壳单元公式作为NLFE参数预测结构耐撞性的对比研究

IF 1.1 Q4 MECHANICS Curved and Layered Structures Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1515/cls-2022-0217
Aditya Rio Prabowo, Ridwan Ridwan, Moritz Braun, Shi Song, Sören Ehlers, Nurman Firdaus, Ristiyanto Adiputra
{"title":"壳单元公式作为NLFE参数预测结构耐撞性的对比研究","authors":"Aditya Rio Prabowo, Ridwan Ridwan, Moritz Braun, Shi Song, Sören Ehlers, Nurman Firdaus, Ristiyanto Adiputra","doi":"10.1515/cls-2022-0217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This work made a comparison of the effects of selected element formulations (EFs) through nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) and physical configurations in scenario design, particularly target locations. The combined results help in quantifying structural performance, focusing on crashworthiness criteria. The analysis involves nonlinear dynamic finite element methods, using an explicit approach applied to an idealized system. This system models ship-to-ship collisions, specifically the interaction between Ro and Ro and cargo reefer vessels, with one striking the other. Summarizing initial NLFEA results reveals that the chosen EF significantly influences the crashworthiness criteria. Notably, differences in formulations lead to different calculation times. The Belytschko–Tsay (BT) EF is the quickest, followed by the Belytschko–Leviathan (BL), with around a 36% difference. Conversely, formulations such as the Hughes–Liu involve much longer processing times, more than twice that of BT. To address the potential impact of shear locking and hourglassing on calculation accuracy during impact, the fully integrated (FI) version of the EF is used. It mitigates these undesired events. For formulations with the same approach, the FI BT formulation suppresses hourglassing effectively, unlike others that show orthogonal hourglassing increments. To ensure reliability, rules were set to assess hourglassing. The criterion is that the ratio of hourglass energy to internal energy should be ≤10%. All formulations meet this criterion and are suitable as geometric models in NLFEA. Regarding reliability and processing time, analyzing the computation time offers insights. Based on calculations, BL is the fastest, followed by Belytschko–Wong–Chiang, while the FI BT formulation takes more time for the same collision case.","PeriodicalId":44435,"journal":{"name":"Curved and Layered Structures","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of shell element formulations as NLFE parameters to forecast structural crashworthiness\",\"authors\":\"Aditya Rio Prabowo, Ridwan Ridwan, Moritz Braun, Shi Song, Sören Ehlers, Nurman Firdaus, Ristiyanto Adiputra\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cls-2022-0217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This work made a comparison of the effects of selected element formulations (EFs) through nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) and physical configurations in scenario design, particularly target locations. The combined results help in quantifying structural performance, focusing on crashworthiness criteria. The analysis involves nonlinear dynamic finite element methods, using an explicit approach applied to an idealized system. This system models ship-to-ship collisions, specifically the interaction between Ro and Ro and cargo reefer vessels, with one striking the other. Summarizing initial NLFEA results reveals that the chosen EF significantly influences the crashworthiness criteria. Notably, differences in formulations lead to different calculation times. The Belytschko–Tsay (BT) EF is the quickest, followed by the Belytschko–Leviathan (BL), with around a 36% difference. Conversely, formulations such as the Hughes–Liu involve much longer processing times, more than twice that of BT. To address the potential impact of shear locking and hourglassing on calculation accuracy during impact, the fully integrated (FI) version of the EF is used. It mitigates these undesired events. For formulations with the same approach, the FI BT formulation suppresses hourglassing effectively, unlike others that show orthogonal hourglassing increments. To ensure reliability, rules were set to assess hourglassing. The criterion is that the ratio of hourglass energy to internal energy should be ≤10%. All formulations meet this criterion and are suitable as geometric models in NLFEA. Regarding reliability and processing time, analyzing the computation time offers insights. Based on calculations, BL is the fastest, followed by Belytschko–Wong–Chiang, while the FI BT formulation takes more time for the same collision case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Curved and Layered Structures\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Curved and Layered Structures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cls-2022-0217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MECHANICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Curved and Layered Structures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cls-2022-0217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MECHANICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文通过非线性有限元分析(NLFEA)比较了选定的元素配方(EFs)和物理配置在场景设计中的效果,特别是目标位置。综合结果有助于量化结构性能,重点是耐撞标准。分析涉及非线性动态有限元方法,采用一种适用于理想系统的显式方法。该系统模拟了船与船的碰撞,特别是Ro和Ro与货物冷藏船之间的相互作用,其中一艘船撞击另一艘船。总结最初的NLFEA结果表明,所选择的EF对耐撞性标准有显著影响。值得注意的是,不同的公式导致不同的计算时间。Belytschko-Tsay (BT) EF是最快的,其次是Belytschko-Leviathan (BL),两者相差约36%。相反,Hughes-Liu等公式的处理时间要长得多,是BT的两倍多。为了解决碰撞过程中剪切锁定和沙漏现象对计算精度的潜在影响,我们使用了完全集成的EF (FI)版本。它减轻了这些不希望发生的事件。对于具有相同方法的配方,FI BT配方有效地抑制沙漏,而不像其他配方显示正交沙漏增量。为了确保可靠性,制定了评估沙漏现象的规则。标准是沙漏能与内能之比应≤10%。所有的公式都符合这一准则,适合作为非线性有限元分析的几何模型。关于可靠性和处理时间,分析计算时间提供了见解。根据计算,BL是最快的,其次是Belytschko-Wong-Chiang,而FI BT公式对于相同的碰撞情况需要更多的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative study of shell element formulations as NLFE parameters to forecast structural crashworthiness
Abstract This work made a comparison of the effects of selected element formulations (EFs) through nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) and physical configurations in scenario design, particularly target locations. The combined results help in quantifying structural performance, focusing on crashworthiness criteria. The analysis involves nonlinear dynamic finite element methods, using an explicit approach applied to an idealized system. This system models ship-to-ship collisions, specifically the interaction between Ro and Ro and cargo reefer vessels, with one striking the other. Summarizing initial NLFEA results reveals that the chosen EF significantly influences the crashworthiness criteria. Notably, differences in formulations lead to different calculation times. The Belytschko–Tsay (BT) EF is the quickest, followed by the Belytschko–Leviathan (BL), with around a 36% difference. Conversely, formulations such as the Hughes–Liu involve much longer processing times, more than twice that of BT. To address the potential impact of shear locking and hourglassing on calculation accuracy during impact, the fully integrated (FI) version of the EF is used. It mitigates these undesired events. For formulations with the same approach, the FI BT formulation suppresses hourglassing effectively, unlike others that show orthogonal hourglassing increments. To ensure reliability, rules were set to assess hourglassing. The criterion is that the ratio of hourglass energy to internal energy should be ≤10%. All formulations meet this criterion and are suitable as geometric models in NLFEA. Regarding reliability and processing time, analyzing the computation time offers insights. Based on calculations, BL is the fastest, followed by Belytschko–Wong–Chiang, while the FI BT formulation takes more time for the same collision case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
25
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of Curved and Layered Structures is to become a premier source of knowledge and a worldwide-recognized platform of research and knowledge exchange for scientists of different disciplinary origins and backgrounds (e.g., civil, mechanical, marine, aerospace engineers and architects). The journal publishes research papers from a broad range of topics and approaches including structural mechanics, computational mechanics, engineering structures, architectural design, wind engineering, aerospace engineering, naval engineering, structural stability, structural dynamics, structural stability/reliability, experimental modeling and smart structures. Therefore, the Journal accepts both theoretical and applied contributions in all subfields of structural mechanics as long as they contribute in a broad sense to the core theme.
期刊最新文献
Flutter investigation and deep learning prediction of FG composite wing reinforced with carbon nanotube Structural assessment of 40 ft mini LNG ISO tank: Effect of structural frame design on the strength performance MD-based study on the deformation process of engineered Ni–Al core–shell nanowires: Toward an understanding underlying deformation mechanisms Studying the effect of embedded length strength of concrete and diameter of anchor on shear performance between old and new concrete Thin-walled cylindrical shells in engineering designs and critical infrastructures: A systematic review based on the loading response
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1