0

0045.75749/89 13.00 + 0.00 1989 Papmon Pms plc

A NEW DISCRETE KIRCHHOFF PLATE/SHELL WITH UPDATED PROCEDURES

M. FAFARD~, G. DHA*$
and J. L. BATOZ$

ELEMENT

Wcpartment of Civil Engineering, Lava1 University, Quebec, Canada GlK 7P4 SDivision M N M, UniversitC de Technologie de Compiegne. 60206 Compibgne, France
(Receiued

25 Febnurry 1988)

Abstract-We present a new six-node triangular plate/shell element (called DLTP) for geometrical and material nonlinear analysis. The formulation is based on small clasto-plastic strains and updated Lagrangian formulation (ULF). Two updated procedures arc compared in the elastic and plastic range. The DLTP element is obtained by superposition of a discrete Kirchhoff model (DKTP) for bending and a linear strain triangular element for membrane (LST). Several numerical examples are presented employing special solution strategies for tracing the pm- and post-buckling curves.

INTRODUClION of structural systems in civil, mechanical and aerospace engineering are composed of thin plate/shell components. A reliable and economical design of such structures requires a detailed evaluation of pre- and post-buckling configurations which may exist in the range of normal and extreme load conditions. The finite element method is a powerful analytical tool to study complex behaviour of thin structures under large displacements and rotations. It is possible also to predict correctly the ultimate load capacity by including plastic yield criteria in the constitutive relations. The success of a finite element procedure for nonlinear analysis of thin structures is related to a proper choice of: A large number

(1) a plate/shell element to represent coupled membrane-bending effects; (2) a reference configuration to represent the deformation and stress states (updated configuration); (3) a technique or criteria to represent the progressive plastification through the thickness; (4) a strategy for solving highly nonlinear relations with multiple solutions. We employ a flat triangular plate;shell element with a discrete Kirchhoff formulation to represent the bending behaviour. The simplest element in this family is a three-node triangle (DCT) composed of the DKT (discrete Kirchhoff triangle) element for bending and the CST (constant strain triangle) for membrane (I-61. This element gives good results for linear and nonlinear analysis if the contribution of in-plane displacement to membrane stresses is relatively small as compared with that of transverse displacement. As soon as one component of in-plane

displacement becomes important (i.e. a sort of oriented structure behaviour in the plane), the DCT element gives very poor results, as shown in (51, for certain nonlinear situations. This has been observed also in linear buckling analysis using a four-node quadrilateral element for wide I-beams [7j. In this study, we employ the DLTP element (a six-node triangle) composed of DKTP (DKT plus [8]) for bending and the classical LST (linear strain triangle-six nodes) for the membrane. This element has been successfully employed for studying various linear and geometrically nonlinear elastic structures [S-lo]. The updated Lagrangian formulation is best adapted to study oriented structures undergoing large displacements and rotations. Due to the hypothesis of oriented structures (plane stress), the choice of different approximations for in-plane and transverse displacements and the particular nature of straindisplacement relations, the total Lagrangian finite element formulation fails to capture correct solutions. In this study, we employ two variants of updated Lagrangian formulation (ULF). The procedure ULFl corresponds to a total Lagrangian formulation within each step size with the configuration at the beginning of the step taken as reference. The procedure ULF2 is a fully updated formulation, the estimated configuration at each iteration is taken as reference. We find the application of TLF, ULFl and ULF2 using DCT element in [5,6]. The material nonlinearity is defined by von Mises type yield criteria with a hardening rule [ 11).A special technique to consider the progressive plastification of thickness under combined membrane-bending stresses is developed. The Newton-Raphson method coupled with the arc length [12] type step increment is employed to obtain pre- and post-buckling configurations.
591

592
VARIATIONAL MODEL

M. FAFARD cr al. Updated Lagrangian formulation ULFI The expression W for the C configuration w:= IP is

For an oriented structure, the variational representation of equilibrium relations in the current configuration C(r) using a local orthogonal coordinate system is written as (Fig. 1)

tr([DXe?l)

dV2 - W,,,,,

(4)

w=

trW:l b,l) d v - We,, =0

(1) where W: corresponds to W for the configuration

for all admissible test functions (virtual displacements) (u*), where [a,] represents components of the Cauchy stress tensor (a, = 0 along the thickness n), [OF] is the virtual deformation gradient tensor, (u *) = (u* L* H*) is the virtual displacement field, and W,,, represents the virtual work due to applied forces. The choice of oriented coordinate system permits us to choose finite element approximations of inplane and bending variables in a simple manner. Moreover, the hypothesis related to thin structures such as plane stress and negligible transverse shear strains are introduced explicitly. For flat element formulation, the local coordinates become the Cartesian coordinates (x,~, z) over each element. leading to

C2 (superscript) using C geometrical space description (subscript). In ULFl, Wi is written in the C description: W= W;+AW,=O

where [Sfi is the PK-2 stress tensor, [E:] is the virtual Green-Lagrange deformation tensor, and El = detVlVl-[e7VTr. (6)

with the deformation gradient [fl between C2 and C defined by

P:l=

PC* Y.-C)
u =

=VI+ [A1

(7)

u:,

1 =

r:,

)v;

(2)
From an algorithmic point of view, we indicate the known equilibrium configuration at the beginning of a step by C and the estimation of desired configuration C(r) by C2. The variational problem in an incremental form becomes Wr= WI,: + A WI,: = 0. (3)

W:l

= [FlT[D*l[Fl = f W+l?FJ + VlqF*l),

03)

where WI,: defines the contribution of residual forces in the estimated configuration C and AU/,: is the improvement to obtain an equilibrium for the step C(r) - c:.

with [F*] = [A*] and u = u* in the matrix [A] (a common coordinate system is used to define these quantities). For an oriented structure, we employ local coordinates in C and C2 configurations to evaluate various tensor components. In the following sections, all quantities are in local coordinates unless specified otherwise. One may show from (6) that, for small strains, ,J??c, = ,&?c?* since det [F] z 1 and by polar decomposition [13] (9)

PI = [RI[U = VI PiI = [RIT[~l[Rl = ,J$lc~ r

Fig I, Definition of the Cauch) stress approximation for a thin plate.

(10)

where [R] is the rotation matrix between local coordinates of C and C:. The constitutive relations are

Discrete Kirchhoff plate/shellelementwith updatedprocedures

593

written in the incremental form using [sn = [c]+ [S:-I. For elastic behaviour {S:-) = [HI{+} with (12) (11)

Updoted formulation VLF2

In this formulation, qn. (3) is written in the C description. However, for update of stresses, [ofi is obtained from [Sa using qns (9). (11) and (15) [5,6, 141.We thus have
W= W;+(AW),=O, (18)

where W: is given by (4) and

AW,= ttiW:lbfl 5 ol

+ VVIP~I)do2 - w,,,.
(19)

and {S:-I}, {E:-} are vector organization of components with [H] representing the elasticity matrix. For plastic material, the increment [Sf-1 is corrected according to flow rules to respect the yield criteria. The expression AW in qn (3) defines the tangent stiffness matrix for the Newton type solution method. In a general form, it is obtained by performing the first variation of W for displacement components: (AU), = tr([AL:l K8l) dr I 1.1
+ with AE: = i

Particular aspects for thin shells

In local coordinates of flat elements, thin plate/shell theory assumes linear variation of displacements and strains along the thickness ( - r/2 Q z G r/2, where f is the thickness). Assuming moderate rotations and representing u: by u for simplicity,

tr([E:][AS$)dc -AW,,,,
51.1

(13) with

(20)

(FIWI + Wl~Wv

(14)

where AF = AA [u in eqn (7) is replaced by Au]. In the case of elasto-plastic behaviour, we use the following relation to evaluate the incremental stresses: IS:-} = [H,,l{Ei-J, (15)

where [H,] represents a first-order approximation of plastic yield-criteria and [ET-] is a function of the displacement u: at the iteration i. The incremental stress [ASa is obtained by eqn (11): [ASa = [AS;-]. (16)

since [Au] = 0. From eqns (15) and (16) we obtain {AS:} = where [AE:-I] = $([AF]T[F] + [F]T[AF]). One may remark that ULFl is the total Lagrangian formulation if the configuration at the beginning of each step is taken as reference or initial configuration.

W,l(AE:-1,

(17)

where (u. v) characterize the in-plane behaviour and H,j?x,& (transverse displacement and rotations) represent the bending.

594

hi. FATARD et al.

The membrane stresses and moments are defined as usual. Appendix A gives a summary of the case of plate/shell relations.
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

The variational relations are discretized by finite element approximation to give IV= x
ckmna

w.

(21) form

where IP are integration points and matrices [E] and [E,] depend on the finite element approximation and the matrix organization. [Q represents the appropriate organized form of constitutive properties. [u] correspond to stresses defined in a desired configuration. In this study, we employ the DLTP element with six nodes having (u, L, H.) a1 mid-side nodes and (u, L,W,jX, /I,) at comer nodes [g-lo] (Fig. 2). The approximations are given by u = (NXuJ
o =

The general form of eqn (3) in discretized becomes

(N){c,}

(24)

or Wrl{AuI = (RI. The standard form of residual vector and the tangent matrix using numerical integration is {TJ =;[WI M = c [W[Fi
IP

B*= W*XHJ SY= W,>{HJ, (25)

Ml.

(231

with (H,) = (w,, 8,,, 0,., i w2 i w3,Or,, 6,,,. . .>. The functions (N, . NJ, representing classical quadratic approximations [ 11, 15,161, and (If,), (H,) are given in Appendix B. Global coordirmte system

Z,W

8,

for osaembly

Local coordinate system

(membrone,LST)

haI
(plate bending,DKTP), WI

8x1
I

2:
8
[kl
(flat
ahell,DLTP)

8 23 1, lk8,3 (rotational)
J

Y3

8, II

FIN. 2. Construction

of a DLTP

flat shell element

Discrete Kirchhoff plate/shell element with updated procedures For linear problems, it is not necessary to define w explicitly over the element. However, for nonlinear problems, one needs the approximation for w, and H*,~ over the element. Numerical experience has shown that the interpolation choice for HIis very important for obtaining an efficient nonlinear element. This is primarily due to membrane locking introduced by choice of (u, u, w). For the DCT element, the linear interpolation instead of a cubic one for H seems to give better results. For the DLTP element, the Green-Lagrange tensor is defined with quadratic variation for u and u, and linear for w, for calculating nonlinear components. The geometrical stiffness matrix in the tangent matrix is obtained with a linear interpolation of 7~. L,H) since quadratic interpolation gave stiff results. The finite element expressions for calculating {r) and [k,] are given in Appendix C. In order to avoid singularity in the assembled matrix using flat elements in a global coordinate system, the local element matrices are augmented by a fictitious local variable 8, at each comer node with the corresponding rigidity matrix [I 11:

595

Fig. 3. Layers integration technique. an integration point is defined by a number of equally spaced nodes; a layer being defined by two nodes with a linear stress variation. The stresses at each node are calculated according to the plasticity criteria [eqn (2711 for plane stress state. The resultant in-plane forces and moments are (Fig. 3)

{Iv) _f

(@}I +p.+1+ i (uJi)

i-2

Ktl=rEAf
[

-f I -+ 1
1 -f . 1
6(K) = 0,

[Hz]

= f

([Hepl +Fln+ I + i [&Ii)

i-2

(26) +

{UL- {ul,+,
6 >

where E is the elasticity modulus, A the element area and t the thickness. z is taken as 10e4 in this study.
PLASTICITY MODEL

The von Mises yield criteria with normality flow rule are employed to represent the material plasticity: f([U]. 6, K) = vi(i tr[O]) (27)

W,l,+, ; + V&l,$

where [a] is the deviatoric stress, a (x) is the uniaxial yield stress, and K is the hardening parameter. For subsequent yielding, the isotropic hardening rule is employed. Thus plasticity matrix [H,] using first-order plastic consistence is used for calculating

W,l: (28)
where (n + 1) is the number of nodes. with
NONLINEAR SOLUTION STRATEGY

a=z+ g

(>

{V},

where {H,} is the elastic matrix and 3; is the slope of the uni-axial stress-strain curve. A layered approach is employed to consider the plastification of thickness. The element thickness at

The algebraic relations representing the behavi.our of oriented structures are highly nonlinear. The load-displacement curves had multi-solution configurations with pre-buckling and post-buckling zones representing stable and unstable situations. The existence of limit and bifurcation points further complicates the solution methods. In order to analyse the nonlinear structures, one needs to employ various strategies in a solution procedure to include:

5%

M. FAFARD CI al.

(1) a choice for update of tangent matrix; (2) a choice of solution technique for each iteration such as triangularization or conjugate gradient with pretonditioning; (3) a choice of control techniques such as load increment, displacement increment or arc length method; (4) criteria for detection of critical points; (5) a proper estimation of solution directions via eigenvectors.

w-Approximation (same for Y,u) for Element DLTPI-L DLTPI-Q DLTPl-L-Q DLTPZ-L DLTPZ-Q DCTI-L Dcrl-c
Formulation GrUrlLwaw Linear Quadratic Linear Linear Quadratic Linear Cubic (14, u hear) Geometrical matrix Linear Quadratic Quadratic Linear Quadratic Linear cubic

ULFI ULFl ULFI ULF2 ULF2 ULFl ULFl

A description of these aspects may be found in (171, along with the expert system program organization. In this study, we are basically using the Newton-Raphson method with matrix triangularization at each iteration. We also employ the load, dominant displacement or arc length control strategy to capture pre- and post-buckling zones. It is possible to trace curves with limit points using these control strategies; however, the bifurcation points require special attention for predicting solution paths. In this study, we make use of eigenvector and eigenvalue to analyse the bifurcation zones. The calculation of lowest eigenvector and eigenvalue is obtained using an inverse iteration scheme [ 151which is available in almost all computer codes. We employ three possibilities for bifurcation zones which require the calculation of lowest eigenvalue and eigenvector. In the first method, the bifurcation path is sought by employing an extra concentrated load P, corresponding to the predominant value of the eigenvector. The value of P, is adjusted relative to total load value (0.1-l%). In another method, the geometry of structure is perturbed by the normalized eigenvector, requiring a new calculation of residual vector and the tangent matrix. Finally. one may choose the normalized eigenvector as an improvement of known solution to detect bifurcation paths. In ULF, the last two methods are identical since the geometry update is implicit.

The choice of w-approximation for nonlinear terms does not influence the linear formulation of DCT and DLTP elements.
Elastic cantilever plate

A cantilever plate under a tip concentrated load (Fig. 4) forms the benchmark test to assess the influence of w-approximation for DCT and DLTP elements. This example exhibits the interesting phenomenon of membrane locking due to a high transverse displacement contribution to in-plane stresses. Moreover, an analytical solution based on beam theory is available for comparison [ 181. Results are presented in Tables 1 and 2 showing the relative convergence properties of various elements. Typical load displacement results are shown in Fig. 5. The numerical experimentation permits us to make the following remarks: (1) DCTI-L gives better results than DCTI-C, which had severe locking; (2) DLTPl-Q and DLTPl-L-Q give almost identical results of good accuracy;

Lgz+ t
so.1 E = 1.2. IO II = 0.3

NCMERKAL

EXAMPLES

Various examples have been studied to assess the performance of DLTP element for geometrical and material nonlinearities. It is of interest to evaluate the reliability of ULFI and ULFZ. Furthermore, tests are performed to assess the most suitable w-approximation which avoids the buckling behaviour in geometrical nonlinear formulations. For comparison purposes, two elements, DCT (DKT bending + constant membrane strains) and DLTP (DKTP bending + linear membrane strains) are employed in this study. Due to different variants of these elements, we introduce the following element classification:

l--j7

16 elements DCT or DLTP Fig. 4. Cantilever plate.

Discrete Kirchhoff plate/shell &ment Table I. Rciativc error (%) of finite element results for

with updated proc&m

c~ntitevtr

597

place for the load (PL/W) = IO 40 steps 100 steps W/L

:: 0:s I.1 -8::

Element
DLTPI-L DLTPI-Q DLTPI-L-Q DLTP2-Q DCTI-L DCTI-c -0.4 -7.8 -0.2 I) -4G

5 steps wIL U/L

0.7 - 18.0 1.2 * 0.1 -79.8

10 steps w/L
-0.1 -3.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.7 - 30.0

4L
- 1.3 -7.6 -0.8

V/L
-0.1 -0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 -2.3

U/L
-0.9 -1.3 -0.8 -0.4 -1.2 -7.6

UlL
0.0 -0.2 0.1 0.7 -1.2 -2.6

-1.1
-0.9 -60.2

* No convergence after 200 iterations at the first load step. Theoretical mults[18]: at (PL2/N)= 10, w/L =0.811, u/L =O.W.

WA and

UiL displvrn?WS

Fig. 5. Transverse and axial displacements at free end of a fixed-end plate.

(3) DLTPZ-Q also gives good results; (4) convergence is faster if the geometrical matrix is evaluated with linear (u, v,H) approximations for DLTP; (5) linear approximations are recommended for DCT and DLTP. Etasric thin cylindrical shett A quarter of a thin cylindrica1 shell under a central load with curved sides simply supported is studied (Fig. 6) using DCT and DLTP elements. The solution is obtained using the displacement increment method. The central displa~ment w,/t is increased from 0 to HJI = 140 in 70 equal steps. We can observe various limit points along with large displacements and rotations for the zone of study.
Table 2. Average

In Fig. 7, we give typical results for DCT and DLTP elements using different mesh sizes and step increments. Table 3 gives some statistical results. The following remarks may be made regarding the behaviour of these elements. (1) Results for DCTl-L and DCTI-C differ starting with H.,/I 2 80. However, if the displacement increments are smaller for DCTI-C (large number of steps: MO), the results are similar since locking due to cubic approximation is reduced. (2) DLTPl-L and DLTPZ-L are quite similar in behaviour. There is a convergence problem for DLTP2-Q, but DLTPI-Q seems to give good precision and convergence. (3) From an efficiency point of view, DCT-L performs better than DLTP-L since nonlinear terms in the memb~ne stresses are mainly due to transverse displacements for this problem. I-Beam buckling The buckling of a tide I-beam under axial load with one fixed end is studied using DCT and DLTP elements (Fig. 8). This example exhibits in-plane shear locking and di~cujties in initializing the buckfing mode. In [S], DCT2-L and DQT2 (DKT element with quadratic

number of iterations
cantilever plate IO steps 7.3 6.7 8.1 13.6 5.7 14.5

per step

for

Element DLTPl-L DLTPI-Q DLTPI-L-Q DLTPZ-Q DCTi-L DCTI-c

l

5 steps 8.6 11 10.2 t

40 steps 4.1 4.2 4.4 5.6 4.4 7.5

100 steps 3:; 3.2 3.5 4.1 5.3

No convergence after 200 iterations at the first load step.

598

M.

FAFAIU et al.

Fig. 8. X-&am under axial load. membrane strain) elements have beem employed to study the pre- and post-buckling zones. The post-buckling path may be initialized by load-perturbation [5] or by initial displacement technique (using lowest eigenvector). Pre- and post-buckling paths are traced using an arc length control technique. Results are shown in Fig. 9, which indicate the stiff character of the DC? element with non-convergence in the post-buckling range (severe shear locking). For the load perturbation, we apply Pp= P/IO00 for the first 10 steps. The solution starts with an initial load of P = 0.3PE (P,=R2EIj4L2) followed by arc length control in the following steps. For the displacement perturbation, we impose an initial displacement profile corresponding to the Euler eigenvector with an amplitude of L./WOO t 0.3. The solution starts with an initial toad of P = Pt., folIo~ng the arc length control to trace the complete path.

240 llemontl OK1 OI OLTP

Fig. 6. Thin cylindri~l

shell.

Table 3. Statistical results for the cvlindrkal shell Element DLTPI-L DLTPI-Q DLTPZ-L DLTPZ-Q DCTI-L DCTI-C DCTI-Lt DCTI-C: Av. no. iterations by step 2.9 3.3 3.1 3:2 3.3 3.1 2.9 Relative CPU time 5.5 6.6 5.6 I.0 1.1 8.9 1.8 No. of DOF 1883 1883 1883 1883 746 746 2932 746

* No convergence after 20 iterations at step 46. t 480 elements. :I40 equal incremental displacement.
3.0

+ 0 A 0 s

DlJPl Q 70 stmps DLTPP-L 70 mops DCTld. 70tiopr 0CTI-C ?Ost*pr 0CTl-C 140 step8

240 rlomrnts 240 elemsntr 240r*mrmr 24Or*ment~ 240 rkmrnls

Fig. 7. Transverse displacement at the center of the cylindrtcal shell

Dherete Kidhoff

plate/shell ekment with

updated pm&ure~

1 3
I . -

A DLTPl-Lpmtihlbn
0 Tebot(S)DDlY a Tabol(5) DC?2

DLTP1.LpMuhtbn

lo66 diaplaamrnl _

$2

Bifwatiin point .

OO

0.2

0.4 VA

0.6

0.6

Fig. 9. Lateral displacement at free ad of I-beam axially loaded.

Plate with plastifcation A square plate under uniform load with simply supported edges is studied using linear plate theory with von Mises type plastic yield criteria (Fig. 10). We study one-quarter of the plate with different layers along the thickness to represent the plasticity. The results are compared with those obtained by Dinis and Owen [19] using global plasticity criteria with isoparametric element and by Horrigmoe and Eidshein (201 with a hybrid triangle using global criteria. Kikuchi and Ando (211 used 20 layers along thickness for plasticity. Results are presented in Fig. 11 using DLTP with 28 layers for comparison. Our study indicated that seven layers are sufficient to obtain precise limit load and plasticity representation along the thickness (Fig. 12).

f 6.69 1.to MPo v 8 0.3 Mp-400 N-m/m

l

ur Fig.

t 9 11.2Smm 12.6 MPa

10. Simply supported square plate under uniform load.

Fig. I I. Loadcentral

deflection response of a simply supported square plate.

600

Fig. 12. Load/central deflection response of a simply supported square plate, layers integration technique.

Biaxial bending of beam-column

We study a beam-column undergoing biaxial bending with geometrical and material non-linearities. This example (Fig. 13) is of interest since experimental results [22] are available for comparison. Moreover, Akoussah [14] has studied the same probkm with a torsional-bending beam element in threedimensional space.

We employ DLTPZ-L and DLTPl-L elements with eight layers over the flange plate. Results are shown in Figs. 14 and 15 for load-rotation of mid-point about the x-axis of the mid-height point and for load-displacements (0, w) at the same point. The ultimate load obtained is identical to the cxperimental load. The results compare quite well with those obtained by using a beam element [14]. It is shown that von Mises yield criteria derived from the uniaxial tests are valid for predicting ultimate load.

+Pinod

vt

- Pined View A-A ;~101oooMPa E,a5l75MPO

12 l lqmmnWgroup

44 [kico] Rosidualr stnss

16 groups on the length of the beam-column

Fig. 13. Geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the beam-column.

Lwretc

Kirchltofr plate/sheh element with updated procedures I I I I I

601

4w

o . 0

Akoussah(14) DLTF&L r*IMnt DLlPt-L &mmt

Fig. 14.

Rotation about x-axis at mid-height of the beam-column in biaxial bending. if there are large dispia~ents and important though moderate rotations within each iteration. Another important aspect of this study has been to assess the role of w-approximation for evaluating geometrical stiffness matrix and Green-Lagrange tensor components (for w,, wy). The membrane locking effect due to nonlinear terms is very severe for DCT-C. It seems that the best choice is DCT-L and DLTP-L. However, DLTP-Q may be accepted as well. We have developed a layer representation of plasticity along the thickness. The special technique of explicit integration for each layer is very well adapted for calculating correctly the bending terms, which are cubic functions of thickness. For a composite material, one may easily vary thickness to represent correctly different materials. The technique of load perturbation and initial displacement represented by eigenvector profile

CONCLUSION

The recently developed DLTP element has performed well for studying problems with geometrical and material nonlinea~ties. It is obvious that the DCT element is very efficient if the in-plane strain nonlinearity is mainly due to transverse displacements. However, if the contribution of a membrane displacement component becomes important (structure reiatively oriented in the plane due to particular stress state and loading patterns) DLTP has superior convergence and precision properties. It has been shown that the updated Lagrangian formulation is least adapted to oriented structures due to the particular nature of in-plane and transverse displacement approximations. For the problems studied, ULFI and ULF2 seem to be quite similar. The advantage of ULF2 may be more evident

Fig. 15. Transverse displacements at mid-height of the beam-column in biaxial bending.

602

M. FAFARD lI al,

performed well in the limit point and bifurcation point zones. The displacement and arc length control technique, coupled with Newton-type solution method, is capable of tracing most complex load4isplacement paths for oriented structures. Finally, we may recommend that the flat DLTP-L using ULF and layer representation of plasticity provides an excellent tool for analysing complex plate/shell structures. Of course, DCT-L is to be preferred for problems with in-plane nonlinearity dominated by transverse displacements only (w,), (Q.
thank the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Le Fonds FCAR of Quebec Ministry of Education for financial support. Esenam Akoussah, a graduate student at Lava1 University Civil Engineering Department, has contributed indirectly through his advice and experience lo this project.
Acknowledgemenr-We

Mtiments indurtriels. Ph.D. dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, Lava1 University, Quebec (1987). 15. K. J. &th;, Finite Element Proceduies in Eitgi&eri& Analvsis. Prentice-Hall. Enalewood Cliffs. NJ (1982). 16. G. 6hatt and G. To&t, &ile Element Methbd Dhplayed (Translated by G. Cantin). John Wiley, London (1984). 17. M. Fafard, Algorithmes de calcul automatique des configurations prC- et post-flambement en calcul des structures. Ph.D. dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, Lava1 University, Quebec (1987). 18. S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere, Mechanics of Marerials. Von Nostrand-Reinhold, New York (1972). 19. L. M. S. Dinis and D. R. J. Gwen. Elastic-visco-elastic analysis of plates by the finite element method. Compur. Smct. 8, 207-215 (1977). 20. G. Horrigmoe, and 0. M. Eidshein, Hybrid stress element model for elasto-plastic analysis. Int. Conf. Finite Elements in Nonlinear Solid and Structural Mechanics, Geilo, Norway (1977). 21. F. Kikuchi and Y. Ando, Application of simplified hybrid displacement method to large deflection analysis of elasto-plastic plates and shells. J. Fat. Engng, Uni. Tokyo 32, 117-134 (1973) 22. C. Bimstiel. Experiments on H columns under biaxial bending. Proc. ASCE, J. Strucr. Dir. STlO, 2429-2449
I

REFERENCES

I. J. L. Bator, K. J. Bathe and L. W. Ho, A study of three node triangular plate bending elements. Inr. J. Numer. Merh. Engng 15, 1771-1812 (1980). 2. J. L. Batoz and G. Dhatt, Development of two simple shell elements. RIAA Jnl 10, 237-238 (1972). 3. J. L. Batoz and G. Dhatt. An evaluation of two simple and effective triangular and quadrilateral plate bending elements. In New and Future Developments in Commercial Finite Elemenr Method (Edited by J. Robinson) pp. 352-368. Los Angeles (1981). 4. K. J. Bathe and L. W. Ho, A simple and effective element for analysis of general shell structures. Compur. Sfrucr. 13, 673681 (1981). 5. M. Talbot, Comparaison de deux ClCments de coques triangulaires plats utilisant unc formulation lagrangienne actualitie. Masters thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Lava1 University, Quebec (1986). 6. S. Jaamei, Etude de diffbrentes formulations lagrangiennes pour lanalyse non IinCaire en grands dhplacements et grandes rotations. ThCse de doctorat. UniversitC de Technologie de CompiCgne (1986). 7. M. Fafard. D. Beaulieu et G. Dhatt. Etude par Climents finis de la slabilitC de profilCs form& par- assemblage dClCments plats dans Iespace. Tech. Rep. GCT-86-06. Civil Engineering Department. Lava1 University. Quebec (I 984). 8. 6. Dhatt, L. Marcotte and Y. Matte. A new triangular discrete Kirchhoff plate shell element. In!. J. Numer. and M. Talbot. Two new discrete Kirchhoff plate shell elements. In Proc. 4rh Symp. Numer Merh. Engng. Atlanta. GA, pp, 599-604 (1986). IO. M. Talbot and G. Dhatt. New shell elements for the analysis of pre- and post-buckling problems. In Proc.
3rd Inr. Conj. Numerical Merhodc for Non-Linear Problems, Dubrovnik, pp. 509-521 (1986). 0. C. Zienkiewicz. The Finite Element Method, 3rd Edn.

(1968).

APPENDIX A

The updated Lagrangian formulation adapted to plate elements is defined in terms of in-plane forces {NJ and moments (M}:

IW =

- I>2

I2{a}dz;

z{o} dz

(N) = Wx..N,, NJ;

CM> = CM,, M,, MS,.) (AlI

(a) may represent Cauchy or PK.2 stresses. From eqns (AI), (15) and (20), we can write iN1 =

Wli4

+ WGblb) 642)

{M) = Wi#4 + [HS,lbj3

where

9.

Merh. Engng 23, 453-470 (1986). G. Dhatt, L. Marcotte. Y. Matte

V-f;1= 2 [H,] I -12

[HR] =

dz;

[Hz]

r2 2 s -12

V&l dz

s -12

z[H,]

d;.

Il.

(a)

Variational model expression for ULF 1

McGraw-Hill, New York (1977). 12. M. A. Crisfield, An arc length method including line search and acceleration. Inr. J. Numer. Merh. Engng 19,
1269-1289 Conlinuous (1983). Inrroducrion to the Mechanics Medium. Prentice-Hall. Englewood of a

w=

(<e:,>IN:I s AI and (Mi)

+ (z*){M:j)dA

- W,,,,.

(A3)

13. L. E. Malvern,

Cliffs,

NJ (1969). 14. K. E. Akoussah. Analyse non lintaire des structures B parois minces par ClCments finis et son application aux

(N:>

are defined

by PK-2 stresses

{Si).

Discrete Kirchhoff

plate/shCll &nEtlt with updated proc&rcs (A4)

603

--+--+-1 r
au* au ax, ax, au+ do ax, ax, au-* aw ax, ax,

(ef) - axdy,z+ax
I

au*au+ au*

au
I>

wiih {h;}, {M:}, d&cd by {a2}. The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained from AW-

(<e?XANj 5 AI

+ <P)<AW + <c:X~{AcJ) dA. (AM

ah b, ah ah bell = at+ do + ad --- aw ax, a~, ax, ah +au* au +av* au +aw*aw ---ah ax, ay, ax, ay, ax, i ah ah au* -- au ax, ay, +

au+ au + -ar+ au+ -_ a0 aw --

(A%

All quantities are defined in C2 description with oriented coordinates (x2, y2). One simply replaces
hi,) by (x~,Y~) in eqm

WXAW.

(A6)

= ~1:;w = wf in the local coordinate For the tangent matrix

=u:;v
Aw=

in C.

In finite element implementation, residual vector {r } and tangent stiffness matrix [kJ are calculated by replacing directly A and A and {N:}, {M:} by (IV:}, {M:} (ULFl case). This is acceptable as long as the strains remain small. However, the components of {N} are supposed to be defined in oriented coordinates of C configuration. Thus the global transformation matrices for ULFl and ULF2 are not identical since the oriented coordinates in C and C differ.
APPENDIX B

(<e:,)IANj

+ WXAW

+ dA 3 (~47)

<t ;>[~{A+ where

Refer to Fig. 2 for element definition. The interpolation functions on the reference element are: at each comer (node 1, 2 or 5):

Hx,= -a,+68N, + 4Nk+ ,) + a,,(4N, + 68N,+ J

I-IX2 = e,(26N, + ION,,,) + C,,(ION, + 26NP+,) be,,,, is similar to (A4) and (AS); u*, c*, W* being replaced by Au, Ar, AH.. Ax is obtained from (A6) by replacing B:. 8: by A&. AD,. [q corresponding to geometrical stiffness is
H x3= NI- I - b,$k - 4?L, - 4,Np - b,,N,+,

HJI= -e,,(68N, + 4Nk,,) + e,,(4N, + 68N,+ ,)

42=-N,-,+~,N,+g,N~+,+g,,N,+f,,N,+,

tA9)

H,, = -c,,{26N, + ION,,,) - c,,(lON,,+

26N,+,)

at each mid-node (2, 4 or 6): H, = 64a,,(Nk - Nk, J with N,, = (N&X, etc. H, = 64e,(N, - Nk+ J. The indices i, j, k I, m and p for 12 components <I-J,) and (H,) are presented in Table Bl. The (N) functions given in [16] are N,=f[a(-1+3a)(-2+3a)-9P] N, = f [2ab( - 1 + 3a) + 3P]
N,==$[2ab(-1+36)+3P],

of

(AIO)

(b) Variational expression for ULF2

w=

J
&

(<eWNil+ <z*){W)dA2 - W2,,,,

(Al 1)

604

M. FAFARD cr al.
Table Bl bl-;
i,j;k l,WP

Node label (Fig. 2) Comer: 1 Mid: 2 Comer: 3

W,); W,.) components

Hr, H.tz Hr,

>

1,3;2 1,3;2 3,5; 5

5.1; 8 = 1,3; 2 cy

H, I H,l H,., H.. .H!4 H,, H, Hr, H,, H,6 H,., H,, H)+ H, H,,, 4, H,, H, IoH, II H 112
H 112

xiPv 27 1;

Mid: 4 Comer: 5 Mid: 6

3,5;5 5, 1;8 5,1;8

3,5; 5 -

d,=;

-;y:+;x: II(

The [Bb] matrix can be written where P=i.,q; ;.=I-t-q. hW,.$ +_hWx.J

PI =
A proper choice of coefficient a and b permits us to define nine functions which are given in Table B2. The coefficient a,,. b,,, etc., are (Fig. Bl): I

hW,.d

+hW,.J
+j,,(H,.:) +MH,.rl)

j~lWx.;) +_kWx.,)

APPENDIX C

Table B2

The Green-Lagrange strain tensor can be written, for the ULF2 between C and C configuration,

Sij
Cij

sin

8ij

Xij

/Pij

COS8,j

y,j/Pij

FIN. Bl. Real and reference elements

Discrete Kirchlloff plate/shell eknetn with updrttd pK4a!dwa where {UJ = Ml.1
0 0 0 N, 0
0 . . .

605

0 0

0 0

0 0

N2.s

N2# N2=

w,N,,

. . - . .

w,NIJ +

. . . . .

0 0

0 0 0

Hx,.x H,,, HA,. +

Hx2.x H.,.2J HA,, +

H.r>, H,,,. HA, +

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Hx4-x H,d,. Hx4.t +

. * .

* . *

* * *

Pbl =

H &1.X

H,2s

H,.L.

H,,

(u,) = (u, t, w,

ex, e,,e,,u2

t2 w2 * .

.).

We obtain the incremental in-plane forces and incremental moments from eqn. (At) for the two formulations. The [E$j matrix will be different if we use a linear. quadratic or cubic interpolation to evaluate the nonlinear terms. The residual vector for ULFl corresponding to eqn (A3) can be written

([Bb]T{Mi}) dA. s A

(C2)

The residual vector for ULF2 is also given by eqn (C2), where [B;,] E 0. (C3)

In the same manner, the tangent stiffness matrix can be written for ULFl, using eqns (A7), (A8), and (Cl),

For the ULFZ, the [B:,] matrix is not included in eqn (C4). A transformation or rotation matrix is used to express the local variables in the global system before assemblage. In both ULFl and ULF2 we c6nsider the [RI] matrix (direction cosines of local axes in Ci) to compute the local displacements (u,):, but, for the assemblage, we use the [RI] matrix for ULFl and the [RJ matrix (direction cosines of local axes in C, an estimated configuration of C) for ULFZ:

[Krl =

(PVI +

kC,lYIH~lWl+ N,l) dA
(C4)

{RjJow = [R]{rjb, IRj&i,.l=

WIIrLl

for ULFl.
for ULF2

606

M. FAFARD CI al.

We resume the ULFI schema as follows:

and ULF2

algorithmic

using for ULFl: W: [eqn

using for ULFZ:

(WI

W: {eqns (C2) with NJ= 01

C known:

global coordinates

AI+hn (C3)l AW {qns (C3) with Wil = 01

Calculate a new rotation matrix [R] with configuration [C] {r}b = {r}<+ (r}Ip

local stress [a] at each integration point

New step {Vi}, = 0 initialize the global displacements to zero Iterative loop (II) {R) = 0; [KJ = 0 initialize global residual vector and global tangent matrix

[kJ = [k,] + [kJ Calculate the global residual vector and global tangent stiffness matrix {r}: = [RIT{r}

Element loop (fe) Calculate the rotation configuration C matrix [R] from

kl: = Wkl~Rl
Assemblage of the residual vector and tangent matrix {RJ = iRJ + Ir)f

Calculate the local coordinate placement {XI), =

and dis-

WA= WTI + [klf [clip,%;

[k,] = 0 loop (IP)

id), = [RI

Evaluate the new incremental ment [Kr]{AU}= {R} { U;}d= { C;}$ + {AL}: Convergence test displace-

{r) = 0; Integration

Calculate the incremental and total local stress is;-) eqns (A2) and (Cl)

Update the stress and coordinates {Si) = {a} + {Si-) [eqn (II)] \CT\ , = i) + {ST-} Evaluate local residual vector and tangent stiffness matrix {X} = {X} + {UT}.