• Aucun résultat trouvé

Discontinuous Galerkin methods for solid mechanics: Application to fracture, shells & strain gradient elasticity

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Discontinuous Galerkin methods for solid mechanics: Application to fracture, shells & strain gradient elasticity"

Copied!
31
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Discontinuous Galerkin methods for solid

mechanics:

Application to fracture, shells & strain gradient

elasticity

Ludovic Noels

Computational & Multiscale Mechanics of Materials, ULg Chemin des Chevreuils 1, B4000 Liège, Belgium

L.Noels@ulg.ac.be

Universiteit Gent - October 2009 University of Liège

(2)

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

• Main idea

– Finite-element discretization

– Same discontinuous polynomial approximations for the • Test functions ϕh and

• Trial functions δϕ

– Definition of operators on the interface trace: • Jump operator:

• Mean operator:

– Continuity is weakly enforced, such that the method • Is consistent

• Is stable

• Has the optimal convergence rate

(a-1)- (a-1)+ (a)-

(a)+(a+1)-X

(a+1)+

(3)

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

• Discontinuous Galerkin methods vs Continuous

– More expensive (more degrees of freedom) – More difficult to implement

– …

• So why discontinuous Galerkin methods?

– Weak enforcement of C1 continuity for high-order equations

• Strain-gradient effect

• Shells with complex material behaviors

• Toward high-order computational homogenization

– Exploitation of the discontinuous mesh to simulate dynamic fracture [Seagraves, Jérusalem, Noels, Radovitzky, col. ULg-MIT]:

• Correct wave propagation before fracture • Easy to parallelize & scalable

(4)

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

• Continuous field / discontinuous derivative

– No new nodes – Weak enforcement of C1 continuity – Displacement formulations of high-order differential equations

– Usual shape functions in 3D (no new requirement) – Applications to

• Beams, plates [Engel et al., CMAME 2002; Hansbo & Larson, CALCOLO 2002; Wells & Dung, CMAME 2007]

• Linear & non-linear shells [Noels & Radovitzky, CMAME 2008; Noels IJNME 2009]

• Damage & Strain Gradient [Wells et al., CMAME 2004; Molari, CMAME 2006;

(a-1) (a)

X

(a+1)

(5)

Topics

• Key principles of DG methods

– Illustration on volume FE

• Discontinuous Mesh & Dynamic Fracture

• Kirchhoff-Love shells

– Kinematics

– Non-Linear shells – Numerical examples

• Strain gradient elasticity

(6)

Key principles of DG methods

• Application to non-linear mechanics

– Formulation in terms of the first Piola stress tensor P

&

– New weak formulation obtained by integration by parts on

(7)

Key principles of DG methods

• Interface term rewritten as the sum of 3 terms

– Introduction of the numerical flux h

• Has to be consistent: • One possible choice:

– Weak enforcement of the compatibility

– Stabilization controlled by parameter β, for all mesh sizes hs

– Those terms can also be explicitly derived from a variational formulation (Hu-Washizu-de Veubeke functional)

(8)

Key principles of DG methods

• Numerical applications

– Properties for a polynomial approximation of order k

• Consistent, stable for β >Ck, convergence in the e-norm in k

• Explicit time integration with conditional stability • High scalability

– Examples

Taylor’s impact Wave propagation

(9)

Key principles of DG methods

• Numerical applications

– Application to oligo-crystal plasticity

Aluminum oligo crystal sample

Dogbone tensile test sample

Grain profile from EBSD measurement

Mesh setup according to orientation mapping Oligo crystal sample preparation: MIT + Alcoa.

Sample cutting, polishing & Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD): Caltech + MIT (Z. Zhao).

Tensile test & Digital image correlation (DIC): Rutgers (S. Kuchnicki, A. Cuitino) + MIT.

(10)

Key principles of DG methods

• Numerical applications

– Application to oligo-crystal plasticity

(11)

Discontinuous Mesh & Dynamic Fracture

• Dynamic fracture

– Fracture: a gradual process of separation which occurs in small regions of material adjacent to the tip of a forming crack: the cohesive zone [Dugdale 1960, Barrenblatt 1962, …]

– Separation is resisted to by a cohesive traction – 2-parameter cohesive law

• Peak cohesive traction σmax (spall strength) • Fracture energy Gc

• Automatically accounts for time scale [Camacho & Ortiz, 1996]

• Intrinsic law vs Extrinsic law

Failure criterion external to the cohesive law

Failure criterion incorporated within the cohesive law

(12)

Discontinuous Mesh & Dynamic Fracture

• Finite element discretization & interface elements

– The cohesive law is integrated on an interface element inserted between two adjacent tetrahedra [Ortiz & Pandolfi 1999]

– Potential structure of the cohesive law:

[Ortiz & Pandolfi 1999]

• Effective opening in terms of βc the ratio between the shear and normal critical tractions:

• Definition of a potential: • Interface traction:

(13)

Discontinuous Mesh & Dynamic Fracture

• Two methods

– Intrinsic Law

• Cohesive elements inserted from the beginning • Drawbacks:

– Efficient if a priori knowledge of the crack path – Mesh dependency [Xu & Needelman, 1994]

– Initial slope modifies the effective elastic modulus – This slope should tend to infinity [Klein et al. 2001]:

» Alteration of a wave propagation » Critical time step is reduced

– Extrinsic Law

• Cohesive elements inserted on the fly when failure criterion is verified [Ortiz & Pandolfi 1999]

• Drawback

– Complex implementation in 3D (parallelization)

• New DG/extrinsic method

[Seagraves, Jerusalem, Radovitzky, Noels]

– Interface elements inserted from the beginning

(14)

Discontinuous Mesh & Dynamic Fracture

• New DG/extrinsic method:

[Seagraves, Jerusalem, Radovitzky, Noels, col. MIT & ULg]

– Numerical application: the spall test

• Two opposite waves interact at the center of the specimen • The interaction leads to stresses higher than the spall stress • The specimen breaks exactly at its middle

(15)

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

• Continuous field / discontinuous derivative

– No new nodes – Weak enforcement of C1 continuity – Displacement formulations of high-order differential equations

– Usual shape functions in 3D (no new requirement) – Applications to

• Beams, plates [Engel et al., CMAME 2002; Hansbo & Larson, CALCOLO 2002; Wells & Dung, CMAME 2007]

• Linear & non-linear shells [Noels & Radovitzky, CMAME 2008; Noels IJNME 2009]

• Damage & Strain Gradient [Wells et al., CMAME 2004; Molari, CMAME 2006; Bala-Chandran et al. 2008]

(a-1) (a)

X

(a+1)

(16)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Description of the thin body

• Deformation mapping

• Shearing is neglected

& the gradient of thickness stretch neglected

E1 E2 E3 ξ1 ξ2 A ξ2=cst ξ1=cst Φ0=ϕ0(ξ1, ξ2)+ξ3t0(ξ1, ξ2) t0 ξ1=cst ξ 2 = cst t S S0 χ = Φ°Φ0-1 Φ=ϕ(ξ1, ξ2)+ξ3t1, ξ2) with & & Mapping of the mid-surface

Mapping of the normal to the mid-surface

Thickness stretch

(17)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Resultant equilibrium equations:

– Linear momentum – Angular momentum

– In terms of resultant stresses:

of resultant applied tension and torque and of the mid-surface Jacobian

(18)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Non-linear material behavior

– Through the thickness integration by Simpson’s rule – At each Simpson point

• Internal energy W(C=FTF) with

• Iteration on the thickness ratio in order to reach

the plane stress assumption σ33=0

– Simpson’s rule leads to the resultant stresses:

(19)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Non-linear discontinuous Galerkin formulation

– New weak form obtained from the momentum equations

– Integration by parts on each element Ae

– Across 2 elements δ t is discontinuous

A e-Ah NAh UA e-Ae+ NAe+ S ν− Se- Se+ I A e -UAh IAh Φ=ϕ(ξ1, ξ2)+ξ3t(ξ1, ξ2)

(20)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Interface terms rewritten as the sum of 3 terms

– Introduction of the numerical flux h

• Has to be consistent: • One possible choice:

– Weak enforcement of the compatibility

– Stabilization controlled by parameter β, for all mesh sizes hs

Linearization leads to the material tangent modulii Hm

(21)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• New weak formulation

• Implementation

– Shell elements

• Membrane and bending responses

• 2x2 (4x4) Gauss points for bi-quadratic (bi-cubic) quadrangles

– Interface elements • 3 contributions

• 2 (4) Gauss points for quadratic (cubic) meshes

• Contributions of neighboring shells evaluated at these points

S

e-Se+ ν

(22)

-Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Pinched open hemisphere

– Properties:

• 18-degree hole

• Thickness 0.04 m; Radius 10 m • Young 68.25 MPa; Poisson 0.3

– Comparison of the DG methods

• Quadratic, cubic & distorted el.

with literature A B 0 200 400 600 800 0 5 10 15 20 δ (m ) δ x A=-δ yB, linear -δ yB, 12 bi-quad. el. δ xA, 12 bi-quad. el. -δ yB, 8 bi-cubic el. δ xA, 8 bi-cubic el. -δ y

B, 8 bi-cubic el. dist. δ xA, 8 bi-cubic el. dist. -δ yB, Areias et al. 2005 δ x

(23)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Pinched open hemisphere

Influence of the stabilization Influence of the mesh size parameter

– Stability if β > 10

– Order of convergence in the L2-norm in k+1

100 101 102 103 104 0 2 4 6 8 10 β δ (m ) -δ yB, 12 bi-quad. el. δ x A, 12 bi-quad. el. -δ yB, 8 bi-cubic el. δ xA, 8 bi-cubic el. 10-2 10-1 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 1 4 1 3 hs/ R Er ror on δ

(24)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 q (N/m) δ (m )

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Plate ring

– Properties: • Radii 6 -10 m • Thickness 0.03 m

• Young 12 GPa; Poisson 0

– Comparison of DG methods • Quadratic elements with literature A B δ zA, 16x3 bi-quad. el. δ zB, 16x3 bi-quad. el. δ zA, Sansour, Kollmann 2000 δ zB, Sansour, Kollmann 2000 δ zA, Areias et al. 2005 δ zB, Areias et al. 2005

(25)

Kirchhoff-Love Shells

• Clamped cylinder

– Properties:

• Radius 1.016 m; Length 3.048 m; Thickness 0.03 m • Young 20.685 MPa; Poisson

0.3

– Comparison of DG methods

• Quadratic & cubic elements

with literature A 0 500 1000 1500 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 P (N) δ (m ) δ zA, 12 bi-quad. el. δ zA, 8 bi-cubic el. δ zA, Ibrahimbegovic et al. 2001

(26)

Strain-gradient elasticity

• Strain-gradient effect

– Length scales in modern technology are now of the order of the micrometer or nanometer

– At these scales, material laws depend on the strain but also on the strain-gradient

– Example:

• Bi-material tensile test:

• E1/E2 = 4 • Characteristic length l • Differential equation: 1 E2 E L 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 x/L Nor m aliz ed ε Linear elasticity l/L = 0.001 l/L = 0.1 l/L = 0.5

(27)

Strain-gradient elasticity

• Strain-gradient theory of linear elasticity

– At a material point stress is a function of the strain and of the gradient of strain [Toupin 1962, Mindlin 1964]:

• Strain energy depends on the strain and its gradient • Low and high order stresses introduced as the work conjugate of

low and high order strains: and

– Governing PDE obtained from the virtual work statement:

& &

(28)

Strain-gradient elasticity

• Discontinuous Galerkin formulation for strain-gradient theory

– Test functions uh and trial functions δu are C0

– New weak formulation obtained by repeated integrations by

(29)

Strain-gradient elasticity

• Interface term rewritten as the sum of 3 terms

– Introduction of the numerical flux h

• Has to be consistent:

• One possible choice:

– Weak enforcement of the compatibility

– Stabilization controlled by parameter β, for all mesh sizes hs

(30)

• Numerical applications

– Properties for polynomial approximation of order k • Consistent, stable for β >Ck

• Convergence in the e-norm in k-1, but in k+1 in the L2-norm

– Examples

Bi-material tensile test Stress concentration

Strain-gradient elasticity

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 ε YY /ε YY ∞ l/a=0 l/a=1/10 l/a=1/2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Nor m aliz ed ε Classical elasticity Analytical; l/L = 0.1 Numerical; l/L = 0.1; 6 el. Numerical; l/L = 0.1; 18 el. 1 E2 E L

(31)

Conclusions & Perspectives

• Development of a discontinuous Galerkin formulation

– A formulation has been proposed for non-linear dynamics – Application to high-order differential equations

• Strain gradient elasticity • Shells

– Application to dynamic fracture

• Works in progress

– Fracture of thin structures

Références

Documents relatifs

Two discrete functional analysis tools are established for spaces of piecewise polynomial functions on general meshes: (i) a discrete counterpart of the continuous Sobolev

A higher-order discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method (DGSEM) for solv- ing the magnetohydrodynamics equations in two-dimensional domains is presented. A novel hybrid

Methods Partial Differential Equations 12 (1996) p. Dugdale, Yielding of steel sheets containing slits, J. Jirásek, Embedded crack models for concrete fracture, in

KEY WORDS: Discontinuous Galerkin methods; hyperbolic conservation prob- lems; blast; shock detection; anisotropic mesh refinement; adaptive

Considering a one-dimensional problem of debonding of a thin film in the context of Griffith’s theory, we show that the dynamical solution converges, when the speed of loading goes

We consider the development and analysis of local discontinuous Galerkin methods for fractional diffusion problems in one space dimension, characterized by having fractional

Pour étudier l’influence de la prise en compte de la polarisabilité de l’eau sur la structura- tion de l’eau dans des pores d’argiles insaturés nous avons tout d’abord

Mais les stéréotypes du groupe dominant étant les stéréotypes dominants, les sujets du groupe B sont tendanciellement perméables à la stéréotypisation produite par le