Drop Test Ansys Vs Dyna

Comparison of ANSYS and LS-DYNA
for Performing Drop Test Simulation
Presented By:
Rich Bothmann
Analysis Services Division Manager
IMPACT Engineering Solutions
©2007 – IMPACT Engineering Solutions, Inc. 1

Performing Drop Tests
What analysis tools can we use?
ANSYS Implicit?
LS-DYNA?
What elements can we use for a given software?
Shells?
Bricks?
Tets?
www.impactengsol.com 2
©2005 – IMPACT Engineering Solutions, Inc.
Implicit vs Explicit
Implicit
Iterates until equilibrium is obtained
If equilibrium is not obtained, time step decreased and matrices
are recalculated
Explicit
Diagonal Mass Matrix allows uncoupling of equations
Unconditionally stable for time step less than critical value
Range of Structural Problems
Typical 2 meter
drop test velocity
Selecting Elements For Explicit Solvers
Linear elements with reduced integration
points significantly more efficient than full
integration or 2nd order elements.
Reduced integration elements
susceptible to hourglassing (zero energy
modes). Although methods exist to deal
with it, these same methods can
negatively affect results.
Reduced integration elements also more
sensitive to variations in element shape.
To use these elements you must have
nice shaped quad or brick mesh
Meshing Requirements
Many parts that require drop testing do not easily
accommodate shell or brick meshing.
What about Tets?
ANSYS SOLID92 or SOLID187
LS-DYNA Solid168
Accuracy Impact?
Performance Impact?
SOLID168 History
ANSYS & LSTC state SOLID168 not good for high
velocity impacts (i.e. ballistics)
IMPACT also ran studies on SOLID168 that were
not favorable.
New studies show it in a better light.
Old Studies on
SOLID168
SOLID 164 vs SOLID 168

Normalized Run Time = 1
New Comparison
of SOLID168 Tet to
SOLID164 Brick
Displacement vs. Time
Solid164 Brick
Solid168 Tet
Stress vs. Time

10
How About for a Real Drop Test?
Conditions
2 meter drop
Lexan 141
Bilinear Isotropic
0.050 wall
Elements Evaluated
ANSYS (185, 187)
DYNA (164, 168)
11
How About for a Real Drop Test?
4 bricks through 2 tets through

thickness thickness
Bricks Tets
ANSYS SOLID185, 8 Nodes, Full SOLID187, 10 Nodes, Full
Integration Integration
LS-Dyna Solid164, 8 Nodes, Reduced Solid168, 10 Nodes,
Integration Reduced Integration
12
Comparing the Results
Post1/Powergraphics On
SEQV EPTOEQV EPPLEQV
ANSYS LSDYNA % Diff ANSYS LSDYNA % Diff ANSYS LSDYNA % Diff
Shells 37960 30207 20.42 1.1280 1.1150 1.15 1.0270 0.9871 3.89
Bricks 24073 24725 -2.71 0.4129 0.6609 -60.06 0.3520 0.3854 -9.49
Tets 26774 25674 4.11 0.5388 0.7197 -33.57 0.4710 0.4290 8.92
% Diff Brick to Tet -11.22 -3.84 -30.49 -8.90 -33.81 -11.31
Post26/Powergraphics Off
ANSYS LSDYNA % Diff ANSYS LSDYNA % Diff ANSYS LSDYNA % Diff
Shells 39494 30207 23.51 1.1280 0.7833 30.56 1.0270 0.6938 32.44
Bricks 23825 24725 -3.78 0.4129 0.4418 -7.00 0.3520 0.3854 -9.49
Tets 26087 23859 8.54 0.5107 0.4342 14.98 0.4445 0.3528 20.63
% Diff Brick to Tet -9.49 3.50 -23.69 1.72 -26.28 8.46
% Diff Powergraphics On vs. Off

ANSYS LSDYNA ANSYS LSDYNA ANSYS LSDYNA
Shells -3.88 0.00 0.00 42.35 0.00 42.27
Bricks 1.04 0.00 0.00 49.59 0.00 0.00
Tets 2.63 7.61 5.50 65.75 5.96 21.60
13
Conclusions of Results
Part too thick to model with shells
Plastic strain (EPPLEQV) artificially high in POST1 for
DYNA. This is due to combined effect of Powergraphics
and EF NU=0
Percent difference between tets and bricks less than 5% for
DYNA. SOLID168 acceptable for use in drop tests.
Tets in ANSYS reported 10-30% higher result values.
Run times were an order of magnitude longer in ANSYS.
Not surprising considering full integration elements being
used
14
Suggestions for Evaluating Results in LS-
DYNA
Determine Max Plastic Strain Location (Node) in Post1.
Set LAYER,FCMAX
In Post26 plot EPPLEQV and EPELEQV for node. Add
these two together to determine true EPTOEQV
Compare this value to your failure criteria.
Look at hourglass energy from GLSTAT file. Rule of thumb
is less than 5%.
Reaction values best found using LSPost
System mass can be calculated from KE and Global
velocity found in GLSTAT.
15
Post1 Results vs. Post26
16
Drop Test Examples
Saw Foot Drop Test, ANSYS Implicit, SOLID92

17
Drop Test Examples
Cell Phone Drop Test, LS-DYNA, SOLID164 & SOLID168

18
Drop Test Examples
Power Tool Attachment Drop Test, ANSYS Implicit, SOLID92

19
Drop Test Examples
Router Drop Test, LS-DYNA, SHELL163

20

Drop Test Ansys Vs Dyna

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drop Test Ansys Vs Dyna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of ANSYS and LS-DYNA

for Performing Drop Test Simulation

©2007 – IMPACT Engineering Solutions, Inc. 1

Unconditionally stable for time step less than critical value

SOLID 164 vs SOLID 168

Displacement vs. Time

Stress vs. Time

4 bricks through 2 tets through

% Diff Powergraphics On vs. Off

Saw Foot Drop Test, ANSYS Implicit, SOLID92

Cell Phone Drop Test, LS-DYNA, SOLID164 & SOLID168

Power Tool Attachment Drop Test, ANSYS Implicit, SOLID92

Router Drop Test, LS-DYNA, SHELL163

You might also like