Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Committee in charge:
Professor Filip C. Filippou, Chair
Professor Robert L. Taylor
Professor Gregory L. Fenves
Professor Panayiotis Papadopoulos
Fall 2000
Date
Fall 2000
Copyright 2000
by
Remo Magalhes de Souza
Abstract
by
Remo Magalhes de Souza
Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering - Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Professor Filip C. Filippou, Chair
deformations along the element, rigid body displacements and rotations can be arbitrarily
large. This is accomplished with the use of the corotational formulation, in which rigid
body modes are separated from element deformations by attaching a reference coordinate
system (the basic system) to the element as it deforms. The transformations of
displacements and forces between the basic and the global systems are determined with
no simplifications regarding the magnitude of the rigid body motion. The non-vectorial
nature of rotations in space is handled consistently, through the representation in terms of
rotation matrices, rotational vectors and unit quaternions.
A new algorithm for the determination of the element resisting forces and tangent
stiffness matrix for given trial displacements is proposed. The iterative and non-iterative
forms of the algorithm are presented, generalizing earlier procedures for this class of
force-based elements.
Several planar and spatial problems are studied in order to validate the proposed
element. With the present formulation, only one element per structural member is
necessary for the analysis of problems with large rigid body rotations and moderate
deformations. Furthermore, finite strain problems can also be solved with the proposed
formulation, provided that the structural member is subdivided into smaller elements.
_________________________________
Professor Filip C. Filippou, Chair
(To my parents,
Pedro and Franci)
Table of Contents
List of Figures....................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Material or physical nonlinearity .................................................................. 1
1.2. Geometric nonlinearity ................................................................................ 3
1.3 Displacement and force-based elements....................................................... 4
1.4 Literature survey ........................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Displacement-based elements................................................................ 6
1.4.2 Force-based elements............................................................................. 7
1.4.3 Corotational formulation...................................................................... 10
1.4.4 Geometrically exact formulations........................................................ 11
1.5 Objectives and scope................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 Plane Frame Element Formulation................................................. 16
2.1 Coordinate systems ..................................................................................... 16
2.2 Kinematic hypothesis.................................................................................. 19
2.3 Variational formulation............................................................................... 22
ii
iv
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Pseudo code for the extraction of the rotational vector from the unit
quaternion .....................................................................................................71
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.9
vii
Figure 6.19 Load-displacement curve for right-angled frame under end load...............167
Figure 6.20 Right-angled frame under applied end moments. .......................................168
Figure 6.21 Load-displacement curve for right-angled frame under end moments.......169
Figure 6.22 Two-story frame..........................................................................................171
Figure 6.23 Load-displacement curve for two-story frame............................................172
Figure 6.24 Six-story space frame..................................................................................173
Figure 6.25 Load-displacement curve for six-story frame. ............................................174
viii
List of Tables
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 6.1
ix
Acknowledgments
help with my studies. I am thankful for him showing me, every day, the joy and
happiness of being a father. He is the most important source of energy and enthusiasm
that I have. In addition, his concerns about the conclusion of this dissertation are
gratefully acknowledged.
I am thankful for the immense support and love received from my parents Pedro
and Franci during my entire life. Their effort in raising and educating me and my
brothers, and the patience in waiting for me to complete my graduate studies and to go
back home are sincerely appreciated.
I am also grateful for the incentive and love received from my other relatives in
Belm-Brazil, Ronan, Rmulo, Nirvia, Rominho, Pilar, Adilia, Rev. Stlio, Grson,
Zeneide, En, Estlio, and Selma. Even being so far away they helped me in many
different ways. Their help was really important for the completion of this program.
I also would like to thank my family in the United States: Amanda, Fernanda,
Paulo, Andra, Mrcia, Andr, Lucas, Ana Flvia, Reinaldo Gregori, Rafael, Liliana,
Srgio, Thas, Armando, and Reinaldo Garcia, for the great moments lived together. I am
sure that the friendship that was born in Berkeley will grow and last forever.
I am indebted to the fellow students, faculty and staff members in the University
of California at Berkeley who contributed to the conclusion of my doctoral studies.
Special thanks go to Frank McKenna and Michael Scott for their help with the computer
implementation of this research work; to Ashraf Ayoub, Ignacio Romero, David Ehrlich,
Prashanth Vijalapura, and Mehrdad Sasani, for the helpful discussions about
computational mechanics and nonlinear structural analysis; to Prof. Khalid Mosalam,
Prof. Francisco Armero and Prof. Keith Miller for serving in my qualifying examination
xi
committee (in addition to Prof. Filippou, and Prof. Fenves); to Mari Cook for the help
with academic matters since the beginning of my application process.
I would like to thank the faculty members of the Civil Engineering Department of
the Universidade Federal do Par (Federal University of Par) for the approval of my
leave of absence, such that I could attend this doctoral program. I am especially thankful
to Prof. Jos Perilo da Rosa Neto, for his help with administrative matters related to my
absence, and for the constant motivation received during my undergraduate and graduate
studies in civil engineering.
Financial support for these studies were provided by the Ministry of Education of
Brazil, through the federal agency CAPES. This research work was also in part supported
by the National Science Foundation, through the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) Center. This financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction
This work addresses the analysis of frames with material and geometric nonlinearity. A
frame with slender members under load conditions causing deformations past the elastic
limit of the material is the typical case of problems where both effects need to be
considered.
introduces greater complexity in the relation. To account for the coupled behavior, this
approach is usually based on the theory of plasticity and employs a yield-surface function
in terms of stress resultants. Another disadvantage of this method consists in the
difficulty of representing precisely partial yielding of the cross-section.
Regarding the second approach, very accurate constitutive relations are obtained
at the expense of using a refined grid to numerically evaluate integrals over the crosssections. As a large number of sampling points may be necessary, the computational
effort to perform the numerical integration, and the storage of history variables associated
with each of these points, usually render the method more computationally expensive
than the force-deformation approach, particularly for complex space structures with many
elements. However, the advantages of the method outweigh this drawback in many
aspects. The most important advantage is its ability to handle general types of crosssection, a feature that is especially convenient in the analysis of reinforced concrete
frames. Furthermore, partial yielding and cracking of the cross-section can be represented
in a simple and accurate manner.
This approach is particularly advantageous when the commonly adopted
assumption of uniaxial stress state at the material points of the cross-section is made. In
this situation, the method is usually called fiber-discretization technique. For this type
of stress-state, high accuracy is achieved, and great flexibility is possible in terms of the
material constitutive relations that can be represented. Many strain hardening laws with
different loading/unloading criteria, and residual or thermal stresses can be easily
considered with this approach. For instance, representing a reinforced concrete (shear
free) section, with realistic material models, becomes very simple.
Regarding the spreading of plasticity along the element, this effect can be
accounted for, very accurately, using the so-called plastic zone methods, which involve
numerical integration over the element length. Alternatively, the approximate plastichinge approach can be used, but depending on the structure under consideration the
results can be very unconservative. The plastic-hinge approach, however, is appropriate
in the presence of softening material behavior, which limits the size of the plastic-zones
to small concentrated regions.
variation of large deformations along the member length. The need of several elements
per member, and consequently of a great number of degrees of freedom, results in
reduced computational efficiency for most of the traditional displacement-based finite
elements.
In order to avoid the discretization of frame members, an alternative procedure
consists in the use of elements with the plastic-hinge concept and second order beamcolumn theory, such that only one element per member can be used. However, depending
on the characteristics of the structure, these elements can be rather inaccurate when the
spread of plasticity effect is relevant. The use of higher order polynomials for the
displacement interpolation functions is an alternative approach.
Another solution is the utilization of force-based (or flexibility-based)
formulations, in which equilibrium is satisfied strictly. If non-linear geometric effects are
neglected, exact interpolation functions can be readily established. For example, in the
absence of distributed loads, the bending moment variation along a frame element is
always linear, although the curvature distribution can be very irregular due to the
formation of plastic zones at the element ends. In the presence of moderately large
deformations, the force interpolation functions, although not necessarily exact, provide
means for a better representation of the stiffness variation along the beam than the
traditional approach with assumed displacement functions.
It is important to emphasize that exact force distributions are easily determined
for one-dimensional elements only. In case of continuum elements, exact force
interpolation functions are not available. Therefore, force-based formulations seem
especially suited for the nonlinear analysis of frames.
the paper by Bathe and Bolourchi (1979), which presented an updated Lagrangian and a
total Lagrangian formulation for three-dimensional beam elements derived from the
principles of continuum mechanics.
The second order inelastic analysis of frame structures, particularly of steel
buildings, was the subject of much research work during the following years. Some more
recent publications in this field, proposing new elements for practical analysis/design of
steel frames, are for instance El-Zanaty et al. (1980), El-Zanaty and Murray (1983),
White (1985), King et al. (1992), Ziemian et al. (1992), Liew et al. (1993), Attalla et al.
(1994), King and Chen (1994), Chen and Chan (1995), Barsan and Chiorean (1999), and
Liew et al. (2000).
Other publications on large displacement inelastic frame analysis, not specifically
for steel frames, are Cichon (1984), Simo et al. (1984), Tuomala and Mikkola (1984),
Nedergaard and Pedersen (1985), Chan (1988), Gendy and Saleeb (1993), Ovunc and
Ren (1996), Park and Lee (1996), and Waszczyszyn and Janus-Michalska (1998).
Although some of the elements proposed in the above studies can be adapted for
reinforced concrete structures, the bibliography on geometrically and materially nonlinear
frame elements for this specific type of structure is scarcer. Some examples are Aldstedt
and Bergan (1978), and Mar et al. (1984).
plastic plane frames with large displacements. In this work, the flexibility matrix is
computed based on an assumed distribution of forces along the element. However, the
method also uses displacement interpolation functions that assume linearly varying
curvature and a constant axial strain to compute the section deformations from the end
displacements. Section forces are obtained from these section deformations using the
constitutive relation, but the section forces calculated in this way are not in equilibrium
with the applied loads. These deviations only decrease as the number of elements is
increased in the member discretization. Large displacement effects are taken into account
by updating the structure geometry.
Kondoh and Atluri (1987) employed an assumed-stress approach to derive the
tangent stiffness of a plane frame element, subject to conservative or non-conservative
loads. The element is assumed to undergo arbitrarily large rigid rotations but small axial
stretch and relative (non-rigid) point-wise rotations. It is shown that the tangent stiffness
can be derived explicitly, if a plastic-hinge method is employed. Shi and Atluri (1988)
extended these ideas to three-dimensional frames, claiming that the proposed element
could undergo arbitrarily large rigid rotations in space. However, as also noticed by
Abbasnia and Kassimali (1995), the rotations of the joints are treated by Shi and Atluri as
vectorial quantities. This limits the application of the element to problems with small
rotations, leading to inaccurate results when the proposed element is used in structures
subject to large rotations.
Carol and Murcia (1989) presented a hybrid-type formulation valid for nonlinear
material and second order plane frame analysis. The authors refer to the method as being
exact in the sense that the equilibrium equations are satisfied strictly. However, second-
order effects are considered using a linear strain-displacement relation, which restricts the
formulation to relatively small deformations. Besides, the second order effect is not
correctly accounted for in the stiffness matrix expression, leading to an inconsistent
tangent stiffness, and consequently causing low convergence rate.
Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) presented a force-based element for
geometrically nonlinear analysis of plane frame structures, assuming linear elastic
material response, and moderately large rotations. The basic idea of the formulation
consists in using a force interpolation function for the bending moment field that depends
on the transverse displacements, such that the equilibrium equations are satisfied in the
deformed configuration. Consistently, the adopted strain displacement relation is
nonlinear. The weak form of this kinematic equation leads to a relation between nodal
displacements and section deformations. In this work, a new method, called CurvatureBased Displacement Interpolation (CBDI), was proposed in order to derive the transverse
displacements from the curvatures using Lagrangian polynomial interpolation. The
motivation for this work was the extension of the materially nonlinear force-based
element proposed in Neuenhofer and Filippou (1997) to include geometrically nonlinear
behavior. This latter work was, in turn, based on the force formulation that was initially
proposed by Ciampi and Carlesimo (1986), and was continually developed in several
other works, including Spacone (1994), Spacone et al. (1996a), Spacone et al. (1996b),
and Petrangeli and Ciampi (1997).
More recently, Ranzo and Petrangeli (1998) and Petrangeli et al. (1999)
introduced shear effects in the analysis of reinforced concrete structures, following the
idea of the force-based formulation presented in Petrangeli and Ciampi (1997). Another
new extension, accounting for the bond-slip effect in reinforced concrete sections, is
presented by Monti and Spacone (2000).
formulation are the papers by Rankin and Brogan (1984), Crisfield (1990), and NourOmid and Rankin (1991).
A good description of the corotational formulation and its relation to the more
widely used total Lagrangian and updated Lagrangian formulations is given by
Mattiasson and Samuelsson (1984), and Mattiasson et al. (1985). Mattiasson and
Samuelsson (1984) and Hsiao et al. (1999) emphasize that within the co-rotating (CR)
system, either a total Lagrangian (TL) or updated Lagrangian (UL) formulation may be
employed. These approaches are consequently termed CR-TL and CR-UL formulations.
For a more detailed description of the differences between these formulations see
Mattiasson and Samuelsson (1984).
Great attention has been given to the corotational formulation in recent years.
Some other examples of works employing this formulation are Hsiao et al. (1988),
Izzuddin and Elnashai (1993), Iura (1994), Jiang and Olson (1994), Crisfield and Moita
(1996), Pacoste and Eriksson (1997), Meek and Xue (1998), Teh and Clarke (1998),
Hsiao et al. (1999), and Krenk et al. (1999).
planar problems, and, for this reason, geometric beam theories are sometimes referred to
as Reissners theory. Reissner (1981) extends the planar formulation to three dimensions,
but, as outlined by Jelenic and Crisfield (1999), the exactness of the theory is lost due to
simplifications in the rotation matrix.
The exact theory formulated by Simo (1985) and implemented by Simo and VuQuoc (1986) is applicable to three-dimensional problems, with the planar case reducing
to the formulation due to Reissner (1972).
A finite element based on geometrically exact 3d beam theory, and specifically
designed to preserve the objectivity of the adopted strain measures is given by Jelenic and
Crisfield (1999). This approach combines the good characteristics of the geometrically
exact and the corotational beam theories.
Another formulation considered kinematically exact is the one proposed by
Smolnski (1999). An element based on kinematically exact beam theory with elastoplastic behavior is presented by Saje et al. (1997).
Ibrahimbegovic (1997) discusses some aspects of three-dimensional finite
rotations and its relation to geometrically exact theories.
It should be emphasized that, although these theories are considered exact, their
numerical implementations are still based on approximate shape functions, and therefore
require discretization of the element along the length.
12
element proposed by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998), which is limited to small rotations,
to the inelastic analysis of planar and spatial frames, considering large rigid body
rotations. Within the range of large displacements present in practical structural
engineering problems, accurate results are sought with only one element per structural
member. Furthermore, the state determination procedure of the proposed element needs
to be implemented in a general-purpose finite element program based on the direct
stiffness method.
In the proposed element, material nonlinear effects can be included with either a
description in terms of stress components or stress resultants. However, for brevity, only
the approach with stress components is presented, which leads to integration over the
cross-sections (fiber-discretization). As shear effects are neglected, a uniaxial stressstrain relation is employed at the material point. The effect of plastification along the
element is also considered, such that numerical integration is also performed along the
element axis (as opposed to plastic-hinge methods). Localization effects due to softening
materials are not addressed in this study. Rate dependent materials are not considered, but
can be easily incorporated in the present element. Only quasi-static analysis is performed,
so dynamic effects are not taken into account.
The strain-displacement relations used in Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) are still
used in the proposed element, such that the formulation is considered geometrically
approximate, as opposed to the geometrically exact theories discussed above, which are
applicable to finite deformation problems. This limitation is, however, not too restrictive,
as the assumption of small-strain/large-displacement is realistic for most practical slender
structures such as beams, frames and shells. Nonetheless, the element is able to handle
13
problems with arbitrarily large rigid body motions, using the idea of the corotational
formulation described in Crisfield (1991) for the planar case and in Crisfield (1990) and
Crisfield (1997) for the three-dimensional case. As the element employs the corotational
formulation, it can be used to solve finite deformation problems, but in this case,
discretization along the structural members is necessary.
This dissertation describes the planar element formulation in Chapter 2. In this
chapter, first the kinematic hypothesis on which the element is based are described. Then,
the element is formulated in a system without rigid body modes, using the principle of
Hellinger-Reissner. The weak form of the compatibility equation is then obtained, the
linearization of which leads to the consistent flexibility matrix. The extension of the
CDBI procedure proposed by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) for nonlinear material
behavior is presented. Finally, the exact transformation between the basic and global
system is defined using the idea of the corotational formulation.
Chapter 3 describes an overview of the theory of large rotations in space. All the
formulae necessary in the development of the three-dimensional corotational formulation,
such as rotation matrices and compound rotations are derived and discussed in this
chapter. A brief description of Euler parameters and unit quaternions and their
application to the update of rotational variables is also presented for completeness.
Chapter 4 describes the spatial element formulation. It has the same organization
of Chapter 2, without repeating discussions about common theoretical developments.
However, it presents a more detailed discussion about the corotational formulation due to
the increased degree of complexity in three dimensions.
Chapter 5 proposes two possible versions of the element state determination
14
procedure, which objective is the computation of element resisting forces (residuals) and
tangent stiffness matrix for given global trial displacements. The first algorithm
corresponds to a direct solution (non-iterative) of this nonlinear problem, providing
approximate resisting forces and stiffness matrix, which converge to the exact solution as
the global iterations are performed. The second algorithm performs local iterations at the
element level, and corresponds to an exact solution of the nonlinear problem, providing
exact resisting forces and a consistent tangent stiffness at each global iteration. These two
algorithms are combined together in this work, such that both the iterative and noniterative versions are available in one single implementation.
Chapter 6 shows several classical examples that are used to validate the proposed
element formulation. In all examples the results obtained with the proposed method are
compared with results available in the literature.
The conclusions drawn from this study are presented in Chapter 7.
15
Chapter 2
Plane Frame Element Formulation
This chapter describes the formulation of the frame element. For simplicity, only the
planar case is presented, with the space element being described in Chapter 4. This
separation allows for a detailed discussion of the fundamental aspects of the proposed
formulation, avoiding the issue of displacements and rotations in space.
The chapter is organized as follows. First, the coordinate systems used to describe
the element are presented and the kinematic hypothesis on which the element is based are
established. Then, the element is formulated in the system without rigid body modes,
using the principle of Hellinger-Reissner. The equilibrium equations and the weak form
of the compatibility equation are derived using this potential, and the element tangent
flexibility matrix is obtained from the linearization of this compatibility equation. The
extension of the CDBI procedure proposed by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) to
nonlinear material behavior is then presented. Finally, the exact transformation between
the basic and global system is defined using the idea of the corotational formulation.
, respectively
illustrated in the figure, and are grouped in vectors P and D
P P1
D
D
1
P2
P3
P4
P5
D 2
D 3
D 4
D 5
P6
D 6
(2.1)
T
(2.2)
P5 , D 5
J
P4 , D 4
P2 , D 2
P1, D1
P6 , D 6
P3 , D 3
X
Figure 2.1
Due to the presence of three rigid body modes in the global coordinate system, the
corresponding element stiffness matrix is singular. Consequently, in general there is no
flexibility matrix associated with this local system. For this reason, the element is
formulated in another system (x, y), henceforth denoted the basic coordinate system,
which translates and rotates with the element as the deformation proceeds. This new
system is represented in Figure 2.2. The element has three degrees of freedom in the
chosen basic coordinate system: one axial displacement u J and two rotations relative to
the chord I and J . These relative displacements correspond to the minimum number
of geometric variables necessary to describe the deformation modes of the element. The
17
three statically independent end forces related to these displacements are one axial force
P and two bending moments M I and M J . These element forces and displacements are
(2.3)
D1 u J
D D2 = I
D
3 J
(2.4)
P3 , D3
P1, D1
deformed configuration
y
basic coordinate system
P2 , D2
P2 , D 2
I
P1, D1
P5 , D 5
P4 , D 4
P6 , D 6
undeformed configuration
P3 , D 3
X
Figure 2.2
the flexibility formulation, such as Carol and Murcia (1989), and Neuenhofer and
Filippou (1998). In order to handle arbitrarily large rotations, exact expressions for the
transformation of force and displacements between these two coordinate systems must be
employed. For this purpose, the present work adopts the idea of the corotational
formulation, which will be discussed in section 2.9.
u( x, y ) u y ( x, y ) = v( x) y [1 cos( ( x))]
u z ( x, y )
(2.5)
where u ( x) and v( x) are, respectively, the axial and transverse displacements of the
reference axis (origin of the cross section) and ( x) is the angle of rotation of the cross
section.
Considering small rotations along the element, i.e., for a small angle ,
sin tan and cos 1 , eq. (2.5) simplifies to
19
dv( x)
u x ( x, y ) u ( x) y tan( ( x)) u ( x) y
dx
u( x, y ) u y ( x, y )
=
v( x)
v( x)
0
u z ( x, y )
0
(2.6)
Neglecting shear and in-plane distortion of the section, the only non-zero
component of the Green-Lagrange strain tensor at the reference axis is
E xx
2
1 u
1 u y
u
= x+ x +
2 x
x 2 x
(2.7)
y sin
y cos
v( x)
y, v
y
x, u
cross section
u ( x)
Figure 2.3
1
2
( u x
x )
nonlinear geometric beam theory, the axial strain can be expressed using a degenerated
form of the Green-Lagrange strain as
E xx
1
2
1 u y
u
= x +
x 2 x
( u x
(2.8)
artificial self-straining of the neutral axis under large rigid body rotation, and
consequently would produce over-stiff solutions. However, as the rigid body modes are
considered exactly in the corotational approach, inaccuracies due to self-straining of the
element as a whole are avoided in the proposed element formulation.
The simplification given by eq. (2.8) has been adopted as common practice in
simplified nonlinear geometric formulations used in structural engineering. For instance,
Powell (1969), Remseth (1979), Chebl and Neale (1984), and Chen and Liu (1991) make
use of this assumption.
Taking the derivatives of eq. (2.6) with respect to x and substituting the results in
eq. (2.8) gives the strain at a point ( x, y ) of the cross-section
( x, y ) = u( x) +
1
( v( x) )2 yv( x) = 0 ( x) y ( x)
2
(2.9)
where
0 ( x) = u( x) +
( x) = v( x)
1
( v( x) )2
2
(2.10)
are the approximate axial strain at the reference axis, and the curvature of the crosssection, respectively, with the prime denoting differentiation with respect to x. This
21
reference axis does not necessarily pass through the geometric centroid of the cross
sections.
The term (1 2 )( v( x) ) introduces the geometric nonlinearity in the compatibility
2
(strain-displacement) relation, but this relation is still approximate as higher order terms
are neglected. Therefore, the target problems of this formulation are structures subject to
moderately large deformations within each element (as opposed to finite deformation
problems).
Eq. (2.9) can be rewritten in matrix form as
( x, y ) = a ( y ) d ( x )
(2.11)
where
d( x) = 0 ( x) ( x)
(2.12)
are henceforth denoted generalized section strains (or section deformations), and
a ( y) = 1 y
(2.13)
is a row matrix that relates the generalized section strains with the strain at a point of the
cross-section.
(2.14)
where t are the imposed tractions on the part t of the element boundary . This
functional is referred to as the potential energy of the external loading. A common
example of conservative loads are dead loads (with constant directions).
A material model is hyperelastic (or Green elastic) if there exists a stored energy
function W ( ) , such that the axial stress can be expressed as a function of strain as
W ( )
(2.15)
( ) = ( ) W ( ( ) )
(2.16)
( )
( ) W ( ( ) ) ( )
= ( ) +
( )
( )
= ( ) +
= ( )
(2.17)
Although this inverse form is possible for most elastic material models in the
23
range of small strains, this is not always the case for large elastic strains.
With these assumptions, the following form of the Hellinger-Reissner functional,
considering the degenerated form of the Green-Lagrange strain given in eq. (2.8), can be
stated as
2
u x 1 u y
HR ( , u) =
+
( ) d + ext (u)
x 2 x
(2.18)
(S) (S( )) , with S being the stress resultant vector, defined below, will still
represent the complementary energy density ( ) , as an abuse of notation.
Performing the integration over the area A of the cross-sections, and using the
displacements at the reference axis
u ( x)
u0 ( x) u( x,0) =
v( x)
(2.19)
1 2
T u + v
T
HR (S, u0 ) = S
2 (S) dx P D
L
v
(2.20)
S= N
dA
A
y d A
A
= aT d A
(2.21)
is the stress resultant vector, with N being the axial force and M the bending moment at a
24
(2.22)
y, v
v( L) = D3
P2 , D2
(2.23)
P3 , D3
x, u
P1, D1
L
Figure 2.4 Basic system indicating displacement fields and corresponding boundary
conditions.
HR =
HR
HR
u0 +
S
u0
S
(2.24)
= u0 HR + S HR = 0
such that
u + v v
T
u0 HR = ST
d x P D = 0
25
(2.25)
and
S HR
1 2
u + v (S)
= S
dx = 0
2
L
v
(2.26)
Eq. (2.25) can be identified as the Principle of Virtual Work, i.e., the weak form
of the equilibrium equations.
From the definition of the complementary energy density, the second term in
square brackets in eq. (2.26) corresponds to the section deformations (eq.(2.12)), i.e., the
work conjugate of the stress resultants S
d=
(S)
S
(2.27)
1 2
u + v
S 2 d dx = 0
L
v
(2.28)
26
material.
Therefore, it is less restrictive to use the weak form of the compatibility equation
as the basis of the proposed formulation. However, there is an advantage in deriving the
present formulation from a variational principle: it allows the concentration of all
intrinsic characteristics of the problem in a single expression.
Based on this, it should be clear that the proposed element formulation can be used
to solve more general problems such as, for instance, elasto-plastic analysis. Some
examples of this more general case will be presented to validate the extension of the
formulation to this type of material.
[ N ( u + v v) + M v] d x P1 D1 P2 D2 P3 D3 = 0
(2.29)
It should be noted that the bar over the forces P, which indicate that those are
specified quantities, are omitted for brevity of notation. However, no confusion should
occur.
This equation is valid for all kinematically admissible u and v satisfying the
essential boundary conditions (see Figure 2.4)
u (0) = v(0) = v( L) = 0
(2.30)
27
(2.30) lead to
0 { N u + [( Nv) M ] v} d x +
L
[ N ( L) + P1 ] D1 + [ M (0) + P2 ] D2 + [ M ( L) + P3 ] D3 = 0
(2.31)
If eq. (2.31) is to be satisfied for all admissible variations, the following equations
of equilibrium (consistent forms of linear and angular momentum balance equations) are
obtained
dN ( x)
= 0
dx
in [0, L]
2
d M ( x) d
dv( x)
+ N ( x)
= 0
2
dx
dx
dx
(2.32)
N ( L) = P1 M (0) = P2
M ( L) = P3
(2.33)
Since the displacement variation fields are arbitrary in this derivation (i.e., a
displacement interpolation function was not adopted), the equilibrium equations are
satisfied pointwise (strong form). This is in contrast to stiffness based formulations,
which satisfy the equilibrium equations in the average sence (weak form).
From eqs. (2.32) it is observed that the axial force N ( x ) is constant along the
element. The expression for the bending moment M ( x) is obtained by integrating the
second of eqs. (2.32) twice. Then, considering the natural boundary conditions (2.33), the
following stress resultant fields are obtained:
N ( x) = P1
x
x
M ( x) = v( x) P1 + 1 P2 + P3
L
L
(2.34)
This equation can be rewritten in matrix form as a relation between section forces
28
(2.35)
0
0
1
x
, =
b( x) =
L
v( ) 1
(2.36)
where
1
2
( u y
N u + 2 v
L
0 + M ( v ) dx = 0
29
(2.37)
If this equation could be satisfied for all statically admissible variations N and
M (i.e., all virtual force systems in equilibrium), it would imply the strong form of the
compatibility relations (2.10). However, for a reduced set of admissible variations N
and M , the compatibility relations are satisfied only in the average sense. The subset of
these admissible variations used in the present element formulation is determined as
follows.
Integration of eq. (2.37) by parts and consideration of the boundary conditions
(2.22) lead to
1
N u + 2 ( Nv) M v + N 0 + M dx
L
(2.38)
N ( L) D1 + M (0) D2 M ( L) D3 = 0
= 0
dx
in [0, L]
2
d M ( x) 1 d
dv( x)
+
N ( x)
= 0
2 dx
dx
dx 2
(2.39)
The similarity between eqs. (2.39) and (2.32) should be noted. Accordingly, from
eqs. (2.39) it is observed that the virtual axial force N ( x) is constant along the element.
Again, the expression for the virtual bending moment M ( x) is obtained integrating the
second of the eqs. (2.39), twice. Hence, the following virtual fields are obtained:
P1
N ( x)
S( x)
x
= 1
x
M ( x) v( x) P1 + 1 P2 + P3
L
L
2
30
(2.40)
This equation can be rewritten in matrix form as a relation between virtual section
forces S( x) and virtual end forces P
S( x) = b* ( x) P
(2.41)
0
0
1
, = x
b ( x) = 1
v( ) 1
L
2
(2.42)
where
Considering the virtual forces given by eq. (2.40), eq. (2.38) can be expressed in
matrix form as
S( x)
d ( x ) dx = P D
(2.43)
P T b* ( x)T d( x) dx = P T D
(2.44)
(2.45)
which allows for the determination of the element end displacements in terms of the
section deformations along the element.
31
strain relation over the sections, usually applying a numerical integration procedure.
Substitution of eq. (2.11) into eq. (2.21) results in the nonlinear section
constitutive relation
S( x) = a( y )T ( ( x, y ) ) d A = a( y )T ( a( y )d( x) ) d A
A
(2.46)
(2.47)
where C [d( x) ] represents a general function that permits the computation of section
forces for given section deformations. The linearization of the section constitutive
relation (2.46) is obtained using the tangent section stiffness matrix
k ( d( x) ) =
C ( d( x ) )
( x, y )
= a( y )T
dA
d( x)
d
(
x
)
A
( x, y ) ( x, y )
= a( y )
d A = a( y )T Et ( x, y ) a( y )d A
( x, y ) d( x)
A
A
(2.48)
where
Et ( x, y ) =
( x, y )
( x, y )
32
(2.49)
is the material tangent modulus. Substitution of eq. (2.13) into eq. (2.48) leads to the final
expression for the section tangent stiffness
N ( x) 0 ( x) N ( x) ( x)
k (x)
M ( x) 0 ( x) M ( x) ( x)
Et ( x, y )dA
y Et ( x, y )dA
A
=
y Et ( x, y )dA y 2 Et ( x, y )dA
A
(2.50)
( x) N ( x) ( x) M ( x)
(2.51)
To evaluate the integrals in eqs. (2.46) and (2.48) for a general shape of crosssection and general material constitutive relation, the section can be subdivided into
layers (or fibers in the three-dimensional case) and the midpoint integration rule can be
used, as described by Spacone (1994).
However, more accurate integration procedures can be used such as Simpson,
Gauss or Lobatto quadrature rules (Burgoyne and Crisfield (1990)). For example,
Backlund (1976) discretizes the section into fibers and within each of these fibers
Simpson integration scheme is used. A detailed study on the adequacy of these rules is
given by Saje et al. (1997). To apply Gauss or Lobatto rule to sections with arbitrary
geometry, they can be subdivided into regions of regular shapes, over which the
numerical integration schemes are employed.
33
b*ji v
d j Sl
dx
d j + b*ji
=
L v P
Sl Pk
k
b*ji v
b
d j + b*ji f jl blk + lm Pm dx
=
L v P
Pk
k
b*ji v
b
v
d j + b*ji f jl blk + lm Pm
=
dx
L v P
v
Pk
k
Fik =
(2.52)
(2.53)
0
v( x)
P3
(2.54)
D
= b* ( x)T f ( x) [b( x) + h( x)] + g ( x) dx
L
P
where
0
T
b( x) v( x)
h( x) =
P
= P1 v( x)
v( x) P
P1
and
34
0
v( x)
P2
v( x)
P
T
*
T
1
1
b ( x)
v( x)
0
g ( x) =
d( x)
=
(
x
)
P
v( x)
v( x)
P2
0
0
v( x)
P3
(2.55)
The term
v( x) v( x)
=
P
P1
v( x)
P2
v( x)
P3
(2.56)
For a quadrature order equal to one, the resulting flexibility matrix is singular.
35
These observations suggest the possibility that the symmetric characteristic of the
flexibility matrix is affected by the way the displacements are interpolated from the
curvatures using the CBDI procedure. This possible explanation is further discussed in
the next section, after the CBDI procedure is presented.
(2.57)
for i = 1,, n and j = 1,, n . Eq. (2.57) can be written in matrix form as
v = l*
(2.58)
36
where
v = v1
vn
= 1
(2.59)
and
1 2
2 (1 1 )
l* = L2
1 ( n 2 n )
2
1 3
(1 1 )
6
1 3
( n n )
6
(1n +1 1 )
n (n + 1)
1
G
1
n +1
( n n )
n (n + 1)
(2.60)
1n 1
1 1 12
G=
2
1 n n
n 1
n
(2.61)
This procedure was proposed by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) for nonlinear
geometric problems with linear material relations, and was named CBDI (Curvature
Based Displacement Interpolation) procedure.
Matrix l* is denoted the CBDI influence matrix, since its elements lij* represent
the displacements at sample point i arising from unit curvature at sample point j. The
detailed derivation of matrix l* is presented in Appendix A.
One important advantage of this scheme is that it benefits from the numerical
integration scheme used to evaluate the integrals (2.45) and (2.53). Therefore, the
displacements v( x) and curvatures ( x) only need to be evaluated at these integration
points i , and matrix l* only needs to be calculated once if the quadrature scheme is
maintained throughout the analysis.
37
It is important to recall that the n sample points of the gaussian quadrature are the
roots of the Legendre polynomial of order n, which has the property of being orthogonal
to all polynomials of order less than n. Therefore, it is likely that this orthogonality
property is related to the symmetry of the flexibility matrix when gaussian quadrature is
used. However, further investigation is necessary to prove this assertion.
The function v( x) P necessary in eq. (2.53) is evaluated at the integration
points, forming the matrix
v1
P
1
v
=
P
vn
P1
v1
P2
v1
P3
vn
P3
vn
P2
(2.62)
which was obtained by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) for prismatic elements with
linear material behavior. The derivation is extended in this dissertation to include
nonlinear section constitutive relations.
Taking the derivative of both sides of eq. (2.57) with respect to Pr (for
r = 1,,3 ), gives
j
( ) N ( ) ( ) M ( )
vi
= lij*
= lij*
+
Pr
M ( ) Pr =
(
)
P
N
P
r
r
j
j
(2.63)
j
From eqs. (2.34), the derivatives of the section forces N ( j ) and M ( j ) with
N ( )
=0
P2
N ( )
=0
P3
and
38
(2.64)
M ( )
v( )
P1
= v( ) +
P1
P1
M ( )
v( )
P1
= ( 1) +
P2
P2
(2.65)
M ( )
v( )
P1
= +
P3
P3
( )
= f 22 ( j )
M ( ) =
(2.66)
Substitution of eqs. (2.64), (2.65) and (2.66) into eq.(2.63), for r = 1,,3 , using
v( j ) = v j , yields
v j
vi
= lij* f 21 ( j ) + f 22 ( j ) v j +
P1
P1
P1
v j
vi
P1
= lij* f 22 ( j ) ( j 1) +
P2
P2
(2.67)
v j
vi
P1
= lij* f 22 ( j ) j +
P
P3
v j
Aij P = lij* f 22 ( j ) ( j 1)
j
v j
39
(2.68)
where
Aij = ij lij* f 22 ( j ) P1
(2.69)
and
1 if i = j
0 otherwise
ij =
(2.70)
is the Kronecker delta. Therefore, the matrix v P can be determined from the linear
systems of equations (2.68). Alternatively, eqs. (2.68) can be rewritten in matrix form as
v
= Ba *
P
(2.71)
where B = A 1 l* , and
a*j1 = f 21 ( j ) + f 22 ( j ) v j
a*j 2 = f 22 ( j ) j 1
a*j 3 = f 22 ( j ) j
(2.72)
(2.73)
X J X
X IJ = X J X I = I
YJ YI
(2.74)
where
L = X IJ = ( X IJ T X IJ )1 2
(2.75)
(2.76)
x
y
e1
e 2
I
X IJ
XJ
XI
Y
Figure 2.5
cos
(2.77)
42
D1
U I
D 2 VI U I
D3 = I = I
D
D 4 U J U J
VJ J
D5
D J
6
(2.78)
where U I and U J are vectors with the two translational components in the directions X
and Y , and I and J are the rotation about the Z axis, with the subscripts denoting
nodes I and J respectively.
As the element deforms, another coordinate frame ( x, y ) , can be defined, with x
being the axis that connects the two nodes I and J in the deformed configuration,
according to Figure 2.6. This is the basic frame, and corresponds to a convected local
coordinate frame, since it is attached to the element as it displaces and rotates.
The component e1 of this frame is easily computed considering the end
displacements of the element
cos X IJ + U IJ
e1 =
=
l
sin
(2.79)
U IJ = U J U I
(2.80)
where
l = X IJ + U IJ = ( X IJ + U IJ )T ( X IJ + U IJ )
(2.81)
is the length of the chord that connects the two nodes. This variable will also be referred
to as deformed element length.
43
cos
(2.82)
x
X IJ + U IJ
y
e2
UJ
e1
UI
X IJ
x
J
XJ
XI
Y
Figure 2.6
(2.83)
The basic rotational displacements shown in Figure 2.7 can be obtained simply by
D2 I = ( I + )
D3 J = ( J + )
44
(2.84)
X IJ + U IJ
= arctan
(2.85)
where the subtscript IJ has the previously defined meaning in eq. (2.76).
L
y
Figure 2.7
undeformed
position
Basic displacements.
When the axial deformation is small, eq. (2.83) is poorly conditioned because it
subtracts two close numbers. Thus, it is better to express u as
(l L)(l + L) (l 2 L2 )
=
D1 = l L =
l+L
l+L
1
=
(2 X IJ + U IJ )T U IJ
l+L
(2.86)
The use of eqs. (2.84) and (2.85) to compute the basic rotations I and J have
the restrictive condition of being valid only for < 90 , due to the presence of the
arctan function. In order to extend this range to < 180 , an appropriate computer
45
implementation of the arctan function2 can be used. The procedure presented in Crisfield
(1991) also has the same limitation, and the author recognizes the problem proposing a
solution that, in most circumstances, allows the extension of this range to 360 degrees.
In the present work a different procedure is proposed, such that there is no
limitation in the value of the rigid body rotation (as will be illustrated in Chapter 6).
Although the rotation of the element chord should not have any limitation in its
range, the basic rotations I and J can be assumed moderate. Taking advantage of this
assumption, the determination of the basic rotations can be performed as follows.
The first of eqs. (2.84) can be modified to
sin I = sin ( ( I + ) ) = sin( I )
= cos sin I sin cos I
(2.87)
where
I = I +
(2.88)
Also,
cos I = cos ( ( I + ) ) = sin( I )
= cos cos I + sin sin I
(2.89)
I = arctan
(2.90)
arc tangent function, usually denoted atan2(x,y), that allows for the determination of the quadrant
corresponding to the angle.
46
J = arctan
(2.91)
with
J = J +
(2.92)
Thus, eqs. (2.90) and (2.91) employ the arctan function to determine small angles
(the basic rotations). By contrast, eqs. (2.84) and (2.85) use the arctan fuction (or the
usual computer implementation arctan2) to determine a angle (the rotation of the chord)
that can be arbitrarily large.
P4 = P1 cos + Q sin
P = P sin Q cos
5
(2.93)
P6 = P3
where
Q=
M I + M J P2 + P3
=
l
l
(2.94)
is the shear force at the element ends (considering the deformed length in the basic
47
(2.95)
where
cos
sin
T =
l
sin
sin
cos
l
cos
l
0 cos
sin
1
l
sin
0
l
sin
cos
l
cos
(2.96)
y
y
P2
P5
P1
P4
x
P1
node I
Figure 2.8
P1
node J
A tangential relation between the displacements in the local and global system can
be computed taking the derivatives of the basic displacements D (given in eqs. (2.83) and
, such that
(2.84)) with respect to the global displacements D
D =
D
D
D
48
(2.97)
displacements, respectively.
, the variations of the quantities that define
In order to compute the matrix D D
the basic displacement components, such as l , and e1 need to be computed. The
variation of the deformed length l is obtained by taking the differential of eq. (2.81) and
using eq. (2.79)
1
l = ( X IJ + U IJ )T ( X IJ + U IJ )
1 2
2
1
= ( X IJ + U IJ )T U IJ = e1T U IJ
l
= r D
2( X IJ + U IJ )T U IJ
(2.98)
sin
(2.99)
0]
The variation of unit vector e1 is obtained with the differential of eq. (2.79)
1
l
e1 = U JI
1
l
( X IJ + U IJ ) l =
1
( U JI e1 l )
l
(2.100)
The variation of the rigid rotation angle can be determined with the differential
of both sides of eq. (2.79), and using eq. (2.82)
cos sin
=
= e 2
sin cos
e1 =
(2.101)
= e2T e1
as e 2 is a unit vector.
49
(2.102)
Substitution of eq. (2.100) into eq. (2.102), and considering that vectors e1 and
e 2 are orthogonal, gives
1
l
1
= s D
l
1
l
= e2T ( U JI e1 l ) = e2T U JI
(2.103)
cos
0]
(2.104)
From the variations l and (eqs. (2.98) and (2.103)), the variations of the
basic displacements can be computed with eqs. (2.83) and (2.84) to yield
r
u l 0 1
s
D I = I = I + l D
1
J J
J s
l
= T D
(2.105)
sin
0 0 0 0 0
lr
1
0 1 0 0 0 + s
l
s
0 0 0 0 1
sin
cos
l
cos
l
0 cos
sin
l
sin
0
l
sin
cos
l
cos
(2.106)
is the transpose of the matrix that transforms forces from the basic to the global system
(see eqs. (2.95) and (2.96).)
50
T P = DT TT P
DT P = D
(2.107)
As the virtual work equation must hold for arbitrary virtual displacements D ,
eq. (2.95) follows.
The transformations given by eqs. (2.83), (2.84) and (2.95) are exact. If other
approximate transformations for forces and displacements between the two systems of
coordinates are used, as in Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998), for instance, the relations
and P = TT P need to be satisfied in order to maintain the symmetry of the
D = T D
P = K D
(2.108)
(2.109)
51
P = (TT P) = TT P + TT P = TT K D+ TT P = (TT KT + K G ) D
D
=K
(2.110)
where
= TT KT + K
K
G
(2.111)
is the tangent stiffness matrix in global coordinates. The second term of this equation is a
geometric stiffness matrix
KG =
TT
:P
(2.112)
TT P = t r Pr = K G D
(2.113)
r =1
t r of each row of matrix T and multiplying the result by the corresponding basic
forces Pr .
Starting from eq. (2.106) and considering eqs. (2.99), (2.101), (2.103) and
(2.104), the following relation can be obtained
1
l
t1T = r T = sT = sTs D
(2.114)
The other terms t 2T = t 3T are obtained by taking the variation of the second
(or third) row of matrix T in eq. (2.106), and using eqs. (2.98) and (2.103)
52
1
1
l
l
1
= 2 (r Ts + sTr ) D
l
t 2T = sT = s T +
1
1
sT l = r T + 2 sTr D
l
l
l
2
(2.115)
TT P = [sTs]
P1
(P + P )
+ [r Ts + sTr ] 2 2 3 D
l
l
(2.116)
KG
K G = G i Pi
(2.117)
i =1
where
s2
cs
1 T
1 0
G1 = [s s] =
l
l s 2
cs
cs
0 s2
c2
cs
c 2
cs
s2
cs
c 2
0
cs
0 cs
c2
0
0
(2.118)
and
G 2 = G3 =
1
l
[r Ts + sTr ]
2cs
c2 s2
1 0
= 2
l 2cs
c 2 + s 2
c2 s2
2cs
0
2cs
0 c 2 + s 2
0
0
c 2 + s 2
2cs
0
c 2 + s 2
2cs
c2 s2
2cs
0
0
0
c2 s2
0
2cs
0
53
0
0
(2.119)
54
Chapter 3
Large Rotations
This chapter describes an overview of the theory of large rotations in space. All the
formulae necessary in the development of the three-dimensional corotational formulation
to be presented in Chapter 4, such as rotation matrices and compound rotations are
derived and discussed here. A brief description of Euler parameters and unit quaternions
and their application in the update of rotational variables is also presented.
(3.1)
55
(3.2)
C
P0
v0
P0
P1
b)
P1
v1
v0
c)
a)
Figure 3.1
t v0
t v0
(3.3)
with norm
b = b = r sin
(3.4)
From Figure 3.1.c, the radius r can be computed using the norm of the cross56
(3.5)
(3.6)
tb
tb
(3.7)
with norm
a = a = r (1 cos )
(3.8)
t ( t v0 )
t ( t v0 )
=a
t ( t v0 )
t v0
(3.9)
as t is a unit vector.
Substitution of eqs. (3.5) and (3.8) into eq. (3.9) gives
a = (1 cos ) ( t ( t v 0 ) )
(3.10)
Vector v1 can be computed now, using eqs. (3.1), (3.2), (3.6) and (3.10) to yield
v1 = v 0 + v = v 0 + a + b
= v 0 + sin ( t v 0 ) + (1 cos ) ( t ( t v 0 ) )
(3.11)
This equation defines the rotation of vector v 0 by an angle about a unit vector
t , such that it rotates onto a new vector v1 . This rotation can alternatively be represented
57
(3.12)
which is parallel to vector t , and with norm equal to the rotation angle
=
(3.13)
The term pseudo-vector emphasizes the fact that rotations do not satisfy all
vector properties. An alternative name for the term pseudo-vector, very often used in
the literature, is rotational vector. It should be noted that, while for infinitesimal
rotations, components 1 , 2 and 3 can be considered as component rotations about
axes X, Y and Z, this is not the case for finite rotations.
With eq. (3.12) eq. (3.11) can be expressed as
v1 = v 0 +
sin
( v0 ) +
(1 cos )
( ( v0 ))
(3.14)
The cross product of two vectors can also be expressed in the form
w2v3 w3v2
(3.15)
where
0
S(w ) spin(w ) = w3
w2
w3
0
w1
w2
w1
0
(3.16)
is a skew symmetric matrix, which is also used to represent infinitesimal rotations about
orthogonal axes. Due to this relation, a skew symmetric matrix S(w ) is often referred to
as the spin tensor, with the associated vector w being the axial vector or spin axis.
58
The following notation is commonly used in the literature to refer to the inverse of
relation (3.16)
S32
S 23
w axial(S) = S13 = S31
S
21
S12
(3.17)
The square of the skew symmetric matrix is a symmetric matrix and can be
expressed as
S(w ) 2 = S(w )S(w ) = ww T (w T w )I
= ww T w I
(3.18)
sin
S() v 0 +
(1 cos )
S()S() v 0
(3.19)
(3.20)
where
R () = I +
sin
S() +
(1 cos )
S() 2
(3.21)
59
(3.22)
An alternative form for the rotation formula can be obtained using the series
expansion of the trigonometric functions
sin =
1 3 1 5 1 7
+ +
3!
5!
7!
cos = 1
+ (1) n
1 2 1 4 1 6
+ +
2!
4!
6!
1
(2 n +1) +
(2n + 1)!
(3.23)
1
2n +
(2n)!
(3.24)
+ (1) n
1
1
1
2n +
R () = I + 1 2 + 4 + + (1) n
5!
(2n + 1)!
3!
1 1
1
1
2n +
+ 2 + 4 + (1) n
2!
4!
6!
(2
2)!
n
+
S()
2
S()
(3.25)
The powers of S can be computed using simple matrix multiplication (see eq.
(3.16)), and result in the following relations
S3 = 2S
S 4 = 2S 2
S5 = + 4S
S 6 = + 4S 2
(3.26)
(3.27)
S 2n = (1) n 1 2( n 1)S 2
Substitution of these equations in (3.25) gives
R () = I + S() +
1
1
S() 2 + S()3 +
2!
3!
1
S() n +
n!
(3.28)
60
(3.29)
An alternative form for the rotation matrix is obtained using a modified form of
the pseudo-vector
= t = 2 tan( 2) t = 2
tan( 2)
(3.30)
where is the so called tangent-scaled pseudo vector. Its components are also referred
to as Rodrigues parameters. The problem with this form of the pseudo-vector is that it
becomes infinite for = n (with n = 1, 2,... ).
In order to express the rotation matrix in terms of the tangent-scaled pseudo
vector, the following half angle formulas for cosine and sine are necessary
cos = cos 2 ( 2) sin 2 ( 2) = 1 2sin 2 ( 2)
sin = 2cos( 2)sin( 2)
(3.31)
(3.32)
(3.33)
However,
cos 2 ( 2) =
1
1 + tan 2 ( 2)
(3.34)
and
T = 4 tan 2 ( 2) t T t = 4 tan 2 ( 2)
61
(3.35)
R=I+
1+
1 T
S() + S()S()
2
(3.36)
(3.37)
sin
sin
=
= sin t
(3.38)
The norm of is
= = sin t = sin
(3.39)
since t = 1 .
The pseudo-vector can be written implicitly in terms of the components of R as
R32 R23
1
1
T
= sin t = = axial( R R ) = R13 R31
2
2
R21 R12
sin
62
(3.40)
or can be given explicitly, using eqs. (3.38) and (3.39), such that
sin
= arcsin
T
1
axial(R R )
= arcsin axial(R R T )
2
axial(R R T )
(3.41)
It is observed that, due to the presence of the arcsin function, this equation is
limited to angles 90 .
(3.42)
q0 = cos( 2)
(3.43)
which can be used to provide extra information in the determination of the angle from
the rotation matrix.
These four parameters are the so-called Euler parameters, and can be grouped and
represented in vector form as
q0
cos( 2)
q
1 q0 cos( 2)
q = = =
=
q2 q sin( 2)t sin( 2)
q3
(3.44)
The meaning of the term normalized quaternion becomes clear by the fact that,
according to eq. (3.44), the norm of q is equal to one
q T q = q0 2 + q12 + q2 2 + q32
= cos 2 ( 2) + sin 2 ( 2)t T t = 1
(3.45)
(3.46)
64
(3.47)
+ 2sin 2 ( 2 ) tt T
(3.48)
(
= ( 2q
(3.49)
q0 2 + q2 2 1 2
q2 q3 q1q0
R = 2 q2 q1 + q0 q3
q3q2 + q0 q1
q0 2 + q32 1 2
q3q1 q0 q2
(3.50)
v 0 is rotated to a vector v1 using a pseudo vector 1 and then is rotated to another vector
v 2 using another pseudo vector 2
v1 = R (1 ) v 0
v 2 = R ( 2 ) v1
65
(3.51)
v 2 = R ( 2 )R (1 ) v 0
R (2 + 1 ) v 0
(3.52)
Although the rotation update can be done multiplying two consecutive rotation
matrices according to eq. (3.52), a more efficient expression is obtained with quaternions
(Spring (1986))
v 2 = R (q 2 )R (q1 ) v 0
= R (q12 ) v 0
(3.53)
where
q12
q10q20 q1Tq 2
= q 2q1 =
q10q 2 + q20q1 q1 q 2
(3.54)
is the quaternion product. It should be noted that this operation is not commutative, due
to the presence of the vector cross-product, i.e.,
q10q20 q1Tq 2
q10 q20 q1Tq 2
q1q 2 =
=
(3.55)
The term q0 can be obtained by computing the trace of the rotation matrix
tr(R ) = 2 3q02 + q12 + q22 + q32 3 2 = 2 2q02 1 2
(3.56)
= 4q0 1
according to eq. (3.45) and (3.50). Solving eq. (3.56) for q0 gives
q0 =
1
tr(R ) + 1
2
(3.57)
q3
0
q1
q2
q1
0
(3.58)
whose solution is
q1
R32 R23
1
q2 =
R13 R31
4q0 R R
12
q3
21
(3.59)
or, alternatively,
qi =
1
Rk j R jk
4q0
(3.60)
= 180 , being also very inaccurate in the vicinity of this angle. An improved algorithm
is proposed in Klumpp (1976), such that this singularity is overcome. However, Spurrier
67
components using eqs. (3.57) and (3.60). Otherwise it uses alternative expressions for the
sake of numerical accuracy, which are derived as follows. From eqs. (3.50) and (3.57), it
is observed that
1
[1 + tr(R )] 1
2
1
= 2qi + [ tr(R ) 1]
2
(3.61)
1
1
Rii + [1 tr(R ) ]
2
4
(3.62)
Spurrier suggests that eq. (3.62) be used for the computation of the component qi
corresponding to the largest Rii of the three diagonal elements.
The component q0 is computed using the inverse form of eq. (3.60)
q0 =
1
Rk j R jk
4qi
68
(3.63)
The remaining two components are computed using the symmetric part of the
rotation matrix R (see eq. (3.49))
) (
1
R + R T = q02 qTq I + 2qqT
2
q02 + q12 1 2
q1q2
q1q3
= 2
q2q1
q02 + q22 1 2
q2q3
q3q1
q3q2
q02 + q32 1
(3.64)
Thus,
ql =
1
( Rli + Ril )
4qi
(l = j , k )
(3.65)
q0 =
otherwise
1
1
m + [1 tr(R )] (with i such that Rii = m)
2
4
1
q0 =
Rk j R jk
4qi
qi =
ql =
1
( Rli + Ril )
4qi
(for l = j , k )
Figure 3.2 Spurriers algorithm for the extraction of the unit quaternion from
the rotation matrix.
69
From eq. (3.50) it is observed that if the sign of the unit quaternion q is switched,
the rotation matrix remains unchanged, as all the terms in this matrix are formed by the
square of the components of the unit quaternion, or by the product two components.
Therefore, a positive and a negative quaternion may be extracted from the same rotation
matrix.
After the normalized quaternion corresponding to the Euler parameters have been
obtained, the tangent scaled pseudo vector can be computed as (see eqs. (3.30) and
(3.44))
= 2 tan( 2)t =
2
2
q= q
q0
cos( 2)
(3.66)
It is observed from this equation, that the tangent scaled pseudo vector does not
depend on the sign of the unit quaternion (due to the ratio q q0 ).
The extraction of the pseudo-vector from the unit quaternion, using eq. (3.44),
however is not unique, due to the use of the arccos and arcsin functions.
Jelenic and Crisfield (1998) propose a procedure for the unique extraction of the
rotational vector from the unit quaternion, whereby the rotational vector satisfies
180 . This is accomplished by choosing the sign of the associated quaternion, such
that q0 0 . The proposed implementation also tries to minimise the round-off errors in
the extraction procedure by alternating the use of the arcsin and arccos, when it is more
appropriate. The pseudo code of the procedure is shown in Figure 3.3.
The great advantage of this procedure in comparison to eq. (3.41) is that it is
based on the arcsin (or arccos) of ( 2) (see eq. (3.44)), as opposed to the arcsin of .
Thus, instead of being applicable only to rotations in the range [ 2, + 2] as in
70
if q0 < 0
q = q
if q = 0
=0
else if q < q0
=2
q
arcsin q
q
else
=2
Figure 3.3
q
arccos q0
q
Pseudo code for the extraction of the rotational vector from the
unit quaternion
R =
d
R
d = 0
71
(3.67)
where R is the perturbed rotation matrix R, computed according to the equation for
compound rotations (see eq. (3.52))
R = R ( )R () = exp(S( ))R ()
(3.68)
R =
d
d
[exp(S( ))R ()] = [ exp(S( ))R ()]
d
= 0 d
=0
(3.69)
=0
= S( )R ()
p1 e1
p1 e1
(3.70)
The rotation angle between the two unit vectors p1 and e1 is defined from the
dot product and cross product of these vectors
cos = p1Te1
(3.71)
sin t = p1 e1
(3.72)
72
p1 e1
p1 e1
(3.73)
R = I + S(p1 e1 ) +
= I + S(p1 e1 ) +
(1 cos )
sin 2
1
1 + p1Te1
S(p1 e1 )S(p1 e1 )
(3.74)
S(p1 e1 )S(p1 e1 )
E = [e1 e 2 e3 ] = R[p1 p 2 p3 ] = RP
(3.75)
(3.76)
e2 = p 2
e3 = p 3
p 2Te1
1 + p1Te1
p3Te1
1 + p1Te1
(p1 + e1 )
(3.77)
(p1 + e1 )
(3.78)
73
Chapter 4
Space Element Formulation
This chapter describes the spatial element formulation. It has the same organization of
Chapter 2, without repeating the discussions about the common theoretical developments.
However, this chapter presents a more detailed discussion about the corotational
formulation due to the increased degree of complexity in three dimensions.
74
P1 N J
P M I
2 z
P3 M J z
P = M
P4 I y
P5 M J
y
P6 TJ
deformed configuration
y
P4 , D4
P5 , D5
P6 , D6
P1, D1
P3 , D3
twist
restrained
I
Y
(4.1)
P2 , D2 z
X
Z
Figure 4.1
The transformation between the global and basic coordinate systems adopts the
idea of the corotational formulation, and is described in Section 4.9.
75
v( x) z ( x)
u( x, y, z ) u y ( x, y, z ) =
w( x) + y ( x)
u z ( x, y , z )
(4.2)
E xx
E xy
E xz
2
2
1 u y
1 u z
u x 1 u x
=
+
+
+
2 x
2 x
x 2 x
u y u x u x u y u y u z u z
1 u
= x+
+
+
+
2 y
x
x y
x y
x y
u y u y u z u z
1 u
u
u u
= x+ z+ x x+
+
2 z
x
x z
x z
x z
(4.3)
1
2
( u x
x )
in the
expression for the axial strain Exx can be neglected in view of u x x . It is also assumed
that the angle of twist ( x) is small, such that, for the shear strains, only the linear terms
will be considered. Hence, eq. (4.3) becomes
76
E xx
E xy
E xz
1 u y
1 uz
u
x+
+
2 x
x 2 x
u y
1 u
x+
2 y
x
1 u
u
x+ z
2 z
x
(4.4)
Taking the derivatives of the displacement field (4.2) with respect to x, y and z,
substituting the results in eq. (4.4) gives
Exx ( x, y, z ) u( x) y v( x) zw( x) +
1
1
( v( x) z ( x) )2 + ( w( x) + y ( x) )2
2
2
1
E xy ( x, y, z ) z ( x)
2
1
Exz ( x, y, z ) y ( x)
2
(4.5)
Neglecting the effects of torsion in the axial strains, i.e., assuming that the terms
( x) can be neglected in the equation for Exx , the strains at a point ( x, y, z ) of the
cross-section can be expressed as
xx ( x, y, z ) = 0 ( x) y z ( x) + z y ( x)
1
2
xy ( x, y, z ) = z ( x)
xz ( x, y, z ) =
(4.6)
1
y ( x)
2
where
0 ( x) = u( x) +
z ( x) = v( x)
y ( x) = w( x)
1
1
( v( x) )2 + ( w( x) )2
2
2
(4.7)
( x) = ( x)
are the axial strain at a reference axis, the curvatures of the cross-section with respect to
77
the z and y axes, and the angle of twist per unit length, respectively.
With the simplification in the axial strains, the terms
1
2
( v( x) )2
and
1
2
( w( x) )2
are
( x, y, z ) 2 xy ( x, y, z ) = a( y, z ) d( x)
2 xz ( x, y, z )
(4.8)
where
d( x) = 0 ( x) z ( x) y ( x) ( x)
(4.9)
Strictly speaking, the mentioned uncoupled behavior applies to beams with elastic material. In
general, the torsional and flexural behavior may be coupled through the section constitutive relation.
78
(4.10)
is a matrix that relates the section deformations with the strains at a point of the crosssection.
It should be noted that the shear strains were multiplied by the factor two in order
to account for symmetry of stresses.
(4.11)
u + v + w
2
2
T
v
HR (S, u0 ) = ST
(S) dx P D
L
w
(4.12)
u ( x)
u0 ( x) u( x,0,0) = v( x)
w( x)
(4.13)
Mz
xx d A
My
y xx d A
A
z xx d A ( y xz z xy ) d A
A
(4.14)
= a dA
T
is the stress resultant vector, with N being the axial force, M z the bending moment
around the z axis, M y the bending moment around the y axis, and T the torque, at a
cross-section of coordinate x. The boundary term is represented by the specified end
forces P and end displacements D, defined in the system without rigid body modes as
discussed previously (see Figure 4.2). According to the adopted basic system, the
boundary conditions are
u (0) = v(0) = w(0) = v( L) = w( L) = (0) = 0
(4.15)
v(0) = D2
v( L) = D3
w( L) = D5 ( L) = D6
(4.16)
It is observed that eq. (4.16) approximates the end rotations by the respective
slopes, i.e., for example
D2 = I z tan I z = v(0)
(4.17)
80
variation with respect to the two independent fields and setting it equal to zero
HR = u0 HR + S HR = 0
(4.18)
such that
u + v v + w w
T
T
= S
d x P D = 0
w
(4.19)
1 2 1 2
u + 2 v + 2 w
(S)
v
= ST
dx = 0
L
w
(4.20)
u0 HR
and
S HR
y, v
P5 , D5
twist
restrained
P4 , D4
P2 , D2
P6 , D6 x , u
P3 , D3
P1, D1
z, w
Figure 4.2
Eq. (4.19) can be identified as the Principle of Virtual Work, i.e., the weak form
of the equilibrium equations.
From the definition of the complementary energy density, the second term in
81
square brackets in eq. (4.20) corresponds to the section deformations (eq. (4.9)), i.e., the
work conjugate of the stress resultants S
d=
(S)
S
(4.21)
1 2 1 2
u + 2 v + 2 w
dx = 0
L
w
(4.22)
N ( u + v v + w w) + M z v M y w + T d x
L
(4.23)
P1 D1 P2 D2 P3 D3 P4 D4 P5 D5 P6 D6 = 0
(4.24)
82
(4.24) leads to
0 { N u + [( Nv) M z ] v + ( Nw) + M y w + T } d x
L
+ [ N ( L) + P1 ] D1 + [ M z (0) + P2 ] D2 + [ M z ( L) + P3 ] D3
(4.25)
+ M y (0) + P4 D4 + M y ( L) + P5 D5 + [ T ( L) + P6 ] D6 = 0
If eq. (4.25) is to be satisfied for all admissible variations, the following equations
of equilibrium (consistent forms of linear and angular momentum balance equations) are
obtained
dN ( x)
= 0
dx
d M z ( x) d
dv( x)
+ N ( x)
= 0
2
dx
dx
dx
in [0, L]
2
d M y ( x) d
dw( x)
+ N ( x)
= 0
2
dx
dx
dx
dT ( x)
= 0
dx
(4.26)
M z (0) = P2
M y ( L) = P5
M z ( L) = P3
T ( L) = P6
(4.27)
Since the displacement variation fields are arbitrary in this derivation, the
equilibrium equations are satisfied pointwise (strong form).
From eqs. (4.26) it is observed that the axial force N ( x) and the torsional moment
T ( x) are constant along the element. The expressions for the bending moments M z ( x)
and M y ( x) are obtained, respectively, by integrating twice the second and third of
eqs. (4.26). Then, using the natural boundary conditions (4.27), the following stress
resultant fields are obtained:
83
N ( x) = P1
x
x
M z ( x) = v( x) P1 + 1 P2 + P3
L
L
x
x
M z ( x) = w( x) P1 + 1 P4 + P5
L
L
T ( x) = P6
(4.28)
This equation can be rewritten in matrix form as a relation between section forces
(4.29)
where
0
1
v( ) 1
b( x) =
w( )
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
0
0 0
0 0
x
, =
0
L
0 1
(4.30)
N u + 2 v
L
+ w2 0 + M z ( v z ) + M y w y
2
+ T ( ) dx = 0
84
(4.31)
M z , M y and T (i.e., all virtual force systems in equilibrium), it would imply the
strong form of the compatibility relations (4.7). However, for a reduced set of admissible
variations N , M z , M y and T , the compatibility relations are satisfied only in the
average sense. The subset of these admissible variations in the present element
formulation is determined as follows.
Integration of eq. (4.31) by parts and consideration of the boundary conditions
(4.15) lead to
N u + 2 ( Nv) M z v + 2 ( Nw) + M y w + N 0
L
+ M z z + M y y + T dx N ( L) D1 + M z (0) D2
(4.32)
M z ( L) D3 + M y (0) D4 M y ( L) D5 T ( L) D6 = 0
= 0
dx
d M z ( x) 1 d
dv( x)
+
N ( x)
= 0
2
2 dx
dx
dx
in [0, L]
2
d M y ( x) 1 d
dv( x)
+
N ( x)
= 0
2
2 dx
dx
dx
d T ( x)
= 0
dx
(4.33)
The similarity between eqs. (4.33) and (4.26) should be noted. Accordingly, from
eqs. (4.33) it is observed that the virtual axial force N ( x) and virtual torsional moment
85
T ( x) are constant along the element. Again, the expression for the virtual bending
moments M z ( x) and M y ( x) are obtained, respectively, integrating twice the second
and third of eqs. (4.33). Hence, the following virtual fields are obtained:
P1
N ( x)
1
x
x
v( x) P1 + 1 P2 + P3
M ( x )
L
L
z
S( x)
=
M y ( x) 1 w( x) P + x 1 P + x P
1
5
4
T ( x) 2
L
L
P6
(4.34)
This equation can be rewritten in matrix form as a relation between the virtual
section forces S( x) and virtual end forces P
S( x) = b* ( x ) P
(4.35)
where
0
1
1
v( ) 1
*
b ( x ) = 2
1
0
w( )
2
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
, = x
L
0 1 0
0
0
0 1
0
(4.36)
Considering the virtual forces given by eq. (4.34), eq. (4.32) can be expressed in
matrix form as
S( x)
d ( x ) dx = P D
(4.37)
Substitution of eq. (4.35) into eq. (4.37), and considering that the virtual forces
86
D = b* ( x)T d( x) dx
(4.38)
which allows for the determination of the element end displacements in terms of the
section deformations along the element.
(4.39)
which can be expressed in terms of the section deformations, in the following form
S( x) = C [d( x) ]
(4.40)
where C [d( x) ] represents a general function that permits the computation of the section
forces for given section deformations.
The linearization of the section constitutive relation (4.39) is obtained by using
the tangent section stiffness matrix
k ( d( x) ) =
C ( d( x ) )
( x, y, z )
dA
= a( y , z )T
d( x)
d( x)
A
= a( y , z )T
A
( x, y, z ) ( x, y, z )
dA
( x, y, z ) d( x)
= a( y, z )T Et ( x, y, z ) a( y, z )d A
A
87
(4.41)
Et ( x , y , z ) =
( x, y, z )
( x, y, z )
(4.42)
yy = zz = yz = 0
(4.43)
88
considerably from the continuum tangent, especially when large time steps are used.
Only when the time steps tend to zero will the consistent and the continuum tangent
moduli coincide.
Therefore, the algorithmic tangent must be used in order to maintain the quadratic
convergence rate of the global solution strategy, usually based on Newton-Raphson
method.
Park and Lee (1996) presented an effective stress update algorithm to integrate
elastoplastic rate equations for a beam element, under the stress state defined in eq.(4.43).
A consistent elastoplastic tangent, for this particular stress state, is given in that paper.
From the consistent elastoplastic tangent of each quadrature point of the section,
the consistent section stiffness matrix can be determined using eq. (4.41) (with the
algorithmic tangent in place of Et )
N ( x)
( x)
0
M z ( x)
C ( d( x) ) 0 ( x)
k ( d( x) ) =
=
M y ( x)
d( x)
0 ( x)
T ( x)
( x)
0
N ( x)
z ( x)
N ( x)
y ( x)
M z ( x)
z ( x)
M z ( x)
y ( x)
M y ( x)
M y ( x)
z ( x)
y ( x)
T ( x)
z ( x)
T ( x)
y ( x)
N ( x)
( x)
M z ( x)
( x)
M y ( x)
( x)
T ( x)
( x)
(4.44)
89
0 ( x)
N ( x)
z ( x)
N ( x)
f (x)
( x)
y
N ( x)
( x)
N ( x)
0 ( x)
M z ( x)
0 ( x)
M y ( x)
z ( x)
M z ( x)
z ( x)
M y ( x)
y ( x)
y ( x)
M z ( x)
M y ( x)
( x)
M z ( x)
( x)
M y ( x)
0 ( x)
T ( x)
z ( x)
T ( x)
= k (x)-1
y ( x)
T ( x)
( x)
T ( x)
(4.45)
T ( ( x))
(4.46)
where
S1 = N
Mz
My
(4.47)
and
a1 = 1 y
z 0
(4.48)
a1T Et a1dA
0
A
k=
dT ( )
(4.49)
In the elastic range, the term dT d corresponds to the torsional stiffness JG.
b*ji v
b*ji w
d j Sl
dx
dj +
d j + b*ji
=
L v P
w
P
S
P
k
k
l
k
b*ji v
b*ji w
b
dj +
d j + b*ji f jl blk + lm Pm dx
=
L v P
w Pk
Pk
k
(4.50)
b*ji v
b*ji w
b
v
d j + b*ji f jl blk + lm Pm
dj +
=
L v P
v
Pk
w Pk
k
blm
w
Pm
w
Pk
dx
which can be rewritten in the same form as in the planar case, using matrix notation
F=
D
= b* ( x)T f ( x) [b( x) + h( x)] + g( x) dx
L
P
91
(4.51)
where
T
h( x) =
b( x) v( x)
b( x) w( x)
P
P
+
v( x) P
w( x) P
0
v( x)
P1
= P1
w( x)
P1
0
v( x)
P2
w( x)
P2
0
v( x)
P3
w( x)
P3
0
v( x)
P4
0
v( x)
P5
w( x)
P4
w( x)
P6
0
0
v( x)
P6
w( x)
P5
0
(4.52)
and
T
b* ( x)T v( x)
b* ( x)T w( x)
g ( x) =
d
d
+
v( x) P
w( x) P
v
P
1
0
1
= z 0
2
0
0
0
v
P2
v
P3
v
P4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
P
1
0
1
y 0
2
0
0
0
w
P2
w
P3
w
P4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
P5
v
P6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w w
P5 P6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(4.53)
The terms
v( x) v( x) v( x) v( x) v( x) v( x) v( x)
=
P
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P1
w( x) w( x) w( x) w( x) w( x) w( x) w( x)
=
P
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P1
92
(4.54)
y ( x) , respectively.
As in the planar case, displacements vi and wi , evaluated at sample points i (for
i = 1,, n ) can be expressed in terms of the curvatures z j and y as
j
vi = lij* z j
j
wi = lij* y
j
(4.55)
for i = 1,, n and j = 1,, n . Eqs. (4.55) can be written in matrix form as
v = l* z
w = l* y
(4.56)
where
v = v1
vn
w = w1
wn
(4.57)
zn
y = y
yn
(4.58)
are the corresponding curvatures at the integration points. The matrix l* is the same as in
the planar case, and is given by eq. (2.60).
Functions v( x) P and w( x) P , necessary for the computation of the
flexibility matrix (eq. (4.51)), are evaluated at the integration points, forming the matrices
93
v1
P
1
v
=
P
vn
P1
v1
P2
v1
P3
v1
P4
v1
P5
vn
P2
vn
P3
vn
P4
vn
P5
v1
P6
vn
P6
(4.59)
w1
P
1
w
=
P
wn
P1
w1
P2
w1
P3
w1
P4
w1
P5
wn
P2
wn
P3
wn
P4
wn
P5
w1
P6
wn
P6
These matrices can be obtained as follows. Taking the derivative of both sides of
eqs. (4.55) with respect to Pk (for k = 1,,6 ) gives
z j
( ) Sl ( )
vi
= lij*
= lij* z
Pk
Pk
Sl ( ) Pk =
j
j
y j
y ( ) Sl ( )
wi
= lij*
= lij*
Pk
Pk
Sl ( ) Pk =
j
j
(4.60)
y ( )
Sl ( )
= f3l ( j )
(4.61)
= j
94
Sl (blm Pm )
b
b
v blm
w
=
= blk + lm Pm = blk + lm Pm
+
Pm
Pk
Pk
Pk
v
Pk
w
Pk
(4.62)
= blk + hlk
with hlk given by eq. (4.52).
Substitution of eqs. (4.61) and (4.62) into eqs. (4.60) gives
vi
= lij* f 2l ( ) ( blk ( ) + hlk ( ) )
= j
Pk
j
wi
= lij* f3l ( ) ( blk ( ) + hlk ( ) )
= j
Pk
j
(4.63)
vi
lij* f 2l ( j )hlk ( j ) = lij* f 2l ( j )blk ( j )
Pk
j
j
wi
+ lij* f3l ( j )hlk ( j ) = lij* f3l ( j )blk ( j )
Pk
j
j
(4.64)
From the form of matrix h in eq. (4.52), it is observed that this equation can be
rewritten as
vj
( ij lij* f 22 ( j ) P1 ) P
vj
lij* f32 ( j ) P1
Pk
j
+ lij* f 23 ( j ) P1
ij lij* f33 ( j ) P1
wj
= lij* f 2l ( j )blk ( j )
Pk
j
wj
= lij* f3l ( j )blk ( j )
Pk
j
(4.65)
w j
v j
w j
Bij P + Ayij P
j
= lij* a y
j
where
95
(4.66)
jk
Az ij = ij lij* f 22 ( j ) P1
Ay = ij lij* f33 ( j ) P1
ij
Bij = lij* f 23 ( j ) P1
(4.67)
a z jk = f 2l ( j )blk ( j )
l
ay
jk
= f3l ( j )blk ( j )
l
Rewriting eq. (4.66) in matrix notation, and solving for the terms v P and
B
A y
*
l a z
*
l a y
(4.68)
Clearly, instead of computing the matrix inverse, it is more efficient to solve the
corresponding system of equations.
96
this flexibility formulation, the procedure proposed in Crisfield (1990), is used because it
is well consolidated, as it has also been published in the recent book by Crisfield (1997).
However, this procedure is adopted with some modifications, which lead to a more
consistent formulation.
e1 =
X IJ
L
(4.69)
where
X IJ = X J X I
(4.70)
(4.71)
(4.72)
e 3 = e1 e 2
(4.73)
e 2 =
and
97
x
J
X IJ
e1
e 2
I
XI
e 3
XJ
Figure 4.3
The triad defined by the base vectors corresponds to a rotation matrix that
transforms vectors from the global to the local coordinate system
= [e e e ]
E
1
2
3
(4.74)
IT
UJ T
JT
(4.75)
where U I and U J are the vectors with the translational components, and I and J
98
n J 3
(4.76)
which
The initial (undisplaced) triads N I 0 and N J 0 are equivalent to triad E
defines the element local axis
NI 0 = NJ 0 = E
(4.77)
Since the unit vector e1 defines the element axis, the components n I 1 and n J 1 of
triads N I and N J are tangential to the element axis after deformation, as represented in
Figure 4.4. The other components 2 and 3 give the direction of the section local axes (y,z)
at the element ends as they rotate.
with the
The current triads N I and N J can be obtained rotating triad E
99
N I = R ( I ) N I 0 = R ( I )E
(4.78)
N J = R ( J ) N J 0 = R ( J )E
Other possibilities for updating the nodal triads are discussed in Chapter 5.
nJ 2
n J1
nJ 3
nI 2
n I1
nI 3
I
Y
X
Z
Figure 4.4
X IJ + U IJ
e1
e2
e3
UJ
z
UI
X IJ
e1
e 2
I
XI
e 3
XJ
X
Z
Figure 4.5
X IJ + U IJ
l
(4.79)
U IJ = U J U I
(4.80)
e1 =
where
l = X IJ + U IJ = ( X IJ + U IJ )T ( X IJ + U IJ )
(4.81)
be used (see for example, Rankin and Brogan (1984), Nour-Omid and Rankin (1991), and
Crisfield and Moita (1996)). This definition is not unique because there are several
systems free of rigid body modes that can be adopted. However, the most effective choice
would be the one that minimizes the element displacements with respect to the basic
frame. In addition, it is important to adopt a basic system that is invariant with respect to
node numbering and the definition of the initial local axes y and z (i.e., if the node
numbers I and J, or the local axes y and z , are switched in the input data, the results
(4.82)
an expression that is also used in Pacoste and Eriksson (1997). However, Crisfield states,
without justification, that there is a better definition for this matrix, which is described as
follows. First, a rotation matrix R ( ) , corresponding to the rotation from triad N I to
triad N J , is defined using the compound rotation formula
N J = R ( )N I
(4.83)
Multiplying both sides of this equation by N I T and considering the fact that N I
is an orthogonal matrix gives
102
R() = N J N I T
(4.84)
where is the rotation vector associated with this rotation. Crisfield then uses this
rotation vector to define the mean rotation matrix as
R = R NI
2
(4.85)
arguing that, although the rotation vectors are not additive, is assumed to be
moderately large and hence R ( 2) can be used as a reasonable representation of the
rotation from N I to the average or mean configuration. To compute the term 2 ,
Crisfield uses a lengthy procedure, involving the extraction of the unit quaternion from
the rotation matrix R ( ) , and the use of the tangent scaled and unscaled form of the
rotational vector (see Figure 3.2, and eqs. (3.30) and (3.66)).
Apparently, the motivation for Crisfield to seek an alternative to eq. (4.82) lies in
the fact that this equation requires the explicit computation of the pseudo-vectors I and
J , which can only be done uniquely for angles in the range ( , ) .
However, apart from this limitation, the advantage of eq. (4.82) resides in its
simplicity. As will be shown later, the variation of the rotation matrix given by eq. (4.82)
is very straightforward, and can be computed exactly without any simplification.
On the other hand, the variation of the mean rotation matrix as given by eq. (4.85)
is rather complicated. Thus, although Crisfield computes the mean rotation matrix using
eq. (4.85), he computes the variation of the rotation matrix using the simpler variation of
eq. (4.82). Crisfield (1997) justifies this approximation by neglecting higher-order terms
of the correct variation of eq. (4.85), based on the assumption that the relative rotations
103
are small.
For consistency, eq. (4.82) is adopted in the present work to compute the mean
rotation matrix and its corresponding variation.
The mean triad R = r1 r2
of the two ends, is an appropriate reference frame to represent the rigid body rotation of
the element as a whole. In particular, the position of unit vectors r2 and r3 can be used
as a reference to measure the twist of the sections along the element. However, vector r1
does not coincide with the deformed local x axis of the element which connects the two
nodes, i.e., r1 is in general not parallel to base vector e 1 .
In order to define triad E, triad R can be rotated such that its unit vector r1
becomes aligned with the unit vector e 1 . This can be easily accomplished by using eqs.
(3.77) and (3.78), such that
e 2 = r2
e3 = r3
r2Te1
1 + r1Te1
r3Te1
1 + r1Te1
( r1 + e1 )
(4.86)
( r1 + e1 )
(4.87)
However, the presence of terms in the denominator of the right hand side of these
equations leads to complicated relations for the transformation of forces between the two
coordinate systems, and consequently for the associated geometric stiffness matrix.
Equations (4.86) and (4.87) were derived exactly considering that the rotation
involved in the transformation between the two triads may be arbitrarily large. Assuming
that this rotation is small, r1 would be close to e 1 , so Crisfield suggests that these
104
r2Te1
2
r3Te1
( r1 + e1 )
(4.88)
( r1 + e1 )
(4.89)
The main disadvantage of this simplification is that these vectors form a triad
E = [e1 e 2
the error is small and that for moderately relative rotations, this lack of orthogonality can
be neglected.
Given the triad E , there exists two rotation matrix R I and R J that rotates this triad into
triads N I and N J , such that
NI = RI E
NJ = RJ E
(4.90)
(4.91)
R ( I ) = ET (N I ET )E = ET N I
T
R ( J ) = E (N J E )E = E N J
(4.92)
with I and J being the rotation vectors expressed in the basic frame (as the rotation
matrices are expressed in this frame, according to the last transformation above).
To obtain the rotation vectors I and J , from the rotation matrices
R ( I ) = ET N I and R ( J ) = ET N J , eq. (3.41) could be used. This would, however, lead
sin I
1 T
T
sin I t I =
I = e1 n I 3 e3 n I 1
I
2
e Tn e Tn
2 I 1 1 I 2
(4.93)
where t I is the unit vector parallel to rotational vector I , such that I = I t I . Crisfield
then simplifies eq. (4.93) by stating that
e3Tn I e 2Tn I
sin I 1
2
3
1 T
T
sin I t I = sin I 2 = e1 n I 3 e3 n I 1
2 T
T
sin I 3
e 2 n I 1 e1 n I 2
(4.94)
sin I
I
sin I
t I 1 sin I
1
I 2
sin I t I = t I 2 sin I =
sin I sin I 2
t sin I
I
I3
sin I3
I3
sin I
I
106
(4.95)
The justification for the use of eq. (4.94) lies in the hypothesis of small basic
rotations. In Crisfield (1990) it is even suggested that the sine function can be
approximated by the angle itself with little loss of accuracy, such that
I
sin I
(4.96)
As in the planar case, the axial displacement (with reference to the basic system) is the
difference between the deformed and the initial length
D1 u = l L
(4.97)
1
(2X IJ + U IJ )T U IJ
l+L
(4.98)
The rotational degrees of freedom are obtained from the components of vectors
107
I and J , which are computed with eq. (4.94) for I , and a similar expression for J
I 1 = arcsin
I 2
1 T
e3 n I 2 e 2 T n I 3
2
1
= arcsin e1Tn I 3 e3Tn I 1
2
1 T
e2 n I 1 e1Tn I 2
2
I 3 = arcsin
J 2 = arcsin
J3
1 T
e1 n J 3 e3Tn J 1
2
1
= arcsin e 2Tn J 1 e1Tn J 2
2
(4.99)
Crisfield (1990) defines the local displacements (which in the present context
have been referred to as basic displacements) as being the seven degrees of freedom
formed by the axial displacements u, given in eq. (4.97), and these six components of I
and J defined in eq. (4.99). Clearly, this definition of basic system has one rigid body
mode, which is the rotation around the x-axis.
However, in the force formulation the basic system must be free of rigid body
modes, such that there is a flexibility matrix associated with it. Thus, in the present work,
the basic displacements are defined, according to Figure 4.1, as (see eq. (4.1))
D2 I z = I 3
D3 J z = J 3
D4 I y = I 2
D5 J y = J 2
D6 J = J 1 I 1
108
(4.100)
As discussed for the planar case, a tangential relation between the displacements in the
local and global system is given by
D = T D
(4.101)
where
T=
(4.102)
is a transformation matrix.
According to the principle of virtual displacements, this matrix transpose
transforms forces from the basic to the global system, such that
P = TT P
(4.103)
In order to compute matrix T, the variations of the triads that define the basic
displacements, such as N I , N J , R , and E , in conjunction with other variables,
such as l , need to be computed.
Matrices N I and N J are obtained by taking the variation of eqs. (4.78),
according to eq. (3.69), such that
N I = R ( I )E = S( I )R ( I )E = S( I )N I
N J = R ( J )E = S( J )R ( J )E = S( J )N J
(4.104)
n I k = S( I )n I k = S(n I k ) I
n J k = S( J )n J k = S(n J k ) J
(4.105)
Similarly, the columns of R are obtained by taking the variation of eq. (4.82)
109
rk = S
I + J
rk = S( rk )
(4.106)
Here it is important to appreciate the fact that this variation is computed exactly.
As discussed before, although Crisfield (1990) uses eqs. (4.84) and (4.85) to compute the
mean rotation triad, its variation is assumed to be given by eq. (4.106).
The variation of the deformed length l is obtained, as in the planar case, by
computing the differential of eq. (4.81) and using eq. (4.79)
1
l = ( X IJ + U IJ )T ( X IJ + U IJ )
1 2
2
1
= ( X IJ + U IJ )T U IJ
l
2( X IJ + U IJ )T U IJ
(4.107)
= e1T U IJ
The variation of vector e1 is obtained by taking the differential of eq. (4.79) and
making use of eq. (4.107)
1
1
U IJ 1 T
(
)
+
l
=
e1e1 U IJ
X
U
IJ
IJ
l
l
l
l2
= A U IJ
e1 = U IJ
(4.108)
where
1
A = (I e1e1T )
l
(4.109)
is a symmetric matrix.
The terms e2 and e3 are determined taking the differential of eqs. (4.88) and
(4.89), and using eqs. (4.106) and (4.108)
110
1
2
1
2
1
1
+ (e1 + r1 ) rk T A rk Te1A ( U J U I )
2
2
= L( r )T D
(4.110)
L 2 ( rk )T
L1 ( rk )T
L 2 ( rk )T ]
(4.111)
1 T
1
rk e1A + Ark (e1 + r1 )T
2
2
1
1
1
L 2 ( rk ) = S( rk ) rk Te1S( r1 ) S( rk )e1 (e1 + r1 )T
2
4
4
(4.112)
with
L1 ( rk ) =
The force transformation matrix T is derived next. First, for simplicity, the 6 12
matrix T is partitioned into row-vectors t r with ( r = 1,,6 ) such that
TT = t1T
t 2T
t 3T
t 4T
t 5T
t 6T
(4.113)
The first row of matrix T, the row-vector t1 , is computed easily by taking the
differential of eq. (4.97), and using eqs. (4.107)
D1 = l = e1T U IJ = e1T ( U J U I )
= t1 D
(4.114)
where
t1 = e1T
0T
e1T
0T
(4.115)
I 1 =
=
1
n I 2T e3 n I 3T e 2 + e3T n I 2 e 2T n I 3
2cos I 1
1
n T L( r )T D
e TS(n )
n I 2T L( r3 )T D
2
3
I3
I2
I
2cos I 1
T
+e 2 S(n I 3 ) I
=
(4.116)
1
T
L( r3 )n I 2 L( r2 )n I 3 + h I 1 D
2cos I 1
where
h I 1T = 0T
0T
0T
(4.117)
The variation of I 2 is obtained from the second of eqs. (4.99), and considering
eqs. (4.105), (4.108) and (4.110)
I 2 =
=
1
n I 3T e1 n I 1T e3 + e1T n I 3 e3T n I 1
2cos I 2
n I 3T A U IJ n I 1T L( r3 )T D
2cos I 2
e1TS(n I 3 ) I + e3TS(n I 1 ) I
)
(4.118)
1
T
L( r3 )n I 1 h I 2 D
2cos I 2
where
h I 2T = ( An I 3 )
112
( An I 3 )
0T
(4.119)
I 3 =
T
1
L( r2 )n I 1 + h I 3 D
2cos I 3
J 1 =
T
1
L( r3 )n J 2 L( r2 )n J 3 + h J 1 D
2cos J 1
J 2
(4.120)
T
1
L( r3 )n J 1 h J 2 D
=
2cos J 2
J 3 =
T
1
L( r2 )n J 1 + h J 3 D
2cos J 3
where
h I 3T = ( An I 2 )
h J 1T = 0T
hJ 2
0T
0T
T
= ( An J 3 )
h J 3T = ( An J 2 )
( An J 3 )
0T
( An J 2 )
( An I 2 )
T
T
0T
(4.121)
According to eq. (4.100), the variations of the basic rotational degrees of freedom
are
D2 = I 3
D3 = J 3
D4 = I 2
D5 = J 2
(4.122)
D6 = J 1 I 1
Hence, substitution of eqs. (4.116), (4.118) and (4.120) into eqs. (4.122) gives the
remaining rows of transformation matrix T
113
t2 =
1
T
L( r2 )n I 1 + h I 3
2cos I 3
t3 =
T
1
L( r2 )n J 1 + h J 3
2cos J 3
t4 =
1
T
L( r3 )n I 1 h I 2
2cos I 2
t5 =
1
T
L( r3 )n J 1 h J 2
2cos J 2
(4.123)
1
t6 =
( L( r3 )n J 2 L( r2 )n J 3 + h J 1 )
2cos J 1
L( r3 )n I 2 L( r2 )n I 3 + h I 1 )
(
2cos I 1
For the computation of the stiffness matrix, presented in the next section, it is
useful to split the sixth row of matrix T into two parts, such that
t6 = t6 J t6I
(4.124)
where
t6J =
t6I
T
1
L( r3 )n J 2 L( r2 )n J 3 + h J 1
2cos J 1
T
1
L( r3 )n I 2 L( r2 )n I 3 + h I 1
=
2cos I 1
(4.125)
(4.126)
KG =
TT
:P
(4.127)
(4.128)
For the description of these matrices, it is useful to define the following scaled
basic forces
m2 =
P2
2cos I 3
P5
m5 =
2cos J 2
m3 =
m6 I
P3
2cos J 3
P6
=
2cos I 1
m4 =
m6 J
P4
2cos I 2
P6
=
2cos J 1
(4.129)
m6 I = m6 J
(4.130)
This assumption is motivated by the fact that the rotations I 1 and J 1 have
approximately the same magnitude, but opposite directions, since the mean rotation triad
splits the angles of twist into two approximately equal contributions for each node of
the element. Although this assumption is appropriate for very small basic rotations, the
gain in simplicity with eq. (4.130) is not considerable. In the present work, for
consistency, this assumption is not used, and a more general expression for the geometric
stiffness matrix is derived (with the one proposed by Crisfield, which implies eq. (4.130),
being a particular case).
115
For the description of the tangent stiffness, it is also convenient to use the
following matrices
1
M (z ) = Aze1T + Aze1T
l
+ A(e1T z )
(4.131)
and
g12
g11
T
g 22
g
G ( rk , z ) = 12
g
g12
11
g12T g 22
g11
g12T
g11
g12T
g12
g 22
g12
g 22
(4.132)
where
(
(
1
Azrk T A + Ark z T A + rk Te1M (z ) + (e1 + r1 )T zM ( rk )
2
1
= Aze1TS( rk ) + (e1 + r1 )T zAS( rk ) + Ark z TS( r1 )
4
1
= ( rk Te1 )S(z )S( r1 ) + S( rk )e1z TS( r1 ) + 2S(z )S( rk )
8
g11 =
g12
g 22
)
(4.133)
0 A
0 0
0 A
0 0
0
0
0
116
(4.134)
(4.135)
+ m6 I G ( r3 , n J 2 ) G ( r2 , n J 3 ) m6 J G ( r3 , n I 2 ) G ( r2 , n I 3 )
(4.136)
0 K D 4
(4.137)
where
K D 2 = L( r2 ) ( m2S(n I 1 ) + m6 I S(n I 3 ) ) + L( r3 ) ( m4S(n I 1 ) + m6 I S(n I 2 ) )
(4.138)
(4.139)
T
K F 22
K F12
KF =
K
K F12
F 11
K F T
0
14
K F11
K F 12T
K F 11
K F 14T
K F14
0
K F14
K F 44
(4.140)
where
K F 11 = m2M (n I 2 ) m3M (n J 2 ) + m4M (n I 3 ) + m5M (n J 3 )
K F12 = m2 AS(n I 2 ) + m4 AS(n I 3 )
K F14 = m3AS(n J 2 ) + m5 AS(n J 3 )
(4.141)
117
118
Chapter 5
Element State Determination
For this purpose, different state determination procedures are possible, with some
being presented in the literature, and briefly discussed here.
Due to the inverse nature of the nonlinear problem in the flexibility formulation,
usually local iterations in the element state determination procedure are necessary. One
possible solution for the problem would involve two nested level of local iterations: one
at the element level and another at the section level. It was observed that this procedure,
although formally very precise, is computationally inefficient. Therefore, it is not
discussed further in this work.
A simpler procedure that avoids the section level of iterations was presented by
Petrangeli and Ciampi (1997), and by Spacone et al. (1996a), for small-displacement
inelastic problems. An even simpler procedure, which avoids both local levels of
iteration, was presented by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1997) for materially nonlinear
problems. A similar procedure, also without any local iterations, was later proposed by
Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998), for geometrically nonlinear problems with linear elastic
material.
This dissertation proposes a new state determination algorithm that generalizes
the procedures presented in Neuenhofer and Filippou (1997), Neuenhofer and Filippou
(1998) and Spacone et al. (1996a) to the full nonlinear problem, i.e, with material and
geometric nonlinearities. Both the iterative and non-iterative versions of the algorithm are
discussed.
The last step of the state determination procedure is the transformation of resisting
forces Pi and stiffness matrix K i from the basic system to the local coordinate system
according to the corotational formulation.
120
121
Di = Di Di 1
(5.1)
where Di 1 are the displacements corresponding to the previous global iteration step
i 1.
Pi(1)
Ki
Pi(2)
Pi
Pi(1)
K i1
Pi 1
A
Figure 5.1
Di 1
Di
Di
Dr i
D*i
Initial force increments Pi(1) are obtained with the linearized relation
Pi(1) = K i 1 Di
(5.2)
where K i 1 is the element stiffness matrix corresponding to the previous global iteration
step.
Forces Pi(1) corresponding to point B are then obtained, adding the force
increments Pi(1) to the end forces at the previous global iteration step
122
Pi(1) = Pi 1 + Pi(1)
(5.3)
Associated with the end forces Pi(1) , end displacements D*i corresponding to
point C, and the new element stiffness matrix K i need to be obtained.
For the moment it will be assumed that the displacements D*i and the stiffness
matrix K i can be obtained in terms of the given forces Pi(1) as
D*i = D(Pi(1) )
(5.4)
K i = K (Pi(1) )
(5.5)
where the functions D(P) and K (P) represent a numerical procedure corresponding to
the sections state determination, which will be presented in the following section. Besides
the argument P, shown explicitly for these functions, other parameters related to the
previous iteration step i 1 (history variables) are also used and need to be stored.
The accuracy of functions D(P) and K (P) determines how close point C will be
to the element force-displacement curve. In order to avoid iterations at the section level,
these functions give only a good approximation to the displacements D*i and stiffness
matrix K i . Consequently, as represented in Figure 5.1, point C is slightly off the forcedisplacement curve (but still corresponds to the forces Pi(1) ). Nonetheless, if iterations
were to be performed at the section level until convergence, point C would lie exactly on
the force-displacement curve, and the stiffness matrix K i would be the exact tangent to
the curve at this point.
After displacements D*i and stiffness matrix K i are computed, residual
123
Dr i = Di D*i
(5.6)
Pi(2) = K i Dr i
(5.7)
Pi = Pi(1) + Pi(2)
(5.8)
With this computation, the final state at the end of global iteration i (point D) has
been determined, and will correspond to the initial state for the next global iteration i + 1 .
The process is than repeated for the subsequent global iterations.
0 (1 ) 1
d(1 ) (1 ) 1
d=
d( ) ( )
n 0 n n
( n ) n
124
(5.9)
z (1 ) z1
y (1 ) y
1
d(1 ) (1 ) 1
d=
d( ) ( )
n 0 n n
z ( n ) z n
y ( n ) y n
( )
n n
(5.10)
vn ]
(5.11)
w2
vn
wn ]
(5.12)
(5.13)
where
*
*
0 l11
0 l12
*
*
0 l21
0 l22
l=
0 l * 0 l *
n1
n2
0 l1*n
0 l2*n
*
0 lnn
125
(5.14)
*
0 0 l11
l=
0 l *
0
n1
0 0 ln*1
*
0 0 l12
0 0
0 0 ln*2
0 0
0 l1*n
*
l12
*
0 lnn
ln*2
l1*n
0
*
lnn
(5.15)
b(1 ) v1 1 1 1
=
b( v ) =
b( n ) 1
0
0
vn n 1 n
(5.16)
0
0
0
0
b(1 ) 0
b( v) =
=
b( n ) 1
0
0
0
0
v
n 1 n
0
0
n
0
0 n 1 n
wn
0
0
0
0
0
126
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
(5.17)
b* ( v ) =
b ( n )
(5.18)
with similar expressions to b( v ) for both the planar and spatial cases, except that the
displacements v and w are divided by the factor 2 (see eq. (4.36)).
A composite vector of section forces S R (d) can be expressed in terms of section
deformations d , satisfying the constitutive relation (see eq. (4.40))
S R (d) = C(d)
(5.19)
where
C(d)T = C ( d(1 ) )
T
C ( d( n ) )
(5.20)
On the other hand, a composite vector of section forces S(d, P ) can be expressed
in terms of trial deformations d , satisfying the equilibrium relation for given nodal forces
P (see eqs. (2.35), (5.16) and (5.17))
S(d, P) = b v(d) P
(5.21)
127
S R (d) C(d)
=
=
k (d) =
d
d
k ( d( 2 ) )
0
(5.22)
S(d, P )
d d0
d d =d
= b(d 0 ) P + k E (P) d d0
(5.23)
The matrix
k E (P) =
S(d, P)
d
(5.24)
has the subscript E denoting equilibrium, as this matrix corresponds to the derivative of
forces S(d) , which satisfy equilibrium, with respect to deformations d . This matrix is
obtained, considering eqs. (5.21) and (5.13), as follows
k E lm =
Sl
b
b v
= ls Ps = ls k Ps
vk d m
d m d m
= ls Ps lkm
vk
(5.25)
For the planar case, l = 1,, 2n, m = 1,, 2n, s = 1,,3, and k = 1,, n . It
is easy to verify, from eq. (5.16), that
128
k
l 0
1
0
bls
Ps =
vk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 P1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
(5.26)
Thus, for the planar case, k E can be obtained by multiplying the matrix given in
eq. (5.26) by matrix l given in eq. (5.14). The result can be expressed as
*
*
s(l11
) s(l12
)
*
s(l * ) s(l22
)
k E k E (P) = 21
s(l * ) s(l * )
n2
n1
s(l1*n )
s(l2*n )
P1
*
s(l22 )
(5.27)
with
0 0
s(lij* ) =
*
0 lij
(5.28)
For the spatial case, the derivation is similar to the planar case, with
l = 1,, 4n, m = 1,,4n, s = 1,,6, and k = 1,,2n , and can be expressed in the
*
0 lij
*
s(lij ) =
0 0
0 0
0
0
lij*
0
0
0
(5.29)
Although matrix k E depends only on the component P1 (the axial force) of the
129
force vector P, the notation k E (P ) is preferred to avoid excessive use of indices in the
derivations that follows, when indices related to iteration steps will be introduced.
As matrix k E (P) does not depend on the deformations d , the forces S(d, P ) are,
for fixed forces P, a linear function of d . Thus, the expansion (5.23) is exact with the
first two terms only, i.e., the other higher order terms are null.
Another important consideration is that, despite of the fact that matrix k (d) is a
super-diagonal matrix, matrix k E (P ) is not. As a consequence, the problem of
determining the section deformations d for given end forces P is coupled through the
sections. Thus, the section determination procedure cannot be performed for each section
individually, but has to be done considering all the sections at the same time. To this end,
a simultaneous section state determination procedure is proposed.
Figure 5.2 shows a schematic representation of the section level of the procedure.
In this plot, the horizontal axis corresponds to the unknown composite section
deformations and the vertical axis corresponds to composite section forces. The curved
line represents the force-deformation relation S R (d) = C(d) , with corresponding tangent
k (d) = S R (d) d . The straight line with slope k E (Pi(1) ) represents the applied section
forces S(d, P) , in equilibrium with element end forces Pi(1) .
The purpose of the procedure is to determine, for forces Pi(1) , the point at which
the resisting forces S R (d) equilibrate the applied forces S(d, Pi(1) ) . This corresponds to
finding the intersection of the curve S R (d) with the straight line S(d, Pi(1) ) .
The proposed algorithm solves this problem incrementally, by linearizing the
130
section constitutive relations S R (d) = C(d) using the tangent composite section stiffness
k (d) , as shown in Figure 5.2.
The three points A, B, and C in Figure 5.2 also correspond to the respective points
in Figure 5.1. The initial state of the sections at the global iteration i 1 is represented by
point A, and the first phase consists in determining point B, i.e., determining
deformations di(1) and corresponding forces Si(1) . Then, point C is determined. This is
accomplished as follows.
k E (Pi(1) )
S
C
Si
Si(2)
Si(1)
Si(0)
S Ri
B ~
ki
~
k i1
Si(1)
Si1
~
di1
~ (1)
di
~
d
~
di( 2 )
~
di(1)
Figure 5.2
~
di
First, section forces Si(0) in equilibrium with end forces Pi(1) for d = di 1 are
computed according to eq. (5.21)
131
(5.30)
Then, the corresponding section force increments from the previous state are
determined
(5.31)
With the composite section stiffness matrix k i 1 from the previous iteration step,
and force increments Si(1) , deformation increments di(1) are obtained according to
Figure 5.2.
1
(5.32)
(5.33)
(5.34)
132
(5.35)
k i = k (di(1) )
(5.36)
(5.37)
Then, the deformations corresponding to point C are calculated with the new
stiffness matrix k i
1
(5.38)
di = di(1) + di(2)
(5.39)
(5.40)
D*i = L b* ( j )T di ( j )W j
(5.41)
j =1
where W j are the integration weights for the interval [0,1]. The section deformations
di ( j ) are extracted from the composite deformation vector di . The displacements v j
and w j necessary for the computation of matrix b* ( j ) are obtained in terms of
deformations di using the CBDI procedure according to eq. (5.13).
The element flexibility matrix is determined by numerical integration of
133
eq. (4.51),
n
Fi = L b* ( j )T f ( j ) b( j ) + h( j ) + g( j ) W j
j =1
(5.42)
where the section flexibility matrix f ( j ) is obtained by inversion of the section stiffness
matrix k ( j ) . The terms v( x) P and w( x) P , necessary for the computation of
the flexilibity matrix, are evaluated at the integration points using eq. (4.68).
The new element stiffness matrix K i is obtained simply by inversion of the
flexibility matrix Fi .
Clearly, point D in Figure 5.1 does not correspond to the exact solution of the
problem, as it does not lie on the force-deformation curve. Instead, it corresponds to a
solution obtained by linearization of the constitutive relation about deformations di(1) (see
Figure 5.2). However, as the solution of the global equations approach the final
equilibrium state, the displacement increments Di go to zero, and the linearization
better approximates the constitutive relation curve. Then, the deformation increments
di(2) and, consequently, the residuals Dr i , also go to zero. Therefore, upon global
convergence, point D approaches the real force-deformation curve in Figure 5.1.
It should be emphasized that although the described algorithm has several steps,
the section stiffness matrix and the element stiffness matrix are updated only once during
the non-iterative procedure.
134
Pi(1)
Pi(2)
Pi(3)
Pi(2)
Pi(3)
Pi(1)
Fi(1)
K i1
Dr i(2)
Pi1
A D
i1
Figure 5.3
Di
Di
Dr i(1)
D*i
135
136
P = K D
for k=1 to maximum number of iterations
P = P + P
S = b v (d) P S
solve [k E (P) k ] d = S for d
d = d + d
S R = C(d)
k = k (d)
S = b v (d) P S R
solve [k E ( P) k ] d = S for d
d = d + d
S = b v (d) P
n
D = L b* ( j )T d( j )W j
*
j =1
F = L b* ( j )T f ( j ) b( j ) + h( j ) + g ( j ) W j
j =1
Dr = D D*
solve FP = Dr for P
if ( Dr < tol) exit loop
K = F 1
Figure 5.4
137
implementations is related to the update of the end displacements, since the rotation
increments are non-additive in space.
Table 5.1
138
let D
N i be the associated vector of iterative displacements (the i-th increment in
displacement from the previous global iteration)
U
N i
D
Ni
N i
(5.43)
where U N i are the three translational components and N i are the components of the
iterative pseudo-vector (or iterative spins).
The translational displacements can be updated as usual
139
U N i = U N i 1 + U N i
(5.44)
However, as the rotational vectors are not additive, to update the node rotational
components, the compound rotation formula needs to be used
R ( N i ) = R ( N i )R ( N i1 )
(5.45)
Usually, it is not necessary to extract the pseudo vector N i from the rotation
matrix R ( N i ) , since the rotation matrix itself can be passed to the elements. Besides, as
discussed before, the extraction of the pseudo-vector is only unique for rotations with
magnitude less than 180 degrees. As discussed in Section 3.5, the extraction can be
performed using the normalized quaternions.
However, it is more efficient to use the quaternion product, given by eq. (3.54),
such that
q N i = q N i q N i 1
(5.46)
where q N i 1 and q N i are the normalized quaternions associated with rotational vectors
N i1 and N i , respectively, via eq. (3.44). After the unit quaternion q N i , has been
obtained, the associated rotation matrix R (q N i ) can be computed according to eq. (3.50).
With this computation, the normalized quaternions and/or the associated rotation
matrices corresponding to nodes N = I and N = J can be passed to the elements. The
element end triads than can be updated as
N I i = R (q I i )N I 0
N J i = R (q J i )N J 0
(5.47)
with N I 0 and N J 0 being the initial triads given in eq. (4.77). However, here again it is
140
(5.48)
where n I i and n J i are the unit quaternions associated to the triads N I i and N J i ,
respectively.
(5.49)
The element end triads can then be updated with the compound rotation formula
N I i = R ( I i )N I i 1
N J i = R ( J i )N J i 1
(5.50)
However, here again it is more efficient to use the unit quaternions, such that
n I i = q n I i 1
Ii
n J i = q n J i 1
(5.51)
Ji
where q I i and q J i are the unit quaternions associated with the rotational vectors
I i and J i , respectively. The triads N I i and N J i can then be obtained from the unit
quaternions n I i and n J i , via eq. (3.50)
6. Compute the deformed length l according to eq. (4.81), and the basic
rotations I and J according to eqs. (4.99).
7. Compute the basic displacement D1 according to eq. (4.98), and the basic
rotations D2 ,, D6 according to eqs. (4.100).
8. Compute the resisting forces P and stiffness matrix K in the basic system
according to the algorithm described in Figure 5.4.
9. Compute the transformation matrix T according to eqs. (4.115) and (4.123)
10. Compute the geometric stiffness matrix K G according to eq. (4.128).
in the
11. Compute the resisting forces P and tangent stiffness matrix K
global system according to eqs. (4.103), and (4.126), respectively.
Table 5.2
142
143
Chapter 6
Numerical Examples
In order to validate the proposed element and to test its accuracy, some examples were
solved and the solutions are compared with those obtained by other authors. For some
planar problems, an analytical linear elastic solution, when available, is also shown for
comparison.
Is should be emphasized that, as most papers only provide the results in graphical
form, only a reasonable accurate comparison can be done, due to the inaccuracy in
obtaining numerical values from the presented plots.
The state determination procedure without local iterations was used to obtain all
the results corresponding to the proposed formulation. As discussed previously, if local
iterations are performed at the element level, although the total number of iterations may
be smaller, the overall performance is worse since a large amount of processing time is
spent in the element state determination procedure.
Unless otherwise indicated in the following examples, for the solution of the
nonlinear global equations, the global iterative strategy used is the minimum residual
displacement method, proposed by Chan (1988), with an updated stiffness matrix at each
iteration (classical Newton-Raphson). The load incrementation was performed using the
incrementation of the arc-length procedure as described by Clarke and Hancock (1990).
The marks shown in the plots for the present formulation correspond to each load step.
The convergence criterion is based on the relative energy norm.
144
P,v
0.98 cm
65.715 cm
E = 199714 MPa
Figure 6.1
0.721 cm
The equilibrium paths for different values of yield stress, obtained using the
proposed force formulation, are compared against the results obtained by Chan, and for
145
the elastic case, the results are also compared with the analytical solution obtained by
Williams (Figure 6.2.)
300
fy= inf.
250
200
fy=165.47 MPa
150
100
fy=124.10 MPa
50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Vertical displacement v (cm)
Figure 6.2
1.6
1.8
The elastic results using the proposed element are in good agreement with
Williams analytical solution.
As also observed by Chan, for the elasto-plastic material cases, after the first limit
point some parts of the frame experience a process of strain reversal, due to the reduction
in stress.
For the numerical integration, the circular cross-section was discretized into 50
146
147
W
50 cm
1 cm
100 cm
E = 220000 MPa
y = 300 MPa
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4 shows that the solution determined with the proposed formulation
coincides with the analytical results for the elastic case. The discrepancy with Backlunds
results are probably due to inaccuracies in the given plots because this author indicates
that the provided results also match the solution provided by Timoshenko and
Woinowsky-Krieger.
All integrations were performed using Lobatto rule. Five points were used along
the element length and ten points were used over the rectangular cross-sections. The
average number of iterations per load step was 2.9 for all analyses.
148
1.6
elastic material
1.4
elasto-plastic material
1.2
1
proposed flex. formul.- 1 elmt.
Backlund (1976) - 5 elmts.
Timoshenko (1959) - analytical
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.005
Figure 6.4
0.01
0.015
Midspan displacement v (m)
0.02
0.025
Coulter and Miller (1988), and Park and Lee (1996). Chan also analyzed this problem
using an elastic perfectly plastic material, and considering two distinct values of yield
stress.
L = 400 cm
P
E = 20 MPa
Figure 6.5
0.38 cm
35.546 cm
150
10
9
fy = inf
(PL2)/(EI)
7
6
fy = 16500 MPa
5
4
3
fy = 8250 MPa
2
1
0
0.2
Figure 6.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
Relative vertical displacement v/L
1.2
The tubular cross-section was discretized into 100 segments of arc, and the
midpoint rule was employed for the numerical integration of the section. The average
number of iterations per load step, for the different values of yield stress, infinity, 16500
MPa and 8250 MPa, was 4.6, 5.1, and 4.3 respectively. For illustration, considering the
yield stress of 8250 MPa, the convergence rate of the energy norm during the sixth load
step (when the material started yielding) is shown in Table 6.1.
151
Iteration
Table 6.1
1.0
4.919771934662989e-002
2.641579924599226e-004
5.790622677740988e-009
M=
Figure 6.7
2 EI
L
Clearly, for a prismatic elastic beam, the exact solution for the deformed shape of
this problem is a perfect circle, since the bending moment, and hence the curvature, is
constant along the beam. However, the expression for the curvature of the beam was
approximated, in this formulation, as the second derivative of the transverse
displacements with respect to the axis coordinate x.
As discussed before, the target problems for the proposed force formulation are
inelastic structural frames with deformations in the range of practical interest (especially
the ones in which the most important geometric nonlinear effect is the second-order
bending moments due to the presence of axial force). The proposed force formulation
was not developed with the objective of solving problems like the one at hand.
However, the objective of this analysis is to validate the claim that the
corotational formulation can be employed to solve finite strain problems, as long as the
structural members are subdivided into small elements. With these considerations, this
problem is a good test for the described corotational formulation in two dimensions, since
it involves very large rotations (up to 720 degrees).
A convergence study is carried, with different levels of mesh subdivision (with 1,
2, 4 and 8 elements). The results for the relative displacements indicated in Figure 6.7 are
presented in Figure 6.8.
In the study, the bending moment applied at the end is increased from 0.0 to 2.0,
which corresponds to a deformation of the beam curling around itself twice (i.e., with the
free end rotating 720 degrees).
153
1.8
1.6
- 1 elmts.
- 2 elmts.
- 4 elmts.
- 8 elmts.
1.4
Load ratio
1.2
v/L
u/L
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
Figure 6.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Relative displacements u/L and v/L
1.2
1.4
From Figure 6.8, it is observed that even with just one element, the loaddisplacement curves can be traced with reasonable accuracy up to the deformation
corresponding to half a circle (u/L = 1). With two elements, the equilibrium path
corresponding to a full circle (u/L = 1 and v/L = 0) can be obtained precisely. With four
elements, the curve corresponding to the beam curling around the fixed end twice can be
obtained very accurately, and practically corresponds to the results employing eight
elements.
The deformed shapes of the structure, obtained with eight elements, are shown in
Figure 6.9. The curves correspond to the load steps, which are represented by a dot in
154
Figure 6.8. The average number of iterations per load step was 5.10.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.9
in comparison with the axial stiffness). This frame has been analyzed numerically,
considering elastic material, by several authors, including Simo and Vu-Quoc (1986),
Coulter and Miller (1988), Chen and Blandford (1993), Pacoste and Eriksson (1997),
Lages et al. (1999), and Smolnski (1999).
Cichon (1984) solved this problem considering both elastic and elastic-plastic
material. The elastic-plastic model consisted of a quasi-bilinear relation where the linear
segments were connected by a parabola for a smoother transition. As this transition
segment was extremely small, the material law used in the present analysis is a bilinear
elasto-plastic model with kinematic hardening. Other authors, such as Hsiao et al. (1988),
Waszczyszyn and Janus-Michalska (1998), and Park and Lee (1996) also analyzed the
structure with the same elasto-plastic material, and compared their results with Cichons.
P,v
2 cm
120 cm
24 cm
96 cm
3 cm
E = 70608 MPa
E H = 01
. E
y = 1020 MPa
120 cm
Figure 6.10
Lees frame.
The structure was analyzed with the proposed force formulation, adopting two
different discretization schemes: a) Using three elements, one for the column, and two for
156
the beam, with a node located right under the concentrated applied load; b) Using five
elements, two for the column, and three for the beam, again with one node under the load.
For the integration through the sections, considering the elasto-plastic material, five
Lobattos points were employed (as used by Cichon).
The equilibrium paths of the structure, for the elastic and elastic-plastic material
models, are represented in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12, for the two levels of
discretization described above.
Lee`s Frame
20
linear elastic
15
elasto-plastic
with kinematic
hardening
10
-5
proposed flex. formul. - 3 elmts
Cichon (1983) - 10 elmts
-10
10
Figure 6.11
20
30
40
50
60
Displacement v (cm)
70
80
90
100
157
From Figure 6.11, it is observed that, due to the very large deformations that
occur in this problem, with the coarser discretization it is not possible to trace accurately
the equilibrium path of the structure. However, the final part of the equilibrium path for
the elastic case is reasonably precise.
Lee`s Frame
20
linear elastic
A pplied Load P (k N)
15
elasto-plastic
with kinematic
hardening
10
-5
proposed flex. formul. - 3 elmts
Cichon (1983) - 10 elmts
-10
10
Figure 6.12
20
30
40
50
60
Displacement v (cm)
70
80
90
100
Nonetheless, as shown in Figure 6.12, very accurate results (in agreement with
Cichons solution) are obtained with the finer discretization. The average number of
158
iterations per load step was 6.5 and 6.1 for the elastic and elasto-plastic analysis,
respectively. Cichons method is based on incremental variational principle using total
Lagrangian formulation.
The deformed shapes corresponding to the equilibrium path, using the finer
discretization for the elastic material case, are represented to scale in Figure 6.13.
Lee`s Frame
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-40
Figure 6.13
-20
20
40
60
x
80
100
120
140
160
Deformed shapes (to scale) of Lees frame for the finer discretization,
considering elastic material.
The purpose of this example was to confirm that the proposed element can be
used to solve finite deformation problems, as long as a finer discretization is adopted.
159
W8 31
H,u
L / r = 40
W8 31
E = 200000 MPa
y = 250 MPa
rc = 0.333 y
L
Figure 6.14
As indicated in Figure 6.14, the frame is formed by steel wide flange sections
W20046 (W831). The gravity loads P are applied first and held constant while the
frame is subjected to the varying lateral load H. The solution considers the residual stress
pattern proposed by Ketter et al. (1955), assuming peak compressive stresses at the flange
tips equal to 33.3% of the yield stress, a constant tensile residual stress in the web, and a
160
linear variation of the residual stresses in the flanges. According to Attalla et al. (1994),
this pattern is a reasonably conservative representation of the residual stresses
encountered in rolled sections of the type considered.
0.6
P/Py = 0.2
0.5
proposed flex. formul. - 3 elmts
Atalla [1994] - 50 stiffness elmts
King [1992] - stiffness elmts
0.4
0.3
P/Py = 0.4
0.2
0.1
P/Py = 0.6
0
0.005
0.01
Figure 6.15
0.015
0.02
0.025
Lateral Deflection Delta/L
0.03
0.035
0.04
Due to this initial stress distribution, the numerical integration has to be done
considering two perpendicular directions in the plane of the cross sections. For this
purpose, considering the symmetry of the section with respect to the web axis, the section
is subdivided into three regions (web, top and bottom flanges). In the present analysis, the
web (half thickness) is integrated considering 8 Lobatto integration points, and the
161
flanges are integrated considering a 62 bidimensional Lobattos rule, with two points in
the thickness direction. The residual stresses are considered by assigning initial values to
the integration points in the cross-section.
Figure 6.15 shows the lateral load-displacement curves for vertical loads of 0.2,
0.4 and 0.6 of the squash load Py . The results from the present formulation agree very
well with the ones given by King et al. (1992), and Attalla et al. (1994), which were
obtained with the stiffness based element described by White (1985).
The average number of iterations per load step, corresponding to the vertical loads
of 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 of Py were 4.8, 4.7 and 4.2 respectively.
discrepancy in the results are probably due to the fact that the formulation proposed by
Shi and Atluri treats rotations as vector quantities, which renders the method not suitable
for large rotation problems.
1.22 m
60
0.76 m
12.57 m
24.38 m
P,v
1.55 m
E = 20690 MPa
G = 8830 MPa
4.55 m
0 = 80 MPa
P0 = 123.80 MN
24.38 m
Figure 6.16
Framed dome.
163
assuming the stress state given in eq. (4.43). In the present analysis the sections were
discretized with 40 by 10 fibers, assuming a uniaxial stress state and using the mid-point
rule in each fiber. The torsional behaviour was assumed linear.
Framed dome
1.2
Park (1996) - stiff. - 8 els./member
Shi (1988) - flex. - 1 el./member
Proposed flex. formul. - 1 el./member
elastic
Load ratio
0.8
0.6
0.4
elastoplastic
0.2
0.5
Figure 6.17
1.5
2
2.5
3
Vertical displacement v (m)
3.5
4.5
It is observed that the results agree well only up to a certain point on the curve,
which is probably explained by the different section behavior. It is important to mention,
however, that this structure was also analyzed with the proposed formulation using higher
integration orders and up to 6 elements per member, and it was observed that with just
164
one element the results were already very accurate. Although Park and Lee could
continue the analysis past the last point shown in Figure 6.17, convergence was not
attained with the present formulation beyond this point.
The average number of iterations per load step was 4.36 and 4.44 for the elastic
and elastoplastic case, respectively.
Y
240 mm
X
30 mm
0.6 mm
240 mm
Figure 6.18
E = 71240 MPa
= 0.31
165
The structure presents an initial planar behavior, but due to the high degree of
slenderness of the section (thickness/depth = 1/50), after the load reaches a critical level,
the structure buckles laterally, presenting a full three-dimensional response.
To artificially induce the buckling instability, a small pertubation load of
2 104 N is applied at the tip in the Z direction, as in Crisfield (1990). This load is kept
constant during the analysis.
The purpose of this example is to show that although the element was formulated
under the assumption of linear torsional behavior uncoupled from the flexural behavior,
lateral buckling problems can be solved when the structural members are subdivided into
smaller elements, and the corotational transformations are employed.
A convergence analysis is performed (Figure 6.19), with three different levels of
discretization (1, 2 and 4 elements per member). The results are compared to the ones
reported in Crisfield (1990) with five linear elements in the basic system, and using the
same corotational formulation. For the present analysis, the average number of iterations
per load step were 5.36, 5.17, 5.22, corresponding to a mesh of 1, 2 and 4 elements per
member, respectively.
It can be observed from the plots that even with just one element per member, the
critical load can be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It is also observed
that the formulation presents a good rate of convergence in terms of mesh refinement.
166
Righ-Angled frame
1.8
Proposed flex. formul. - 1 el./member
Proposed flex. formul. - 2 els./member
Proposed flex. formul. - 4 els./member
Crisfield (1990) - corot. lin. - 5 els./member
1.6
1.4
Load (N)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 6.19
10
20
30
40
50
Lateral displacement (mm)
60
70
80
both ends, and the displacement in the X direction at the right support are allowed. The
structure is subjected to two opposing in-plane moments at the supports as indicated in
the figure. Due to the symmetry of the problem, only half of the frame needs to be
analyzed.
30 mm
0.6 mm
240 mm
E = 71240 MPa
= 0.31
240 mm
Y
Z
M
Figure 6.20
As in the previous problem, the initial behavior of the structure is planar, until the
load reaches a critical level. At this point the stiffness matrix becomes singular and the
structure becomes unstable, presenting a sidesway (out-of-plane) buckling mode.
This problem presents extreme large three-dimensional rotations, and is a severe
test on the performance of the element. An interesting peculiarity of this problem is that
as the rotation of the hinged ends vary from 0 to 360 degrees, the top part of the frame
moves out of the plane, rotates about the X axis and returns to the initial configuration.
After returning to the initial planar configuration, the applied end moment is the same in
magnitude but with reverse sign.
As pointed out by Simo and Vu-Quoc (1986), during the deformation process the
168
legs of the frame experience significant amount of twist. To capture the correct torsional
behavior of the frame with the proposed formulation, eight elements were used. The
results are compared with the ones reported by Simo and Vu-Quoc (1986) in Figure 6.21.
end moment
200
0
-200
proposed flex. formul. - 8 elmts
Simo and Vu-Quoc (1986) - 10 elmts
-400
-600
-800
-200
-150
Figure 6.21
-100
-50
0
50
lateral displacement
100
150
200
From Figure 6.21 it is observed that the analysis performed by Simo and Vu-Quoc
(1986) presents a post-buckling diagram that is completely symmetric with respect to the
moment axis. This complete diagram is obtained when the analysis proceeds past the
second critical point, and another revolution is performed. After this second revolution
169
the frame returns to the initial planar configuration with the same value of the first critical
moment (i.e., with a positive sign). Although the authors report that there was no
difficulty in subjecting the frame to any number of revolutions about the X axis, it was
not possible to proceed with the analysis after the first revolution with the present
formulation. This was expected since the procedure used to calculate the mean rotation
matrix (using eq.(4.82), is only valid for angles of magnitude less than 360 degrees.
However, the same difficulty is observed when eq. (4.85) is used to compute the mean
rotation triad, which should be valid for arbitrarily large rotations (Crisfield (1990)).
In the present analysis, 153 loading steps were necessary to trace the equilibrium
path reported in Figure 6.21. This result seems satisfactory in comparison with the
analysis carried by Simo and Vu-Quoc (1986), which used 160 steps for one revolution.
The average number of iterations per load step in the present analysis was 5.83.
170
P/2
3P
u
P/2
P/2
Y
20 cm
P/2
3P
400 cm
P/2
2P
40 cm
(columns)
2P P/4
40 cm
2P
2P
400 cm
P/4
20 cm
(beams)
Z
Y
300 cm
E = 19613 MPa
0 = 98 MPa
v = 0.17
400 cm
Figure 6.22
Two-story frame.
171
120
proposed flex. formul.
Abbasnia (1995)
Load P (kN)
100
80
60
40
20
10
20
Figure 6.23
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal Displacement u (cm)
80
90
100
load of the columns in the corners). The wind load is simulated by applying concentrated
loads of 53.376 kN in the Y direction at every joint of the front elevation.
W12x87
W12x53
W10x60
W10x60
W12x26
W12x26
7.315m
7.315m
W12x87
W12x120
Plan
W12x87
H=6x3.658m = 21.948m
W12x53
W12x26
W12x26
X
7.315m
7.315m
Front Elevation
Figure 6.24
The results of the analysis employing the proposed force formulation are
compared with the results obtained by Liew et al. in Figure 6.25. The structure was
idealized with only one force-based element per member. All sections had the same
discretization, with flanges and web discretized with 10 by 2 integration points (with the
coarser discretization along the thickness).
The plots correspond to the relative displacement u/H and v/H in the directions X
and Y, respectively, for the node with coordinates (7.315, 0.0, 21.948).
173
v/H
Load ratio
0.8
proposed flex. formul.
Liew et. al. (2000)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Relative displacements u/H and v/H
Figure 6.25
0.01
0.012
From Figure 6.25, it is observed that the results do not agree precisely, even in the
initial elastic response. The difference in the elastic response is explained by the fact that
the analysis carried by Lie et al considered shear effects Hong (2000), which are
significant in this problem. The average number of iterations per load step for the
proposed formulation was 4.63.
174
Chapter 7
Conclusions
This study extended the planar force-based element with linear elastic material proposed
by Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) to inelastic large displacement analysis. Both the
planar and spatial cases were developed in the present study trying to maintain the same
basic ideas of the original formulation.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study.
The basic equations of the problem, i.e., the compatibility and equilibrium
equations, used in the original work of Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) were kept in the
present planar formulation. Consequently, the expression obtained for the flexibility
matrix is the same. However, a new derivation of the element formulation has been
presented in this work starting from the Hellinger-Reissner functional.
The formulation of the spatial element in the basic system corresponds to an
extension of the planar case (from uniaxial to biaxial bending). In the basic system, the
adopted kinematic assumptions led to linear torsional behavior geometrically uncoupled
from the flexural behavior. The section was assumed planar after deformation, such that
warping effects were neglected. Nonetheless, the flexure-torsion geometric coupling can
be accounted for, using the corotational formulation, as the structural members are
subdivided into smaller elements. This feature was specifically illustrated through
examples 6.7 and 6.8, where the lateral buckling behavior was captured correctly.
As in the original formulation, the CBDI (Curvature Based Displacement
175
Interpolation) procedure was used to determine the transverse displacements from the
curvature at the sample points. To compute the derivatives of the transverse
displacements with respect to the end forces, a new procedure was proposed to include
nonlinear material effects. Regarding the spatial case, although the transverse
displacements are obtained from the corresponding curvatures independently in each
direction, the determination of the derivatives of the displacements with respect to the
end forces is a coupled problem. The interaction is related to the coupled section behavior
(section stiffness) in the case of biaxial-bending in general inelastic sections.
Regarding the symmetry characteristic of the element flexibility matrix, it is
observed that, although the integrand in the expression of this flexibility matrix is nonsymmetric, a symmetric matrix is obtained when numerical integration is performed
using Gauss quadrature. When Gauss-Lobatto quadradure is employed the matrix tends to
be symmetric as the number of integration points increases. For other integration
methods, such as midpoint or trapezoidal rule, the flexibility matrix is non-symmetric
regardless of the number of integration points.
The symmetry property obtained with Gauss or Lobatto rules is probably related
to the use of the CBDI procedure and the orthogonality property of Legendre
polynomials, but this aspect of the formulation requires further study.
For the spatial case, since the global geometric stiffness matrix obtained with the
described corotational formulation is non-symmetric, the issue of symmetry of the
stiffness matrix in the basic system becomes moot. Nonetheless, a symmetric geometric
stiffness matrix could be obtained if other rotation parameters were used, as discussed,
for example, by Crisfield (1997), Ibrahimbegovic (1997), and Pacoste and Eriksson
176
(1997). In such a case, the symmetry of the basic stiffness matrix is relevant.
The described planar corotational formulation is exact, as no simplifications
related to the size of the nodal displacements and rotations are made. In the spatial case it
is usually considered that the nodal rotations are arbitrarily large, but that the difference
between them is small since the deformations along the element are considered moderate.
The spatial corotational formulation proposed by Crisfield (1990), based on this
assumption, was adopted in this work with some modifications.
The most important modification consists in the utilization of a different
expression for the mean rotation triad, which is simpler and allows for a consistent
computation of its variation. The adopted procedure to compute the mean rotation triad
is, however, limited to rotations of magnitude less than 360 degrees. This limitation is by
no means a severe restriction in practical civil engineering applications, and is reasonable
for a large range of other applications in structural mechanics. Nevertheless, for the
solution of other space problems subject to rotations larger than 360 degrees, the original
procedure proposed by Crisfield (1990) or any other corotational formulation that does
not impose this limitation can be used in conjunction with the present force-based
element.
The state determination procedures proposed in the present work have been
implemented in two general purpose finite element programs, FedeasLab and OpenSees4
which are based on the direct stiffness method. It has been observed (although not shown
in this study) that the iterative procedure provides quadratic convergence, while the noniterative approach converges slightly slower. However, for a small interval around the
http://millen.ce.berkeley.edu/index.html
177
178
Although the main motivation for the adoption of force-based elements is the
exactness in the treatment of nonlinear material behavior, some problems with linear
elastic material only (Examples 4, 8 and 9) were studied to demonstrate the capability of
the present element to solve problems in the large deformation range. The good results
are explained by the fact that by using the corotational formulation, as the structural
members are subdivided, the solution naturally approaches the solution provided by a
theory of finite strains, as observed by Pacoste and Eriksson (1997).
Gauss integration, and its possible connection with the orthogonality property of
Legendre polynomials.
b) Extending the formulation for dynamic analysis, through the derivation of a
problems.
e) Investigating the performance of the element to slender reinforced concrete
179
i) Deriving a mixed beam element, where the forces are interpolated using the presented
180
References
Bathe, K.-J., and Bolourchi, S. (1979). Large displacement analysis of threedimensional beam structures. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 14, 961-986.
Belytschko, T., and Glaum, L. W. (1979). Applications of higher order corotational
stretch theories to nonlinear finite element analysis. Comput. Struct., 10, 175182.
Belytschko, T., and Hsieh, J. (1973). Non-linear transient finite element analysis with
convected co-ordinates. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 7, 255-271.
Burgoyne, C. J., and Crisfield, M. A. (1990). Numerical integration strategy for plates
and shells. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 29, 105-121.
Carol, I., and Murcia, J. (1989). Nonlinear time-dependent analysis of planar frames
using an 'exact' formulation - I: Theory. Comput. Struct, 33, 79-87.
Chan, S. L. (1988). Geometric and material non-linear analysis of beam-columns and
frames using the minimum residual displacement method. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Engrg., 26, 2657-2669.
Chebl, C., and Neale, K. W. (1984). A finite element method for elastic-plastic beams
and columns at large deflections. Comput. Struct, 18, 255-261.
Chen, H., and Blandford, G. E. (1993). Work-increment-control method for nonlinear
analysis. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 36, 909-930.
Chen, W. F., and Chan, S. L. (1995). Second-order inelastic analysis of steel frames
using element with midspan and end springs. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 121, 530541.
Chen, W. F., and Liu, E. M. (1991). Stability design of steel frames, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Fl.
Ciampi, V., and Carlesimo, L. (1986). A nonlinear beam element for seismic analysis of
structures. 8th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Cichon, C. (1984). Large displacements in-plane analysis of elastic-plastic frames.
Comput. Struct, 19, 737-745.
Clarke, M. J., and Hancock, G. J. (1990). A study of incremental-iterative strategies for
non-linear analyses. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 29, 1365-1391.
182
Connor, J. J., Logchter, R. D., and Chan, S. C. (1968). Nonlinear analysis of elastic
framed structures. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94(ST6), 1525-1548.
Coulter, B. A., and Miller, R. E. (1988). Numerical analysis of a generalized plane
'elastica' with non-linear material behaviour. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 26,
617-630.
Crisfield, M. A. (1990). A consistent co-rotational formulation for non-linear, three
dimensional beam elements. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg, 81, 131-150.
Crisfield, M. A. (1991). Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Crisfield, M. A. (1997). Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures Advanced topics, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Crisfield, M. A., and Moita, G. F. (1996). A unified co-rotational framework for solids,
shells and beams. Int. J. for Solids & Structs., 33(20-22), 2969-2992.
El-Zanaty, M. H., and Murray, D. W. (1983). Nonlinear finite element analysis of steel
frames. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 109, 353-369.
El-Zanaty, M. H., Murray, D. W., and Bjorhovde, R. (1980). Inelastic behavior of
multistory steel frames. Struct. Engrg. Rep. No. 83, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Frish-Fay, R. (1962). Flexible bars, Butterworths, London.
Gendy, A. S., and Saleeb, A. F. (1993). Generalized yield surface representations in the
elasto-plastic three-dimensional analysis of frames. Comput. Struct, 49(2), 351362.
Grubin, C. (1970). Derivation of the quaternion scheme via the Euler axis and angle.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 7, 1261-1263.
Gruttmann, F., Sauer, R., and Wagner, W. (1998). A geometric nonlinear eccentric 3Dbeam element with arbitrary cross-sections. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Engrg., 160, 383-400.
Gummadi, L. N. B., and Palazotto, A. N. (1998). Large strain analysis of beams and
arches undergoing large rotations. Int. J. Non-Linear Mechanics, 33(4), 615-645.
183
184
185
Mar, A. R., Esmond, C. C., and Scordelis, A. C. (1984). Nonlinear material, geometric
and time dependent analysis of 3-d reinforced and prestressed concrete frames.
Num. Meth. Non. Lin. Prob., Swansea, U. K, 339-352.
Mattiasson, K. (1981). Numerical results from large deflection beam and frame
problems analyzed by means of elliptic integrals. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg.,
17, 145-153.
Mattiasson, K., Bengtsson, A., and Samuelsson, A. (1985). On the accuracy and
efficiency of numerical algorithms for geometrically nonlinear structural
analysis. Finite Element Methods for Nonlinear Problems, Europe-US
Symposium, Trondheim, Norway.
Mattiasson, K., and Samuelsson, A. (1984). Total and updated Lagrangian forms of the
co-rotational finite element formulation in geometrically and materially nonlinear
analysis. Num. Meth. Non. Lin. Prob., Swansea, U. K, 134-151.
Meek, J. L., and Tan, H. S. (1984). Geometrically nonlinear analysis of space frames by
an incremental iterative technique. Comput. Methods Appl. Mechs. Engrg., 47,
261-262.
Meek, J. L., and Xue, Q. (1998). A study on the instability problem for 3D frames.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg, 158, 235-254.
Monti, G., and Spacone, E. (2000). Reinforced Concrete fiber beam element with bondslip. J. Struct. Engrg., 126(6), 654-661.
Nedergaard, H., and Pedersen, P. T. (1985). Analysis procedure for space frames with
material and geometrical nonlinearities. Finite Element Methods for Nonlinear
Problems, Europe-US Symposium, Trondheim, Norway, I-16-1 to I.16-20.
Neuenhofer, A., and Filippou, F. C. (1997). Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite-element
models. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 123, 958-966.
Neuenhofer, A., and Filippou, F. C. (1998). Geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based
frame finite element. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124, 704-711.
Nour-Omid, B., and Rankin, C. C. (1991). Finite rotation analysis and consistent
linearization using projectors. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 93, 353384.
186
Oran, C. (1973a). Tangent Stiffness in plane frames. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(ST6),
973-985.
Oran, C. (1973b). Tangent Stiffness in space frames. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(ST6),
987-1001.
Oran, C., and Kassimali, A. (1976). Large deformations of framed structures under static
and dynamic loads. Comput. Struct., 6(539-547).
Ovunc, B. A., and Ren, T. (1996). Nonlinearities in the Analysis of Frames. Comput.
Struct., 61(6), 1177-1184.
Pacoste, C., and Eriksson, A. (1997). Beam elements in instability problems. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 144(1-2), 163-197.
Park, M. S., and Lee, B. C. (1996). Geometrically non-linear and elastoplastic threedimensional shear flexible beam element of Von-Mises-type hardening material.
Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 39(3), 383-408.
Petrangeli, M., and Ciampi, V. (1997). Equilibrium based iterative solutions for the nonlinear beam problem. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 40, 423-437.
Petrangeli, M., Pinto, P. E., and Ciampi, C. (1999). Fiber element for cyclic bending and
shear of RC structures. I: Theory. J. Engrg. Mech. , ASCE, 125(9), 994-1001.
Powell, G. H. (1969). Theory of nonlinear elastic structures. J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
95(ST12), 2687-1969.
Rankin, C. C., and Brogan, F. A. (1984). An element-independent corotational
procedure for the treatment of large rotations. Collapse analyses of structures,
ASME, New York, 85-100.
Ranzo, G., and Petrangeli, M. (1998). A fibre finite beam element with section shear
modelling for seismic analysis of RC structures. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 2(3), 443-473.
Reissner, E. (1972). On one-dimensional finite-strain beam theory: The plane problem.
J. Appl. Math. Phys (ZAMP), 23, 795-804.
Reissner, E. (1981). On finite deformations of space-curved beams. J. Appl. Math.
Phys (ZAMP), 32, 734-744.
187
Spring, K. W. (1986). Euler parameters and the use of quaternion algebra in the
manipulation of finite rotations: a review. Mechanism and Machine Theory,
21(5), 365-373.
Spurrier, R. A. (1978). Comment on singularity-free extraction of a quaternion from a
direction-cosine matrix. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 15(4), 255-256.
Teh, L. H., and Clarke, M. J. (1998). Co-rotational and Lagrangian formulations for
elastic three-dimensional beam finite elements. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 48, 123-144.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of plates and shells,
McGraw-Hill.
Tuomala, M. T. E., and Mikkola, M. J. (1984). Comparative study on the nonlinear
response of plane frames and arches. Num. Meth. Non. Lin. Prob., Swansea, U.
K, 203-214.
Waszczyszyn, Z., and Janus-Michalska, M. (1998). Numerical approach to the 'exact'
finite element analysis of in-plane finite displacements of framed structures.
Comput. Struct., 69, 525-535.
White, D. W. (1985). Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behavior
in steel frames using interactive computer graphics, MS, Cornell Univ., Ithaca,
N.Y.
Williams, F. W. (1964). An Approach to the non-linear behaviour of the members of a
rigid jointed plane framework with finite deflections. Quart. Journ. Mech. and
Applied Math, 17(Pt. 4), 451-469.
Wood, R. D., and Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1977). Geometrically nonlinear finite element
analysis of beams, frames, arches, and axisymmetric shells. Comput. Struct., 7,
725-735.
Ziemian, R. D., McGuire, W., and Deierlein, G. G. (1992). Inelastic limit states design.
Part I: Planar frame studies. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 118(2532-2549).
189
Appendix A
Derivation of the CBDI Influence Matrix
The first step for the derivation of the CBDI influence matrix consists in interpolating the
curvature field ( ) in terms of curvature values j = ( j ) at integration points j
n
( ) = l j ( ) j ,
j =1
x
L
(A.1)
l j ( ) =
i =1,i j
n
i =1,i j
( i )
(A.2)
( j i )
( x) = v( x) , i.e., the function v(x) is obtained integrating the curvature field ( x) twice
v( x) = ( x)dx dx = L2 ( )d d
(A.3)
ln ( ) = 1 2
190
n 1 G 1
(A.4)
1n 1
1 1 12
G=
2
1 n n
nn 1
(A.5)
which depends only on the number and location of the integration points i , i = 1,, n .
From eqs. (A.1), (A.3) and (A.4), the displacements are obtained as
2
v( x) = L2
2
n +1
G 1 + c1 + c2
n (n + 1)
3
6
(A.6)
The integration constants c1 and c2 are determined using the boundary conditions
v(0) = v( L) = 0 (see Figure 2.4). Thus,
c1 = L2
1
2
1
6
1
G 1
n (n + 1)
(A.7)
c2 = 0
1 2
1 3
( )
( )
2
6
1
( n +1 ) G 1
n(n + 1)
(A.8)
= L2 l j ( ) j = L2 l ( )
j =1
where
l ( ) =
1 2
( )
2
1 3
( )
6
1
( n +1 ) G 1
n (n + 1)
(A.9)
191
j =1
j =1
vi = v (i ) = L2 l j (i ) j = lij* j
i = 1,, n
(A.10)
(A.11)
l* = L2
1 ( n 2 n ) 1 ( n3 n )
2
6
(1n +1 1 )
n (n + 1)
1
G
1
n +1
( n n )
n (n + 1)
(A.12)
such that
v = l*
(A.13)
192
Appendix B
Rotation of a Triad via the Smallest Rotation
This appendix presents the derivation of the expressions given in Section 3.7, for rotating
a triad P = [p1 p 2 p3 ] such that one of its unit vectors, say p1 , coincides with another
independent unit vector, say e1 , via the smallest possible rotation.
The expression for the rotation matrix was obtained in Section 3.7 and is repeated
here for convenience.
R = I + S(p1 e1 ) +
1
1 + p1Te1
S(p1 e1 )S(p1 e1 )
(B.1)
The triad E = [e1 e 2 e3 ] is determined by rotating the triad P with the rotation
matrix R given in eq. (B.1)
E = [e1 e 2
e3 ] = R[p1 p 2
p3 ] = RP
(B.2)
1
1 + p1Te1
(B.3)
(B.4)
(B.5)
such that
193
and
S(p1 e1 )S(p1 e1 )pi = p1T (p1Tpi )e1 (e1Tpi )p1 e1
T
T
T
= (p1 e1 )(p1 pi ) (e1 pi ) e1
(B.6)
Substitution of eqs. (B.5) and (B.6) into eq. (B.3), with i = 1 , gives
e1 = Rp1 = p1 + S(p1 e1 )p1 +
1
1 + p1Te1
1
1 + p1Te1
{(p
T
T
T
1 e1 )(p1 p1 ) (e1 p1 ) e1
1
1 (p1Te1 ) 2 p1
= p1 + e1 (e1Tp1 )p1
T
1 + p1 e1
(B.7)
= e1
1 + p1Te1
e1Tpi
T
= pi (e1 pi )p1 +
1 + p1Te1
{(e
T
1 p i )e1 +
e1 + (e1Tp1 )p1
e + (e1Tp1 )p1
= pi + (e1Tpi ) p1 +
T 1
1 + p1 e1
194
(e1Tp1 )(e1Tpi ) p1
(B.8)
bi = e1Tpi
(B.9)
1
ei = pi + bi p1 +
[ e1 + b1p1 ]
1 + b1
b
= pi + i ( p1 b1p1 e1 + b1p1 )
1 + b1
= pi
(B.10)
bi
( p1 + e1 )
1 + b1
Consequently
ei = p i
pi Te1
1 + p1Te1
( p1 + e1 )
which confirms the relationship given in eqs. (3.77) and (3.78) (for i = 2,3 ).
195
(B.11)
Appendix C
Derivation of the Spatial Geometric Stiffness Matrix
This appendix presents a detailed derivation of the spatial geometric stiffness matrix,
related to the inclusion of rigid body modes in the transformation from the basic to the
global coordinate system.
The geometric stiffness matrix is given by eq. (4.127) being repeated here for
convenience
KG =
TT
:P
(C.1)
such that
6
TT P = t s Ps = K G D
(C.2)
s =1
where t s are the variations of the rows of matrix T. Thus, the geometric stiffness matrix
is easily obtained by taking the variations of each row t s and multiplying the result by
the corresponding basic forces Ps .
It is convenient to rewrite the final expression for the geometric stiffness matrix
as a summation of several matrices, such that
KG = K A + K B + KC + K D + K E + K F
(C.3)
The first term K A is obtained by taking the variation of eq. (4.115), and
considering eq. (4.108)
196
t1T
e1 A U IJ A
0
0
0
=
=
=
e1 A U IJ A
0
0
0
0 A 0
0 0 0
D
0 A 0
0 0 0
(C.4)
thus
P1 t1T = K A D
(C.5)
where
A
0
K A = P1
A
0 A 0
0 0 0
0 A 0
0 0 0
(C.6)
For the computation of some of the remaining terms in eq. (C.3), it is necessary to
compute the variation of the matrix vector product
1
Az = [I e1e1T ]z
l
1
= [z e1 (e1T z )]
l
(C.7)
with A being given in eq. (4.109) and z being a constant vector. Thus, using eq. (4.107)
and (4.108), gives
Az =
1
l
l
1
1
= Az l [(e1T z ) A + e1 (z T A)] U IJ
l
l
1
1
= Aze1T U IJ [(e1T z ) A + e1 (z T A)] U IJ
l
l
T
1
= M1 (z ) U IJ
where
197
(C.8)
1
M1 (z ) = Aze1T + Aze1T
l
+ A(e1T z )
(C.9)
is a symmetric matrix.
It is also necessary to compute the variation of the matrix vector product
L1 ( rk )z =
1 T
rk e1Az + Ark (e1 + r1 )T z
(C.10)
with L1 ( rk ) being given in eq. (4.112), and z being a constant vector. Thus
1
L1 ( rk )z = Az (e1T rk ) + Az ( rk T e1 ) + ( rk Te1 ) Az
2
)
) (
)(
1
= ( Azrk T + Ark z T ) e1 + ( Aze1T + (e1 + r1 )T zA ) rk
2
(C.11)
Substitution of eqs. (4.106), (4.108), and (C.8) into eq. (C.11) gives
(
(
1
Azrk T A + Ark z T A + rk Te1M1 (z ) + (e1 + r1 )T zM1 ( rk ) U IJ
2
1
Aze1TS( rk ) + (e1 + r1 )T zAS( rk ) + Ark z TS( r1 ) ( I + J )
4
L1 ( rk )z =
(C.12)
(C.13)
where
(
(
1
Azrk T A + Ark z T A + rk Te1M1 (z ) + (e1 + r1 )T zM1 ( rk )
2
1
g12 ( rk , z ) = Aze1TS( rk ) + (e1 + r1 )T zAS( rk ) + Ark z TS( r1 )
4
g11 ( rk , z ) =
(C.14)
L 2 ( rk )z =
1
2S( rk )z ( rk Te1 )S( r1 )z S( rk )e1 (e1 + r1 )T z
(C.15)
with L1 ( rk ) being given in eq. (4.112), and z being a constant vector. Thus,
1
L 2 ( rk )z = 2S( rk )z ( rk Te1 )S( r1 )z S( r1 )z ( rk T e1 + e1T rk )
4
S( rk )e1 z T ( e1 + r1 )
1
= S( r1 )zrk T + (e1 + r1 )T zS( rk ) + S( rk )e1z T e1
4
(
)
+ ( 2S(z ) S( r )ze + (e + r ) zS(e ) ) r
1
= ( S( r )zr A + (e + r ) zS( r ) A + S( r )e z A ) U
4
1
+ ( ( r e )S(z )S( r ) + S( r )e z S( r ) + 2S(z )S( r )
8
+ S( r )ze S( r ) (e + r ) zS(e )S( r ) ) ( +
+ ( rk Te1 )S(z ) S( rk )e1z T r1
T
1
T
1
IJ
(C.16)
L 2 ( rk )z = g 21 ( rk , z ) g 22 ( rk , z ) g 21 ( rk , z ) g 22 ( rk , z ) D
(C.17)
where
(
(
1
S( r1 )zrk T A + (e1 + r1 )T zS( rk ) A + S( rk )e1z T A
4
1
g 22 ( rk , z ) = ( rk Te1 )S(z )S( r1 ) + S( rk )e1z TS( r1 ) + 2S(z )S( rk )
8
g 21 ( rk , z ) =
199
(C.18)
L1 ( rk )z
L ( r )z
L( rk )z = 2 k = G ( rk , z ) D
L1 ( rk )z
L 2 ( rk )z
(C.19)
where
g12
g11
g
g 22
G ( rk , z ) = 21
g11 g12
g 21 g 22
g11
g 21
g11
g 21
g12
g 22
D
g12
g 22
(C.20)
It is observed that
g 21 ( rk , z ) = g12 ( rk , z )T
(C.21)
and that the matrix g11 ( rk , z ) is symmetric. However, due to the non-symmetry of matrix
g 22 ( rk , z ) , the matrix G ( rk , z ) is non-symmetric.
The variation of the second row of matrix T is obtained from the first of eqs.
(4.123)
t 2T =
+
1
L( r2 )n I 1 + h I 3 I 3 tan I 3
2cos I 3
1
L( r2 )n I 1 + L( r2 ) n I 1 + h I 3
2cos I 3
+
= tan I 3t 2T t 2 D
(C.22)
1
L( r2 )n I 1 + L( r2 ) n I 1 + h I 3
2cos I 3
The variation of the remaining rows are computed in a similar maner, and result
in
200
+
t 3T = tan J 3t 3T t 3D
1
L( r2 )n J 1 + L( r2 ) n J 1 + h J 3
2cos J 3
+
t 4T = tan I 2t 4T t 4D
1
L( r3 )n I 1 L( r3 ) n I 1 h I 2
2cos I 2
+
t 5T = tan J 2t 5T t 5D
1
L( r3 )n J 1 L( r3 ) n J 1 h J 2
2cos J 2
+
t 6T = tan J 1t 6 J T t 6 J D
1
L( r3 )n J 2 + L( r3 ) n J 2
2cos J 1
(C.23)
L( r2 )n J 3 L( r2 ) n J 3 + h J 1
tan I 1t 6 I T t 6 I D
1
L( r3 )n I 2 + L( r3 ) n I 2
2cos I 1
L( r2 )n I 3 L( r2 ) n I 3 + h I 1
where
t6J =
t6I
T
1
L( r3 )n J 2 L( r2 )n J 3 + h J 1
2cos J 1
T
1
L( r3 )n I 2 L( r2 )n I 3 + h I 1
=
2cos I 1
(C.24)
(C.25)
For the description of the remaining matrices, it is useful to define the following
scaled basic forces
m2 =
P2
2cos I 3
P5
m5 =
2cos J 2
m3 =
m6 I
P3
2cos J 3
P6
=
2cos I 1
201
m4 =
m6 J
P4
2cos I 2
P6
=
2cos J 1
(C.26)
+ m6 I G ( r3 , n J 2 ) G ( r2 , n J 3 ) m6 J G ( r3 , n I 2 ) G ( r2 , n I 3 )
(C.27)
= m L( r ) n + m L( r ) n m L( r ) n m L( r ) n
K D D
2
2
I1
3
2
J1
4
3
I1
5
3
J1
+ m6 J L( r3 ) n J 2 L( r2 ) n J 3 m6 I L( r3 ) n I 2 L( r2 ) n I 3
(C.28)
thus
K D = 0 K D 2
0 K D 4
(C.29)
where
K D 2 = L( r2 ) ( m2S(n I 1 ) + m6 I S(n I 3 ) ) + L( r3 ) ( m4S(n I 1 ) + m6 I S(n I 2 ) )
(C.30)
0 K E 4T
(C.31)
202
(C.32)
= K D 2T D
The term K E 4 is related to the fourth block rows of matrices h J 1 , h J 2 and
h J 3 , such that
= m S(n ) e m S(n ) e + m ( S(n ) e S(n ) e )
K E 4 D
3
J1
2
5
J1
3
6J
J2
3
J3
2
= ( m3S(n J 1 ) m6 J S(n J 3 ) ) e 2 + ( m5S(n J 1 ) + m6 I S(n J 2 ) )
(C.33)
= K D 4T D
Therefore,
K E = K DT
(C.34)
Matrix K F comes from the remaining terms of vectors like h I 3 , having the
following block row matrices
= m ( An + A n ) + m ( An + A n )
K F 1 D
2
I2
I2
3
J2
J2
m4 ( An I 3 + A n I 3 ) m5 ( An J 3 + A n J 3 )
+ ( m3AS(n J 2 ) + m5 AS(n J 3 ) ) J
203
(C.35)
= m ( S( n )e S( n )e S(n ) e ) m ( S( n )e
K F 2 D
2
I1 2
I2 1
I2
1
4
I1 3
(C.36)
+ m4 ( An I 3 + A n I 3 ) + m5 ( An J 3 + A n J 3 )
(C.37)
+ ( m2 AS(n I 2 ) m4 AS(n I 3 ) ) I
+ ( m3AS(n J 2 ) m5 AS(n J 3 ) ) J
= m ( S( n )e S( n )e S(n ) e ) m ( S( n )e
K F 4 D
3
J1 2
J2 1
J2
1
5
J1 3
S( n J 3 )e1 S(n J 3 ) e1 ) + m6 J ( S( n J 2 )e3 S( n J 3 )e 2 )
(C.38)
The symmetry relations among eqs. (C.35) to (C.38) allow for the computation of
matrix K F as
K F 12
K F 11
T
K F 22
K F12
KF =
K
K F12
F 11
K F T
0
14
K F11
K F 12T
K F 11
K F 14T
where
204
K F14
0
K F14
K F 44
(C.39)
205
(C.40)