
b
gb
gb
g
= b1 + 2 g +b1 + 2 g +b1 + 2 g
A1 = 1 + 2 11 1 + 2 22 1 + 2 33
A2
11
2
23
2
13
22
33
2
12
A 3 = 2 12 13 23
Updated Lagrangian formulation - Vp / V0
i is relative volume at last converged
state:
V Vp
=
V0 V0
A1 A 2 + A 3
(4.16-9)
Eulerian (logarithmic strain) formulation:
288
4.17 Delamination Damage Model
V
= 1 2 3 = exp 11 + 22 + 33
V0
1, 2 , 3
(4.16-10)
- principal stretches

The delamination damage model can currently be used only with the interface
elements INT6 and INT16. In this material model, a linear strain softening is assumed
once a threshold strength t has been reached and the material does not resist any
further straining once the total fracture energy Gc has been exceeded. This material
model is defined with four parameters:
threshold strength t at which a failure occurs; this should be a good
estimate of the actual delamination tensile strength but, for many problems
the precise value has little effect on the computed response,
the maximum relative displacement 0 at which material still acts as linear
elastic; provided it is sufficiently small to simulate an initially very stiff
interface the maximum relative displacement will have little effect,
fracture energy G c (area under the curve)
flag denoting whether the delamination is uncoupled or coupled.
The concept is illustrated in Fig. 4.17-1. It should be noted that
defined by
and Gc as
max =
2Gc
289
max is
uniquely

Strength
Initiation stress
Softening
Area = Fracture energy (G)
Elastic
Failure
Relative
displacement
Opening distance
FIGURE 4.17-1 DELAMINATION DAMAGE MODEL

If the strength exceeds the strength threshold value in either of the fracture modes, the
material properties are reduced linearly as defined by the material model and
complete failure is assumed to have occurred when the fracture energy is exceeded.
Unloading can be defined as either fully reversible or as taking place via a shortest
route towards the origin. Three fracture modes exist: opening, shearing, and
orthogonal shearing (tearing). The tearing mode exists only for 3D models. The
number of fracture modes corresponds to dimension of the model, (two in plane and
three in space). Fig. 4.17-2 illustrates the three modes.
FIGURE 4.17-2 FRACTURE MODES

This material model can be used to analyse either an uncoupled delamination or a
coupled delamination. In uncoupled delamination, it is assumed that an onset of
failure in one of the fracture modes does not affect the other fracture modes in the
sense that the material is still understood as compact. Such a behaviour can be
described via a damage model of the type
= I D* E = D unc
(4.17-1)
290

and
= D t
(4.17-2)
where E , D and D t are diagonal matrices with components defined as (i=2 in 2D

and i=3 in 3D)
Eii =
t ,i
0 ,i
(4.17-3)
and
Dt ,ii = Dunc ,ii for i 0,i
Dii* = 0
Dii* =
(4.17-4)
i 0,i max,i
i max,i 0,i
Dt ,ii =
t ,i
max,i 0,i
Dii* = 1
Dt ,ii = 0
(4.17-5)
for
0,i < i < max,i
(4.17-6)
for
max,i i
(4.17-7)
In practice, a damage caused by the initiation of delamination in any mode will have
an immediate effect on all of the fracture modes. This phenomenon can be captured
by the introduction of a parameter of the extent of damage , which is defined as
= T A 1
(4.17-8)
where
LM 1
A=M
MM 0
N
2
0, I
0
1
20, II
OP
PP in 2D and
PQ
LM 1
MM
A=M 0
MM
MN 0
2
0, I
291
20, II
0
2
0 , III
OP
PP
PP in 3D
PP
Q
(4.17-9)

The indices I, II and III denote the fracture modes: I - opening, II - shearing, III orthogonal shearing (tearing) in 3D. The linear coupled delamination damage model
follows as a generalisation of the earlier linear uncoupled model, whereby
= I F * E = D mix
(4.17-10)
The diagonal matrices E and F and the tangent modulus matrix D t (coming from
= D t ) follow as
0:
Fii* = 0
>0
max,i
1
+ 1 max,i 0,i
and
Fii* =
(4.17-11)
max,i
+ 1 max,i 0,i
F E A
*
D t = D mix
>0
D t = D mix
and
b g
+1
(4.17-12)
max,i
> 1 Fii* = 1 D t = 0
+ 1 max,i 0,i
(4.17-13)
It should be noted that in the coupled delamination damage model, the tangent
constitutive matrix D t is non-symmetric in the softening region. For that reason, the
solution procedure within LUSAS automatically uses the non-symmetric frontal
solver whenever a coupled delamination model is specified.
With this material model sharp snap-backs can often occur. In order to handle these
snap-backs as efficiently as possible, it is beneficial to choose a root during the arclength process, which is associated with the lowest residual norm [H13].
292
Load And Boundary Conditions
5 Load And
Boundary
Conditions
5.1 General Load Types
The load types available with each element are documented in the LUSAS Element
Library. In this section some general comments on the use of the load types are given,
together with descriptions of the more complex load types.
5.1.1 General Comments

5.1.1.1 Pressure Loading
The contribution face and surface pressures to the nodal forces has the form
n
Rs = N s
e=1
(e) T (e)
t ds
(5.1-1)
Pressure loading is element dependent [see the LUSAS Element Library] and may be
specified using one of the following
distributed loads, uniformly distributed loads or distributed internal element
loads,
face loads,
body force potentials or element body force potentials,
element loads
The equivalent nodal forces are formed either by

explicit evaluation (i.e. without recourse to numerical integration, for example,
explicitly integrated beam elements),
293

or by integrating over an element length, area or face area using Gauss
quadrature.
Numerical integration is generally performed using the same rule that is used to form
the element stiffness matrix, e.g. for a QPM8 element with 2*2 integration, a 2-point
rule is used to evaluate the face pressures. An exception to this are the solid elements,
and the integration rules for these elements are given in table 5.1-1.
Element
Quadrilateral
Faces
Triangular
Faces
HX8
3*3
HX16
4*4
HX20
4*4
PN6
3*3
4-point
PN12
4*4
7-point
PN15
4*4
7-point
TH4
3*3
4-point
TH10
4*4
7-point
TABLE 5.1-1 INTEGRATION RULES UTILISED IN EVALUATING NODAL

FORCES DUE TO SURFACE LOADING FOR SOLID ELEMENTS
When the pressures are specified on a nodal basis, they are first interpolated to the
Gauss points using the element shape functions.
5.1.1.2 Body Forces
Body force input is element dependent [see the LUSAS Element Library] and may be
specified using either of the following.
constant body forces, which are specified on an element basis,
body force potentials or element body force potentials, which are specified on
a nodal basis. These include pore water pressure for effective stress analysis.
The body forces are specified as forces/unit volume and the equivalent nodal forces
are formed by integrating over the volume of the element. The Gauss quadrature rule
is then used to form the element stiffness matrix, i.e.
n
Rb = N
e =1
(e) T
(e)
(5.1-2)
dv
When the body forces are specified on a nodal basis they are first interpolated to the
Gauss points using the element shape functions.
294

5.1.1.3 Initial Stresses/Strains
The force vector due to the initial stresses and strains is defined as:
n
Ro = B
e=1
( e )T
(e)
o
(e)
(e)
D o
i dv
(5.1-3)
Initial stresses/strains in a structure may be due to the initial load conditions, i.e. the
application of initial stresses/strains without equilibrating forces results in
deformation. An example in which initial stresses would be utilised is the generation
of initial equilibrating loads and stresses in a soil excavation analysis.
Initial stresses/strains must be specified in the first load case and cannot be altered
5.1.1.4 Temperature Loading
The initial strains are defined by
e j e j
o = bo g + bo g
(e)
(5.1-4)
(e)
(e)
where ( o )i are the initial strains specified at the start of the analysis, ( o )t are
the thermal strains which may change at the beginning of each load increment. The
temperature strain vector is element dependent, and the specific form for each
element is given in section 7.
5.1.1.5 Residual Stresses
Residual stresses are stresses that are locked into the structure in its initial
configuration, i.e. the application of residual stresses alone causes no deformation
(they only influence the solution of geometrically or materially nonlinear problems).
An example of the use of residual stresses is the representation of the effects of
manufacturing on cylindrical panels.
Residual stresses must be specified in the first load case and cannot be altered
5.1.1.6 Field Analysis
The field and equivalent structural load cases are given in table 5.1-2.
295
Field Loading
Equivalent Load Case
Q field loading at nodes
Concentrated Load
Q coefficient for element, defined per

unit volume
Constant Body Force
Q coefficient, constant body force

defined at nodes
Body Force Potential
q (Q/unit area), defined at nodes

Positive q defines heat input
Face Loads
e , external fluid temperature defined
Environmental Temperature
Loading
at nodes
TABLE 5.1-2 FIELD AND EQUIVALENT STRUCTURAL LOAD CASES

Notes
If an element face is not assigned an environmental temperature it will be

assumed to be perfectly insulated.
Convective/radiative flux boundary conditions influence the element stiffness
matrices (2.9-7).
Therefore, insulated faces cannot be
changed to
convective/radiative faces when multiple load cases are used (and vice versa).
5.1.2 Generalised Acceleration Loading

If a particle p is described in a rotating coordinate system x , then the total
acceleration with reference to a fixed coordinate
x is defined by
&&
x = &&
x + x + 2 x& + x
(5.1-5)
where
&&
x
x&
is the acceleration of the particle with respect to x ,

is the velocity of the particle with respect to
is the angular velocity tensor of the rotating system defined as
LM 0
=M
MN
and
x,
z
0
y
x
OP
PP
Q
(5.1-6)
is the angular acceleration tensor of the rotating system defined as
296
LM 0
=M
MN
z
0
y
x
z
y
OP
PP
Q
(5.1-7)
Using d'Alembert's principle, the inertia force may be included as part of the
vector as (2.1-15)
Rb = N T f &&
x dv
v
load
(5.1-8)
= Rbb f g + Rbb a g + Rbb c g + Rbb co g + Rbb aa g
(5.1-9)
where R bb f g is the force vector due to element body loads defined as
Rbb f g = N f dv
(5.1-10)
Rbb a g is the linear accelerations force vector e.g. gravity, defined by
Rbb a g = N &&
x dv
(5.1-11)
Rbb c g is the centrifugal force vector defined by
Rbb c g = N x dv
(5.1-12)
R bb co g is the Coriolis force vector defined by
Rbb co g = N 2 x& dv
(5.1-13)
Rbb aa g is the angular acceleration force vector defined by
Rbb aa g = N x dv
(5.1-14)
Note. The effects of the Coriolis forces are neglected in all analysis procedures.
Both the centrifugal and angular acceleration force terms provide contribution to the
load stiffness matrix i.e.
297
K = B DB dv + N N dv + N N dv
v
(5.1-15)
The third term of (5.1-15) is neglected as it is non-symmetric and only affects

problems where angular acceleration is present.
Note. Centrifugal effects may only be modelled in nonlinear analyses.
5.1.3 HA/HB Loading

The HA/HB loading facility permits the application of point, knife edge and patch
loads to be applied to the surface of a structure.
The loading is applied by
Defining a local coordinate system (which corresponds to the centroid of the
patch for HA loading)
For HB loading, defining a series of point loads located in the local
coordinate system.
For HA loading, defining a rectangular patch located in the local coordinate
system. This is then sub-divided into a specified number of divisions, and
equivalent point loads are defined at the centroid of each sub-division.
Notes
The number of sub-divisions required is governed by the element

discretisation, e.g. if the patch load is contained inside one element a single
sub-division should be satisfactory. Whereas, if the patch load overlaps many
elements, more sub-divisions are required (fig.5.1-1).
The loads must always be applied in the global Z direction.
The equivalent nodal loading due to each point load Pzi , positioned at point
X i , Yi ,
is then evaluated by:

Evaluating which element contains the point load. This is achieved by
examining each element e in the region of the point load, and solving
X i = N j i , i e X ej
j =1
(5.1-16)
Yi = N j i , i eYje
j =1
(5.1-17)
298
for
i the natural coordinates of the point of application

1 i , i +1 the point load lies within the element.
and
of the load. If
The equivalent nodal point loading is evaluated using
Pz j = N j i , i Pzi j = 1, n
(5.1-18)
Patch Load
Load Applied
No Load Applied
(a) Patch Load Contained in a Single Element

Load distributed
over 4 nodes
Load distributed
over 16 nodes
Single Sub Division
3*3 Sub Division
(b) Patch Load Spanning Several Elements
FIG.5.1-1 SUB-DIVISION OF THE PATCH LOAD
299
5.2 Constraint Equations

Constraint equations may be used to impose relationships among the freedoms of a
structure. An individual multi-point constraint equation has the form
CV
1 1 + C2V2 + CV
i i .............+ CmVm = Q
(5.2-1)
where
Vi
Ci
are the nodal variables,

are constants
is the prescribed value
A series of constraint equations can be written in a general form as
Ca = Q
(5.2-2)
where C and Q are a matrix and vector of constants respectively, and
a is the
nodal displacement vector.

Lagrange's method of undetermined multipliers is used to evaluate the minimum of
the total potential energy , augmented with the constraint equations, i.e.
1 T
T
T
a K a a R + Ca Q
2
(5.2-3)
Evaluating the stationary value of , i.e. / a = / = 0 gives
LM K
MN C
C
0
OPRSa UV = RS RUV
PQT W TQW
(5.2-4)
In practice, the constraint equations and the stiffness terms are interlaced during the
solution process, and each equation is processed as soon as all the stiffness
coefficients associated with the equation are assembled. This minimises the increase
in the frontwidth and maintains a positive definite stiffness matrix provided K is
positive definite.
An alternative to the above is to use the Penalty method to evaluate the minimum of
the total potential energy , again augmented with the constraint equations but
without introducing an extra variable, i.e.
300
1 T
T
a K a a R + Ca Q
2
Evaluating the stationary value of
i dCa Qi
T
i.e. / a = 0 gives
lq l q
n s
K + 2 C T C a = R + 2 C T Q
The value of
(5.2-5)
is a constant of relatively large magnitude, e.g.
(5.2-6)
b g.
>> max kii
Notes
Constraints cannot be used to eliminate mechanisms from an unconstrained

structure.
Prescribed values cannot be present in a constraint equation.
For eigenvalue extraction, Q must be zero.
The constraint equations must not be over-sufficient, e.g. if we require
a1 = a2 = a3 then two equations are sufficient i.e.
a1 a2 = 0
a2 a3 = 0
and three equations would be over-sufficient
a1 a2 = 0
a2 a3 = 0
a1 a3 = 0
The system parameter PENTLY is only required when CONSTRAINT

EQUATIONS are used to apply boundary conditions across two or more
SEPARATE bodies in STATIC or DYNAMIC analyses.
When using constraint equations, the diagonal elements of the coefficient
stiffness matrix corresponding to the Lagrange multipliers are zero. If the
constraint equations are processed as they occur (arbitrarily) in the structure,
this will result in a singular matrix and solution will not be possible. To
circumvent this problem, therefore, the constraint equations are always solved
subsequent to the structural elements attached to each constraint to ensure that
the total stiffness coefficient of each degree of freedom is present and the
diagonal is negative definite (the warning messages associated with these
negative values being suppressed in this case).
In considering the case of a constraint equation connecting the degrees of
freedom of two separate bodies there will not be a stiffness term associated
with the equation even if the constraints are processed last, and a singular
matrix will, again, result. The use of the PENTLY parameter simply places a
one degree of freedom spring in parallel with each constraint equation to give
301
such a stiffness - the spring value is necessarily small to avoid ill-conditioning

but other than this, it has no effect except to enable the solution to proceed.
Hence, PENTLY may be usually specified as unity.
5.3 Transformed Freedoms

Supports and lines of symmetry, not coincident with the structural axes (fig.5.3-1),
may be represented using transformed freedoms. With this method, the global
freedoms u at the boundary nodes, are replaced with rotated freedoms u' , which are
aligned with the skew support or symmetry direction (fig.5.3-2) where
u = u'
(5.3-1)
where is the local-global transformation matrix.

The element stiffness matrices and force vectors are formed in the global Cartesian
system, and then modified by applying transformations before element assembly
K ' = T KT and
T
where K' and
R' = T R
T
(5.3-2)
R' are the transformed stiffness matrix and force vector and
LM I
T = M0
MN0
0 0
0
0 I
OP
PP
Q
(5.3-3)
where I are identity matrices.

After assembly and solution of the equations, the displacements for the local
freedoms are transformed to the global Cartesian system using (5.3-1) before stress
evaluation.
302
Line of
Symmetry
(b) Symmetry Condition
(a) Skew Support
FIG.5.3-1 SUPPORT CONDITIONS NOT ALIGNED WITH GLOBAL AXES
303
y
y
y
x
y
x
X
FIG.5.3-2 ROTATED FREEDOMS ALIGNED WITH SYMMETRY DIRECTION
304
5.4 Slidelines
Slidelines may be used to model the contact behaviour between two or more bodies.
They are an alternative to joint elements or constraint equations, and have advantages
in the following situations
Finite relative surface deformations with arbitrary contact and separation

No exact prior knowledge of the contact process
A large number of nodes are defined within the probable contact region
Highly localised element density in the region of high stress gradients
Their applications range from projectile impact, vehicle crash-worthiness, the

containment of failed components such as turbine blades, to interference fits, rock
joints and bolt/plate connections. Furthermore, the elimination of the requirement for
transition zones in mesh discretisations comprising different degrees of mesh
refinement is also possible.
In a number of finite element contact problems (such as metal forming processes) a
very stiff component comes into contact with a softer deformable body. In these
situations the stiff component remains virtually undeformed during contact. Under
such circumstances it is possible to model the stiff component as a completly rigid
body.
Several slideline options are currently available
Null slideline
General sliding without friction
General sliding with friction
Tied sliding
Sliding only (without friction or lift off)
These slideline options are based numerically on the following methods:

Penalty method
Augmented Lagrangian method
Nodal constraint
The penalty method is currently utilised for all slideline types while the augmented
Lagrangian method is available for all slideline types in two dimensions and selected
slideline types in three dimensions. The nodal constraint method is used for tied
slidelines when used in conjunction with an explicit time integration scheme. Note
that the null slideline type is independent of the slideline method, and may be used to
prevent the effect of any slidelines defined in the data file to be included in the
solution.
305
The tied slideline option eliminates the requirement of a transition zone in mesh
discretisations comprising differing degrees of refinement and is extremely useful in
creating a highly localised mesh in the region of high stress gradients.
Slidelines will not model surfaces collapsing onto themselves at present without an
initial, accurate estimate as to where the contact is likely to occur.
Note that the slideline facility is inherently nonlinear and requires use of the
NONLINEAR CONTROL data command. The tied slideline option for both penalty
and nodal constraint methods, however, computes the contact location point once
only for each contact node since its relative position never changes and enables it to
be used in conjunction with a linear analysis.
The general slideline options may be utilised for modelling finite relative
deformations of colliding solids in two or three dimensions which involve sliding
(with or without friction) and constant or intermittent contact conditions. The sliding
only option is similar to the general sliding options but does not permit intermittent
contact conditions or friction.
The slideline facility may be used with the following elements (see SLIDELINE
MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS as well)
Element Type
LUSAS elements
Plane stress
TPM3, QPM4, QPM4M, TPM3E, QPM4E
Plane Strain
TPN3, QPN4, QPN4M, TPN3E, QPN4E
Axisymmetric
TAX3, QAX4, QAX4M, QAX4M, TAX3E, QAX4E
Shell
TTS3, QTS4
Solid
TH4, PN6, HX8, HX8M, TH4E, PN6E, HX8E
Rigid Surface
R2D2, R3D3, R3D4
5.4.1 Slideline Data Input

Each slideline is comprised of two slideline surfaces, one surface being termed a
master surface, the other a slave surface. Each slideline surface is defined by a
number of contact segments which correspond to an external face of an element
closest to the surface. A segment in two dimensions would, therefore, be defined by
only two nodes. A three dimensional segment may, however, have three or four nodes
depending on which face of the element constitutes the contact surface.
Each master and slave surface is defined using an orderly definition of segments in
the region of the potential contact zone.
The distinction between master and slave surfaces is arbitrary for slidelines that use
the penalty and augmented Lagrangian methods since a two pass algorithm over both
306
surfaces is used. The nodal constraint slideline treatment, however, is more robust if
the mesh with the greatest contact node density is designated the master surface.
The slideline facility requires the following data input
Slideline property definition
Slideline surface definition
Slideline assignments
5.4.1.1 Slideline Properties
The SLIDELINE PROPERTIES command specifies the overall features of each

slideline such as the:
Slideline stiffness scale factors (See section 5.4.3.5)

Friction coefficient (See section 5.4.4.5)
Zonal contact detection radius coefficient (See section 5.4.3.2)
Slideline extension distance (See section 5.4.3.3)
The slideline properties may be re-specified at any stage during an analysis, but the
following rules should be adhered to
Only existing properties can be overwritten. New data sets cannot be
introduced
The redefined data set must be consistent with the previous set in the sense
that a table of properties must be respecified in tabular form and cannot be
converted into a standard set of properties and vice versa.
Additional lines of data cannot be added to a table of properties, however, if
fewer lines are respecified, the remaining lines of data will retain their
previous values.
Data will only be changed if actual values are respecified. If a data location is
left blank the previous value will remain active.
Respecifying a 'D' in a data location will cause the previous value to be
overwritten with the appropriate default value.
5.4.1.2 Slideline Definition
The topological properties of each slideline surface are defined using this command
section.
The definition of the slideline segments for each slideline surface is a vital component
in the correct use of slidelines, and is governed at the data input stage by a few simple
laws. The definition of a consistent surface definition is necessary to enable the
correct computation of unit normal and tangential vectors for each slideline segment.
If slidelines are generated using LUSAS Modeller then the laws will be complied
automatically and require no further consideration.
307
The compliance with the following laws is assisted in TWO dimensional analyses
only by the use of OPTION 61. This option invokes a simple algorithm within
LUSAS which takes the segment ordering as defined in the data file and
automatically ensures a continuous sequence based upon the given segment node
direction.
This option is used to enable LUSAS Modeller to ignore the rule for two dimensional
consecutive segment ordering (following) and permit the segment ordering to be
given in an arbitrary sequence, thus relaxing the constraints on processing in LUSAS
Modeller.
This option is automatically written to a data file upon tabulation in LUSAS
Modeller. If, however, the slideline surface definitions are input manually to the data
file without the use of LUSAS Modeller, the following laws must be complied with:
Two-dimensional slidelines
With option 61
Without option 61
The slideline segment node ordering must

be given in a consistent (but not
necessarily consecutive) direction for all
segments of each slideline surfaces but
the segment directions for each slideline
surface (master and slave) must have
opposing segment directions.
The slideline segment node ordering

must be given in the same direction for
all segments of all constituent slideline
surfaces (master and slave).
The segment ordering must be given in
a consecutive sequence
SLIDELINE_SURFACE DEFINITION 1
10
10
So there are two methods of defining a slideline surface independently from LUSAS
Modeller:
Write the SLIDELINE DEFINITION
command according to the first law and
ensure that OPTION 61 is included in the
data file.
308
Write the SLIDELINE DEFINITION

command according to the above laws
and ensure that OPTION 61 is
removed from the data file.

Three dimensional slidelines
Note. OPTION 61 has no effect in a three dimensional analysis.

The node definition for each segment must be labelled in an anti-clockwise
direction (when looking towards the structure along the outward normal to the
segment). The numbering convention obeys the right hand rule.
It is not permitted to define a slideline completely around an enclosed circular surface

(i.e. a continuous slideline surface).
Rigid surface contact
When rigid surface contact is to be used in LUSAS the rigid slideline segments are
defined using SLIDELINE DEFINITION RIGID.
5.4.1.3 Slideline Assignments
The individual slideline surfaces are assembled into the required slidelines using the
SLIDELINE ASSIGNMENT data section.
The distinction between master and slave surfaces is arbitrary for slidelines that use
the penalty and augmented Lagrangian methods since a two pass algorithm over both
surfaces is used. The nodal constraint slideline treatment, however, is more robust if
the mesh with the greatest contact node density is designated the master surface.
If, however, the slideline commands have not been defined within LUSAS Modeller
then it must be ensured that the slave surface is on the left side as you move along the
master surface in the direction specified in the TWO dimensional slideline surface
definitions. It is immaterial which slideline surface is defined as the master or the
slave for three dimensional analyses.
A slideline surface definition number may only be used once in the slideline
assignment command in order to maintain the uniqueness of each slideline surface in
the subsequent processing. There is no limit on the number of times that a surface
may be used, however, if the surface definition is copied and assigned different
surface definition numbers as required.
If the master and slave surfaces of a slideline are assigned the wrong way round,
contact will be assumed in geometric configurations in which the surfaces are in fact
apart and will result in surfaces being pulled together.
Note that, in order to increase the efficiency and maintainability of the software, the
definition of the slave surface definition is automatically reversed. This means that a
slideline originally defined in LUSAS Modeller (or by hand) with two surfaces
defined in the same direction will be viewed in the results processor as having the
master surface in the original direction but the slave surface will now be viewed in the
opposite sense.
309
If OPTION 61 is set then the slave reversal will NOT be performed as LUSAS will
assume that the surfaces have already been manipulated in this way. This reversal will
only be performed for two dimensional analyses.
The slideline type (e.g. tied, general sliding with friction) can be redefined at selected
stages throughout an analysis. This involves respecifying the SLIDELINE
ASSIGNMENT data chapter, however, only the slideline type and pre-contact
parameter can be changed and all other input data must remain constant. Previously
defined SLIDELINE PROPERTIES can also be redefined but additional data sets
cannot be introduced.
Temperature dependent SLIDELINE PROPERTIES can also be specified. In this case
the TABLE command must follow the SLIDELINE PROPERTIES command. Lines
of data listing the slideline properties at particular reference temperatures are then
input.
A nonlinear friction law can be introduced by using the SLIDELINE PROPERTIES
USER command. This command allows a set of friction parameters to be defined
which may vary with the temperature, velocity and acceleration of the contacting
surfaces. These properties may also be specified as temperature dependent.
All slideline types (e.g. tied, general sliding with friction) can be used rigid surface
contact. Because the rigid surfaces are not allowed to contact each other, only one of
the master or slave surface can be rigid. When a slideline has a rigid surface, it is
possible to select between one or two pass contact algorithm. A one pass check is
faster, but the penetration of rigid surface into deformable surface is not corrected.
The penetration of the rigid surface into the deformable surface can be prevented
either by the default two pass algorithm or by using a finer mesh on the deformable
surface.
5.4.2 Slideline Terminology

To avoid ambiguity in the following discussion, the following terms will be defined
(Fig.5.4-1)
Current node The potential contact node currently undergoing examination
to determine its contact condition.
Adjacent node Any potential contact node on the opposing surface to the
current node.
Local node The node on the opposing surface that is closest to the current
node.
Local segment The contact segment upon which the current node has, or is
likely to, come into contact.
310

Current node
Adjacent
node
Local node
Local Segment
FIG.5.4-1 SLIDELINE DEFINITIONS
5.4.3 The Slideline Algorithm

The algorithm monitors the interaction of the surfaces that comprise each slideline
and, upon contact, imposes interaction forces to prevent penetration.
With the penalty method this involves the introduction of a penalty parameter,
which multiplied with the penetration provides the force necessary to prevent
penetration.
The augmented Lagrangian method involves an additional Lagrangian
multiplier that is used to increase the accuracy of the force at the surface
without resulting in ill-conditioning.
The algorithm is therefore very simple, with most of the effort being expended in
tracing each potential contact node.
The technique is symmetric in nature in which a double pass of the surfaces

comprising each slideline is performed, i.e. each of the master and slave surface
nodes are considered in determining the presence of contact conditions.
The symmetrical nature of the algorithm, together with its simplicity, results in a
robust formulation that has been proven over many years. The theory behind
slidelines and contact can be found in section 5.4.4.
The essence of the slideline procedure is as follows, (see the section on Slidelien
Terminology)
5.4.3.1 Local node search
The continuous tracking of each contact node commences in the local node search, in
which the local node is located for each current node.
311
By default, the local node search is carried out over all the adjacent nodes to ensure
that the correct node is extracted. This "stringent" test is required for rapidly changing
surface geometries in the contact area, for example a screw thread.
For simpler geometries, such as flat surfaces in contact, a slight reduction in
processing time may be achieved by suppressing this "stringent" local node search
using OPTION 184 and invoking an iterative procedure. This procedure locates the
immediately adjacent segment nodes to the local node and extracts the minimum
distance between these nodes and the current node. If any of these distances are
greater than the distance between the current and local node then the search is ended.
The process is performed again if one of these distances is less by taking the adjacent
node which gives the smallest distance as the new local node. The procedure will
continue for 500 times before stopping.
The number of iterations is controlled by the system parameter,
changed via the SYSTEM command.
MXIT,
and may be
5.4.3.2 Zonal contact detection
Only a small proportion of current nodes will typically be active at any one time and,
for this reason, a screening procedure is used to eliminate those nodes which need no
detailed consideration.
A radial 'contact zone' is defined around each local node (Fig.5.4-2). Contact is only
possible if the current node is located within this zone. The contact zone radius is a
measure of the maximum distance between any two neighbouring contact nodes. It
has a different value for each slideline surface and is continuously updated throughout
the solution as the segment lengths change. The relationship is thus:zonal contact radius = zonal detection parameter *maximum distance
between any two neighbouring
contact nodes
The zonal contact detection parameter controls the degree of radial overlap between
neighbouring contact zones.
The default magnitude of the zonal parameter is 5/9 (for explicit dynamics analyses)
or 10/9 (for static and implicit dynamic analyses). This ensures that all the zones
overlap. If it is set to less than 0.5, undetected penetration may occur.
To override this preliminary contact detection test, the zonal parameter may be set to
a large number such as 100. This would be required in situations in which the
displacements in the contact area are expected to be greater than the largest contact
segment length in any increment. The default value, however, has been found to be
sufficient for the majority of problem types because of the convergence difficulties
associated with such a large displacement increment.
312

Current node
b2
Contact
zone
rz
b1
FIG.5.4-2 ZONAL CONTACT DETECTION TEST

5.4.3.3 Segment definition
For all current nodes passing the zonal contact detection test, tracking is continued by
extracting the local segment from the adjacent segments connected to the local node.
This process obtains the updated segment direction cosines to be used in both the
contact location point and slideline interface force calculations.
A slideline extension may be defined for each slideline independently in the slideline
data input section by assigning a unique slideline property assignment number to each
slideline using the SLIDELINE ASSIGNMENT command.
The calculation of a "pseudo-segment" using a slideline segment extension may be
performed in two and three dimensional analyses so as to eliminate the complete
penetration of slave node(s) through the master surface at a slideline extremity. For
example see Fig.5.4-3, where a segment extension has been depicted at a centreline.
Oscillations in either the residual or displacement norms can indicate that a
modification to the slideline extension tolerance is required. A general guide for the
magnitude of this parameter is that it should be approximately half a typical slideline
segment length in the area of interest.
For example: For the case in fig.5.4-3, the contacting node will come out of contact as
soon as the cantilever starts to bend since the contact point is determined by
projecting NORMALLY onto the opposing surface. The extension as shown stops
this from happening.
For non-flat surfaces regions develop below the surface that lie outside the region of
any segment. Contact in such regions (corner regions) is dealt with using the
formulations of section 5.4.4.9 which effectively defines the contact problem as
node-on-node or node-on-line.
A further tolerance (TOLNOD) is required for node-on-node contact to stop potential
oscillation of the residual norms as the contacting nodes change contact from one
313
segment to another. The default value of the tolerance zone is 1e-5 and may be
modified using the SYSTEM command in the usual manner
projectile
(S)
Target plate
TOL
FIG.5.4-3 SLIDELINE EXTENSION IN TWO DIMENSIONS
5.4.3.4 Contact location point
The contact location point is defined as the position on the local segment which is
nearest to the current node. This is a non-trivial process in three dimensional analyses.
The method is fundamentally a Newton type iteration which converges quadratically
providing the initial estimate is near the root.
The identification of this location point is necessary to evaluate the normal
penetration and tangential gap distances.
The coordinates of all contact nodes which are determined to have penetrated prior to
the commencement of the analysis are reset to the contact location point. Fig.5.4-4
shows a node (m) in initial contact due to poor mesh discretisation which is
subsequently set to position (c).
OPTION 186 will suppress this facility as required and is a useful method for
simulating interference fit problems, since the forces required for the interference fit
will come directly from the initial penetrations found by the slideline algorithms.
314
OPTION 186 should preferably not be used while 'de-bugging' a data file since the
suppression of the warning messages could remove some important indicators to data
file errors.
Note that the resetting of coordinates is not available for tied slidelines.
The following messages, however, may be generated for tied or sliding only
slidelines:
***WARNING***
SLIDING ONLY SLIDELINE NODE a IS NOT IN CONTACT
CONFIGURATION.
INITIAL CONFIGURATION DEFINED AS
CONTACT NODE NUMBER
=
ON
SURFACE NUMBER
=
SLIDELINE NUMBER
=
d
WITH
CLOSEST SEGMENT DEFINIED BY NODES
AND
NORMAL DISTANCE FROM SURFACE
***WARNING***
IN THE INITIAL
b
c
= e f (g h)
= i
TIED SLIDELINE NODE a IS NOT IN CONTACT IN THE INITIAL CONFIGURATION.

INITIAL CONFIGURATION DEFINED AS
CONTACT NODE NUMBER =
b
ON
SURFACE NUMBER
=
c
SLIDELINE NUMBER
=
d
WITH
CLOSEST SEGMENT DEFINIED BY NODES
= e f (g h)
AND
NORMAL DISTANCE FROM SURFACE
= I
This is simply a geometric warning that the slideline surface definition may be
incorrect. The nodes on the slideline, however, will be continue to be processed and
will maintain their relative position throughout the analysis. Thus, any gaps will
remain as gaps throughout the analysis. This may cause an analysis to be over-stiff in
the contact area due to the rigid tying of nodes which are not part of the active contact
conditions. By defining such slidelines so that the slideline surface definitions extend
only as far as required will eliminate any artificial stiffening.
Initial Configuration
(m)
b2
(c)
Final Configuration
b1
FIG.5.4-4 CONTACT NODE COORDINATE MODIFICATION

315

5.4.3.5 Computation of the interface stiffness
The stiffness for each contact node is based upon the material and geometric
properties of the elements which are immediately adjacent to each of the contact
nodes.
For two dimensional analyses
contact node stiffness = stiffness scale factor * bulk modulus * length
2 * thickness
and for three dimensional analyses
contact node stiffness = stiffness scale factor * bulk modulus * area2
volume
Since the values for the bulk modulus, length, area and volume have no meaning at a
point, they are computed for each contact node using an averaging process performed
over each of the adjacent segment contributions. See also section 5.4.4.4.
For three dimensional analyses, the following message may be generated
***WARNING*** A VERY SMALL VOLUME a HAS BEEN DETECTED WHILST PROCESSING CONTACT NODE b
This may be due to incorrect element topology, probably also giving an illegal
Jacobian determinant message. The units used in the analysis may also be causing
machine precision problem and the units should be changed to permit a larger number
of significant digits for the node coordinates, e.g. change from metres to millimetres.
The stiffness scale factor is input for the master and slave surfaces by the user via the
SLIDELINE PROPERTIES command. This factor controls the degree of interpenetration experienced in the contact zone. The default values are usually adequate,
but larger values will reduce the penetration further. Note, however, too large a value
may cause chattering at the interface or ill-conditioning.
It has been found that the influence of the stiffness scale factors do not have a
significant effect on the final stresses except in the case of tied slidelines in which a
factor as high as possible should be defined to ensure as rigid a connection as
possible.
The penalty method may use typical values as follows
Slideline Type
Scale Factor
General sliding without friction
0.01 - 50
General sliding with friction
0.01 - 50
Tied sliding
100 - 10000
Sliding only (without friction or lift off)
316
0.01 - 50
These are only a guide, and the default values should normally give a reasonable
estimate for the analysis type. For instance, the default values in explicit dynamics
analyses is 0.1, whilst for implicit dynamics or static analyses with tied slidelines the
default is 5.0. There are instances in which the default values would require
increasing such as analyses involving rigid wall contact, since the forces required to
maintain low relative penetrations would be necessarily higher than that for two
deformable bodies.
Intractable solutions may occur if two materials of significantly differing properties
are utilised for the colliding bodies. In this instance a scaling procedure on the
slideline surface stiffnesses will be automatically invoked at the beginning of each
analysis if the ratio of the average stiffness values for each constituent slideline
surface differ by a factor greater than a default value of 100.
Note that the stiffness ratio at which the stiffness modification is invoked may be
modified by specifying an alternative magnitude through the SYSTEM command in
the LUSAS data file (SLSTFM parameter).
The stiffness modification procedure may be suppressed by using OPTION 185. The
nodal constraint method, used only for the tied slideline option in an explicit
dynamics analysis, does not use the stiffness scale factors.
5.4.3.6 Application of constraints
When the current node has penetrated the local segment, interaction forces are
imposed upon both the current node and the adjacent nodes defining the local
segment. These forces exactly satisfy the conditions for conservation of translational
and rotational momenta.
The normal contact force scalar for any contact node is calculated as follows, (see
section 5.4.4 for further details of these calculations):
for the penalty method
normal force = contact node stiffness * normal penetration distance
for the augmented Lagrangian method
normal force = (contact node stiffness * normal penetration distance) +
normal Lagrangian multiplier
A certain amount of inter-penetration is essential to develop an interface force.

Often the assumption of a frictionless interface condition is unrealistic. For this case a
formulation based upon the Coulomb friction coefficient is used in which a tangential
force increment is generated to act on the current node. The sign is chosen such that
the frictional force resists relative motion between the current node and the local
segment.
317

5.4.3.7 Implicit or static analyses
The foregoing steps are applicable for all slidelines utilising the penalty method.
When this method is utilised within an implicit dynamic or static environment,
however, the assembly of the coupling element stiffness matrix into the global
stiffness matrix is additionally required.
The tangential motion processing is performed utilising only a force methodology and
does not require stiffness matrix modifications.
5.4.4 Slidelines and Contact

This section will introduce contact formulations based on a contact element definition
within a co-rotational framework dealing with normal contact, sticking and sliding
friction, and corner regions for the penalty method in both two and three dimensions.
Selected formulations are also derived for the augmented Lagrangian method, along
with an additional technique that symmetrises the tangent stiffness matrix based on
this method. All formulations are consistently linearised to ensure that the resulting
formulations are quadratically convergent. We will concentrate on the finite element
formulation rather than the continuum formulation which can be found in [L5]. We
will therefore omit integral and summation signs and assume that an assembly of all
elements will be carried out.
Contact and constrained minimisation

The 2D Contact Element
The 3D Contact Element
The Penalty Parameter
Normal Contact
Friction: Sticking
Friction: Coulomb
Symmetrisation of 2D Coulomb Friction - Augmented Lagrangian
Corner Regions
5.4.4.1 Contact and constrained minimisation
The contact problem is equivalent to an inequality constrained minimisation and can

be defined as follows.
Minimise:
(5.4-1)
Subject to:
gN 0
(5.4-2)
where the minimisation of the total potential energy of the system, , is subject to the
inequality constraint (5.4-2). g N in (5.4-2) is the normal penetration of a node N. A
318
node is in contact if
to zero.
g N is negative and out of contact if gN is greater than or equal
Both the penalty method and the augmented Lagrangian method deal with the
problem by incorporating the constraint into the function to be minimised, converting
the constrained minimisation into one which is unconstrained. This will then involve
modifications to the internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix when the
normal penetration is in the inadmissible region. The difference between the two
methods is the manner by which the constraint is incorporated and the way in which
constraint violations are reduced. We will restrict ourselves to normal contact only in
order to illustrate the basic aspects of the two methods.
With the penalty method the problem (5.4-1) and (5.4-2) is converted into
P = +
Minimise:
1
N g 2N
2
(5.4-3)
With the augmented Lagrangian method the problem becomes
A = +
Minimise:
where
1
N g 2N + g N
2
(5.4-4)
is the Lagrangian multiplier, which in this case is associated with the
normal direction. The two functions are then minimised using the Newton Raphson
method since they are non-linear in nature.
In order to derive the internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix contributions
let us define the contact contributions to the energy for an active contact node (the
contact node is also referred to as the current node in LUSAS), as
Pc =
Penalty method:
Augmented Lagrangian method: A c =
1
N g 2N
2
(5.4-5)
1
N g 2N + g N
2
(5.4-6)
The internal force vector contribution with both methods is obtained from a first
variation of the energy function in (5.4-5) or (5.4-6).
q ic p = Pc
T
or
q ic p = A c
T
(5.4-7)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is obtained from a first variation of the
internal force vector.
319
p T K tc = q ic
(5.4-8)
If no changes are made at the force level then this is equivalent to the second
variation of the energy function.
p T K tc p = 2 Pc
or
p T K tc p = 2 A c
(5.4-9)
With the penalty method the value of the penalty parameter determines the extent to
which the constraint (5.4-2) is violated. The higher the penalty parameter the lower
the constraint violations and hence the lower the penetrations. However, if the penalty
parameter is too high the problem will become ill-conditioned so that a careful choice
has to be made. The definition in section 5.4.4.4 later is designed to provide a
reasonable estimate of the penalty parameter to avoid problems of ill-conditioning
and yet return reasonable levels of penetration.
The augmented Lagrangian method is designed to avoid the sensitivity of the solution
to the penalty parameter by employing a Lagrangian multiplier term alongside the
penalty term in the energy function (5.4-4). If the solution does not produce an
acceptable level of constraint violation and hence penetration, the Lagrangian
multiplier is updated and the solution re-run. This procedure is continued until all
penetrations are within a specified tolerance of the surface. For normal contact the
update is carried out as follows.
kN+1 = min 0, kN + N g N
(5.4-10)
The Lagrangian multiplier represents the contact force at the surface. As the
Lagrangian multipliers are updated the contact force should tend towards the exact
value at the surface. The updating of the Lagrangian multipliers, however, introduces
an additional computational loop outside of the Newton Raphson loop and can
increase computational time. The advantage if the method is that it returns acceptable
penetrations and in some problems, such as micro-mechanical contact, is vital since
the penalty method can cause ill-conditioning because of the high penalty parameter
required.
The augmented Lagrangian method can be used by specifying OPTION 271. The
surface tolerance for the use in the augmented Lagrangian method is currently set in
SLIDELINE PROPERTIES as the close contact detection parameter. The latter is a
factor that multiplies the current segment length before its use as the surface
tolerance.
Status of contact constraints
With the penalty method a contact node is active if the constraint in (5.4-2) is
violated. A negative normal penetration therefore implies that a node has made
contact.
320
With the augmented Lagrangian method the update in (5.4-10) reflects the fact that
we are dealing with an inequality constraint. If the update returns a zero value the
node is no longer in contact while if it returns a negative value it is still in contact.
Within the iterative loop the criteria to determine whether a node is in contact or not,
therefore, is the sign of the Lagrangian multiplier.
Within this philosophy there are two ways of dealing with the contact status. With
Powells method, standard in LUSAS, the status is only updated at the end of each
Lagrangian multiplier update loop while with the Uzawa algorithm (OPTION 274)
the status is constantly updated within the iterative loop. The Uzawa algorithm can
prove advantageous with some problems (see [A7]) but can lead to convergence
problems in other cases.
Penalty update procedure
Although the augmented Lagrangian method does not depend upon the penalty
parameter in reducing constraint violations it does depend upon the penalty parameter
for the speed at which these constraint violations are reduced. The augmented
Lagrangian method can be speeded up by employing a penalty update procedure if the
constraint violations are not being reduced quickly enough (OPTION 273) [A7, C16,
B6].
kN+1 = kN
kN+1 = kN
if
if
FG g IJ <
Hg K
FG g IJ
Hg K
k
N
k-1
N
(5.4-11)
k
N
k-1
N
(5.4-12)
Typically recommended values are
= 10.0
and
= 0.25
(5.4-13)
To avoid the penalty update procedure resulting in ill-conditioning an upper limit is

set on the penalty parameter.
max
K
Nt
(5.4-14)
where K is a characteristic stiffness of the element, N is the number of variables and t

is a number that represents the computer accuracy.
5.4.4.2 The 2D Contact Element
Defining the contact between two bodies as node-on-node or node-on-rigid surface

covers only a specific range of problems and does not describe the interaction
321
between two bodies in general. One of the ways in which a more general contact
definition can be specified is to treat the contact between two or more deformable
bodies as node-on-surface. The sections of the surfaces that will potentially come into
contact can then be defined as slidelines. In two dimensions slidelines define the line
along which contact is most likely to occur and with a finite element mesh simply
connect all of the potential contact nodes on the surface of a body. The slideline is
then split into a number contact segments with each segment defined by two adjacent
contact nodes on the surface of the body (see figure below).
Slideline
Contact segment
Figure 5.4-5: Two dimensional slidelines
Contact elements can then be used to define the contact between the two surfaces.
The contact element is made up of three nodes (see figure 5.4-6). Two of the nodes lie
on the contact surface and describe the contact or master segment (nodes 1 and 2)
while the remaining node is the contact or slave node (node s). The master segment
will from now on be referred to as the current segment and the contact or slave node
will be referred to as the current node. Contact occurs when the current node
penetrates the current segment.
e2
e1
2
ln
ln
gN
Figure 5.4-6: The 2D contact element
The contact element adopts a set of co-rotational axes that rotate with the element.
The contact relationships are then related to the local frame produced by the rotating
and translating contact element. The co-rotational framework also allows
322
geometrically non-linear problems to be covered, accounting for the change in

geometry. The various terms defining the contact element are shown in (Figure 5.46). The vectors e1 and e 2 are the unit vectors tangential and normal to the current
segment respectively.
Normal penetration and tangential gap
The normal penetration,
g N , is defined as
g N = x s x1 e2 = x Ts1 e2
where
(5.4-15)
x s and x1 are position vectors of the nodes defined in (see figure above).
The tangential gap, gT , is defined as the distance moved tangentially along the
segment between the current nodes initial point of contact and its current position at
the segment level (Figure 5.4-6).
g T = lo olo
(5.4-16)
2
gT
s
so
olo
1
lo
lo
Figure 5.4-7: Defining the tangential gap.
where in (5.4-16) is the non-dimensional position of the current node on the

current segment and l is the length of the current segment.
1 T
x s1 e1
ln
(5.4-17)
The subscript o on the length l refers to the undeformed configuration while n refers
to the current configuration. The tangential gap is therefore based on the undeformed
segment length. o is the value of when contact is first made in the current phase
323
of contact and is based on a converged equilibrium state. If a node makes contact,

leaves the surface and then comes back into contact, all at converged equilibrium
states, the value for o is re-computed to coincide with the current phase of contact.
If the current node moves from one segment to another segment, the tangential gap is
now based on a vector between the current position on the current segment (segment
B in Figure 5.4-8) at the segment level and the initial contact point on the initial
segment contacted (segment A in Figure 5.4-8). The unit vectors e BA1 and e BA 2 are
tangential and normal to the vector x BA respectively.
e BA2
e BA1
x BA
Figure 5.4-8: Tangential gap definition for cross-segment movement.
The tangential gap is now defined as
g T = x BA e BA1
T
(5.4-18)
The definition in the normal direction is still the same as that in (5.4-15) which means
that the formulation associated with the normal direction will be unaffected by crosssegment movement.
5.4.4.3 The 3D Contact Element
Three-dimensional contact segments can be either three noded triangular faces or four
noded quadrilateral faces (figure 5.4-9). A set of local natural coordinate axes
b,g
are defined for each segment so that the surface can be described via conventional
isoparametric shape functions.
b g
r , =
hb, g x
i=1
(5.4-19)
b g
r is the position vector of a point on the contact segment defined by , , n are

the number of nodes defining the segment, hi is the isoparametric shape function at
node i on the segment and x i is the current position vector of node i. In relation to
figure 5.4-9 x s is the position vector of the contact node s.
324
3
2
1
s
r
3
4
Figure 5.4-9: Three and four node contact segments in global three-dimensional
space. s is the contact node while r is the closest point to the node on the segment.
The shape functions for the quadrilateral segment are
h
where
= h1 , h2 , h3 , h4
h1 =
1
4
h3 =
1
4
(5.4-20)
b1 + gb1 + g ,
b1 gb1 g ,
h2 =
1
4
h4 =
1
4
b1 gb1 + g
b1 + gb1 g
For triangular segments the shape functions are
h
where
= h1 , h2 , h3
h1 = ,
(5.4-21)
h2 = ,
h3 = 1
The triangular contact segment is flat while the quadrilateral, because of its bilinear
interpolation, is in general a ruled non-flat surface (figure 5.4-10).
325

Bilinearly interpolated
(ruled) surface
Figure 5.4-10: A bilinearly interpolated (ruled) four noded contact segment in three
dimensions.
The derivations of this section will be based on the four noded quadrilateral contact
segment, unless specified otherwise. The modifications required to deal with
triangular segments are straightforward and mainly revolve around the form of the
shape functions and their derivatives.
Closest point computation
In order to determine whether a node has penetrated a contact surface or not, a

computation of the closest point to the contact node on the surface is required. This is
evaluated by solving the following unconstrained minimisation.
Minimise: A cp =
1
2
x sr x sr
with respect to
b,g
(5.4-22)
where x sr is the vector between the contact node and the closest point to the node on
the contact surface (see figure 5.4-11 which also shows the tangent vectors r and
r ).
b g
x sr = x s r ,
(5.4-23)
The Newton Raphson method can be used to solve the minimisation in (5.4-22). This
requires a derivation of the first and second variations of Acp with respect to
326
b,g .
Within the closest point computations the coordinates of each node are fixed which
means that the iterative displacements are zero, i.e. p = 0 .
2
s
xsr
r
r
3
Figure 5.4-11: The three dimensional contact segment showing the contact node s and
the closest point to the node on the surface r.
The first variation of Acp with respect to
b,g is
Acp = xTsr A
(5.4-24)
where
A = r
(5.4-25)
The vectors r and r are tangential to the surface at the point
b,g . At the
closest point these will be orthogonal to the vector x sr , which means that the first
variation of Acp should be zero. Let us define a new vector a cp representing the first
variation of Acp such that
a cp = A T x sr
(5.4-26)
At the closest point this vector should be zero. Carrying out a Taylor series expansion
of a we have
di
a cp + = a cp +
a cp
327
(5.4-27)
The derivative of a is taken from the second variation of Acp .
2 Acp = T x Tsr r
LM0 1OP +
N1 0Q
The derivative of a with respect to
A A
T
is therefore
LM OP
N Q
0 1
a cp
T
T
= A A + x sr r
= D
1 0
Substituting (5.4-29) into (5.4-27) and noting that a cp

estimate for
(5.4-28)
(5.4-29)
d + i = 0 (i.e. the new
should be such that a cp is zero)
0 = A T x sr + D
The iterative change in
(5.4-30)
is therefore
= D 1 AT x sr
(5.4-31)
The contact location point is then updated via
k +1 = k +
(5.4-32)
Starting with an initial estimate for the contact location point the Newton Raphson
procedure is able to locate the point on the surface that satisfies the minimum of
(5.4-22). The criteria to check whether the initial estimate and all subsequent
estimates from the closest point iterations are acceptable is the norm of the first
derivative of Acp .
LM A OP
MN PQ
cp
< 108 , which is similar to a cp,new < 108
If the estimate for
(5.4-33)
does not satisfy this criteria another iteration is performed to
compute a new estimate. The iterative procedure is continued until the criteria in
(5.4-33) is satisfied.
The Newton Raphson procedure can be summarised as
328
. In LUSAS this is = 0 .
1.
Begin with an estimate for
2.
Compute the vector x sr and the matrix A .
3.
Check to see if the criteria in (5.4-33) is satisfied. If it is, stop the

iterative procedure since the iterations have converged.
4.
Otherwise compute the matrix D .
5.
Compute the iterative change
6.
Update the estimate for
7.
8.
Go back to (2) and continue from there.

Repeat this procedure until (5.4-33) is satisfied.
via (5.4-31)
via (5.4-32)
Since the closest point iterations have been consistently linearised they should be
quadratically convergent.
Normal penetration and tangential gap
In order to derive the internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix contributions
we need to make a number of definitions. The magnitude of the normal penetration is
defined as
g N = x sr =
(5.4-34)
x sr x sr
The unit vector normal to the contact surface at the closest point is defined as
n =
1
1
x sr =
x sr
x sr
gN
(5.4-35)
Note that special procedures are required to assign the correct sign to the normal
penetration and the unit normal vector.
For a four noded quadrilateral the displacement vector is defined as
p T = d sT , d1T , d T2 , d 3T , d T4
(5.4-36)
while for a three-noded triangle it is
p T = d sT , d1T , d T2 , d 3T
(5.4-37)
For the tangential gap we need to make a number of further definitions. We first of all
need to store the contact location point when contact is first made in the initial phase
of contact.
To = o o
(5.4-38)
329
We also all require the orthogonal triad of vectors at this initial point of contact, E o .
E o = e1o , e2 o , e3o
(5.4-39)
where
e3 o = n o ,
e1o =
r o
r o
e2o = e3o e1o
(5.4-40)
where the subscript o refers to the initial point of contact in the current phase of
contact and relates to a converged equilibrium state.
We now define a vector representing the initial contact point, X o , based on
coordinates of the undeformed configuration.
Xo =
h b , g X
i
i=1
(5.4-41)
where X i are the position vectors of the segment nodes in the undeformed
configuration. We also define a vector that represents the current contact location
point, X , based on coordinates of the undeformed configuration.
X =
h b, g X
i=1
(5.4-42)
Using (5.4-41) and (5.4-42) we can then define the tangential gaps as
gT =
RS g UV =
Tg W
T1
T2
e1o , e2o
bX X g
o
(5.4-43)
Note that the tangential gaps are related to the undeformed configuration, with the
only variable being the current closest point location in the local
system.
b, g coordinate
5.4.4.4 The Penalty Parameter
The penalty parameter is computed using geometric and material properties from the
elements that lie beneath the contact surface and surround the current segment under
consideration. The fixed penalty parameter, , is defined as
330
1 N
i
N i =1
(5.4-44)
where in two dimensions
i = sfac,i
ki li
2t i
(5.4-45)
while in three dimensions
i = sfac,i
ki Ai
Vi
(5.4-46)
s fac is the stiffness scale factor, k is the bulk modulus. For two dimensions l is a
characteristic length of the element and t is the thickness of the element. For three
dimensions A i and Vi are representatives areas and volumes respectively, taken as
the average of the areas and volumes of the surrounding elements. N is the number
of nodes defining the contact segment.
However, for a non-uniform mesh the stiffness of the adjacent elements will not be
the same in which case there will be a discontinuity in the penalty parameter across
the slideline. This may result in convergence problems and non-smooth movement as
a node moves across a segment. To remove this discontinuity LUSAS uses a variable
penalty parameter definition which varies linearly across a segment. For two
dimensions we have
= 1 1 + 2
(5.4-47)
is defined in (5.4-17). In three dimensions we have
h
i=1
where
(5.4-48)
i i
is the stiffness associated with the node i .
Formulations have been developed for both the fixed (5.4-44) and the varying
(5.4-47) penalty parameter in two dimensions. The variable penalty parameter
definition is the default specification in LUSAS for two dimensional problems. The
fixed penalty parameter definition can be used in 2D by specifying OPTION 353.
In three dimensions, however, the consistently linearised contact formulation is based
on the fixed penalty parameter definition from (5.4-46) and (5.4-48). The penalty
parameter is then averaged across the entire slideline to remove any discontinuities.
331

5.4.4.5 Normal Contact
Normal contact in 2D
The internal force vector contribution for normal contact is
q icN = t N a
(5.4-49)
where t N is the normal contact force scalar which for the penalty method is
tN = g N
(5.4-50)
while for the augmented Lagrangian method it is
tN = N + g N
(5.4-51)
The vector a is obtained from a first variation of the normal penetration and
represents the normal contact force interpolation for the contact element, i.e.
g N = a T p
(5.4-52)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution for normal contact is given by
b g
K tcN = aa T + K tc t N
(5.4-53)
b g
K tc t N is the initial stress matrix and is associated with the second variation of the
normal penetration.
If a variable penalty parameter is being used (5.4-47) then the internal force vector is
modified to
q icN = t N a +
FG 1
H2
21 N
IJ
K
g 2N
f
lo
(5.4-54)
where the vector f has arisen from a first variation of the variable penalty parameter
in (5.4-47) and 21N is the difference between the normal penalty parameters of the
adjacent contact segments. The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is now
b g
K tcN = aa T + K tc t N + K tc1N
332
(5.4-55)
where K tc1N represents all the additional terms that have arisen out of the use of a
variable penalty parameter in the normal direction and specifically those associated
with the first and second variations of .
Normal contact in 3D
The internal force vector for normal contact in three dimensions is

T
q icN = t N F n
where
(5.4-56)
t N is the normal contact force scalar, which for the penalty method is
tN = g N
(5.4-57)
while for the augmented Lagrangian method it is
tN = N + g N
(5.4-58)
The term F n is obtained from a first variation of the normal penetration.

T
g N = n T F p
(5.4-59)
where
F = I 3 , h1 I 3 , K , h N I 3
(5.4-60)
where I3 is a 3x3 unit matrix, N is the number of nodes defining the contact segment
and n is the unit normal vector.
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution for normal contact in 3D is
b g
K tcN = N F T nn T F + K tc t N
b g
where K tc t N
variation of
(5.4-61)
is the initial stress matrix and is associated with the second
gN .
5.4.4.6 Friction: Sticking
Sticking friction occurs when a frictional slideline has been chosen but the tangential
force scalar has not violated the yield function (see section 5.4.4.7 for details of the
yield function). With sticking friction the contact contribution to the energy function
associated with the tangential gap is
333
PcT =
1
Tg T2 in 2D
2
(5.4-62)
PcT =
1
T g TT g T in 3D
2
(5.4-63)
for the penalty method and
A cT =
1
Tg 2T + Tg T in 2D
2
(5.4-64)
A cT =
1
T g TT g T + TT g T in 3D
2
(5.4-65)
for the augmented Lagrangian method.

Sticking friction in 2D
The internal force vector contribution for sticking friction is obtained from a first
variation of either (5.4-62) or (5.4-64) and is
q icT = t T f
(5.4-66)
where tT is the tangential force scalar, which for the penalty method is given by
tT = T g T
(5.4-67)
while for the augmented Lagrangian method it is given by
tT = T + T g T
(5.4-68)
The vector f in (5.4-66) is derived from a first variation of the tangential gap and in
this context represents the interpolation of the tangential contact force across the
contact element as a result of sticking friction.
g T = f T p
(5.4-69)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution for sticking friction is given by
b g
K tcT = T f f T + K tc t T
(5.4-70)
bg
K tc tT is the initial stress matrix and is associated with the second variation of the
tangential gap.
334
If a variable penalty parameter is being used then the internal force vector
contribution is modified to
q icT =
FG t
H
IJ
K
1
g2
21T T f
2
lo
(5.4-71)
where 21 is the difference between the tangential penalty parameters of the

adjacent contact segments. The tangent stiffness matrix contribution becomes
b g
K tcT = T f f T + K tc t T + K tc1T
(5.4-72)
where K tc1T represents all the additional terms that have arisen out of the use of a
variable penalty parameter in the tangential direction and specifically those associated
with the first and second variations of T .
If we combine both the normal and tangential components of the internal force vector
contribution we obtain
q ic = B t
T
where
(5.4-73)
RSf UV
Ta W
RS t UV
Tt W
B =
t =
and
(5.4-74)
Similarly, combining the normal and tangential components of the tangent stiffness
matrix contribution gives
bg
K tc = BT C B + K tc t
where
C =
LM
N0
OP
Q
and
(5.4-75)
bg
b g
b g
K tc t = K tc t T + K tc t N (5.4-76)
If we now consider the use of a variable penalty parameter, the combined internal
force vector is now given by
T
q ic = B t +
FG
H
IJ
K
1
g2
g2
21 N + 21T T f
2
lo
lo
335
(5.4-77)
where the vector f , although the same as in (5.4-66), now does not have a unique
definition but is more a result of the mathematical derivation.
The combined tangent stiffness matrix contribution is now
bg
K tc = BT C B + K tc t + K tc1
(5.4-78)
where
K tc1 = K tc1N + K tc1T
(5.4-79)
With cross-segment movement the form of the internal force vector and tangent
stiffness matrix contributions is the same except that we now have
B =
where f
RSf UV
Ta W
csm
T
csm
T
(5.4-80)
is now derived from a first variation of (5.4-18).The details, however, of
the initial stress matrix and terms arising from the use of a variable penalty parameter
are now different [A7]. The cross-segment movement formulation reduces to the
single segment movement formulation when movement is within the same contact
segment.
If the augmented Lagrangian method is being used with sticking friction then the
tangential Lagrangian multiplier update is
kT+1 = kT + Tg T
(5.4-81)
The tangential Lagrangian multipliers are carried out for as long as the current node is
active in the normal direction. This also applies to the case where the normal
Lagrangian updates have resulted in the normal penetration satisfying the pre-set
tolerance, indicating that no more normal Lagrangian updates are required. The
tangential Lagrangian multiplier updates are carried out until the pre-set tolerance for
the tangential gap has been satisfied. The internal force vector and tangent stiffness
matrix contributions are the same in form as those for the penalty method except that
they are now based on the forces in (5.4-51) and (5.4-68).
For three dimensional sticking friction the internal force vector contribution is given
by
1
q icT = YD AX t T
(5.4-82)
336
where
t T is the vector of tangential force scalars
tT =
LM g OP
N g Q
T T1
(5.4-83)
T T2
and where
bg
YT = A T F + g N n
A X = e1o , e2o
X , X
(5.4-84)
Ln C OP ,
b ng = M
MNn C PQ
T
(5.4-85)
C = 0, h1 I 3 , h 2 I 3 , h 3 I 3 , h 4 I 3
(5.4-86)
C = 0, h1 I 3 , h 2 I 3 , h 3 I 3 , h 4 I 3
(5.4-87)
The term YD AX is derived from a first variation of the tangential gap and in this
context represents the interpolation of the tangential contact forces across the contact
element as a result of sticking friction.
g T = AX D 1 YT p
(5.4-88)
The tangent stiffness matrix for sticking friction is given by

1
K tcT = T Y D AX AX D Y
b g
+ K tc t T
(5.4-89)
b g is the initial stress matrix for sticking friction associated with the
where K tc t T
second variation of the tangential gaps and the vector of tangential force scalars.
Combining the normal and tangential contributions to the internal force vector and
tangent stiffness matrix contribution we have
q ic = B t
T
(5.4-90)
bg
and
K tc = BT CB + K tc t
where
K tc t = K tc t N + K tc t T
bg
b g
(5.4-91)
b g
337
LA D Y OP , C = LM I
B = M
MN n F PQ
MN 0
1
where
OP , t = RS t UV
PQ Tt W
T
(5.4-92)
and where I 2 is a 2x2 unit matrix.

5.4.4.7 Friction: Coulomb
Penalty Method
The concept of friction is analogous to plasticity and is dealt with in a similar manner
[M7, C17]. With Coulomb friction the yield function is given by
f = sTtT + s N t N
(5.4-93)
in two dimensions while in three dimensions it is given by
f = t T + s N t N
where
tT
tN
, sN =
tT
tN
sT =
and where
(5.4-94)
(5.4-95)
is the coefficient of friction.
The forces at the elastic trial point are given by (5.4-50) and (5.4-67) in two
dimensions, and by the following equations in three dimensions.
t NB = N g N
t TB =
(5.4-96)
RSt UV = RS g UV
Tt W T g W
T1
T T1
T2
T T2
(5.4-97)
If the forces at the elastic trial point result in f < 0 the friction is sticking and the
formulation of section 5.4.4.6 is applied. If, however, these forces result in the yield
function in (5.4-93) exceeding zero the forces are in the slip region and need to be
returned to the yield surface to ensure that f = 0 . In LUSAS a backward Euler return
procedure is used to give a simple return mapping.
The returned contact force is given by
338
t C = t A + C g g p
(5.4-98)
where the subscript C indicates the returned position and A indicates the status at the
end of the last increment. The matrix C is defined in (5.4-76). g are the
incremental gaps
g =
RS g UV
T g W
T
(5.4-99)
and g is the plastic slip, used to return the forces to the yield surface. It is made up
p
of a direction along which the forces should be returned, b , and an amount to be

moved along this direction to reach the yield surface, . This gives
g p = b
(5.4-100)
With friction a non-associative flow rule has to be used. Using an associative flow
rule would result in plastic slip in a direction normal to the contact surface which is
physically unrealistic. The plastic slip is therefore given by
g p =
RS UV = b
T W
sT
f
=
0
t T
(5.4-101)
Substituting (5.4-101) into (5.4-93) and noting that
t B = t A + C g
(5.4-102)
where the subscript B represents the elastic trial point, gives
t C = t B C b B
(5.4-103)
can be found by substituting (5.4-103) into (5.4-93) for f C = 0 . This gives
the individual returned forces as
t NC = t NB
(5.4-104)
t TC = sTs N t NB
(5.4-105)
The internal force vector contribution is then
339
q ic = B t C
T
(5.4-106)
RS t
Tt
Rt
= S
Tt
tC =
where in 2D
tC
while in 3D
UV
W
UV
W
TC
(5.4-107)
NC
TC
NC
(5.4-108)
The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained from a first variation of the internal force
vector contribution.
T
K tc p = q ic = at NC + t NC a + ft TC + t TC f
(5.4-109)
Since changes have been made at the force level using a non-associative flow rule,
this will result in a non-symmetric tangent stiffness matrix.
b g
K tc = BT C t B + K tc t C
where for 2D
Ct =
LM0
N0
sTs N N
N
(5.4-110)
OP
Q
(5.4-111)
and in 3D
LM s
MM t
MM
N
N
Ct =
N NB
TB
LM I
N
s N N
t TB
t TB t TB
t TTB t TB
OP
Q
OP
PP (5.4-112)
PP
Q
0
0
t TB
The initial stress matrix is unchanged in form from that derived for sticking friction,
except that it is now based on the returned forces in (5.4-104) and (5.4-105).
If we are using a variable penalty parameter (2D only), the internal force vector
contribution is modified to
q ic = t NC a + t TC f +
FG
H
IJ
K
1
g2
g2
21 N + 21T T f
2
lo
lo
and the tangent stiffness matrix is modified to

340
(5.4-113)
b g
K tc = BT C t B + K tc t C + K tcf1
(5.4-114)
where K tc1 contains all those terms that have arisen out of the use of a variable
penalty parameter.
K tc1 = K tc1N + K tc1T + sTs N N21

f
gN
T
f f
lo
(5.4-115)
With cross-segment movement the form of the internal force vector contribution and
the tangent stiffness matrix contribution are the same except that the matrix B is now
defined in (5.4-80). The details of each contribution, are however, different. This
change applies to all of the frictional formulations to follow, both penalty and
augmented Lagrangian [A7].
Note that since the tangent stiffness matrix contribution is non-symmetric, frictional
slidelines require the use of OPTION 64 to specify the use of the non-symmetric
solver. This requirement applies to all non-symmetric slideline formulations that are
to follow. The option is set by default in LUSAS, except for explicit dynamics
problems.
Augmented Lagrangian method (2D only)
With the augmented Lagrangian method the formulations for the yield function, the
internal force vector and the tangent stiffness matrix are similar in form to those
obtained with the penalty method. The difference is that the forces at the elastic trial
point are given by (5.4-51) and (5.4-68). If these forces result in the yield function
(5.4-93) exceeding zero, the forces are in the slip region and need to be returned to
the yield surface. Using the backward Euler procedure and the procedure briefly
outlined in section 5.4.4.7 the returned forces are
t NC = t NB = N g N + N
(5.4-116)
t TC = sTs N t NB = sTs N N g N + N
(5.4-117)
The internal force vector contribution and the tangent stiffness matrix contributions
are the same as those for the penalty method, for both fixed and varying penalty
parameters, except that they are now based on the returned forces in (5.4-116) and
(5.4-117). The Lagrangian multiplier updates for sliding Coulomb friction in the
tangential direction are different to those for sticking friction.
kT = kT1 + T g T g Tp
This is effectively the same as saying
341
(5.4-118)
kT = t TC
(5.4-119)
Other forms for the update can be found in [A7, L6, S14]
5.4.4.8 Symmetrisation of Coulomb friction - Augmented
Lagrangian 2D
A drawback of the penalty and augmented Lagrangian formulations in section 5.4.4.7

is the non-symmetry of the tangent stiffness matrix. This increases the computational
time required for a solution and can be inefficient especially if the source of the nonsymmetry is a very small part of the overall structure.
In order to avoid this problem a modification to the augmented Lagrangian procedure
can be used to symmetrise the tangent stiffness matrix (see A7, C16, L6). In this
method is calculated from a modified form of the yield function which uses the
normal Lagrangian multiplier rather than the normal contact force scalar.
f = sT t T s N N
where
s N =
(5.4-120)
kN
kN
(5.4-121)
Following the procedure of section 5.4.4.7 (Augmented Lagrangian method) and

using the backward Euler procedure, the returned forces are given by
t NC = t NB = N g N + N
(5.4-122)
t TC = s N sT N
(5.4-123)
The internal force vector contribution is now
q ic = t NC a + t TC f
(5.4-124)
The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained, as usual, from a first variation of the internal
force contribution. However, the returned tangential force is now based on the normal
Lagrangian multiplier which is fixed within the Newton Raphson iterative loop. The
variation of t TC is therefore zero. This means that the source of non-symmetry in the
tangent stiffness matrix has now been removed.
t NC = N a T p
(5.4-125)
t TC = 0
(5.4-126)
342
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is now
b g
K tc = BT C t B + K tc t C
(5.4-127)
where the initial stress matrix is based on the returned forces in (5.4-122) and
(5.4-123). The matrix in (5.4-127) is now symmetric where C t is now of the form
Ct =
LM0
N0
OP
Q
(5.4-128)
If the variable penalty parameter definition is being used then the internal force vector
contribution is now
q ic = t NC a + t TC f +
FG
H
IJ
K
1
g2
g2
21 N + 21T T f
2
lo
lo
(5.4-129)
while the tangent stiffness matrix is
bg
K tc = BT C t B + K tc t + K tc1
(5.4-130)
Note that because of (5.4-126) the matrix that accounts for terms arising out of the
f
use of the variable penalty parameter is now K tc1 from (5.4-79) rather than K tc1
from (5.4-115) thus removing the effect of friction on the variable penalty parameter
terms. See section 5.4.4.7 for changes associated with cross-segment movement.
Although the symmetrised augmented Lagrangian method can increase the speed of
the solution it generally lags one augmentation behind the non-symmetric version. It
requires a reasonable value for the normal Lagrangian multiplier, N , for accurate
results, which may mean that the method will require at least one Lagrangian
multiplier update for an accurate solution to be obtained. The method can be used by
specifying OPTION 354.
5.4.4.9 Corner Regions
A contact surface definition that has a discontinuous slope at segment junctions will
have regions below the surface that are either assigned to both adjacent contact
segments (convex surface) or assigned to neither adjacent segment (concave surface).
The latter is more problematic since a discontinuity exists below the surface in the
contact status and hence in the application of force and stiffness. This can result in
chatter and consequent convergence problems.
343

Corner regions in 2D
In two dimensions LUSAS deals with corner regions by recognising the fact that the
contact problem is effectively node-on-node. With straight sided segments a new set
of unit vectors, e sc1 and e sc 2 , is defined in the corner region that rotate with the
current node as it moves through the corner region. These are based on a vector that is
defined between the current node and corner node, which is the closest point on the
contact surface, i.e. the local node (see Figure 5.4-12). This vector, x sc , is then used
in the definition of the normal penetration and the internal force vector and tangent
stiffness matrix contributions. This definition ensures a truer reflection of the nodeon-node nature of the contact and will reduce chatter and consequent convergence
problems.
Within this philosophy the normal penetration is defined as
T
g N = xsc e sc1
(5.4-131)
The internal force vector contribution is derived from a first variation of the contact
contribution to the energy function of the system and is given by
q ic = N g N c sc
(5.4-132)
where csc is derived from a first variation of the normal penetration in (4.2-49). The
tangent stiffness matrix contribution, derived from a first variation of the internal
force vector contribution, is
K tc = N c sc cTsc +
tN
a sc a Tsc
gn
(5.4-133)
where a sc is derived from a second variation of (5.4-131).With the variable penalty

parameter definition in (5.4-47) the formulation is not affected except for the value of
the penalty parameter that is being used. If segment B is the closest segment in Figure
then N = 1 and if segment A is the closest segment then N = 2 .
344

A
c - corner node
esc1
s - contact node
esc2
c
xsc
Corner region
Figure 5.4-12: Corner regions and the definition of the associated vectors.
With the augmented Lagrangian method the normal contact force scalar is
t N = NgN + N
(5.4-134)
so that the internal force vector contribution is modified to
q ic = t N c sc
(5.4-135)
and the tangent stiffness matrix contribution to
K tc = N csc c sc +
T
tN
T
a sc a sc
gN
(5.4-136)
Alternative strategies that have not been adopted include assigning unit vectors from
the closest segment (the current segment) to the corner region (achieved within
LUSAS using internal slideline extensions) and redefining the unit vectors so that
they are an average of those from both adjacent segments (previously present within
LUSAS when no internal slideline extensions were specified). These, as well as a
number of other strategies, still have problems with chatter and the associated
convergence difficulties because of the definition of the unit vectors in the corner
region. Some additionally pose a problem with a viable consistent linearisation in the
LUSAS slideline algorithm.
For frictional problems a redefinition of the unit vectors is not necessary. The
combination of the normal penetration and tangential gap vectors should ensure a
smooth movement across the corner region [A7].
Corner regions in 3D
The bi-linear definition of each contact segment means that geometric discontinuities
exist at the boundaries between segments for both concave and convex surfaces. In
three-dimensions LUSAS deals with corner regions by recognising the fact that the
345
contact problem is node-on-node or node-on-line. It then applies the appropriate force

and stiffness accordingly.
The corner region algorithm can be broken down as follows.
1. Determine whether a node lies within the region of the closest segment as
defined by the local axes.
2. If (1) is not true, determine whether the node is at the edge of a slideline or in a
corner region.
3. If the node is at the edge of a slideline determine whether the nodes closest
point is within the allowable slideline extension region.
i. If the node is outside the allowable slideline extension region, classify the
node as out of contact.
ii. If the node lies within the allowable slideline extension region, classify the
node as in contact and deal with it in the same manner as if the node was
within the segments boundaries, i.e. do not modify the position of the
closest point.
4. If the node is in a corner region, determine the closest point on the boundary of
the closest segment, whether this be a segment node or a segment edge.
i. Reset the closest point to be the closest node or the closest point on the
segment edge accordingly.
ii. Compute and apply an appropriate internal force vector and tangent
stiffness matrix contribution.
LUSAS deals with condition (4) as a node-on-node or node-on-line problem. The
closest point modifications also result in a modified unit normal vector.
The internal force vector contribution in such regions is now
q icN = N g N F n c
T
(5.4-137)
and the tangent stiffness matrix contribution in the normal direction is modified to
b g
K tcN = N FT n c n cT F + K tc t N
(5.4-138)
The modification of the closest point in the corner region has to be such that the
following assumption (see section 5.4.4.3 regarding equation (5.4-26)) is always
maintained.
T
xsr A = 0
(5.4-139)
346
The closest point modification will, therefore, mean that at least one of the local
b, g variables will always be fixed. This will be reflected in the first and second
variations of the normal penetration, in that certain terms will be simplified or deleted
because derivatives and variations with respect to one or both of b , g will be zero.
The most obvious change will be that the form of the initial stress matrix for each
formulation will be different for each type of corner region.
The 3D LUSAS corner region formulation should, therefore, firstly ensure a realistic
modelling of contact in such regions and secondly ensure as smooth a movement as
possible through such regions.
5.4.4.10 Quadratic patch curved contact
The curved contact philosophy is based on improving the geometric definition whilst
aiming at the correct contact force distribution. This essentially means that two
interpolation functions are used, one for the geometric definition and the other for the
force distribution. The two function are imposed at the force level which means that
the tangent stiffness matrix contribution will naturally be non-symmetric. The curved
contact philosophy is analogous to a Petrov-Galerkin approach, whilst the standard
contact formulation is based on a Bubnov-Galerkin approach.
Research has shown that using contact with higher order elements will not pass the
contact patch test, except in special circumstances [C19].
Following the philosophy outlined above, the shape functions used to define the
geometry will be quadratic whilst those used to define the contact force distribution
will be linear. If we consider a linear two noded segment in two dimensions, this
means that the curved contact geometry is defined using three nodes. In which case
we have to consider a patch of two segments, one being the closest segment and the
second being the segment adjacent to the closest segment. This patch of elements will
be referred to as a quadratic patch. The set-up is illustrated in figure 5.4-13.
contact node
curved contact surface
closest segment
closest adjacent segment
closest node
Figure 5.4-13: The 2D quadratic patch made up of two, two noded segments.
347
For a quadrilateral face in three dimensions, the curved contact geometry is defined
using nine nodes. In which case we consider a patch of four elements (the quadratic
patch) surrounding the closest point to the contact node on the contact surface. The
set-up is illustrated in figure 5.4-14.
contact node
Figure 5.4-14: The quadratic patch of four noded quadrilateral contact segments. The
shaded segment is the closest four noded segment to the contact node.
The same will also apply to triangular faces on the contact surface. The contact
geometry will be defined by a set of four, three noded triangles (the quadratic patch).
For the nodal contact force distribution, however, only the closest linear/bi-linear
segment will be considered with all quadratic patch configurations, since this will
provide the linear shape functions required to distribute the contact forces.
The contact problem
The general contact problem for frictionless contact has been described in section
5.4.4.1. With the proposed curved contact formulation the internal force vector in its
variational form is modified to
b g b g
q icN p = N g N h g N
(5.4-140)
b g is the normal penetration defined using the lower order shape functions
while bg g is the normal penetration based on the higher order shape functions.
where g N
N h
The change in (5.4-140) is designed to improve the accuracy of the force distribution
b g
when using a higher order surface definition. Using the variation of g N
in (5.4-
140) ensures that the force distribution is based on the lower order shape functions.
348
b g
Defining the normal contact force scalar ( t N ) on g N
ensures that curved contact
geometry is mapped out, based closely on the higher order shape functions.
bt g
N h
b g
= N gN
(5.4-141)
The modified tangent stiffness matrix contribution is then derived from a first
variation of (5.4-140), so that we have
b g b g
pT K tcN p = N g N l g N
b g b g
+ N gN h 2 gN
(5.4-142)
The first observation of (5.4-142) is that the tangent stiffness matrix is nonsymmetric. The second is that the initial stress matrix, K tc
dbt g i , is unchanged
N h
from that based on the lower order shape functions, except that it now uses the higher
b g.
dbt g i = bt g bg g
order normal contact force scalar, t N
pT K tc
N h
N h
(5.4-143)
N l
The following sections will derive the specific internal force and tangent stiffness
contributions.
The Quadratic Patches
The two dimensional quadratic patch
The two dimensional quadratic patch is made up of two adjoining contact segments
(see figure 5.4-15), with each segment defined in figure 5.4-6. For example, nodes 1
and 2 in figure 5.4-6 correspond to either of the linear sub-elements in figure 5.4-15,
such as the segment defined by nodes 2 and 3.
s
n
2
1
t
3
Figure 5.4-15: The curved contact surface defined using the quadratic patch. s is the
contact node while r is the closest point to it on the curved surface.
The quadratic patch contact surface is described via conventional isoparametric shape
functions.
349
bg
r =
hb g x
i
i=1
(5.4-144)
r is the position vector of a point on the quadratic patch, is the non-dimensional

coordinate used in the definition of the quadratic patch, h i are the quadratic shape
functions and x i is the current position vector of node i. The integer n in (5.4-144)
is the number of nodes defining the element configuration under consideration. In 2D

the quadratic patch is defined using three nodes so that n = 3 . The definition for
the lower order function can be found in section 5.4.4.2.
For the quadratic patch the shape functions are
g
b1 g , h
h l = h1 , h 2 , h 3
where h1 =
1
2
(5.4-145)
2
= 1 2 , h3 =
1
2
1 +
(5.4-146)
The displacement vector for the quadratic patch is
pTh = dsT , d1T , d T2 , d3T

T
where d i =
lu , v q , and where
i
coordinate directions
figure 5.4-15.
(5.4-147)
u and v are the displacements in the
x and y respectively. The numbering in (5.4-147) refers to
The displacement vector associated with the linear lower order segment is
pTl = dsT , d1T , d T2
(5.4-148)
where the numbering in (5.4-148) refers to figure 5.4-6.

In the formulations that will be derived later there will be a mixture of terms that
relate to both the higher and lower order contact surface definitions. Rather than deal
with non-square matrices it is easier to assemble vectors and matrices related to the
lower order definition into vectors and matrices created by the higher order definition.
This can be done by converting the lower order terms into terms that have an
equivalent higher order dimensioning. If we take the displacements, for example,
h
pl = Tlh pl
(5.4-149)
350
where p is the lower order displacement vector in its lower order format (5.4-148)
l
(a 6x1 vector) while p is the lower order displacement vector assembled such that it
l
corresponds to the higher order dimensioning (becoming an 8x1 vector). The

transformation matrix Tlh is used to assemble lower order terms into higher order
vectors and matrices.
The three dimensional quadratic patch
In three dimensions the quadratic patch is made up of four contact segments, with
each contact segment defined in figure 5.4-9. For example, the quadrilateral segment
in figure 5.4-9 with nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4 would correspond to either of the linear subelements defined in Figure 5.4-16, such as the element defined by nodes 1, 5, 9 and 8.
3
2
s
5
6
9
8
r
1
7
4
Figure 5.4-16: The higher order quadrilateral and triangular contact patches,
showing the local axes and the patch definition nodes. s is the contact node while r is
the closest point to the contact node on the quadratic patch. Note that each patch
contains four corresponding contact segments of the type shown in figure 5.4-9.
The quadratic patch contact surface in three dimensions is also described via
conventional isoparametric shape functions.
b g
r , =
hb, g x
i=1
(5.4-150)
b g
r is the position vector of a point on the quadratic patch, , are the nondimensional coordinates used in the definition of the quadratic patch, h i are the
quadratic shape functions and x i is the current position vector of node i.
351
The integer n in (5.4-150) is the number of nodes defining the element configuration
under consideration. For the lower order definition there are four nodes defining the
quadrilateral contact segment, n = 4 , and three nodes defining the triangular contact
segment, n = 3 , while for the higher order definition there are nine nodes defining
the quadrilateral quadratic patch, n = 9 , and six nodes defining the triangular
quadratic patch, n = 6 . See figure 5.4-9 and figure 5.4-16 for each configuration.
For the lower order quadrilateral contact segment the shape functions can be found in
(5.4-20) while for the lower order triangular contact segment they can be found in
(5.4-21).
Considering the quadratic patch, the shape functions for a quadratic quadrilateral
patch are
h h = h1 , h 2 , h 3 , h 4 , h 5 , h 6 , h 7 , h 8 , h 9 (5.4-151)
where
b gb g , h = b1 gb1 + g ,
= b1 gb1 g , h = b1 + gb1 g ,
= c1 hb1 + g , h = b1 gc1 h
= c1 hb1 g , h = b1 + gc1 h ,
= c1 hc1 h
h1 =
1
4
h3
1
4
h5
h7
h9
1 + 1 +
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
while the shape functions for a quadratic triangular patch are
h h = h1 , h 2 , h 3 , h 4 , h 5 , h 6
where
gb
(5.4-152)
h1 = 1 1 2 2 , h 2 = 2 1 ,
h 3 = 2 1 ,
h 4 = 4 1 ,
h 5 = 4
h6
b
g
= 4b1 g
The displacement vector is defined as
pT = d1T , d T2 , ..., d Tn
(5.4-153)
352

T
lu , v q in 2D and d
T
i
lu ,
v i , w i in 3D, and where u ,

v and w are the displacements in the coordinate directions x , y and z
where d i =
respectively.
We also define a new vector
where
b g
= ,
Closest point computation
In order to determine whether a node has penetrated the curved contact surface or not,
a computation of the closest point to the contact node on the surface is required. The
fact that the surface with quadratic patches is curved means that this is a non-trivial
process and requires an iterative procedure. The closest point is evaluated by solving
the following unconstrained minimisation
T
(5.4-154)
(5.4-155)
Minimise : A cp =
1
2
x sr x sr with respect to (2D)
Minimise : A cp =
1
2
x sr x sr with respect to (3D)
The Newton Raphson method can be used to solve these minimisations. The solution
to such a minimisation problem has already been derived for 3D bi-linear segments
and can be found in section 5.4.4.3, and the reader is referred to that section for full
details. In this section only those differences that are specific to quadratic patches in
both two and three dimensions will be highlighted.
Two dimensions
In two dimensions, the first variation of A cp with respect to
Acp = x Tsr x sr
x sr = r
where
r =
h i
x
i=1
is
(5.4-156)
where
(5.4-157)
(5.4-158)
Acp = x Tsr r
(5.4-159)
353
The vector r is tangential to the surface at the point
At the closest point this
vector will be orthogonal to the vector x sr , which means that at this point the first
variation of Acp should be zero.
Acp = 0
at the closest point
(5.4-160)
Let us define a new term, a cp , representing the first variation of Acp such that
a cp = r T x sr
(5.4-161)
At the closest point this vector should be zero. Carrying out a Taylor series expansion
of a we have
bg
a cp + = a cp +
a cp
(5.4-162)
a is obtained from
The variation of
a cp = r T x sr
(5.4-163)
Using (5.4-157) gives a as
a cp = x srT r r T r = D
Incorporating (5.4-164) into (5.4-162) and noting that a cp
new estimate for
d + i = 0 (i.e. the
should be such that a cp is zero) gives
0 = r T x sr + D
The iterative change in
(5.4-164)
(5.4-165)
is therefore
1 T
r x sr
D
(5.4-166)
The contact location point is then updated via
k +1 = k +
(5.4-167)
354
Starting with an initial estimate for the contact location point, the Newton Raphson
procedure is able to locate the point on the surface that satisfies the minimum of (5.4154). The criteria to check whether the initial estimate and all subsequent estimates
from the closest point iterations are acceptable is the norm of the first derivative of
Acp .
LM A OP
N Q
cp
< 108 , which is similar to
a cp ,new < 108
(5.4-168)
If the estimate for does not satisfy this criteria another iteration is performed to
compute a new estimate. The iterative procedure is continued until the criteria in (5.4168) is satisfied.
The Newton Raphson procedure can be summarised as
7. Begin with an estimate for
. In LUSAS this is = 0 .
8. Compute the vectors x sr and r .

9. Check to see if the criteria in (5.4-168) is satisfied. If it is, stop the iterative
procedure since the iterations have converged.
10. Otherwise compute the scalar D from (5.4-164).
11. Compute the iterative change
12. Update the estimate for
via (5.4-166).
via (5.4-167).
13. Go back to (2) and continue from there.

14. Repeat this procedure until (5.4-168) is satisfied.
This iterative procedure is used to compute the closest point to the higher order
contact patch h . Since the closest point iterations have been consistently linearised
they should be quadratically convergent.
*
Three dimensions
In three dimensions, the main difference with the solution in section 5.4.4.3 is that the
second order partial derivatives with respect to and are no longer zero. This
means that the matrix D (c.f. (5.4-29) is now
T
D = E A A
(5.4-169)
where
355
E =
LMx r
MNx r
T
sr
T
sr
xsr r
T
xsr r
OP
PQ
(5.4-170)
The remainder of the solution and the procedure in locating the closest point is the
same as that in section 5.4.4.3. Note, however, that for the lower order function, r
and r are zero, which means that the diagonal terms in E (5.4-170) will also be
zero.
Frictionless curved contact
Normal penetration
Definitions
The magnitude of the penetration normal to the quadratic patch is
g N = xs r =
xsr xsr
(5.4-171)
where xs is the position vector of the contact node. The unit vector normal to curved
contact surface is defined as
n =
1
1
xsr =
xsr
xsr
gN
(5.4-172)
However, the definition in (5.4-172) is susceptible to small number problems. In such

cases a better definition for the unit normal vector is
R| r U|
S| r V|
T W
R| r U| R| r
and n = S
|T r V|W S|T r
n = e3
in two dimensions
(5.4-173)
U| in three dimensions
V|
W
(5.4-174)
Both r and r are tangential to the curved contact surface while e3 is the unit
vector out of the page (according to the right hand rule). The advantage of the
definitions in (5.4-173) and (5.4-174) is that they also define the correct direction for
n out of the contact surface.
To assign the correct sign to the normal penetration we therefore have
356

T
g N = xsr n
(5.4-175)
The final definition required is that of the unit tangent vector(s) :-
t =
and
in two dimensions
r
e1 =
r
r
e2 = n e1
in three dimensions
(5.4-176)
(5.4-177)
First variation of normal penetration

The first variation of the higher order normal penetration in both two and three
dimensions is obtained by carrying out a variation of (5.4-171)
g N = nT F ph
(5.4-178)
where F can be found in (5.4-60).

The variation of the lower order normal penetration in two dimensions (5.4-52) is
b g
gN
di
= al p
(5.4-179)
The vector a l is transformed into an equivalent vector that corresponds to the

quadratic patch via
a lh = TTlh a l
(5.4-180)
In three dimensions the variation of the lower order normal penetration is evaluated in
the same way as for the higher order penetration, except that only lower order terms
are used. The variation can be found in (5.4-59) and is repeated here for convenience.
b g
gN
= n Tl F l p
(5.4-181)
Force and stiffness contributions
Internal force vector

The internal force vector contribution is designed to reproduce a constant pressure
field as accurately as possible, as demanded by the contact patch test. For the
geometry we use the higher order functions to define the normal penetration while for
357
the nodal force distribution we use the lower order function. In two dimensions,
substituting for g N l from (5.4-179) into (5.4-140) we have
h
q icN = N (g N ) h a l = t N h a l
b g from (5.4-181) into (5.4-140) we have

= bt g F n
(5.4-183)
gN
In three dimensions, substituting for
b g
q icN = N g N h F l n l
(5.4-182)
l
N h
Tangent stiffness matrix

The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is derived from a first variation of the
internal force vector contribution. The equation in its variational form can be found
in (5.4-142). In two dimensions, substituting for g N h and g N l from (5.4-175) and
(5.4-178) into (5.4-142) gives the curved contact tangent stiffness matrix contribution
as
d i
In three dimensions, substituting for bg g
h
K tcN = N a l n F + K tc t N h
(5.4-184)
N h
and
b g
gN
from (5.4-178) and (5.4-
181) into (5.4-142) gives the curved contact tangent stiffness matrix contribution as
d i
K tcN = N F Tl n l n Th F h + K tc t N h
l
(5.4-185)
The lower and higher order definitions use a different number of nodes to define the
relevant contact segment/patch. The lower order terms are therefore assembled at
those points in the patch configuration that relate to the closest lower order segment.
Curved contact and friction
Introduction
The underlying philosophy behind the quadratic patch approach will also be used
with frictional curved contact. The calculation for the tangential gap will be based on
the curved geometry while the internal force vector contribution will be based on, and
applied to, the closest linear/bi-linear segment. Details of the basic frictional
formulation for linear/bi-linear segments can be found in sections 5.4.4.6and 5.4.4.7
as well as [A7, C16].
In this section we cover the extensions to the quadratic patch curved contact
formulation that are required to encompass Coulomb friction. All formulations will be
derived for the penalty method.
358
Preliminary definitions
Modelling friction requires an estimation of the slip between the current and initial
points of contact. For curved surfaces this involves an integration across the surface
to compute the tangential gap. However, because of the complexities in computing
this integral and the fact that the first and possibly second variations of this integral
may be required, it has been decided, for the time being at least, to define the slip
using a linear approximation between the current and initial points of contact.
Preliminary definitions in two dimensions
Two tangential gap definitions are required, based on the lower and higher order
functions. The lower order definition, g Tl , can be found in equation (5.4-16) in
section 5.4.4.2 .
To define the higher order tangential gap we need to make a number of definitions
(see figure 5.4-17). We firstly need to store the initial contact location point, o . We
also require the unit normal and tangential vectors at this point, n o and t o
respectively, where
to =
r o
r o
no = e3 t o
(5.4-186)
and where r is the position vector of the closest point on the segment.
no
to
r( o )
r()
, X
o, X o
Figure 5.4-17: The curved contact surface defined using the quadratic patch. s is the
contact node while r is the closest point to it on the curved surface.
We now define a vector representing the initial contact point, X o ,
Xo =
h b
i=1
gX
(5.4-187)
359
where X i are the position vectors of the patch nodes in the undeformed configuration
b g are the shape functions for the quadratic patch. We also define a vector
and h
that represents the current contact location point, X , based on coordinates, X i , of

the undeformed configuration.
X =
h b gX
i=1
(5.4-188)
Using (5.4-187) and (5.4-188) we can then define the higher order tangential gap as
gTh = X X o t o
T
(5.4-189)
The tangential gap in (5.4-189) is therefore related to the undeformed configuration.

The only variable is the current closest point location on the surface of the body in the
local coordinate.
Preliminary definitions in three dimensions
The preliminary definitions for bi-linear segments can be found in section 5.4.4.3. For
quadratic patches the preliminary definitions, including those for the tangential gap,
are the same as those in section 5.4.4.3. The only difference is that the terms are now
based on the higher order geometry and shape functions.
Sticking friction with curved contact
Using the penalty method, the contact contribution to the energy of the system
resulting from the tangential gap is
cT =
1
2
Tg T2
(5.4-190)
The internal force vector contribution is usually derived from a first variation of
(5.4-190). With the proposed curved contact formulation, however, the internal force
vector is modified so that we now have
T
q icT p = Tg Th g Tl
(5.4-191)
Like the frictionless case, using lower order shape functions in the first variation of
the tangential gap results in a force distribution that is also based on the lower order
shape functions.
Following the work in [A7, C16] (see also section 5.4.4.6, the first variation of the
lower order tangential gap is
360
g T = f Tl pl
(5.4-192)
The higher order tangential contact force scalar is defined as
t Th = Tg Th
(5.4-193)
The internal force vector contribution therefore becomes

h
q icT = t Th f l
h
(5.4-194)
T
where f l = Tlh f l
(5.4-195)
where Tlh is a transformation matrix that reassembles the lower order vectors and
matrices into the higher order configuration.
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is derived from a first variation of the
modified internal force vector in (5.4-191).
pT K tcT p = t TT g T + t T 2g T
h
(5.4-196)
The first observation of (5.4-196) is that the tangent stiffness matrix is nonsymmetric, as is the case with frictionless contact. The second is that the initial stress
d i
matrix, K tc t Th , is unchanged from that based on the lower order shape functions
(see section 5.4.4.6), except that it now uses the higher order contact force scalar,
t Th .
d i=t
pT K tc t T
Th
2g T
(5.4-197)
To compute (5.4-196) we require the first variation of the higher order tangential gap
g T = t To X = t To X
(5.4-198)
is the variation of the closest point location in its local coordinate. This is more
general that that in the closest point computations since we now account for the
iterative displacements.
=
where
1 T
Y ph
D
(5.4-199)
bg
YT = g N h n + r T F
361
(5.4-200)
bg
n = nT C = nT 0, h1 I, ..., h n I
(5.4-201)
F = I, h1 I, ..., h n I
(5.4-202)
D = x srT r r T r
(5.4-203)
g N h is the higher order normal penetration and F can be found in (5.4-60).

Substituting
g T =
h
from (5.4-199) into (5.4-198) we have
1 T
T
t o X Y ph
D
(5.4-204)
Using (5.4-192) and (5.4-204) in (5.4-196) gives the tangent stiffness matrix
contribution as
K tcT =
T
D
h T
d i
f l t o X Y + K tc t Th
T
(5.4-205)
ch
q ic = B l t h
(5.4-206)
cBh CcBh + K bt g
where K bt g = K d t i + K d t i
LMdf i OP
Lt X Y OP ,
where B =
, B = M
MNda i PQ
MN n F PQ
L 0 OP , t = RS t UV
C = M
N0 Q
Tt W
T
and K tc =
tc l
tc l
tc l
Nh
h T
l
tc l
T
0
h T
l
(5.4-208)
Th
(5.4-207)
(5.4-209)
Using the penalty method, the contact contribution to the energy of the system
resulting from the tangential gap vector in three dimensions is
362
cT =
1
2
T g TT g T
(5.4-210)
As in two dimensions, the internal force vector contribution with the proposed curved
contact formulation is derived by modifying the first variation of (5.4-210), so that we
have
e j e j
q TicT p = T g T g T
h
(5.4-211)
e j are the tangential gaps defined using the lower order shape functions
while eg j are the tangential gaps based on the higher order shape functions. Using
the variation eg j in (5.4-211) ensures that the force distribution is based on the
lower order shape functions. eg j can be found in (5.4-88).
where g
T l
T h
T l
T l
The vector of tangential contact force scalars for the higher order contact definitions
is
bt g
T h
e j
= T gT
(5.4-212)
Following the work in [C16] (see also section 5.4.4.6) the internal force vector
contribution from (5.4-211) therefore becomes
q icT = YD A X
j bt g
l
(5.4-213)
T h
It is important to take care with the subscripts l and h in (5.4-213) since they define
the contact surface definition to which each term relates.
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is then derived from a first variation of the
modified internal force vector in (5.4-211), so that we have
b g e j + bt g eg j
T
pT K tcT p = t T l g T
T h
(5.4-214)
T l
As has been observed earlier with the two dimensional case, the tangent stiffness
cb g h , is unchanged from
matrix is non-symmetric. The initial stress matrix, K tc t T
that based on the lower order shape functions (see section 5.4.4.6), except that it now
uses the higher order contact force scalars (5.4-212).
cb g h = bt g eg j
pT K tc t T
T h
T l
363
(5.4-215)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution from (5.4-215) therefore becomes
K tcT = T YD A X
j dA
l
D Y
+ K tc
cbt g h
T h
(5.4-216)
ch
q ic = B l t h
and
where
(5.4-217)
c h c h + K bt g (5.4-218)
K bt g = K db t g i + K cbt g h
(5.4-219)
LA D Y OP , C = LM I 0 OP , t = RSt UV
B = M
MN n F PQ
MN 0 PQ
Tt W
T
K tc = B l C B
tc l
N h
tc l
where
tc l
tc l
T h
T 2
T
(5.4-220)
and where I 2 is a 2x2 unit matrix.

Sliding Coulomb friction with curved contact
A full description of friction in two dimensions can be found in [A7, C16] while in
three dimensions it can be found in [C16], as well as section 5.4.4.7 for both. Brief
details relevant to extending the theory to cover the quadratic patch curved contact
philosophy will be presented here. Note that the computations to determine whether a
node is in a slip or stick state and the return of the contact forces to the yield surface,
are all based on the higher order contact definitions.
The yield function for Coulomb friction can be found in (5.4-93) for two dimensions
and (5.4-94) for three dimensions. With quadratic patches all terms in those equations
relate to the higher order contact definition. The forces at the elastic trial point (B) are
given by
NB h
= Ng Nh
(5.4-221)
in 2D
bt g
bt g
TB h
= Tg Th
(5.4-222)
in 3D
bt g
TB h
RSt UV
Tt W
T1
T2
=
h
RS g UV
T g W
T T1
T T2
364
(5.4-223)
h
If the forces at the elastic trial point violate the yield function in (5.4-93) or (5.4-94),
the forces have to be returned to the yield surface. In this case we use a backward
Euler return procedure with a non-associative flow rule (see section 5.4.4.7, as well as
[A7, C16, M7] for further details), giving
bt g
bt g
b g
= bs s t g
L
O
bt g = MM bbst t g g PPbt g
Q
N
= t NB
NC h
in 2D
in 3D
TC h
(5.4-224)
(5.4-225)
T N NB h
N NB h
TC h
(5.4-226)
TB h
TB h
The internal force vector contribution for sliding friction is therefore
b g
Rt
where in 2D bt g = S
Tt
Rt
while in 3D bt g = S
Tt
T
q ic = B l t C
C h
TC
NC
C h
(5.4-227)
TC
NC
UV
W
UV
W
(5.4-228)
h
(5.4-229)
h
The first variation of the internal force vector leads to the tangent stiffness matrix
contribution as
ch ch
L 0
= M
N 0
T
K tc = B l Ct B
where in 2D C t
while in 3D
cbt g h
b s s g OP
b g Q
+ K tc
C h
N N T h
(5.4-230)
(5.4-231)
N h
LML s t LI t t OO
MMMMN t MN t t PQPPQ
MM LM st t OP
Q
N N
N
Ct =
T
TB TB
T
TB TB
N NB
TB
TB
TB
0
h
365
(5.4-232)
OP
PP
PP
Q
There are now two sources of non-symmetry, one from the use of mixed higher-lower
order functions in the contact definitions and the second is the friction moving from a
stick to a slip state requiring a modification of the tangential forces.
Curved tied slidelines
Two dimensions
The curved contact formulation can also be applied to two dimensional tied slidelines.
To do this we will define the displacement normal, g N , and tangential, g T , to the
contact surface, and incorporate both definitions into a single vector, g .
g =
RS g UV = LMt ,
Tg W Nn
T
s
T
s
R|d U|
h t O|d |
PS V
h n Q| M |
|Td |W
s
T
1 s
T
1 s
T
n s
T
n s
h t , K,
h n , K,
(5.4-233)
g = At p
(5.4-234)
where ns and t s are the unit vector normal and tangential to the contact surface
respectively.
For the lower order function we have
d i
g l = A t pl = A t Tlh ph = A t ph
l
(5.4-235)
while for the higher order function we have
g h = A t ph
(5.4-236)
Based on the curved contact philosophy outlined earlier, the internal force vector
contribution is
h T
ed i j g
q icN = N A t
h T
ed i j A
= N At
th
ph
(5.4-237)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is therefore

h T
ed i j A
K tcN = N A t
(5.4-238)
th
366
Once K tcN has been evaluated, the internal force vector contribution in the
subsequent passes of a non-linear problem are evaluated as follows
q icN = K tcN ph
(5.4-239)
The tangent stiffness matrix is only evaluated once, while the internal force vector is
continually updated as the displacements change.
Three dimensions
The curved contact formulation can also be applied to three dimensional tied
slidelines. To do this we will take the displacement normal to the contact surface,
g N , and the vector of displacements tangential to the contact surface, g , and again
T
incorporate both definitions into a single vector.
R|d U|
d
h e O| |
PSd V
h n Q| |
||dM ||
T W
(5.4-240)
s
R g U Le ,
g = S V = M
Tg W N n
T
t
T
h1 e t , h 2 e t , K ,
T
T
h1 n , h 2 n , K ,
t
T
LM e F OPp
MNn FPQ
T
g =
t
T
(5.4-241)
where n is the unit vector normal to the contact surface and e t is a matrix
containing the two unit tangent vectors e 1 and e 2 .
e t = e1 , e 2
(5.4-242)
where e 1 and e 2 are defined in (5.4-177).

The matrix F is defined in (5.4-202) while p , the displacement vector, is defined as
pT = d1T , d T2 , ...,
d Tm
...,
d Tn
(5.4-243)
where d m is the vector of displacements at node m and n is the number of nodes

defining the patch.
367
Based on the curved contact philosophy outlined earlier, the internal force vector
contribution is
R|SF e U|V g
|T F n |W
T
q icN = N
R|SF e U|V R|Se F U|V p

|T F n |W |Tn F|W
T
= N
t
T
(5.4-244)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is therefore
R|SF e U|V R|S e F U|V

|T F n |W |Tn F|W
T
K tcN = N
t
T
(5.4-245)
h
Once K tcN has been evaluated, the internal force vector contribution in the
subsequent passes of a non-linear problem are evaluated as follows
q icN = K tcN p
(5.4-246)
As in two dimensions, the tangent stiffness matrix is only evaluated once, while the
internal force vector is continually updated as the displacements change.
Corner regions
With the quadratic patch curved contact algorithms the issue of corner regions
(regions at the junction between segments that are not covered by the definition of
any adjacent segments/patches) has not been eliminated completely. This is because
the definition of the curved geometry can cause the location of a closest point to lie
outside the region of the closest segment or the closest quadratic patch. In such
instances the contact problem is now node-on-node since the closest point is a node
rather than a segment or a patch.
Both two and three dimensional quadratic patches therefore use corner region
formulations developed earlier that deal with the node on node nature of such
problems. These formulation are independent of the geometric definition of the
adjacent segments/patches and have been successful in dealing with corner regions
with linear/bi-linear surfaces.
Both curved contact algorithms use the normal slideline extension philosophy to deal
with nodes that are on or close to slideline edges.
Non-standard 3D patch configurations
Not all surfaces can be modelled using the patch configurations in figure 5.4-16. In
order to provide an improved geometric definition when the standard patch
definitions are not available, for example at slideline edges and corners, a number of
additional patch configurations have been implemented.
368
All of these non-standard configurations are based on the four noded bi-linear
segment. Although each configuration has a different set of shape functions, the rest
of the derivations in this section (i.e. section 5.4.4.10) are the same, such as the
closest point computation and the internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix.
The three segment, eight noded patch
The patch configuration is shown in figure 5.4-18.

2
8
7
6
3
Figure 5.4-18: The three segment eight noded patch configuration.
This patch configuration is designed to accommodate the situation where a node is

surrounded by three segments and eight nodes. This situation will typically be found
at the edge of a slideline or at a slideline corner.
The shape functions for this patch configuration are
h h = h1 , h 2 , h 3 , h 4 , h 5 , h 6 , h 7 ,
where
h1 =
1
4
gb
h 5 = 12
h 7 = 12
(5.4-247)
g , h = b1 gb1 + g ,
b1 + gb1 g , h = c1 hb1 + g ,
b1 gc1 h ,
h = c1 hb1 g ,
b1 + gc1 h
1 + 1 +
h 3 = 14
h8
1
4
The two segment, six noded patch
The patch configuration is shown in figure 5.4-19.
369
1
2
1
2

2
s
5
r
3
6
4
Figure 5.4-19: The two segment six noded patch configuration.
This patch configuration is designed to accommodate the situation where a node is

surrounded by two segments and six nodes. Like the configuration in Figure 5.4-18,
this situation will also typically be found at the edge of a slideline and at slideline
corners.
The shape functions for this patch configuration are
h h = h1 ,
where
h1 =
h 2 , h3, h 4 , h5 ,
1
4
gb
1 + 1 +
g,
gb
h6
(5.4-248)
h 3 = 14 1 1 , h 4 =
1
4
c1 hb1 + g ,
1
2
h5 =
1
2
gb
h 2 = 14 1 1 + ,
h6 =
gb g ,
c1 hb1 g
1 + 1
2
5.4.5 The Nodal Constraint Method

The nodal constraint method is non-symmetric in nature in which constraints are
imposed on the slave nodes only. Hence the nodal constraint slideline treatment (i.e.
explicit dynamics with the tied slideline option) is more robust if the mesh with the
greatest contact node density is designated the slave surface. The computations are
performed subsequent to the acceleration and velocity update but prior to the
displacement evaluation at each time step. The procedure is as follows
The interaction of the two surfaces is monitored in the same manner as described for
the penalty method. At every time step the nodal force and mass of each slave node in
contact is distributed to the local master nodes. After the summation over all slave
nodes is complete, the acceleration and velocity of each master node is computed
370
using the standard solution procedure. The values for the slave nodes are then
interpolated from the local master segment.
The coordinates are subsequently updated normally.
5.4.5.1 Contact Cushioning
Contact problems regularly suffer from convergence problems when the status of a
contact node, as to whether it is in or out of contact, is being determined. The
convergence problems are caused by a discontinuity in the internal force vector and
tangent stiffness matrix when a node switches from being in contact to out of contact.
This applies to methods such as the penalty method that incorporate the inequality
contact constraint into the energy function to be minimised and have discontinuous
first and second derivatives across the admissible and inadmissible regions.
A node that is continuously switching between the two contact states will therefore
introduce such a discontinuity into the solution of the problem and will naturally lead
to a deterioration in convergence. Such a situation can arise when a contact node is
about to come into contact, about to leave the contact surface or very close to the
surface itself, whether below or above, when very small movements of the structure
can put a node just above or below the surface. Such problems generally occur within
the early iterations of an increment and can lead to an ultimate failure of convergence
if the status of a node is not fixed and settled quickly. This type of problem is
commonly referred to as chatter.
It is, therefore, desirable to have a method that is less sensitive to such a problem.
Contact cushioning is one such technique.
Contact cushioning formulation
The contact problem is defined in section 5.4.4.1. Zavarise et al., [Z7] propose a
method that ensures continuity in the first and second derivatives of the objective
function (here the contact contribution to the energy function, c , of the system)
between the admissible and inadmissible regions of the inequality constraint.
Translated to contact, this means that the internal force vector and tangent stiffness
matrix contributions are continuous between in contact and out of contact states.
The method they propose uses an exponential function to define c . The function
reduces the stiffness gradually as one moves away from the contact surface. In this
way the discontinuity between in and out of contact states is removed. At the limits
the function takes the form of the penalty and barrier methods.
The formulation should improve the convergence characteristics of contact problems
in general but specifically those that have a continually changing set of active contact
nodes. The function is shown graphically in figure 5.4-20.
371
The contact contribution, c , depends upon whether the node is above or below the
surface. When the node is above the surface, the contact contribution is
$t i
R| $
d
exp S
$
T| $t
U|
V|
W
c =
g N if g N 0
(5.4-249)
while if it is below the surface the contribution
1
c = $ N g 2N + $t N g N
2
d $t i
N
$ N
if g N < 0
(5.4-250)
where t$N is an estimate of the normal contact force while $ N is the linear penalty
parameter chosen to give an acceptable level of penetration below the surface.
The internal force vector contribution is derived from a first variation of the energy
contribution and is given by
and q
q icN = t N a for 2D
(5.4-251)
= t N F n for 3D
(5.4-252)
icN
where the definition of each term can be found in section 5.4.4.5.

The normal contact force scalar t N for a node above the contact surface is given by
RS
T
$
t N = s$ N $t N exp N g N
s$ N $t N
UV
W
(5.4-253)
where
s$ N =
$t N
$t N
(5.4-254)
while for a node below the surface it is given by
t N = $t N + $ N g N
(5.4-255)
The tangent stiffness matrix contribution is derived from a second variation of the
energy and is given by
372
b g
K tc = N aa T + K tc t N
in 2D
(5.4-256)
b g
K tc = N FT nn T F + K tc t N in 3D
and
(5.4-257)
b g is the initial stress matrix. Details of the initial stress matrices can
where K tc t N
be found earlier in section 5.4.4. For a node above the surface the penalty parameters
contribution to the tangent stiffness matrix contribution in (5.4-256) and (5.4-257) is
given by
RS
T
N = $ N exp
$ N
s$ N $t N
gN
UV
W
(5.4-258)
while for a contact node below the surface the contribution is given by
N = $ N
(5.4-259)
These changes affect all penalty formulations in section (5.4.4), such as the corner
region formulations, in a similar way.
Estimating
t$N
The contact cushioning formulation relies upon an estimate for t$N . This is only
computed at converged equilibrium states by making it equal to the total normal
contact force scalar at the end of the last converged equilibrium state, i.e.
t$Ni+1 = t iN
(5.4-260)
where i in this case represents the increment number. This effectively means that the
contact cushioning formulation does not begin to operate until after the first
converged equilibrium state has been reached. For nodes in contact the estimate
before the first converged equilibrium state is based on the penalty method
t$N = $ N g N
(5.4-261)
while for a node above the surface the estimate is based on the barrier method
t$N =
1
$ N g 2N
(5.4-262)
The estimate for t$N can be improved via an augmentation procedure similar to that
adopted by the augmented Lagrangian method. The update for t$N is
373
t$Nk +1,i = t k,i

N
(5.4-263)
where k is the augmentation number. The convergence criteria for the augmentation
procedure is
cg
k +1
N
g kN TOL
(5.4-264)
Some points concerning the choice of t$N should be borne in mind. If t$N is less than
the exact value of the contact force then a certain amount of penetration will take
place. However, the solution obtained will be better than what would be obtained if
the penalty method were used. If t$N is larger than the exact value then there will be a
certain amount of gap opening and the solution obtained will be better than what
would be obtained if the barrier method were used.
Factoring of normal contact force estimate
The LUSAS system parameter SLFNCS allows the estimate for the normal contact
force scalar, t$N , to be factored for contact nodes that are above the surface. The
reason for its specification is that in some instances the estimate for t$N can either be
too large or too small for nodes above the surface. Force estimates that are too high
will produce an overall normal contact force that can increase the gap between the
contact node and the contact surface significantly. The use of the parameter allows
the experienced user some control over this estimate.
SLFNCS is used to (1) multiply the initial contact force scalar estimate, (2) multiply
the normal contact force scalar estimate at the beginning of an increment if the node
is above the contact surface according to
t$Ni+1 = SLFNCS $t Ni
(5.4-265)
where t$N is the value at the last converged equilibrium state, and (3) factor the force
estimate from the previous increment when the following condition applies at the
beginning of an increment when a node is above the surface.
i
when t$N >
NgN
i +1
then t$N
= SLFNCS $t Ni
(5.4-266)
Apart from initial estimates, the factoring by SLFNCS only takes place at the
beginning of the iterative loop and should not affect the iterative performance of the
formulation.
Continuous contact contributions above and below contact surface
The contact contribution to the energy function of the system in (5.4-249) and
(5.4-250) ensures continuity of its first and second derivatives between in contact
374
and out of contact states. A typical contact energy contribution is illustrated in figure
5.4-20 showing a smooth transition between admissible and inadmissible regions.
The first derivative of the energy function leads to the internal force vector
contribution. Figure 5.4-21 shows a typical variation of the normal contact force
scalar ,showing the smooth transition in both value and slope between in contact and
out of contact states.
The second derivative of the energy function leads to the tangent stiffness matrix
contribution. Figure 5.4-22 shows a typical variation of the normal penalty parameter
contribution in (5.4-258) and (5.4-259). The graph shows that there is a continuity in
value between in and out of contact states.
Contact contribution to energy function

50
penetration
-2 .0
-1.5
0
-1.0
-0 .5
-50
0 .0
0 .5
1.0
1.5
2 .0
-10 0
-2 50
-3 0 0
-3 50
-4 0 0
energy modification
-150
-2 0 0
Figure 5.4-20: Typical graph showing the variation of the contact contribution to the
energy function of a system between in contact and out of contact states.
375
Normal contact force scalar contribution

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
0.0
penetration
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
normal contact force scalar
-2
Figure 5.4-21: Typical graph showing the variation of the normal contact force scalar
between in contact and out of contact states.
3.0
2.5
2.0
penalty parameter
Penalty param eter contribution
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
penetration
Figure 5.4-22: Typical graph showing the variation of the penalty parameter between
in contact and out of contact states.
5.4.5.2 Separate Iterative Loop for Contact
When solving problems involving contact and material nonlinearity a significant

amount of computer time can be spent resolving the material nonlinearities before the
contact conditions have stabilised. This can lead to convergence difficulties and even
376
a breakdown of the material model computations. These problems are due to the
computation of unrealistic deformations when the contact conditions are unresolved.
An alternative iterative strategy when significant material and contact nonlinearity is
present, is to separate the iterative solution for contact from the material response, by
maintaining constant material properties from the beginning of an increment until the
equilibrium conditions for contact have been satisfied. After the contact conditions
have been determined material nonlinearity is introduced and the solution allowed to
proceed to convergence. This dual pass approach should lead to a more stable
solution procedure.
The content of the two passes is as follows.
First pass
Second pass
- Contact nonlinearity, no material non-linearity

- Contact nonlinearity, material nonlinearity
In the first loop the material non-linearity is kept constant so that the only sources of
non-linearity are contact and geometric. For most non-linear material models this is
achieved by computing a tangent modulus matrix, D p , that is fixed and by
computing the stresses using an elastic relationship. With the rubber and crushable
foam material models the philosophy is slightly different but is still aimed at
removing the non-linear nature of the material model in the first loop.
Most non-linear material models
In the pre-solution of the problem the tangent modulus matrix is computed using
stresses and strains computed at the last converged increment. In this way D p , and
hence the stiffness matrix computed using D p , will remain fixed throughout the first
loop of the proposed procedure.
In the post solution of the problem, the stresses are computed according to the
following equation.
t = t 1 + D p
where
(5.4-267)
t 1 , are the stresses at the last converged solution, D p
computed using
t1 , and
the modulus matrix
the incremental total strains.
Large Strain elements
The rubber material model, implemented for large strain elements, offers four
different types of rubber specfication - Hencky, Ogden, Mooney-Rivlin and NeoHookean. In reality, however, there are only two basic models, Hencky and Ogden,
with the Mooney-Rivlin and Neo-Hookean special cases of the Ogden model. The
Mooney-Rivlin and Neo-Hookean models are processed in LUSAS by converting
377
their parameters into equivalent Ogden parameters and then solving for the equivalent
Ogden model.
In the context of a separate iterative loop for contact it is important to note that unlike
most other material models, rubber does not have a simple linear material model
component. The existing Hencky material model can, however, be regarded as a
generalisation of the linear material model for large strain problems. Indeed the
tangent modulus matrix relating the strain rates to the Jaumann rate of Kirchoff stress
for this material model reduces to the standard linear modulus matrix for all terms
related to the direct stress-strain rates. The shear term is close to the shear modulus,
provided the stretches are reasonably close to each other, so that the tangent modulus
matrix relating the strain rates to the Jaumann rate of Kirchoff stress may be given as:
h FGH K
D ijkl = ik jl + il jk +
IJ
K
2
ij kl
3
(5.4-268)
In the first loop of the separate iterative loops a tangent modulus matrix definition is
required that approximates the state of the material within the current increment in a
linear fashion, thus removing the non-linear nature of the material. For this reason the
Hencky material model definition is used in the first loop since it provides a
reasonable linear estimate of the general Ogden material models tangent modulus
matrix.
To achieve this approximation the parameters of the general Ogden model are
converted into an equivalent set of Hencky model parameters. The bulk modulus is
already defined for the Ogden model so that only a computation of the shear modulus,
G, is required. This is computed as follows
G=
1
p p
2 p
(5.4-269)
These parameters set up the equivalent Hencky model for the first loop. In the second
loop the analysis reverts back to the original Ogden material model definition.
Crushable Foam
The stress calculations for the crushable foam material model are based on a
relationship between pressure and relative volume, which means that it is not possible
to simplify the model into a linear relationship of the form in (5.4-267). However, in
order to achieve the same objective of linearising the calculations in the first loop, it
is possible to construct an equivalent linear relationship between the volumetric
pressure and the volumetric strain. The relationship is as follows.
pn = pn 1 ( v ,n v ,n 1 )sn1
(5.4-270)
and
378
sn = sn1
(5.4-271)
where:
is the volumetric pressure;
is the volumetric strain;

s
is the slope of the pressure - relative volume curve; and
subscripts n and n 1 denote the current and previous increments.
The stresses are then calculated by firstly computing the current deviatoric strains
R|1U|
||11||
= S V
||0||
|T00|W
(5.4-272)
The deviatoric stresses are then calculated using the shear modulus, G , and the
deviatoric strains.
d = 2G d
(5.4-273)
The stresses are then computed using
= d
R|1U|
||11||
p S V
||0||
|T00|W
(5.4-274)
This formulation should give a reasonable linearised formulation for the first loop of
the separate iterative loops. In the second loop LUSAS reverts back to using the
standard crushable foam formulation.
Elements for which separate iterative loops apply
The elements that have been modified to enable them to function in the separate
iterative loops philosophy as presented in this section, are given in table 5.4-1.
379
ISTYP
Element Group
LUSAS elements
Implicit solid elements
HX8, HX20, HX32, PN6, PN15, PN26,

TH4, TH10, HX16, PN12
10
Large strain elements
QPN4L, QAX4L
12
Semiloof shell elements
TSL6, QSL8
14
Implicit 2D planar and axisymmetric

elements
TPM3, TPM6, QPMnn, PM10, TPK6,

QPK8, TAXn, QAXn, TPNn, QPNn,
TNK6, QNK8
35
Thick shell elements
QTS4, QTS8, TTS3, TTS6,
36
Co-rotational shell elements
TSR6
41
3D continuum elements for composites
HX16L, PN12L
TABLE 5.4-1 ELEMENTS FOR WHICH SEPARATE ITERATIVE LOOPS

APPLY
5.4.5.3 Close Contact Detection
The LUSAS close contact detection facility allows one to

Stabilise problems that suffer from nodes moving into and out of contact by
small amounts
Define surfaces in contact initially and avoiding rigid body motions without
the use of tied slidelines to establish contact.
The close contact algorithm works in the following way.
The close contact detection parameter, Ccont , is specified under the
SLIDELINE PROPERTIES data chapter. This parameter is used to set up a
small tolerance above the contact surface. The tolerance is computed as
follows.
(2D)
surface tolerance = Ccont x length of closest segment
(3D)
surface tolerance =
segment connected to local node
Ccont xlength of longest edge on closest
For a contact node that lies above the surface but within the surface tolerance,
the normal penetration, g N , is set to zero. When passed through the slideline
algorithm this has the effect of applying a stiffness at the surface, but no force.
It is this application of stiffness without force that helps stabilise problems suffering
from chatter and avoids rigid body motions when contact is initially being
established. In most cases only a factored stiffness is applied in the close contact
region and not the full stiffness. The stiffness is factored in the following ways.
380
By multiplying the stiffness as computed in section 5.4.4.4 by the system

parameter SLSTCC in all iterations if pre-contact has not been specified
By multiplying the stiffness as computed in section 5.4.4.4 by the system
parameter SLSTPC in the first pass of the first iteration if pre-contact has been
specified and then by the system parameter SLSTCC in all subsequent passes
and iterations.
The default value for SLSTCC is 0.001 and for SLSTPC the default is 1.0.
When using the closest contact facility a number of things have to be borne in mind.
The use of close contact can have an effect on the convergence performance of
a problem, slowing the rate of convergence. This can be overcome by
decreasing the system parameter SLSTCC so that the applied stiffness is small.
Reducing it to as low as 1e-6, say, will have removed much of the effect of
close contact on the convergence performance.
If chatter is still a problem after using close contact then use contact
cushioning instead. If this is not feasible then one can try to alleviate the
problem by increasing the close contact detection parameter and decreasing
SLSTCC to a small number, say 1e-6. This increases the surface tolerance to
capture nodes that are suffering from larger oscillations between in and out of
contact states, but then applies a small stiffness to ensure that the rate of
convergence does not deteriorate too much.
The close contact detection facility is not available for explicit dynamics.
5.4.5.4 Pre-contact detection
The LUSAS pre-contact facility is used to overcome problems encountered when

applying an initial load to one or more bodies that will potentially contact, where at
least one of the bodies can undergo rigid body motion. The facility allows the bodies
to be brought into contact prior to the commencement of an analysis. Pre-contact can
be used by specifying the parameter Pcont , under the SLIDELINE ASSIGNMENT
data chapter.
LUSAS considers the pre-contact problem as an equality constrained minimisation in
the first pass of the very first iteration, i.e.
Minimise:
(5.4.275)
Subject to:
gN = 0
(5.4.276)
The constraint (5.4.276) effectively means that there should be no gap between the
contact node and the opposite surface. This means that the contact node will always
be pushed towards the opposite surface regardless of whether the node lies above the
surface or below it. The two surfaces of a slideline specified as being in pre-contact
381
will, therefore, be pulled together such that no gap exists between the surfaces at any
point along the slideline.
The effect of this will be that two bodies that are apart initially will be pulled into
contact, by the application of force and stiffness coming form the equality constrained
definition, and the externally applied load. The direction in which the free body
moves, however, is dependent the support conditions on the free body as well as these
forces.
After the bodies have been pulled together by the pre-contact procedure in the first
iteration, the standard slideline algorithm is then used to proceed with the rest of the
problem. Pre-contact is also only applicable to static analyses and is required when an
initial gap exists between slideline surfaces that should be in contact and a loading
type other than PDSP or TPDSP is applied.
The internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix contributions, in form, will be
the same as those derived in section 5.4, the only difference being that this force and
stiffness will always be applied. The penalty parameter that is used can be factored
using the system parameter SLSTPC. The default value of SLSTPC is 1.0.
There are a number of issues to note, however, with the use of the pre-contact facility.
Incorrect use of this procedure can lead to initial straining in the bodies or to
an undesired starting configuration. This can occur if the pre-contact facility is
used indiscriminately, since this will force all slideline surfaces together. If a
reasonable estimation can be made of where initial contact will occur, it is
recommended that pre-contact is used selectively on only the relevant
slidelines, minimising initial straining and giving more control over the
direction of the rigid body movement can be exercised.
If an estimation of possible contact regions is not possible then more, if not all,
of the slidelines can be specified as pre-contact. The system parameter
SLSTPC should then be decreased to a small number, such as 1e-6, to
minimise initial straining. However, since pre-contact is only applied in the
first iteration, the effects of the initial straining, if it does occur, should
disappear after the iterations of the first increment lead to convergence. The
initial applied loading should also be small enough to prevent unrestrained
rigid body motion since the contact forces may be relatively small depending
upon the initial configuration. This approach tends to be less stable and is
therefore not recommended.
In practice a combination of the two approaches may be necessary. In order to satisfy
oneself that the correct starting configuration has been attained, warning messages are
printed to the output file for each iteration of the first increment if the surface of any
slideline defined as being in pre-contact are not in contact.
***WARNING***
THE SURFACES OF SOME SLIDELINES WHICH HAVE BEEN DEFINED FOR PRECONTACT ARE NOT IN CONTACT:
NO CONTACT HAS BEEN DETECTED FOR SLIDELINE NUMBER
a
NO CONTACT HAS BEEN DETECTED FOR SLIDELINE NUMBER
b, etc.
382
This information can be used to re-asses which slidelines to include for pre-contact,
or even carry out a redefinition of the slidelines themselves, if convergence
difficulties are experienced in the first increment.
Slideline Modelling Considerations
Note: Slidelines generate interface elements automatically during the solution to

control contact conditions. These elements are not generated until AFTER the first
iteration of the first increment in which contact has occurred.
There are a number of implications of this statement which will be considered. With
force loading the displacements induced in the first iteration of the first increment will
be unrestrained since the two bodies will be initially unconnected initially. This
unrestrained motion may not be recoverable in subsequent iterations and, hence, the
solution will not converge. It is, therefore, necessary to apply restraints to any bodies
which are initially unrestrained.
Typical examples in which this problem will be found are
Independent washers between mating parts
Centrally supported pin within lug
Problems in which slidelines constitute the only support for the component
Note that the contact process over the first 2-3 increments typically requires small
load increments in order to establish and stabilise the contact conditions, but which
may subsequently be increased as the analysis progresses. There are currently three
options open to the user in order to eliminate this mechanism
Dummy supports
Apply dummy support conditions to the free body which will permit a small
amount of deformation and hence generate contact elements which will 'join' the
two bodies together. Released these dummy supports in the second load case to
allow the complete deformation to take place.
Initial pdsp
Using PDSP loading eliminates any problem because of the control on the
deformations involved in this loading type.
Initial tied slideline
By using a tied slideline, the load may be incremented to establish contact
conditions at which point the tied slideline is changed to a penalty slideline.
Summary of slideline modelling considerations
Only the expected region of contact should be defined as a slideline surface for
tied slideline analyses.
Explicit dynamics elements only may be utilised to define a slideline surface
in an explicit dynamics analysis
383
Linear continuum elements only may be utilised to define a slideline surface in

an implicit dynamics or static analysis
Coarse mesh discretisation in the region of contact should be avoided
Ensure that each surface is used only once in the slideline assignments
command
Sharp corners are generally best described by the use of two separate surfaces
Rigid target surfaces may be modelled by fully restraining the slideline surface
Rigid surface slidelines which are not part of the model can be defined using
R2D2, R3D3 and R3D4 elements. All the nodes on a rigid surface must be
fully restrained in translation.
Large mesh bias should be avoided when using quadratic patches to ensure a
reasonable curve fit of the curved contact surface.
The scale factor should be increased slightly for slidelines involving rigid wall
contact
The surface scale factors and friction coefficient are not utilised in explicit tied
slideline analyses
The nodal constraint slideline (explicit tied slideline) treatment is more robust
if the mesh with the greatest contact node density is designated the slave
surface.
The slideline facility is inherently nonlinear and requires use of the
NONLINEAR CONTROL data chapter, except for tied slidelines used in an
implicit dynamic or static analysis where the solution may be linear.
The segment ordering (as defined in the SLIDELINE_SURFACE data section)
should be checked before a full analysis is undertaken if defined without the
use of LUSAS Modeller. Note that the slideline initialisation procedure is
performed during a pre-analysis data check (OPTION 51).
The use of tied slidelines to eliminate transition meshes is recommended for
areas removed from the point of interest in the structure.
The use of an additional element to join separate meshes together is not
necessary, unless, of course, it actually forms part of the physical structure.
The use of a larger value of Young's modulus to simulate a rigid surface in a
dynamic contact analysis is not advisable since this will increase the wave
speed in that part of the model and give rise to a reduced time step. This
practice significantly increases the computing time required.
Do not converge on residual norm with PDSP loading. This norm uses external
forces to normalise which do not exist with PDSP loading
Slidelines may be used with automatic solution procedures (constant load level
and arc-length methods). The line search and the step reduction algorithms are
also applicable to analyses that contain slidelines.
Slidelines may be utilised with higher order elements (quadratic variation of
displacements) but it is necessary to constrain the displacements of the
slideline nodes so that they behave in a linear manner (LUSAS Modeller will
do this automatically). The deformation of the slideline surface will therefore
384
be compatible with the slideline algorithm. This is generally not advised since
it may lead to a slightly stiffer solution.
5.5 Thermal Surfaces

Thermal surfaces may be utilised to model the flow of heat between surfaces that are
apart or are in contact. This may be coupled with a structural contact analysis that
utilises slidelines to model the contacting of structural surfaces.
The processes of heat transfer across an open or closed gap are:
Conduction
Once the gap between surfaces is closed, conduction becomes the dominant
source of heat transfer. The resistance to heat flow is then governed by surface
properties and the applied pressure forcing the surfaces together.
Convection
Convection involves the movement of gas molecules, in a pattern governed by
factors such as the surrounding air pressure, relative position of heat sources, and
the space of the enclosure. The assumption of a direction of heat flow between
bodies for this process is therefore of only limited validity. However, for two
surfaces close together, the gas may act as a conductor and its behaviour
approximately defined by a thermal link. As the surfaces separate, other factors
become increasingly important such that the flow of heat between surfaces is not
now a direct transfer, and the effect of localised heating will be more diffuse.
Radiation
The phenomena of radiation can be appreciated by considering a light-bulb. Light
radiates from the bulb equally in every direction. The amount of light received at
any point is inversely proportional to the distance from the light source squared,
reflecting the property that the emitted energy from the source is expanding as a
sphere. Radiation between two surfaces, therefore, requires consideration of the
relationship between every point with every other point on both surfaces.
Additionally, if the body does not absorb all the light impinging on it, then
"specula" and "diffuse" reflections of the rays must also be included. This effect
leads to indirect lighting, with objects in the shade receiving reflected light.
5.5.1 Numerical Simulations

When a gap between surfaces has closed, contact conditions dictate the pattern of heat
flow with conduction playing the leading role in heat transfer. Surface pressure and
roughness dominate. Simple formulations based on parameters that define the surface
properties and the trapped gas can be used to model this process [Z5]. Using the nodal
contact forces calculated in a companion slideline analysis an approximate surface
pressure can be estimated by dividing the nodal force by the contact area.
385
For convection across an open gap, two situations are identified. If the gap is
considered narrow enough, links will be set up between the surfaces; for larger gaps,
where it is expected that convection will play a decisive role in heat transfer, heat will
be released to environmental nodes, whose role will be to approximate the behaviour
of the combined air mass filling the gap. The environmental nodes will have a
specific heat capacity associated with them, along with a means of releasing energy to
the general environment via conductivity. They may also be connected to other
environmental nodes with links. Heat will then be able to flow between surfaces
connected to the node without directly specifying the mechanism of heat transfer.
This procedure must be included since, if no links are provided at a surface, then that
surface becomes insulated, leading to overheating.
Diffuse radiation is considered when gaps are large between surfaces that absorb all
incident energy and reflect none since each surface radiates a fraction of its total
radiative energy to the surfaces of which it has a direct view. This re-radiation
depends on the temperatures of the surfaces so, in order to model radiative exchange
between the surfaces, the radiation view factors for all the element faces need to be
computed. These are used to assemble a conductance matrix that fully describes the
diffuse radiative exchange between all the element faces including re-radiation from
any element faces.
One of the key concerns in the formulations is that of numerical efficiency. The
update of the conduction/convection links and radiation conductance must be
performed speedily and with reasonable accuracy since during coupled problems they
may need to be updated iteratively as well as incrementally.
5.5.2 Conductive and Convective Heat Transfer

The heat flow q (with units of Joules/second) between two nodes i and j is defined by
(see figure 5.5-1)
q = hc A t j t i
(5.5-1)
where A is the effective area, hc the coefficient of thermal conduction or convection
t i and t j the nodal temperatures. The minus sign appears as the temperature drops in
the direction of heat flow.
The effective area is defined as the average of the areas connected by the link. The
energy flowing along the link is constant. From (5.5-1), for fixed nodal temperatures,
t i and t j , q is proportional to the conductance hc times the area. For non-equal
contributory areas (see figure 5.5-1), an average area must be used
A j + Ai j i
q = hc
t t
2
(5.5-2)
386
which defines the energy flux q (units Joules/second/unit area) as
q = q i Ai = q j A j
(5.5-3)
The nodal areas are calculated by considering a uniform flux applied to the segment
surface. The nodal load of node i produced by the uniform flux is calculated by
integrating
q i = q N i dA
(5.5-4)
Area
where N is the shape function associated with node i. For a unit flux (5.5-4) may be
interpreted as nodal area which is multiplied by a constant flux to calculate the nodal
loads
A Ii = N i dA
(5.5-5)
Area
The capital superscript I has been introduced to denote the segment to which the
nodal area relates, this is shown in figure 5.5-2. More than one nodal area may relate
to one node.
ti
tj
qi
Aj+Ai
2
qj
Ai
Aj
FIG.5.5-1 HEAT FLOW BETWEEN TWO NODES OF DIFFERENT AREAS
387
node i
nodal area AIi
Segment I
FIG.5.5-2 NODAL AREAS AND SEGMENTS FOR HEAT FLOW
In order to set up the links the nodal area from each segment is projected onto the
opposing surface along the normal to the surface. To account for the double counting
of projecting two facing surfaces onto each other, the conductivity of the gap is taken
to be one half of that specified in the gap properties.
Further considerations that are required for the conductive and convective links are
described in the following sections.
5.5.2.1 Contact heat transfer
On contact, heat transfer is predominately by conduction. Surface roughness and

contact pressure determine the resistance to heat flow across the interface between the
contacting bodies.
Equations given by [Z5] require detailed knowledge of the material surface and
properties of the gas. A general form in which conductivity is assumed to be a
function of both pressure p, and temperature t, is implemented where
388
K spots = f ( P, t ) and K gas = f ( P, t )
(5.5-6)
In LUSAS, the conductivity of the gas and the spots will be summed to provide a gap
conductivity. On contact the length of the links, , will be negative since contact is
calculated using a penalty algorithm (for penalty algorithms the two surfaces must
overlap to a degree defined by the surface stiffness parameters). The contact surface
area is, therefore, defined to be the sum of those nodal areas connected to the contact
node i which has a negative . An unscaled common normal of the areas is then
defined to be the average of the normals of each of the contributing nodal areas. The
contact force vector F is projected onto the common normal vector to produce the
applied normal force Fn in the direction of the contacted surfaces:
Fn = F .
n avg
(5.5-7)
n avg
The surface pressure is then found by dividing the normal force by the contact
surface area
P=
Fn
(5.5-8)
Mi
M =1
5.5.2.2 Convective heat transfer
For convection, the normals defining the direction of flow from the nodal areas are
evaluated from edges linking adjacent nodes. The nodal area will be referred to as
A Ii where the uppercase letter signifies the segment and the lowercase the segment
Ii
node. The ray originating from nodal area A is then
r = x + v + n
Ii
Ii
(5.5-9)
where v is defined to be a vector one quarter size of the vector connecting node i to
the segment centroid (see figure 5.5-3). The intersection of this normal with a
segment from either the same surface or an adjacent surface is then sought. The
intersection of the ray direction (5.5-9), with the segment surface yields the local
coordinates of the point of contact and in addition to , the distance between
the node and the surface.
The conductivity across the gap between the elements can be extracted as a function
of the separation of the surfaces . If the gap is too large, no flow is permitted
389
between the surfaces and heat flux will flow directly to an environmental node or to
the environment.
Heat fluxes from unassociated areas given by q
nodes or allowed to convect to the environment via
q Iie = A Ii hc t e t j
Iie
are assigned to environmental
(5.5-10)
where t is either the temperature of an environmental node or the environmental

temperature.
nIi
i
v
j
xIi
FIG. 5.5-3 RAY INTERSECTION FOR CONVECTION BETWEEN THERMAL

SURFACES
5.5.2.3 Link formulation
The heat flow through a two dimensional link connecting node i with the segment
defined by nodes 1 and 2, can be expressed as
390
q = KAN T N t
(5.5-11)
where K is the link conductivity, A is its nodal area, and N and t are defined as
c b g b gh
= bt , t , t g
N = 1,W1 ,W2
t
W j are the segment shape functions and the intercept location

The link conductivity is calculated according the appropriate gap width, contact
pressure (5.5-2) or environmental loading. Differentiating with respect to temperature
leads to a non-symmetric coefficient matrix
dq
dK
T
T
= KAN N +
AN N t N
dt
d
(5.5-12)
Two options are available in LUSAS to solve equation (5.5-12). Firstly, the nonsymmetric component of the matrix is symmetricised and secondly, the nonsymmetric solver may be used with the full matrix.
Similar equations can be formulated for three dimensional elements where N is now
a function of the surface coordinates
b,g .
5.5.2.4 Intersection search scheme
The efficient solution of the intersection of lines with surfaces is of vital importance
since the definition of the heat transfer is in terms of flows in known directions from a
surface. Careful definition of the thermal surfaces will reduce the searching. Two
simple tests are conducted as an initial test for intersection.
The first test checks that the element is facing towards the direction of the nodal ray.
This is done be calculating the angle of the incoming ray r with respect to the
c
segment normal n . Taking the dot product of these vectors evaluates the cosine of
the angle between the vectors. If the cosine of the angle is less than zero then
intersection is possible
n .r < 0
c
(5.5-13)
A second test then checks for the intersection of the ray with a sphere bounding the
element surface (see figure 5.5-4)
391

2
E. E r. E < r 2
(5.5-14)
where E is the vector connecting the point of emission of the ray r with the
centroid of the element surface; r is the radius of the bounding sphere. If this test is
positive then intersection with the element is almost assured and the equations may be
solved for the intersection location. If the links have already been calculated, an
update of geometry may cause only slight modifications in their point of intersection
with the opposing surface with new links forming with adjacent elements to the initial
intersection. In order to improve the efficiency of the search these segments are
checked in order of increasing distance from the position of the last link.
r.E
E.E
FIG. 5.5-4 INTERSECTION TEST WITH BOUNDING SPHERE
5.5.3 Radiative Heat Transfer

Radiative heat transfer depends upon the accurate computation of the view factors for
each surface. These computations are different for each of the three separate geometry
types: 2D planar, axisymmetric and 3D. These computations are described and the
assembly of the conductance matrix that connects temperatures and surface heat
fluxes is detailed. The modelling of symmetry in heat transfer problems with radiation
exchange is also discussed.
392

5.5.3.1 Radiation view factor calculation
The radiative view factor between two surfaces is defined as the fraction of radiative
energy leaving one surface that is incident on the other surface directly. If two
surfaces do not have a direct view of each other then the view factor between them is
zero. The view between two surfaces may be obscured by the surfaces themselves
(self shading) or by other surfaces in the enclosure (third surface shading).
The calculation of radiation view factors is split into three parts for the three
geometry types, 2D planar, axisymmetry and 3D, because each geometry type uses a
different method for the evaluation.
The following symbols are defined for use in all the view factor calculations
Lij
Aij
Ai
Fij
Sij
Distance between points i and j

Area of the segment defined by points i and j
Area of segment i
View factor, fraction of the radiative energy leaving surface i that is
incident on surface j directly
Direct-interchange area = product of the segment area and view factor
Sij = Ai * Fij
393
j
dAj
i
r
dAi
FIG. 5.5-5 VIEW FACTORS FOR RADIATION BETWEEN TWO SURFACES
From figure (5.5-5) the general equation for a view factor between two surfaces is
given by the double integral over the two surface areas
Fij =
1
Ai
zz
Ai
b g b g
cos i cos i dAi dAj
Aj
(5.5-15)
r *r
where
i
j
= distance between the elemental areas
dAi and dAj
= angle between the outward normal to surface 1 and the line connecting
surfaces 1 and 2
= angle between the outward normal to surface 2 and the line connecting
surfaces 2 and 1
394
The following are useful properties of view factors:

general reciprocity of direct-interchange areas
Sij = S ji
Ai * Fij = Aj * Fji
in an enclosure of N surfaces, for any surface I

N
Fij = 10. and

j =1
ij
= Ai
j =1
for a plane surface or 3D convex surface the self view factor

for a concave surface the self view factor
Fii = 0.0
Fii > 0.0
all view factors, irrespective of the geometry, must lie in the range
0.0 Fij 10
.
summation of direct-interchange areas. Consider two surfaces 1 and 2: if
surface 1 is split into two parts A and B then the direct-interchange area from
surface 1 to 2 is equal to the sum of the direct-interchange areas from the subsurfaces of surface 1 to all of surface 2
S12 = SA2 + SB2
If surface 2 were split into two parts C and D then
S12 = SAC + SAD + SBC + SBD
5.5.3.2 2D Planar view factor calculation
The simplest method for the calculation of view factors in 2D planar geometry is
Hottel's Crossed Strings Method [H12]. This method is only applicable to surfaces
with a very high ratio of length to width. In 2D planar geometry this is the case
because the length of the surfaces tends to infinity.
Modifications to the method are necessary for the following cases
Self shading occurs when the orientation of two segments is such that the
view between the two segments is blocked by the segments themselves. For
example, in 2D planar geometry, two segments may be facing away from each
other so they have no view of each other at all, this is total self shading.
Third surface shading occurs when two segments have some view of each
other but their total view of each other is blocked by some other segment or
segments.
In general, to calculate the view factor between two segments with self or third
surface shading, the segments are first split into a number of sub-segments. The view
factor between each sub-segment is then calculated and summed to give the view
factor between the two segments. The number of sub-segments used is controlled by
395
the user and the view factor accuracy will increase as the number of sub-segments
increases.
5.5.3.3 Axisymmetric view factor calculation
Axisymmetric surfaces can be considered to be rings formed by rotating a straight

line segment about the axis of rotation. To evaluate the integral in equation (5.5-15)
the straight line segments are divided into a series of sub-segments so that the angles
between the surface normals are nearly constant over the width of the sub-segment.
The integral can then be evaluated by summing the contributions over the complete
revolution.
Self shading occurs when the orientation of two segments is such that the view
between the two segments is blocked by the segments themselves. The segments may
block their view of each other completely in which case the view factor is zero. Third
surface shading occurs when two segments have some view of each other but their
total view of each other is blocked by some other segment. In these cases the limits of
the integration over the revolution are altered to account for the portions of the ring
that does not have a view. In the special case where two straight line segments have a
full view of each other (no self shading or third surface shading) then it is possible to
calculate the view factor exactly.
5.5.3.4 3D View factor calculation
In 3D geometry the view factor may be calculated in three possible ways as detailed
in reference [S11]
Area integral
Line integral
MS Line integral
The surfaces considered may be either 3 or 4 noded segments. To evaluate the

integral (5.5-15), the segments are divided into a series of sub-segments. While the
MS line integral gives the most accurate result for a given number of sub-segments it
is the most computationally intensive. The simple line integral gives good results but
must not be used when the two segments share a common edge because along this
edge the distance between surfaces is zero.
In summary:
Use the area method for self view factors
Use the simply line integral for well separated surfaces
Use the MS line integral in all other circumstances
The choice of integral method is made automatically by LUSAS.

In 3D geometry the self and third surface shading are dealt with together. Connecting
lines from the corners of one sub-segment to all the corners of the other sub-segment
396
are set up. If the sub-segment outward normal forms an angle of more than 90 degrees
with the connecting line then that connecting line can be cancelled because the two
nodes connected by the line cannot see each other. If the connecting line intersects
any of the other segments then again it can be cancelled because the view between the
nodes is blocked by some third surface. Having tested all the connecting lines if all
lines have been cancelled it is then assumed the sub-segments cannot see each other
at all. If some lines remain then the view factor between the sub-segments is
calculated assuming the sub-segments have a full view of each other and this view
factor is then factored by the ratio of connecting lines remaining to the initial number
of connecting lines. This is of course only an approximation to the view factor and the
accuracy will increase as the number of sub-segments is increased.
5.5.3.5 Diffuse radiation matrix method
In this section a matrix connecting nodal temperatures and surface fluxes is derived
for the finite element solution of radiative heat transfer problems.
The following assumptions are made
All surfaces are opaque ( absorptivity + reflectivity = 1)

All surfaces are DIFFUSE emitters and reflectors
Radiative properties are independent of direction and frequency
The medium between the radiating surfaces is non-participating
The grey body approximation will apply to all surfaces, that is
absorptivity = emissivity
reflectivity = 1 - emissivity
The following symbols are defined
ei
pi
Fij
Ti
Gi
Ji
SB
Ei
Qi
Qij
= emissivity of surface i, for a black surface

= reflectivity of surface i, pi = 1 ei
ei = 10
.
= view factor, fraction of the radiative energy leaving surface i that is

incident on surface j directly
= temperature of surface i
(Kelvin)
= irradiation, total radiation flux incident on surface i

(Watts)
= radiosity, total radiation flux leaving surface i
(Watts)
= Stefan-Boltzmann constant
= black body emissive power, Ei = SB Ti

area)
= net radiation flux leaving surface I
= net flux flowing from surface i to j
397
(Watts/unit area/Kelvin )
4
(Watts/unit
(Watts)
(Watts)
= area of surface I
Ai
For n radiating surfaces the flux incident on surface i is the sum of the radiosity of the
n surfaces multiplied by their respective view factors to surface i
Gi = F1i . J1 + F2 i . J 2 ..... + Fii . J i ..... + Fni . J n (Watts) (5.5-16)

The total flux leaving surface i is the grey body emissive power ( ei . Ei ) plus the part
of the incident flux that is reflected
J i = Ai . ei . Ei + p i . Gi (Watts)
rearranging gives J i pi . Gi = Ai . ei . Ei (Watts)
Substituting for Gi from (5.5-16) gives
pi . F1i . J1 pi . F2 i . J 2 ....+ 1 pi . Fii . J i ... - pi . Fni . J n = Ai . ei . Ei

For a set of 4 radiating surfaces the following matrix could be assembled:
LM1 p . F
MM pp .. FF
MN p . F
1
11
12
13
14
p1. F21
p1. F31
p1. F41
1 p2 . F22 p2 . F32
p2 . F42
p3. F23 1 p3. F33 p3. F43
p4 . F24
p4 . F34 1 p4 . F44
OPR| J U| LM A .e . E OP
PP|S JJ |V MM AA ..ee .. EE PP
PQ||T J ||W MN A . e . E PQ
1
In matrix form this is
lq l
KJ J = A. e. E
(Watts)
(5.5-17)
lJ q = KJ l A. e. Eq (Watts)
1
The net flux flowing from surface i to j is given as
Qij
= (heat leaving surface i that is incident on surface j)

- (heat leaving surface j that is incident on surface i)
= J i Fij J j Fji (Watts)
For n radiating surfaces the net flux at surface i is given by:-
Qi = Qi1 + Qi 2 + ........ + Q in
Therefore for a set of 4 surfaces
398
R|Q U| LM F
|SQ |V = M
||Q || MM
TQ W N
1
12
+ F13 + F14
F12
F13
F14
F21
F31
F21 + F23 + F24

F23
F24
F32
F31 + F32 + F34
F34
F41
OPR| J U|
F
|S J |V
P
PP| J |
F
+ F + F Q |T J |W
F41
42
43
42
43
In matrix form this is
lQq = KF lJ q
(Watts)
(5.5-18)
Substituting for vector {J} from (5.5-17) gives
lQq = KF
KJ
l A.e. Eq
(Watts)
4
The black body emissive power of surface i, Ei = SB. T i (Watts/unit area), from
which a matrix connecting surface temperatures and radiation fluxes may be obtained.
lQq = KF
KJ
m A.e. SB.T r
4
(Watts)
(5.5-19)
This can be rewritten as
lQq = C .mT r
4
where
(Watts)
[C ] = [ KF ][ KJ ]1{ A. e. SB} (Watts per Kelvin 4 )
For the non-linear finite element solution Newton-Raphson iteration is used so the
derivative with respect to temperature of the vector (Q) is required
d[Q] dT = 4.[C].T3 + (d[C] dT).{T4}
(5.5-20)
The above equations are general and allow for the variation of emissivity with
temperature, in which case the derivative term d[C]/dT is non-zero.
It should be noted that this matrix is non-symmetric and in the general case will have
a bandwidth equal to the size of the matrix, that is the number of nodes defining all
the segments in the radiation surface.
5.5.3.6 Symmetry in radiation problems
When modelling a symmetric thermal problem the symmetric boundary is adiabatic

(Q = 0.0). If the symmetric boundary slices through a set of radiating surfaces then
the user can define the line(s) of symmetry to enable LUSAS to generate the full set
of radiating surfaces and hence the full conductance matrix. This matrix is then
399
condensed to remove the symmetrical surfaces that have been generated. The solution
obtained is then exactly the same as would be obtained if the whole problem was
modelled.
The user specifies a series of planes that LUSAS uses successively as mirrors to
generate the whole model. For example: suppose the problem shown in figure (5.5-6)
is symmetric so that only 1/8 of the model (1 -> C -> 2) needs to be used. Three lines
of symmetry would be defined 1->C, 2->C, 3->C. Mirroring the model in line 1->C
would generate 1/4 of the model, mirroring the model in line 2->C would generate
1/2 of the model and mirroring the model in the line 3-C would complete the model.
Commands in LUSAS enable the user to define lines of symmetry (or planes of
symmetry in 3D geometry) which can then be assigned to the radiation surface so that
radiation can be correctly modelled in problems involving symmetry.
400
whole model
2 -> c
->
3 -> c
1/8 of the model
FIG.5.5-6 SYMMETRY DEFINITIONS FOR RADIATION SURFACES
401
402
Post-Processing Facilities
6 Post-Processing
Facilities
6.1 Nodal Extrapolation
In elements formulated using numerical integration, the stresses are obtained by
integrating the constitutive relationship at the element Gauss points. Nodal stresses
are then obtained by extrapolation from the Gauss points. This is achieved by
1. Defining a fictitious element with nodes at the element Gauss points
2. Extrapolating the stress or strain to the nodal points of the real element using the
shape functions of the fictitious element, i.e.
i i ,i = N I i ,i i
I =1
N
(6.1-1)
i i ,i = N I i ,i i
I =1
(6.1-2)
where N is the number of Gauss points, and subscripts i and I denote nodal and Gauss
point values respectively. The averaged nodal stresses are then obtained by evaluating
the mean of the extrapolated nodal values.
Notes
For shell elements, the local Gauss point stresses and strains are transformed
to global stresses and strains before extrapolation to the nodes. The mean
global stresses are then transformed to the local shell system at the nodal point
before evaluation of the nodal stress resultants.
For elements with a single Gauss point, the stresses and strains are assumed to
be constant over the element.
Stress extrapolation cannot be utilized with the 13-point and 14-point
integration rules of the solid elements (HX16,HX20).
403
6.2 Wood-Armer Reinforcement

This facility permits the evaluation of the moments of resistance required in the
reinforcement of reinforced concrete slabs. The moment field for the slab is
determined by performing an elastic analysis. The design moments are then evaluated
using the methods proposed by Wood [W4] for orthogonal reinforcement and Armer
[A4] for skew reinforcement. These calculations may be applied to plates, shells and
grillage elements. For shell elements the bending and in-plane effects are combined
using the method described by Clark [C12]. An approximate approach is also
available for grillage elements [W5] whereby bending and twisting moments are
converted into equivalent plate moments so that the Wood-Armer equations can
then be used.
6.2.1 General Approach for Wood-Armer Calculations

The Wood-Armer equations were originally developed to design reinforced concrete
slabs where the bending-moment field is known [W4, A4]. However, the method can
also be used when the slab is required to withstand in-plane and flexural
deformations. The theory is given for in-plane effects, however, the equations for
bending effects can be derived in a similar manner.
Consider a slab subject to the in-plane forces N x , N y and N xy as shown in (fig.6.21).
failure cracks
t
Ax
Ay
Nxy
Nxy
y
x
Nx
Ny
h
FIG.6.2-1 SLAB SUBJECTED TO IN-PLANE FORCES
404
If the tension design stress at the ultimate limit state of the reinforcement is f and the
reinforcement areas are Ax and Ay , the reinforcement forces are:
N x* = Ax f s
(6.2-1)
N *y = Ay f s
(6.2-2)
For a failure of the slab by yield, associated with the opening of cracks, at a certain
direction n (given by the angle , see (fig.6.2-1)), the resistive force may be expressed
as:
N n* = N x* cos2 + N *y sin 2
(6.2-3)
while the applied force in the same direction is
N n = N x cos2 + N y sin 2 2 N xy sin cos
(6.2-4)
For equilibrium the resistive and applied forces must be the same, i.e.,
N n* = N n
(6.2-5)
which leads to the yield criterion for the slab:
cN
*
x
hd
N x N *y N y = N xy2
(6.2-6)
This equation can also be expressed in the form:
N x* = N x N xy k
(6.2-7)
N *y = N y N xy k
(6.2-8)
where k = tan. In principle, any value for k can be chosen and an infinite number of
*
*
possible combinations of N x and N y capable of resisting a particular set of applied
forces exists. For design purposes, however, if the values for N x , N y and N xy are
*
known a value of (or k) may be established by making ( N x + N y ) a minimum,

hence minimising the steel requirement. The minimum k factor for orthogonal
reinforcement is 1 or = 45. For skew reinforcement, the minimum k factor
depends upon the direction of the reinforcement. From the obtained k, the minimum
required resistive forces can be computed.
Note that all the above calculations can be reproduced for a slab subjected to a
general set of bending and twisting moments ( M x , M y and M xy ). In addition to the
405
forces obtained above, an extra expression for the concrete force acting parallel to the
failure cracks is computed from the equilibrium in the z-direction and is derived via
*
*
the minimised values of N x and N y . This value can be used to predict failure in the
concrete.
6.2.2 Bending and In-plane Force Combination

For shell structures the design of reinforcement to resist both bending and membrane
effects has to be addressed. One of the design solutions is to convert the bending
forces into in-plane forces and compute the resistive forces as shown in the previous
section. In order to obtain the equivalent in-plane forces from the applied moments, it
is necessary to establish the distances between the centroid of the reinforcements and
the middle surface of the slab (i.e., besides the thickness of the slab, cb and ct in
(fig.6.2-2) are also required). For example, if a section of a slab is subjected to a
moment M x and an in-plane force N x as shown in (fig.6.2-2), the reinforcement
should be designed to resist the following load in the bottom and in the top of the
slab:
N xb = M x + N x dt / d
(6.2-9)
N xt = M x + N x db / d
(6.2-10)
Note that similar equations will be obtained for the other applied forces.
ct
d
dt
Mx
db
cb
Nxt
Nx
Nxb
FIG.6.2-2 BENDING AND IN-PLANE FORCES FOR SHELLS
6.2.3 Wood Armer for Grillages

To use the Wood-Armer equations for grillages the bending and twisting moments
obtained for the grillage have to be converted into equivalent plate moments in global
directions [W5]. The plate moments can then be used directly in the Wood-Armer
calculations. An extra geometric property (effective width) has to be defined for the
grillage to compute the equivalent moments.
406
y
b
4
a
3
3
1
1
2
FIG.6.2-3 EQUIVALENT PLATE MOMENTS FOR GRILLAGE ELEMENTS
The calculation of equivalent moments for the grillage shown in (fig.6.2-3) is given
below:
Consider the grillage moments acting on node A:
1
element 1: M b1 , M ba
(6.2-11)
element 2: M x2 , M xy2
(6.2-12)
3
element 3: M b3 , M ba
(6.2-13)
element 4: M x4 , M xy4
(6.2-14)
The contribution of the elements 1 and 3 have to be transformed into the global x-y
directions, hence:
1
M 1y = M ba
sin 1 + M b1 cos 1
1
M 1yx = M ba
cos 1 + M b1 sin 1
(6.2-15)
(6.2-16)
407
and
3
M 3y = M ba
sin 3 + M b3 cos 3
(6.2-17)
3
M 3yx = M ba
cos 3 + M b3 sin 3
(6.2-18)
The equivalent plate moments used for the Wood-Armer calculations are computed as
below:
LM
N
1 M x2 M x4
My =
W4
2 W2
Mx =
LM
N
1
3
1 My My
W3
2 W1
M xy =
OP
Q
OP
Q
(6.2-20)
L
i MMLMN MW
N
1
1
M xy M yx =
2
4
(6.2-19)
4
xy
2
M yx
W2
OP LM M
Q NW
3
yx
M 1yx
W1
OPOP
QPQ (6.2-21)
where Wi is the effective width of element i.

It should be noted that the above transformation is only a valid approximation for a
small mesh skew angle. In the current implementation, however, the approach
adopted is that if the skew angle of the grillage is less or equal to 45 degrees, the
moments are transformed into the x direction; otherwise, the moments are
transformed into the y direction. If two elements are placed in such a way that both
form angles smaller than 45 degrees or both form angles greater than 45 degrees (see
fig.6.2-4a), the results obtained for the Wood-Armer moments will be incorrect. An
improved solution will be obtained if the grillage elements are rotated to avoid this
situation (see fig.6.2-4b). In general, if a grillage analysis is carried out with skew
angles of this magnitude the Wood-Armer computations will be very inaccurate.
408
y
y
GRIL 1
GRIL 2
GRIL 1
42o
42o
45o
GRIL 2
45o
x
x
(a)
(b)
FIG.6.2-4 SKEW ANGLES USING GRILLAGE ELEMENTS
6.2.4 Assessment
There are two options available for assessing the load capacity of a structure that has
already been constructed. For the first assessment option, the k factor is not
minimised but is defined as an input parameter. This allows a particular slab with the
position and areas of reinforcement already established to be assessed to verify its
ability to carry a set of applied loads. In other words, although the amount of
reinforcement in one direction may be less than the minimum computed by the
Wood-Armer equations, the total reinforcement may still be enough to support the
loads. For this approach to be successful there must be some spare capacity in one of
the reinforcement directions.
An alternative way of assessing the reinforcement is to use and input the actual
resistive forces, that would be known (for sub-sections of the slab), and to compute a
utility factor. This utility factor can also be used to assess the capability of the slab
to withstand a particular set of applied loads. The utility factor calculated in LUSAS
is based on the minimisation of the difference of the resistive force and the applied
force and is simply given as:
= N N*
(6.2-22)
where N and N are the resistive force and the applied force calculated at the angle
*
() where ( N N ) is a minimum.
If is negative value is set to zero i.e., no reinforcement is necessary. For values
greater than 1 the slab is under-reinforced and extra reinforcement is required. If is
less than 1, the capacity of the slab has not been exceeded. It should be noted that
409
can only be computed using the total applied load and cannot be applied to live
loads in isolation.
6.3 Strain Energy And Plastic Work Calculations

For linear problems, when a structure is loaded work is stored in the form of
recoverable strain energy i.e. energy that would be recovered if the system was
unloaded. This relates to the area under the stress/strain graph. For nonlinear
problems this relates to the area under the unloading stress/strain graph, some work
done by the loading being taken up by unrecoverable plastic deformations (plastic
work).
For elastic linear materials the strain energy is given by Zienkiewicz [Z1] as
U=
1
2
D dv
D0 dv +
0 dv
(6.3-1)
The total stresses can be written as
= D 0 + 0
(6.3-2)
Equation (6.3-1) can therefore be written as
U=
dv
1
2
D dv
(6.3-3)
In the absence of initial stresses and strains this reduces to
U=
dv
(6.3-4)
where
and are the total strains and stresses,

D the modulus matrix
0 and 0 the initial strains and stresses.
For nonlinear materials the strain energy for the first increment is computed as for
elastic linear materials above. For subsequent increments the incremental strain
energy is given by
U =
1
2
c + pr dv
e
(6.3-5)
Similarly the incremental plastic work is given by

410
PW =
1
2
c + pr dv
p
(6.3-6)
where
e are the incremental elastic strains

p are the incremental plastic strains
c are the current total stresses
pr are the total stresses from the previous increment
6.4 Composite Failure Criteria

6.4.1 Tsai-Hill Failure Criteria
Tsai-Hill is the most general of the interactive or quadratic criteria and assumes
failure is dependent on the following relation:
12 1 2 22 12
+
+
X 2X Y S
f ( ) =
(6.4-1)
It is assumed that the material strengths are equal in tension and compression.
6.4.2 Tsai-Wu Failure Criteria

The Tsai-Wu criterion is based on the Tsai-Hill criteria but includes an interaction
term
F ( ) = F1 x + F2 y + F6 xy + F11 2x + F22 2y + 2 F12 x y + F66 2xy

(6.4-2)
where:
F1 =
F11 =
X'
, F2 =
Y'
, F6 =
S'
1
1
1
, F22 =
and F66 =
X . X '
Y . Y '
S . S '
(6.4-3)
The uniaxial strength data is insufficient to determine the interaction coefficient F12.
For its determination biaxial tests may be required, however, there are alternatives.
For generalised von Mises criteria (default setting in Modeller):
411
F12 =
F11F22
2
(6.4-4)
or Cowin proposed an interaction coefficient which includes shear terms derived as:
F12 = F11 F22
1
2S 2
(6.4-5)
6.4.3 Hoffman Failure Criteria

The Hoffman criterion is defined below:
F ( ) = F1 x + F2 y + F11 2x + 2 B12* 1 2 + F22 2y + F66 2xy
(6.4-6)
where the coefficients F1, F2, F11, F22, and F66 are given by the Tasi-Wu definitions in
equation 6.4-3 and B12* is given by:
B12* =
1
2 X . X '
(6.4-7)
These failure criteria predict failure when the function of the in-plane stress state f(s)
exceeds a value of one. Though failure is predicted, it is not possible to differentiate
between the different failure mechanisms possible within composite laminates.
6.4.4 Hashin Failure Criteria

The Hashin criteria distinguishes between matrix and fibre failure in tension and
compression based on the following equations:
Fibre failure in tension
F IJ + d
f ( ) = G
H K
2
2
xy
+ 2xz
S
(6.4-8)
Fibre failure in compression
F IJ
f ( ) = G
H K
(6.4-9)
412
Matrix failure in tension
F + IJ + d
f ( ) = G
H K
2
2
xy
+ 2xz + 2yz y z
2
Y
Matrix failure in compression
F F IJ 1I F d + iI + d
f ( ) = G G
H H 2S K JK GH JK
2
Y'
2
xy
+ 2xz + 2yz y z
S2
(6.4-10)
i + FG d + i IJ
GH 4S JK
2
(6.4-11)
413
414
References
7 References
Contact support@lusas.com for details of all references stated in this manual.
415
416

Theory Manual Volume 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory Manual Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory Manual Volume 1

LUSAS Version 14 : Issue 2