Theory Manual

AUTODYN
Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics

Mass
= =
0 0
V
V
m
V

&&
&&
&&
x
xx
x
xy
y
xz
z
y
yx
x
yy
y
yz
z
z
zx
x
zy
y
zz
z
= + +
= + +
= + +
Momentum

( )
& & & & & &
e
xx xx yy yy zz zz xy xy yz yz zx zx
= + + + + +
1
2 2 2

&
Energy

Theory Manual
Revision 4.3

www.century-dynamics.com

AUTODYN is a trademark of Century Dynamics, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Century Dynamics Inc. All Rights Reserved

Century Dynamics is a subsidiary of ANSYS Inc, www.ansys.com

Century Dynamics Incorporated
1001 Galaxy Way
Suite 325
Concord
CA 94520
U.S.A.
Tel: +1 925 771 2300
Fax: +1 925 771 2309
E-mail: customer@centdyn.com

Century Dynamics Limited
Dynamics House
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex, RH12 2DT
England
Tel: +44 (0) 1403 270066
Fax: +44 (0) 1403 270099
E-mail: all@centdyn.demon.co.uk

Century Dynamics
16350 Park Ten Place
Houston
TX 77084
USA
Tel: +1 281 398 6113
Fax: +1 281 398 6061
E-mail: cdhouston@centdyn.com

Century Dynamics
Rntgenlaan 15
2719 DX Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 79 36 20400
Fax: +31 79 36 30705
E-mail: sales@centurydynamics.nl
autodyn.support@century-dynamics.com

www.century-dynamics.com

www.ansys.com

Table of Contents

3
VARIABLE NOTATION.......................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 1. .......................................................................................................... OVERVIEW 17
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 17
2. Theory Overview ................................................................................................... 18
1. Lagrange Processor .......................................................................................... 19
2. Euler Processors ............................................................................................... 19
3. ALE Processor................................................................................................... 20
4. Structural Processor .......................................................................................... 20
5. Processor Coupling ........................................................................................... 21
6. Material Models ................................................................................................. 22
3. Summary ............................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 2. ......................................................................................................... RESERVED 23
CHAPTER 3. .......................................................................LAGRANGE PROCESSOR IN 2D 25
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 25
2. Governing Equations............................................................................................. 25
3. Lagrange Subgrids ................................................................................................ 28
1. Centering Of Variables ...................................................................................... 30
4. Zone Volumes and Strain Rates............................................................................ 32
1. Zone Volumes ................................................................................................... 32
2. Strain Rates....................................................................................................... 33
5. Pressures and Stresses ........................................................................................ 36
1. Stress Increments.............................................................................................. 36
2. Stress Rotation Correction................................................................................. 37
6. Nodal Forces ......................................................................................................... 38
1. Internal Forces................................................................................................... 39
2. External Forces.................................................................................................. 41
3. Pseudo-Viscous Forces..................................................................................... 43
4. Hourglass Damping........................................................................................... 43
5. Anti-Tangle Forces ............................................................................................ 46
7. Nodal Accelerations, Velocities and Displacements.............................................. 48
1. Static Damping (Dynamic Relaxation) ............................................................... 48
8. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................. 49
1. Velocity Constraints........................................................................................... 49
2. Pressure Boundaries ......................................................................................... 50
3. Transmitting Boundaries.................................................................................... 50
9. Timestep................................................................................................................ 51
10. Conservation of Momentum and Energy............................................................... 52
11. Rezoning ............................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4. .......................................................................LAGRANGE PROCESSOR IN 3D 55
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 55
Table of Contents

3. Lagrange Subgrids ................................................................................................ 58
1. Centering of Variables ....................................................................................... 60
4. Zone Volumes and Strain Rates............................................................................ 61
1. Strain Rates....................................................................................................... 64
5. Pressures and Stresses ........................................................................................ 66
1. Stress Increments.............................................................................................. 66
2. Stress Rotation Correction................................................................................. 67
6. Nodal Forces ......................................................................................................... 69
1. Internal Forces................................................................................................... 69
2. External Forces.................................................................................................. 72
3. Pseudo-Viscous Forces..................................................................................... 73
4. Hourglass Damping........................................................................................... 74
7. Nodal Accelerations, Velocities and Displacements.............................................. 76
1. Static Damping (Dynamic Relaxation) ............................................................... 77
8. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................. 77
1. Velocity Constraints........................................................................................... 78
2. Pressure Boundaries ......................................................................................... 78
3. Transmitting Boundaries.................................................................................... 79
9. Time-step............................................................................................................... 80
10. Conservation of Momentum and Energy ............................................................... 81
CHAPTER 5. ......................................................................ALE PROCESSOR IN 2D AND 3D 82
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 82
3. ALE Subgrids......................................................................................................... 85
4. ALE Methodology .................................................................................................. 87
5. Grid Motion Constraints......................................................................................... 88
6. Regrid Phase in 2D ............................................................................................... 89
7. Advective phase in 2D........................................................................................... 91
1. Mass .................................................................................................................. 91
2. Momentum and energy...................................................................................... 91
3. Update cell velocities......................................................................................... 93
4. Advection of Other Variables............................................................................. 93
5. Reevaluation of the Pressure ............................................................................ 94
8. Regrid Phase in 3D ............................................................................................... 94
9. Advective Phase in 3D .......................................................................................... 95
1. Mass .................................................................................................................. 96
2. Momentum and Energy ..................................................................................... 96
3. Update cell velocities......................................................................................... 98
4. Advection of Other Variables............................................................................. 99
5. Reevaluation of the Pressure ............................................................................ 99
10. Conclusion of ALE Phase...................................................................................... 99
11. Time-step............................................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER 6. ...................................................................... THIN SHELL PROCESSOR IN 2D 103
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 103
2. Governing Equations........................................................................................... 104
4

Table of Contents

5
1. Strain - Displacement Relations ...................................................................... 106
2. Equations of Motion......................................................................................... 107
3. Shell Subgrids ..................................................................................................... 110
1. Interaction With Other Subgrids....................................................................... 110
2. Centering of Variables ..................................................................................... 111
3. Segment Masses and Volumes....................................................................... 112
4. Strains and Curvatures........................................................................................ 112
1. Curvatures at an End Node............................................................................. 114
5. Stresses............................................................................................................... 115
6. Stress Resultants and Bending Moments ........................................................... 116
7. Nodal Forces ....................................................................................................... 117
1. Planar Symmetry ............................................................................................. 118
2. Axial Symmetry................................................................................................ 121
8. Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................... 123
1. Velocity Constraints......................................................................................... 124
2. Pressure Boundaries ....................................................................................... 124
9. Time Step ............................................................................................................ 124
CHAPTER 7. ...................................................................... THIN SHELL PROCESSOR IN 3D 126
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 126
2. Elements of Mindlin plate theory ......................................................................... 126
3. Finite element formulations ................................................................................. 129
1. Corotational Coordinate System...................................................................... 129
2. Interpolation Function And Isoparametric Formulation.................................... 130
3. Strain Rates And B Matrix ............................................................................... 131
4. Curvature terms for warped elements ................................................................. 134
1. Resultant Membrane Forces And Moments .................................................... 134
2. Nodal Forces ................................................................................................... 135
CHAPTER 10. ....................................................................................................... RESERVED 138
CHAPTER 11. .................................................................................... MATERIAL MODELING 140
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 140
1. Thermodynamic Equilibrium............................................................................ 140
2. Phase Diagrams .............................................................................................. 142
3. Material Strength Effects ................................................................................. 144
4. Complex Materials........................................................................................... 144
5. High Explosives ............................................................................................... 144
6. Calculation of Temperature ............................................................................. 145
2. Forms of Hydrodynamic Equations of State........................................................ 145
1. Solution of The Energy Equation And Equation of State.................................. 146
2. Materials In Tension And Expansion ............................................................... 147
Table of Contents

3. Ideal Gas Form of Equation of State ............................................................... 147
4. Linear Equation of State.................................................................................. 148
5. Mie-Gruneisen Form of Equation of State ....................................................... 149
6. Polynomial Equation of State........................................................................... 150
7. The Shock Equation of State......................................................................... 151
8. Expansion Equations of State.......................................................................... 154
9. Tillotson Equation of State............................................................................... 155
10. Regions of Interest........................................................................................... 156
11. Regional Formulations..................................................................................... 157
12. Puff Equation of State...................................................................................... 158
13. Regional Formulations..................................................................................... 159
14. Two-Phase Equation of State.......................................................................... 159
15. Single Phase Region....................................................................................... 160
16. Two-Phase Region.......................................................................................... 161
3. Modeling of strength effects ................................................................................ 162
1. Numerical Methodology................................................................................... 162
2. Elastic Flow Region......................................................................................... 163
3. Plastic Flow Region......................................................................................... 165
4. Calculation Of Effective/Geometric Strains...................................................... 171
5. Strength Models .............................................................................................. 173
6. Mohr-Coulomb Model ...................................................................................... 173
7. Johnson-Cook Model....................................................................................... 174
8. Zerilli-Armstrong Model................................................................................... 175
9. Steinberg-Guinan Model.................................................................................. 176
10. Piecewise Model.............................................................................................. 177
11. Johnson-Holmquist Brittle Damage Model ...................................................... 177
12. Thermomechanical Material Model.................................................................. 178
13. User Defined Strength Model .......................................................................... 181
14. Modeling of Porous Solids............................................................................... 181
15. Piecewise-Linear Porous Model ...................................................................... 182
16. P- Model ....................................................................................................... 185
4. Orthotropic Materials ........................................................................................... 187
1. Orthotropic Elastic Model ................................................................................ 188
2. Orthotropic Strength Models............................................................................ 190
3. Orthotropic Failure Models .............................................................................. 191
5. Modeling of material failure ................................................................................. 191
1. Failure Models ................................................................................................. 191
2. Bulk (Isotropic) Models .................................................................................... 192
3. Hydrodynamic Tensile Failure (Pmin).............................................................. 192
4. Bulk Strain / Ultimate Strain / Effective Plastic Strain...................................... 193
5. Directional Failure Models ............................................................................... 193
6. Principal Stress Failure.................................................................................... 193
7. Principal Strain Failure..................................................................................... 193
8. Principal Stress / Strain Failure ....................................................................... 194
9. Material Stress Failure..................................................................................... 194
10. Material Strain Failure...................................................................................... 195
11. Material Stress/Strain Failure .......................................................................... 195
12. Failure In Orthotropic Materials ....................................................................... 196
6

Table of Contents

7
13. Cumulative Damage Model ............................................................................. 197
14. Johnson-Holmquist Damage Failure Model..................................................... 199
15. Crack Softening............................................................................................... 200
16. Crack Plotting .................................................................................................. 203
17. User Defined Failure Model ............................................................................. 203
18. User Defined Crack Softening......................................................................... 204
6. Erosion criteria..................................................................................................... 204
1. User Defined Erosion Criteria.......................................................................... 206
2. Eroded Node Plotting....................................................................................... 206
7. High explosives ................................................................................................... 206
1. Forms of Equations of State ............................................................................ 209
2. Ideal Gas Form................................................................................................ 210
3. Constant Beta Form ........................................................................................ 211
4. Wilkins Form................................................................................................... 212
5. Jones - Wilkins - Lee Form.............................................................................. 213
6. Initiation of Detonation..................................................................................... 214
7. Burn on Time................................................................................................... 215
8. Burn on Compression...................................................................................... 219
9. Constant Volume Burn .................................................................................... 219
10. Initiation and Growth........................................................................................ 220
11. Lee-Tarver Model ............................................................................................ 221
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 223
INDEX ................................................................................................................................. 229
A.....................................................................................................................................229
B.....................................................................................................................................229
C ....................................................................................................................................229
D ....................................................................................................................................229
E.....................................................................................................................................229
F.....................................................................................................................................230
G....................................................................................................................................230
H ....................................................................................................................................230
I ......................................................................................................................................230
J .....................................................................................................................................230
L.....................................................................................................................................231
M....................................................................................................................................231
N ....................................................................................................................................231
O....................................................................................................................................231
P.....................................................................................................................................231
R ....................................................................................................................................231
S.....................................................................................................................................232
T.....................................................................................................................................232
U ....................................................................................................................................233
V.....................................................................................................................................233
W....................................................................................................................................233
Z.....................................................................................................................................233
TABLE OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... 234
Variable Notation

Variable Notation

Note: A dot above a symbol indicates a time derivative

Variable(s) Meaning
a
IG

Sign (F
IG
), Semi-volume in movement of cell face in ALE regrid
phase
A
a
, A
b
areas of sub-triangles in a quadrilateral cell
A, B, C vectors defining 3D zone
C
ij
matrix of isothermal moduli
C
ij
matrix of volume coefficients for 3D Lagrange zone
C
H
hourglass damping constant
C
p
specific heat at constant pressure
C
L
linear artificial viscosity coefficient
C
Q
quadratic artificial viscosity coefficient
C
T
anti-tangle force constant
C
v
specific heat at constant volume
c bulk sound speed
c
por
bulk sound speed of porous material
c
s
bulk sound speed of solid fully compacted material
D detonation velocity
d typical cell dimension
D damage factor ( in cumulative model )
D
max
maximum value of damage factor
E internal energy / unit volume
E Youngs modulus
8

Variable Notation

9
E
i
Youngs Moduli in principal directions
e specific internal energy ( energy / unit mass )
e e
g
,
l
specific internal energies of gas and saturated liquid in two-
phase mixture
e
s
sublimation energy or cohesive energy
e
z
specific distortional energy
F reaction ratio (ratio of mass of gaseous explosive to the total
mass of explosive in Lee-Tarver reaction model )
F
I J ,
physical variable on new grid after rezoning
F
K L ,
physical variable on old grid prior to rezoning
F F F
x y z
i i
, ,
i
force components on node i
F F F
bx by bz
i i
, ,
i
boundary force components on node i
FVTOT fraction of new cell covered by old cells (during rezoning)
FVCUT rezone volume cutoff
( ) f I J K L , , ,
fraction of old zone intersecting new zone (during rezoning)
f f f
x y
, ,
z
force components
f f f
bx by bz
i i
, ,
i
boundary force components on node i (in axial symmetry)
F
IG
,etc Semi-volume in movement of cell face in ALE regrid phase
G shear modulus
g g g
x y
, ,
z

acceleration due to gravity
H value of Gruneisen gamma at large expansions
h shell thickness
i, j, k unit Cartesian vectors
I, J, K subgrid indices
I I I
x y
, ,
z
impulse components
i specific enthalpy ( = e+pv )
Variable Notation

i i i
x y z
, , impedance components
J mechanical equivalent of heat
k time-step safety factor
k sublayer index
K bulk modulus
K
T
isothermal bulk modulus
M
hoop bending moment

M
meridional bending moment

M M M
x y z
, , momentum components
m mass
m
p
nodal mass
n unit vector normal to surface
N

hoop stress resultant
N
f

meridional stress resultant
P external normal stress on a shell
p pressure
p
ref
reference pressure for transmitting boundary
p
min
hydrodynamic tensile limit
Q chemical energy of detonation
Q
meridional shear stress resultant

q artificial viscosity
Relaxation parameter in ALE processor
R R
0
/ effective molecular weight
r
a
centroid of triangle
10

Variable Notation

11
R
meridional radius of curvature

R
d
static damping coefficient
R
0
universal gas constant
R
hoop radius of curvature

S specific entropy
S external shear stress on a shell
s distance along shell meridian
s constant giving slope of shock velocity/ particle velocity
relationship
s s s
1 2
, ,
3
stress deviators in directions of principal axes
s s s s s s s
xx yy zz xy yz zx
, , ( ), , ,
stress deviator tensor

T temperature
T period of oscillation of lowest mode (for static damping)
T
hoop stress
T
meridional stress
T K G
dam dam dam
, , values of yield strength, bulk modulus and shear modulus after
cumulative damage to material
t time
U shock velocity
u particle velocity
u
N
mean velocity component normal to transmitting boundary
u
ref
reference velocity for transmitting boundary
u u u
x y z
, , velocity components
V volume
V
0
initial volume
v specific volume
Variable Notation

v v
g
,
l
specific volumes of gas and saturated liquid in two-phase
mixture
v
0
initial specific volume
W work done
W
k
Gaussian weight coefficient
x x-coordinate (axial coordinate in axial symmetry)
Y yield stress
y y-coordinate (radial coordinate in axial symmetry)
z z-coordinate
z distance from mid-surface for shells
Z sublayer coordinate
mass fraction of vapor in two-phase liquid vapor mixture
volume coefficient of expansion
material porosity
1/ in constant beta high explosive equation of state
i
linear thermal expansivity at constant stress in i direction
Gruneisen gamma

adiabatic exponent
ij
Kronecker delta function

xx yy zz xy yz zx
, , ( ), , , stress rotation correction tensor

1 2
, ,
3
strains in directions of principal axes
hoop strain
m

hoop strain at shell mid-surface
meridional strain
m

meridional strain at shell mid-surface
12

Variable Notation

13
eff
effective strain (geometric)
eff
p

effective plastic strain

xx yy zz xy yz zx
, , ( ), , , strain tensor
/
0

1 2
, ,
3
strain deviators in directions of principal axes
coordinate in hoop direction in axial symmetry

xx yy zz xy yz zx
, , ( ), , , strain deviator tensor
p

plastic strain deviator tensor
constant of proportionality in plastic flow

compression ( /
0
- 1 )
f
coefficient of friction
Poissons ratio
ref
reference density

density
0
initial density

1 2
, ,
3
stresses in directions of principal axes
hoop stress
k
hoop stress at sublayer k
meridional stress
k
meridional stress at sublayer k
s s s s s s s
qq xx yy zz xy yz zx
, , ( ), , ,
stress tensor
meridional angle
Lagrange stress rotation correction angle
hoop curvature = 1/R

Variable Notation

meridional curvature = 1/ R

flow porosity

adiabatic constant at large expansions in JWL equation of state
0

function in Tillotson equation of state ( / ) = + 1
0
2
e e
, ,
generalized trilinear interpolation variables for 3D zone

14

Variable Notation

15

This page intentionally blank

Chapter 1. Overview

17
Chapter 1.
1.
Overview
Introduction
The AUTODYN software for non-linear dynamics was first released by Century Dynamics
in 1986 with the introduction of AUTODYN-2D. In 1991, AUTODYN-3D, the three-
dimensional analog to AUTODYN-2D was introduced. The AUTODYN programs are
general-purpose engineering software packages that use finite difference, finite volume, and
finite element techniques to solve a wide variety of non-linear problems in solid, fluid and gas
dynamics. This type of program is sometimes referred to as a hydrocode. The phenomena
to be studied with such a program can be characterized as highly time dependent with both
geometric non-linearities (e.g. large strains and deformations) and material non-linearities
(e.g. plasticity, failure, strain-hardening and softening, multiphase equations of state).

AUTODYN uniquely employs a coupled methodology to allow an optimum numerical solution
for a given problem. With this approach, different domains of a physical problem, e.g.
structures, fluids, gases, etc. can be modeled with different numerical techniques most
appropriate for that domain. AUTODYN then couples these different domains together in
space and time to provide an optimized solution. This capability makes AUTODYN
especially suitable for the study of interaction problems involving multiple systems of
structures, fluids, and gases. AUTODYN can be characterized as effectively many codes in
one spanning the regimes of structural and fluid mechanics. Each of these codes within
AUTODYN is termed a different numerical processor. The various processors available in
AUTODYN are summarized below with details to be provided in future chapters.

A wide variety of industries, research laboratories and educational institutions actively use
AUTODYN. Typical applications for AUTODYN include:

Defense
Impact/Penetration
Armor and anti-armor systems
Kinetic energy and chemical energy devices
Underwater shock and explosions
Aerospace
Bird strike
Material forming
Impact, explosion and shock loadings
Space debris impact
Petrochemical
Gas and dust explosions
Accident simulation
Fluid sloshing
Chapter 1. Overview

Well perforation
Nuclear
De-commissioning
Pipe break and whip
Jet and missile impingement
Fluid-structure interaction
Transport
Explosions in vehicles and tunnels
Crashworthiness
Occupant dynamics
Safety
Education
Solid, fluid and gas dynamics
Study of stress and shock waves
Constitutive model development
Material response

AUTODYN was one of the first engineering codes available on a PC as well as to use a
menu-driven, interactive graphics environment. AUTODYN now runs on PCs, workstations
and supercomputers. A unique and powerful analysis environment is provided by
AUTODYNs integrated pre- and post-processing capabilities coupled with interactive
visualization.

2. Theory Overview
The various numerical processors available in AUTODYN generally use a coupled finite
difference/finite volume approach similar to that described by Cowler and Hancock (1979).
This scheme allows alternative numerical processors to be selectively used to model
different components/regimes of a problem. Individual structured meshes operated on by
these different numerical processors can be coupled together in space and time to efficiently
compute structural, fluid, or gas dynamics problems including coupled problems (e.g. fluid-
structure, gas-structure, structure-structure, etc.).

AUTODYN includes the following numerical processors:
Lagrange processor for modeling solid continua and structures
Euler processors for modeling fluids, gases, and large distortion. These processors
include first-order and second-order accurate schemes.
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrange Euler) processor for specialized flow models
18

Chapter 1. Overview

19
1.
2.
Shell processor for modeling thin structural elements
SPH (Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics) - not in general release
At present, all the above processors use explicit time integration. Libraries of material data
are included for solids, liquids, and gases (including high explosives and detonation
products).
Lagrange Processor
The Lagrange scheme in AUTODYN was derived from the method used by Wilkins (1973) in
the HEMP code. The Lagrange processor operates on a structured (I-J-K) numerical mesh
of quadrilateral (2D) or brick-type elements (3D). The vertices of the mesh move with
material flow velocity. Material remains within its initial element definition with no transport of
material from cell to cell.

Compared to the Eulerian approach, discussed below, the Lagrange formulation tends to be
faster computationally as no transport of material through the mesh needs to be calculated.
Moreover, material interfaces, free surfaces, and history dependent material behavior are
generally easier to follow in the Lagrange framework. The major disadvantage of Lagrange
is that if excessive material movement occurs, the numerical mesh may become highly
distorted leading to an inaccurate and inefficient solution. Further, this may ultimately lead to
a termination of the calculation. Rezoning the numerical mesh by remapping the distorted
solution onto a more regular mesh is one approach to alleviate the mesh distortion problem.
AUTODYN provides this capability through an interactive rezoner that allows the Lagrange
processor to successfully model many problems that would normally require an Eulerian
solution (Itoh & Cowler 1987). Other techniques, such as erosion, are also standardly
available in AUTODYN and can be used to further extend the Lagrange formulation to highly
distorted phenomenon.

Because of its inherent efficiency, the Lagrange processor is typically used whenever the
deformations and boundary conditions permit. However, large deformations and true fluid
and gas dynamics are generally more practically handled with an Eulerian approach.
Euler Processors
The original first-order approach scheme in AUTODYN is based upon the method developed
by Hancock (1976). Two different higher order Eulerian schemes have been introduced into
AUTODYN (1995). The Godunov multi-material with strength higher order processor was
developed following techniques initially developed by van Leer (1977, 1979). The FCT
higher order single material Euler processor is based on the algorithm by Zalesak (J. Comp.
Physics, 31, 335-362, 1979) which is itself based on the earlier operator split algorithms by
Boris & Book (Methods in Computational Physics, 16, 85-129, 1976). The various Euler
processors are currently directed at different needs. The first-order scheme is used for fluid-
structure, gas-structure interaction problems. The multi-material Godunov second-order
scheme is used for purely fluid and gas dynamic calculations or highly distorted structural
materials. The FCT scheme is used for single material gas dynamic problems. Neither
higher order scheme, as of this writing, includes coupled capability.
Chapter 1. Overview

3.
4.

In the Euler processors a control volume method is used to solve the equations that govern
conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. The integral and discrete forms of these
equations are expressed in conservation form to obtain accurate, stable solutions. Terms
producing changes in conserved variables are divided into two groups: Lagrangian or
transport (convective). A two-step numerical procedure is used to solve the finite-difference
equations. In the first step, the Lagrange step, the Lagrangian form of the equations are
updated or advanced one time interval (time step). In the second step, the Euler step, the
updated variables are mapped onto the Euler mesh. Multiple materials are handled either
through a volume fraction technique or an interface technique originally developed by
Youngs (1982). All variables are cell centered. This more readily allows arbitrary shaped
control volumes to be formed at the interface between Euler and Lagrange grids, facilitating
the computation of fluid-structure or gas-structure interaction problems.

An Euler formulation is ideally suited to handling large deformations and fluid flow. However,
it is more difficult to track free surfaces, material interfaces, and history dependent material
behavior. Care must also be taken to limit the numerical diffusion associated with the
material convection from cell to cell.

ALE Processor
The ALE (Arbitrary Lagrange Euler) scheme used in AUTODYN is an extension of the
Lagrange method described earlier. An additional computational step is employed, as
described by Amsden et al (1980) for the SALE code, to move the grid and remap the
solution onto the new grid. AUTODYN allows the user to apply various predefined grid
motions to selected regions of the grid. If no specification is made, a node is treated as
Lagrange by default. Material strength is allowed following the technique of the MANJUSRI
code (Itoh & Obata 1985).

The promise of the ALE technique is that the freedom in dynamically defining the mesh
configuration should allow a combination of the best features of both Lagrange and Euler.
However, free surfaces and material interfaces are still required to behave strictly as
Lagrange. Consequently, only internal vertices can benefit from ALE rezoning (exception:
nodes on planes can also be treated as ALE). The ALE processor can reduce and
sometimes eliminate the need for Lagrange rezoning, but this processor cannot always be
substituted in place of a pure multi-material Euler processor for large flow problems.

Structural Processor
Structural elements are generally best modeled using techniques other than a Lagrange
continuum approach. This is particularly true for thin shell structures where a prohibitively
small timestep would be required for Lagrange continuum approach. The formulation for 2D
shells follows that described by Cowler (1973), Cowler & Hancock (1979). In 3D, shells are
an extension to the formulation of Belytschko (1984, 1992). Although thickness is considered
in the shell formulation, it is not included in the geometric representation of the shell and
does not enter into the timestep calculation.
20

Chapter 1. Overview

21
5.

Other structural elements as of this writing, are planned but not yet implemented.

Processor Coupling
AUTODYN has the ability to couple separate numerical grids across Lagrange-Lagrange
and Lagrange-Euler interfaces. Each numerical grid has its own independent structured
index space (I-J-K). ALE and Shell boundaries are classified as Lagrange interfaces. There
are four basic types of coupling available:

Joined Lagrange grids - This is a node to node type of contact. Joined Lagrange nodes
move according to the stress contributions from all surrounding elements.
Joined Euler grids - This is also a node to node type of contact. Joined Euler faces allow
material to flow from one independent mesh to another.
Impact/Slide interfaces - Lagrange grids can impact and slide along any Lagrange
surface. This surface can be dynamically redefined as the surface changes through
erosion. Erosion is a technique wherein Lagrange cells are transformed into free mass
points not connected to the original mesh. These free nodes can further interact with
other bodies or the original body from which they were eroded. This very powerful
feature allows the study of impact interaction problems including deep penetrations in the
low to hypervelocity range using a Lagrange technique. Lagrange, ALE, Shell, and SPH
grids can interact with each other through the impact/slide interface logic.
Euler-Lagrange coupling - Euler and Lagrange grids interact in a very general and
powerful way. A Lagrange interface may cut through the fixed Euler mesh in an
arbitrary manner. The Euler cells intersected by the Lagrange interface define a stress
profile for the Lagrange boundary vertices. In return, the Lagrange interface defines a
geometric constraint to the flow of material in the Euler grid. AUTODYN recognizes that
the Euler cells adjacent to a Lagrangian boundary may be partially covered by the
Lagrangian grid and that their control volumes and face areas may be continually
changing. In a large displacement problem, an Euler cell that was originally not covered
may become completely covered by a Lagrange mesh as the Lagrange mesh moves
over it. Similarly, an Euler cell may become uncovered. As the Lagrange mesh moves
across the interacting Euler mesh, Euler control volumes can become very small, tending
to 0 when completely covered. To maintain stability, AUTODYN automatically and
dynamically combines (clumps) a small control volume (cell) with its larger neighbors to
form a single larger control volume. Similarly, when a cell becomes uncovered enough to
be independent it can be unclumped.

The Euler-Lagrange coupling feature is a very powerful feature for modeling fluid-structure
and gas-structure interaction problems. This extends to blast and explosion effects and
interactions on structures.

Chapter 1. Overview

6.
3.
Material Models
AUTODYN can utilize any equation of state which expresses pressure as a function of
density and specific internal energy. Standard equations of state are gamma law gas (ideal
gas), polynomial, Gruneisen shock wave, Tillotson and JWL for high explosives. Burn logic is
included for the detonation of high explosives either through timed burn, burn initiated by
compression, or with the introduction of version 4 an indirect burn option which allows for
burning around obstacles and wave shapers. The Lee-Tarver ignition and growth model also
allows for the detonation of explosives based upon dynamic conditions. Yield models
include, constant (von Mises), piecewise linear, Mohr-coulomb work hardening, as well as a
number of strain hardening, thermal softening models. Orthotropic yield behavior and failure
criteria may also be defined.

Summary
AUTODYN encompasses several different numerical techniques and a wide range of
material modeling capabilities to provide a powerful system for solving non-linear dynamics
problems. Moreover, AUTODYN is a fully integrated program including pre-processor and
post-processor together with the analysis engine in a single program. An interactive, menu-
driven environment allows the user to setup, analyze, and display results from the same
environment. Graphics are displayed during every phase of the analysis including during the
calculation as the problem progresses.

The following pages of this publication provide details on the various numerical techniques
used within AUTODYN as well as the background and fundamentals of material modeling.
22

Chapter 2. Reserved

23
Chapter 2.

Reserved

Chapter 2. Reserved

24

Chapter 3. Lagrange Processor in 2D

25
Chapter 3.
1.
Lagrange Processor in 2D
Introduction
A Lagrangian coordinate system, in which the coordinates move with the material, is ideal for
following the flow in regions of relatively low distortion, and possibly large displacement,
where mesh tangling, if it does occur, will only occur at later times and in regions of low to
moderate pressure gradients. In the latter cases the mesh may be rezoned to allow the
calculation to continue to later times, albeit with some loss of accuracy. Rezoning will be
discussed later in Section 3.12. A Lagrangian coordinate system will deform with the
material and therefore accurately define material interfaces as shown in Figure 3-1. In
addition, the history of the state of the material represented by a cell is known completely, so
the implementation of sophisticated constitutive models is possible.

t = 0.0
t > 0.0

Figure 3-1 Lagrangian Mesh Distortion

There have been many schemes developed since the major expansion of hydrocode
development in the 1960s but the finite difference scheme used in the 2D Lagrange
processor of AUTODYN is based on that developed by Wilkins (1964), although differing in
some important details. Although many other schemes have been developed since that time
many of these use the Wilkins method as their basis.

2. Governing Equations
The partial differential equations to be solved express the conservation of mass, momentum
and energy in Lagrangian coordinates. These, together with a material model (see Chapter
11) and a set of initial and boundary conditions, define the complete solution of the problem.
The equations are written below for both planar and axial symmetry. In axial symmetry the x-
axis is the axis of symmetry and in all the equations a dot denotes time differentiation.

Subscripts or t denote the direction perpendicular to the (x, y) plane (t is used in the
AUTODYN software where Greek letters cannot be written while is used in the text where
it is the more conventional symbol).

Material associated with a Lagrangian zone stays with that zone under any deformation.
Thus a Lagrangian grid moves and distorts with the material it models and conservation of
mass is automatically satisfied. The density at any time can be determined from the current
volume of the zone and its initial mass.

= =
0 0
V
V
m
V
(3.1)
The partial differential equations which express the conservation of momentum relate the
acceleration to the stress tensor
ij

&&
&&
x
x y
y
x y
xx
xy
xy yy
= +
= +
(3.2)
for planar symmetry and

&&
&&
x
x y y
y
x y y
xx
xy xy
xy yy yy
= + +
= + +

(3.3)
for axial symmetry.

The stress tensor is separated into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric component
(see Section 11.3 for a full discussion on this)
(3.4)

xx xx
yy yy
xy xx
p q s
p q s
p q s
s
= + +
= + +
= + +
=
( )
( )
( )
The negative sign for the hydrostatic pressure p follows from the usual notation that stresses
are positive in tension and negative in compression (the opposite to that for pressure). In the
actual equations solved the hydrostatic pressure p is augmented by a pseudo-viscous
pressure q which will be discussed more fully in Section 3.6 on nodal forces.
26


The strain tensor
ij
is determined from the relation between the strain rates and the
velocities ( & , & ) x y

&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
xx
yy
xy
x
x
y
y
in planesymmetry
y
y
in axial symmetry
x
y
y
x
=
=
=
=
= +
(
0
1
2
(3.5)
and these strain rates are related to the rate of change of volume by

&
& & &
V
V
xx yy
= + +
(3.6)
For elastic behavior of a material we may derive from equation (3.6) and Hookes Law
relations between the deviatoric stress rates and the strain rates

& &
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &
s G
V
V
s G
V
V
s G
V
V
s G
xx xx
yy yy
xy xy
=
(
=
(
=
(
=
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2

(3.7)
The deviatoric variables will also be adjusted for other real effects, such as rigid body
rotations, plastic flow, damage and failure as described below and more fully in Chapter 11
on Material Modeling.

The pressure p is related to the density and specific internal energy e through an equation
of state
(3.8) p f e = ( , )
27

of the forms described in Chapter 11. This must be solved simultaneously with the equation
expressing conservation of energy
& (
& & & &
) e
xx xx yy yy xy xy
= + + +
1
2

(3.9)
3. Lagrange Subgrids
As indicated above a specific region of interest is covered by a set (or grid) of quadrilateral
zones or cells on which the flow and state variables (position, velocity, pressure etc.) are
defined. This region, or subgrid, if followed within a Lagrangian coordinate system is known
as a Lagrange subgrid and it may form a part of a set of regions or subgrids, some of which
may be treated with different solution techniques (e.g. Euler, Shell, ALE, SPH). A subgrid is
a group of cells (or zones) which is rectangular in index space (I, J space). The cells are
organized in columns (I-lines) from I = 1 (minimum I) to IMAX (maximum I) and from J = 1
(minimum J) to JMAX (maximum J). Each cell within the subgrid has four corner nodes
forming a generalized quadrilateral. The index space of each subgrid is independent of any
of the other subgrids defined in the problem. Figure 3-2 depicts example subgrids. Note that
while the index space of the subgrid is rectangular the physical location of the subgrid in x-y
space is not necessarily rectangular. Indeed complex geometries can be defined by using
techniques to join two or more nodes which are separated in the I, J index space; see, for
example, the middle and right-hand subgrids in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2 Examples of Lagrangian Subgrids

Each subgrid node is identified by its unique (I, J) index as shown in Figure 3-3 while each
zone interior is defined by a unique (I, J) index which is identified with the upper-rightmost
(in (I, J) space) node of the zone.

The partial differential equations shown in the above section are replaced by finite difference
equations, based on the cells of the subgrid, and these difference equations are solved to
update the solution in successive timesteps. Following Wilkins, an explicit central difference
scheme is used. There are however some differences in the details of the method used,
28


primarily resulting from the need to deal with subgrid interactions, such as Euler-Lagrange
coupling.

I-1, J-1 I, J-1
I, J I-1, J
I, J
I
J

Figure 3-3 (I, J) Convention for Zones and Nodes

The series of calculations that are carried out in each incremental timestep (or cycle) in a
Lagrange subgrid are shown schematically in Figure 3-4 below. Starting at the bottom of the
figure the boundary and/or interactive forces are updated and combined with the forces for
inner zones computed during the previous time cycle. Then for all non-interactive Lagrangian
nodes the accelerations, velocities and positions are computed from the momentum
equation and a further integration. From these values the new zonal volumes and strain
rates may be calculated. With the use of a material model together with the energy equation
the zonal pressures, stresses and energies may be calculated, providing forces for use at
the start of the next integration cycle. Details of these steps in the calculation are given in the
following sections. For the coupling of Lagrangian subgrids to other subgrids there are
additional calculations, that are used to compute the interactive forces, and these are
discussed in Chapter 10.

29

Nodal Velocities
& Displacements
Zone Volumes
& Strain Rates
Zone Pressures
& Stresses
Nodal forces
Nodal Accelerations
Material Model
Conservation of Momentum Force/Mass
Integration
Direct Calculation
Boundary and/or Interactive Forces

Figure 3-4 Lagrange Computation Cycle
1. Centering Of Variables
In the Lagrangian grid of quadrilaterals, positions , material velocities and
material accelerations are defined at the zone corners, which are also called grid
points or nodes. Material quantities which define the state of the material such as pressure,
density, internal energy, stress deviators, strain deviators and temperature are defined at
zone centers, as shown in Figure 3-5. The grid points move with the velocities defined at
those points and the zones deform according to the movement of the nodes. The mass of
the zone is also defined at the zone center.
( , ) x y ( & , & ) x y
( &&, && ) x y

&, & x y
x y ,
&&, && x y
p, e,
,T, m

30


Figure 3-5 Location of Variables
A quarter of the mass of each zone can be associated with each node of the zone. Thus the
mass associated with a node is one quarter of the sum of the masses of the four zones
surrounding the node.

The accuracy of integration and the allowable time step of integration can be severely
degraded if the zonal deformation becomes too severe. The time step of integration is
readily accessible for inspection by the user who can examine the grid and seek to
ameliorate the situation by rezoning any area of severe grid deformation (see Figure 3-6 for
example). If the region of severe deformation lies in areas which are no longer of concern,
zones may be discarded by an automatic numerical process known in AUTODYN as
erosion. Rezoning is discussed fully below in Section 3.12 while erosion is discussed in
Section 11.7.

Figure 3-6 Typical Rezone Procedure
It should be remembered that mesh deformation in Lagrangian subgrids is not always due to
shock impact, large stress fields etc. For example, geometrical effects in axial symmetry can
lead to very large mesh deformations. If the problem is such that material moves towards the
axis of symmetry then distances parallel to the axis remain unchanged while those normal to
the axis will, because of conservation of mass, vary inversely proportional to the square of
the distance of the mesh from the axis. In this way, Lagrangian meshes which were initially
square can become highly elongated. Since meshes with large aspect ratios are undesirable
because of loss of accuracy in the centered differencing some mesh adjustment may be
necessary at some time during such a calculation.

Problems can occur with the above convention for boundary zones where, for example, state
variables (e.g. pressure) may be defined on zone boundaries (i.e. at nodes). These zones
have to be treated as special cases to ensure consistency and accuracy.

31

32
4.
1.
Zone Volumes and Strain Rates

Zone Volumes
The quadrilateral zones deform as the material they define deform. The shape of a zone is
defined by the position of the four corner nodes, and these positions are used to calculate
the area of the zone.

The quadrilateral is divided into two triangles and the area of these triangles can be
calculated from the cross products of the vectors shown in Figure 3-7. The areas are

| |
| |
A x x y y x x y y
A x x y y x x y y
a
b
=
=
1
2
1
2
1 4 2 4 2 4 1 4
3 2 4 2 4 2 3 2
( )( ) ( )(
( )( ) ( )(
)
)
(3.10)

A
A
b
a
(x1, y1)
(x2, y2 )
(x3, y3)
(x4, y4)

Figure 3-7 Computation of Zonal Areas
In the case of planar symmetry the zonal volume is equal to the zonal area, since unit
thickness is assumed. The zonal volume is therefore

| |
V A A
V x x y y x x y y
a b
= +
=
1
2
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3.11)
For axial symmetry the volume of the zone is calculated from the volumes of the two toroids
generated by rotating the two triangles about the axis of symmetry. The volume of each
toroid is equal to the triangular area times 2r where r is the radius of the centroid of the
triangle. Thus the total volume of the zone in axial symmetry is


| |
V A y y y A y y y
a b
= + + + + +
2
3
1 2 4 2 3 4
( ) ( ) (3.12)
Note that in AUTODYN, the term is dropped for grid cells so if you examine the volume of
a cell the value obtained will be that computed by equation (3.12) divided by .

Since the mass in a Lagrangian zone remains constant the density is then calculated from
these volumes and the initial mass within the cell using
=
m
V
(3.13)
The initial zone mass is computed at the start of the calculation from the zone volumes,
calculated with the above equations and the inputted initial density.

2. Strain Rates
Expressions of similar structure to equations (3.10) may be derived for the strain rates. In
order to solve equations (3.5), we need to integrate the partial derivatives of the zone area
and convert the area integrals to line integrals around the zone using Greens theorem as
follows, letting f represent or & x & y

( )
( )
A
f
x
f
x
dA f dy
f f
y y
A
f
y
f
y
dA f dx
f f
x x
V S
k k
k k
k
V S
k k
k k
k
=
+
|
\
|
.
|
=
+
|
\
|
.
|

1
1
1
1
2
2
(3.14)
where the index k runs from 1 to N, summing over the N corners of the zone and f
k
is the
value of the function f at the kth corner (so N = 3 if the zone is split into triangles as in Figure
3-7 and in equations (3.10), or N = 4 if a quadrilateral zone is considered). The sums can be
reduced to the form (with N = 4)

( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( )( ) ( )( )
| |
A
f
x
f f y y f f y y
A
f
y
f f x x f f x x

1
2
1
2
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
(3.15)
Note that if in the first equation of this pair it is identical to the expression for the area
of the quadrilateral derived in equation (3.11). However applying these equations with
f x =
f x = &
and gives the approximations for the strain rates. f y = &
33

( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( )( ) ( )( )
| |
A
x
x
x x y y x x y y
A
y
x
y y y y y y y y
A
x
y
x x x x x x x x
A
y
y
y y x x y y x x
&
& & & &
&
& & & &
&
& & & &
&
& & & &
=
=
=
=
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
1 3 2 4 2 4 1 3
(3.16)
The change of zonal area from time t
n
to t
n+1
is given by
A A
x
x
A
y
y
t = +
& &
(3.17)
and the strain rates are computed as follows. Let

| |
A A A
x
x A
A
x
x
n n
n
+ +
+
= +
=

(
1 2 1
1 2
1
2
1
& &
n
(3.18)
Then from (3.5)

( )( ) ( )( | | )
( )( ) ( )( | | )
( )( ) ( )( | | )
( )( ) ( )( | |
3 1 4 2 4 2 3 1
2 1 n
3 1 4 2 4 2 3 1
2 1 n
xy
3 1 4 2 4 2 3 1
2 1 n
yy
3 1 4 2 4 2 3 1
2 1 n
xx
y y y y y y y y
A 2
1
x x x x x x x x
A 2
1
x x y y x x y y
A 2
1
y y x x y y x x
A 2
1
+
=
=
=
+
+
+
+
& & & &
& & & & &
& & & & &
& & & & &
)
(3.19)
For translational symmetry and we have
&
= 0

&
& &
V
V
A
A t
xx yy
n
= + =
+

1 2
(3.20)
For axial symmetry the hoop strain rate is defined by
34


&
&
& &

=
V
V
xx yy
(3.21)
It is possible to compute
&
V V directly from the difference in zonal volumes , but
this can lead to serious round off error because both and V can be very large
numbers in axial symmetry. To avoid this problem the exact volume change is derived as an
expression involving the nodal velocities.
V V
n n +
1
V
n+1 n

If V
a
is the volume of the toroid formed by rotating the triangle A
a
in Figure 3-7, then
(3.22) V r
a a
= 2 A
a
where
r y y y
a
= + +
1
3
1 2 4
( )
The change in , can be written as V V
a
,
a
V r A A
a a
n
a a
n
a
= +
+
2 2
1 2 1 2
r
+
(3.23)
r
a
can be expressed as

r
t
y y y
a
= + +
3
1 2 4
( & & & ) (3.24)
while A
a
has already been defined in equations (3.16) and (3.17) and can be expressed as

| |
A
a xx a yy a a
n
= +
+
(
&
) (
&
)
1 2
A t (3.25)
where

| |
| |
A x y y x y y x y
A y x x y x x y x
a
n
xx a
a
n
yy a
+
+
= + +
= + +
1 2
1 2 4 2 4 1 4 1 2
1 2
1 2 4 2 4 1 4 1 2
1
2
1
2
(
&
) & ( ) & ( ) & ( )
(
&
) & ( ) & ( ) & ( )
y
x
(3.26)
The expressions (3.24) and (3.26) can be inserted into equation (3.23) to give a relation for
V
a
in terms of the nodal velocities and nodal positions of the area A
a
.

35

Similar expressions can be obtained for the triangular area A
b

| |
| |
A x y y x y y x y
A y x x y x x y x
b
n
xx b
b
n
yy b
+
+
= + +
= + +
1 2
3 4 2 4 2 3 2 3 4
1 2
3 4 2 4 2 3 2 3 4
1
2
1
2
(
&
) & ( ) & ( ) & ( )
(
&
) & ( ) & ( ) & ( )
y
x
(3.27)

and

r
t
y y y
b
= + +
3
2 3 4
( & & & ) (3.28)
The change in volume V is given by
(3.29) V V V V
a b
= + =
&
t
Once V has been evaluated

V V V
V V V
V
V
V
V
n n
n n
n
+
+
+
= +
= +
=
1
1 2 1
1 2
1
2
(
& &
n+
)
5.
1.
(3.30)
giving the required function.

Pressures and Stresses
Stress Increments
Having determined the strain rates and the volume change
&
V V the deviatoric stresses can
be calculated from Hookes Law and the rotation corrections (see below)
36


s s G t
V
V
s s G t
V
V
s s s
s s G t
xx
n
xx
n
xx
n
xx
n
yy
n
yy
n
yy
n
yy
n
n
xx
n
yy
n
xy
n
xy
n
xy
n
xy
n
+
+
+
+
+ + +
+ +
= +
(
+
= +
(
+
=
= + +
1
1 2
1
1 2
1 1 1
1 1 2
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
&
&
&
&
&

2.
(3.31)
where G is the shear modulus.

The deviatoric stresses are tested to determine whether plastic yielding has taken place, and
this is described fully in Section 11.3. If yielding has occurred the deviators are scaled down
so that the resultant lies exactly on the yield surface.

Stress Rotation Correction
If a Lagrange zone undergoes a rotation through an angle , the stress tensor rotates with
the material and must be rotated through the same angle. Following the treatment by Wilkins
(1964), sin is defined by an expression which is exact for a body undergoing a rigid body
rotation
sin
& &
= +
|
\
|
.
|
t y
x
x
y 2
(3.32)
where the partial derivatives are determined as in the previous section in equation (3.16).
The stress rotation can be achieved by adding the following terms to the stress deviator
tensor s
ij

| |
| |

xx xx yy xy
yy xx
xy xx yy xy
s s s
s s s
=
=
= +
1
2
2 1 2
1
2
2 2
( cos ) sin
sin cos( )
1
(3.33)
The expressions for the double angle are approximated by

sin
sin
( sin )
cos
sin
( sin
2
2
1
2 1
2
1
2
2
2
=
+
=
+ )
(3.34)
37

These small angle approximations have the property that
38
1 =
|
sin cos
2 2
2 2 +
which ensures that the second invariant of the stress deviator tensor is not changed during
the rotation.

The change in specific distortional energy is

|
e s s s s
V
m
t
z xx xx yy yy xy xy
= + + +
& & & &

2 (3.35)
The new value of the hydrostatic pressure p is obtained from the simultaneous solution of
the equation of state
(3.36) p f e = ( , )
and the energy equation
e e e
p p
q
V
m
n n
z
n
n n
n
n
+ +
+
+
+
= +
+
+
(
1 1 2
1
1 2
1
2

(3.37)
Equation (3.37) includes the effect of the pseudo-viscous pressure components which are
included to both capture shocks and damp oscillations behind shocks (these will be
discussed in the next section) and the updated stress tensor is finally

xx xx
yy yy
xy xy
p q s
p q s
p q s
s
= +
= +
= +
=
(3.38)
6. Nodal Forces

Once the updated stress tensor has been calculated the final phase of the computational
cycle is to evaluate the nodal forces, which consist of several types. In addition to the forces
on internal nodes there are the boundary or external forces to consider. There are also the
pseudo-viscous forces mentioned in the previous section and finally additional forces are
included in the finite difference formulation to inhibit possible mesh deformations which have
no physical significance (anti-tangling and hourglass forces). These types will be considered
separately below.


39
1. Internal Forces
The momentum equations in planar symmetry are given in equation (3.2) as

&&
&&
x
x y
y
x y
xx
xy
xy yy
= +
= +
(3.39)
where and && y are the x and y components of acceleration. To derive an expression for the
acceleration at the nodes, multiply the above equations by dx dy, and by means of Greens
theorem obtain the line integrals around the contour shown in Figure 3-8 for the node 1.
&& x
1 2
3 4
I I+1 I-1
J-1
J
J+1
x
y

Figure 3-8 Determination of Internal Forces

| |
| |
&&
&
x
m
dy dx
y
m
dy dx
xx xy
S
k
xy yy
S
k
4
1
2
4
1
2
1
4
1
4
=
=
=
=

(3.40)
where the summation of masses indicates a contribution of mass (the shaded regions) from
each of the zones surrounding the node 1. Evaluating these integrals with the simplest
approximations the contributions from the bottom-left zone on each of its nodes can be
shown to be (if denotes the force component in the x direction at node k). F
x
k

| |
| |
| |
|
F y y x
F y y x
F y y x
F y y x
F F
F F
F F
F F
x xx xy
y xy yy
x xx xy
y xy yy
x x
y y
x x
y y
1
1
2
2
3 1
3 1
4 2
4 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
4 2 4 2
4 2 4 2
1 3 1 3
1 3 1 3
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
|
x
x
x
x
(3.41)
The total force on node 1 will be the sum of the separate contributions from the four zones
surrounding node 1. Clearly the sum of the (k = 1, 2, 3, 4) is zero, as is the sum of
(k = 1, 2, 3, 4) so that the net force that a zone exerts on its own nodes is zero, a necessary
condition for momentum conservation.
F
x
k
F
y
k

In axial symmetry the momentum equations, (3.3) are

&&
&&
x
x y y
y
x y y
xx
xy
xx
xy yy yy
= + +
= + +

(3.42)
If the above equations are multiplied by 2 y dx dy and integrated over a similar area to that
indicated in Figure 3-8, as was done for planar symmetry, the equations become

&&
&& ( )
x
m
x y
ydxdy dxdy
y
m
x y
ydxdy dxdy
xx
xy
xy
xy yy
yy
4
4
= +
|
\
|
.
|
+
= +
|
\
|
.
|
+

(3.43)
Then by use of Greens Theorem and some algebraic manipulation we obtain a
corresponding set of equations to the planar set and can carry out similar approximations to
those in (3.40) to evaluate the integrals for the contributions to the zonal nodes. If the area of
the 1-2-3-4 quadrilateral, in Figure 3-8, is denoted by A and
40


y y y y y = + + +
1
2
1 2 3 4
( ) (3.44)
f
A
y
xA
xy
=

2
(3.45)

| |
f
A
y
yA
yy
=

4
(3.46)
then the force contributions at the nodes k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4), and f , can be expressed in
terms of the forces for planar symmetry, and , given in equations (3.47)
f
x
k
y
k
F
x
k
F
y
k
(3.47)
f y y F y y
f y y F y y
f y y F y y
f y y F y y
f y F f
f y F f
f y F f
f y F f
x x
x x
x x
x x
y y yA
y y yA
y y yA
y y yA
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
4 2 1
1 3 2
2 4 3
3 1 4
1
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
= + +
= + +
= + +
= + +
= +
= +
= +
= +
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
f
f
f
f
xA
xA
xA
xA
Using the results of equations (3.40) it is seen that the sum of is zero, thus ensuring
momentum conservation, while the sum of can be shown to be equal to -2 A
f
x
k
f
y
k

2.
, which
is the self-contribution of the zone due to the internal hoop stress.

External Forces
If the point (I, J) is a boundary node the path of integration in Figure 3-8 has to be modified
to run along the boundary and while the contributions of internal forces to the zonal nodes
(including the boundary nodes) remain unchanged there may be external forces acting on
the boundary which must be included in the integrals to determine the final nodal forces.

Assume that the boundary is along the J
th
mesh line as illustrated in Figure 3-9 and that a
pressure p = P(t) acts on the boundary. In AUTODYN the function P(t) can be a constant
pressure, a pressure which is a triangular pulse or one of several other options. For the
quadrilateral 1-2-3-4 the force acting on the boundary face 1-2 is P times the length of the
side 1-2 acting normal to the side 1-2. In planar symmetry this force is divided equally
41

between the two nodes 1 and 2. In the case of axial symmetry the x component is divided
equally between the two nodes but the division of the y component is radially weighted.

1 2
3 4
I I+1 I-1
J-1
J
x
y
P(t) P(t)

Figure 3-9 Determination of Boundary Forces
The boundary forces on the points 1 and 2 in Figure 3-9 in planar symmetry due to the
external pressure are therefore

F y y
F x x
F F
F F
bx
by
bx bx
by by
1
1
2 1
2 1
1
2
1
2
2 1
2 1
=
=
=
=
( )
(
P
P )
2
(3.48)
In the case of axial symmetry, if the corresponding forces are denoted by lower case f as in
the previous section, then
(3.49)
f y y F
f y y F
f y F
f y F
bx bx
bx bx
by by
by by
1 1
2
1 1
2 2
1 2
1 2
1
2
2
2
= +
= +
=
=
( )
( )
The forces in equations (3.48) and (3.49) must be added to the forces calculated in
equations (3.41) and (3.47) respectively.

42


43
3. Pseudo-Viscous Forces
Because of the nonlinearity of the flow equations, shocks can form even though the initial
conditions are smooth. Therefore, in order to handle the discontinuities in the flow variables
associated with such shocks, it has been standard practice to introduce extra viscous terms
into the solutions. These additional terms have the effect of spreading out the shock
discontinuities over several zones and thus allow the code to continue to compute a smooth
solution, even after shock formation and growth. The early approaches of von Neumann and
Richtmeyer (1950) introduced a term to add to the pressure which was quadratic in the strain
rate and they demonstrated its efficacy so strongly that most hydrocodes since that time
have used a similar term to capture shocks. However, small oscillations occurred in the flow
behind the shocks and to damp these oscillations various researchers, including Wilkins
(1980), proposed an additional term which was linear in the strain rate and it is this
combination which is in general use today in many codes, including AUTODYN.

The actual terms in AUTODYN are added to the hydrostatic pressure p in the energy and
momentum equations and are

q C d
V
V
C c
V
V
for
V
V
for
V
V
Q L
=
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
(
(
<
= >
& &
&
2
0
0 0
&
(3.50)
where C
Q
and C
L
are constants, is the current local density, d is a typical length (here
defined to be the area of the zone divided by the longest diagonal of the zone), c is the local
sound speed and
&
V V is the volume change already defined in Section 3.2. Note that the
pseudo-viscous term is only added when the flow is compressing since such terms are not
necessary, and would prove excessively dispersive, if they were added to rarefying flows.
4. Hourglass Damping
AUTODYN uses quadrilateral zones to define the solution in a material and such a definition
has a fundamental weakness. Since the expressions for strain rates and forces involve only
differences in velocities and/or coordinates of diagonally opposite corners of the quadrilateral
zone, if the zone distorts in such a way that these differences remain unchanged there will
be no strain increase in the zone and therefore no resistance to this distortion. An example
of such a distortion is illustrated in Figure 3-10 where the two diagonals remain the same
length even though the cell distorts. If such distortions occur in a region of several zones a
pattern such as that shown in Figure 3-11 occurs and the reason for the name of hourglass
instability is easily understood.

In order to avoid such hourglassing from happening a set of corrective forces are added to
the solution. These are proportional to the velocity ( where
&
,
&
) X Y

(3.51)
( )
( )
&
& & & &
&
& & & &
X x x x x
Y y y y y
= +
= +
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 1
3 4
2 1
3 4

Figure 3-10 Zone Distortion with No Change of Strain or Stress

Figure 3-11 Region of Hourglass Distortion

Damping forces to oppose this movement are added to the forces at each corner of the
zone. The actual forces included in AUTODYN are, for planar symmetry,
44


F
C mX
t
F
C mY
t
F F F F
F F F F
x
H
y
H
x x x
y y y
1
1
2 3 4
2 3 4
16
16
=
=
= = =
= = =
&
&
x
y
1
1
k
(3.52)
where C
H
is a constant between 0 and 1. It should not be too large since this is a pseudo-
force and the default value of 0.05 is usually found to give satisfactory results.

In the case of axial symmetry, if the forces required are denoted by f as in previous
sections, then
f
x y
k
,

f F k
f
y
y y
F
f
y
y y
F
f
y
y y
F
f
y
y y
F
x x
y y
y
y y
y y
k k
= =
=
+
(
=
+
(
=
+
(
=
+
(
1 2 3 4
2
2
2
2
1 1
2
3 1
1 1
1
1 3
2
2 4
3
1 3
4
2 4
, , ,
( )
( )
( )
( )
y
1
(3.53)
If the zone is on the axis, i.e. either (y
2
+ y
4
) = 0 or (y
1
+ y
3
) = 0, the y components of the
hourglass inhibiting force are set to zero.

The change in specific internal energy of the zone due to the addition of these forces is

e
t
m
f x f y
x k y k
k k
k k
= +
|
\
|
.
|
= =

1
4
1
4
(3.54)
in the case of axial symmetry and where the functions f are replaced by in the case of
planar symmetry.
x
k
F
x
k

45

46
5. Anti-Tangle Forces
If the distortion in an AUTODYN calculation becomes excessive the changes in Lagrangian
quadrilateral zones can become so large that mesh lines can cross over one another or
zones become re-entrant. If a mesh becomes degenerate by a node crossing the opposite
side of the mesh the calculation is terminated since such non-physical deformations would
result in erroneous solutions. However if the growth of distortion is recognized in its early
stages extra forces can be added in an attempt to inhibit mesh tangling. Normally these anti-
tangle forces are not invoked in AUTODYN calculations but they can be optionally turned on
by the user. Clearly a mesh can become re-entrant by any one of its four nodes crossing the
diagonal joining its neighboring nodes as illustrated in Figure 3-12.

It is not possible to envisage a situation where two of the nodes form re-entrant
configurations simultaneously without the mesh becoming degenerate and the calculation
being terminated. We only need, therefore to consider one such configuration from Figure
3-12 as a typical example. This is shown in (a) where the quadrilateral 1-2-3-4 becomes re-
entrant by node 1 moving to the other side of the diagonal 2-4.

1
3
2
4
1
3
2
4
1
3
2
4
1
3
2
4 1
3
2
4
(a)
(d) (c) (b)
Normal Configuration

Figure 3-12 Typical Lagrangian Mesh Tangling

As previously discussed in equation (3.4.1) the area of the triangle A
a
is computed from the
relation
( ) ( ) ( ) (
| |
A x x y y x x y y
a
=
1
2
1 4 2 4 2 4 1 4
) (3.55)
In the normal situation as illustrated in Figure 3-12 this gives a positive value for the area
and no anti-tangling force is required. However in the geometry illustrated in Figure 3-12(a)
the value of the area computed from equation (3.6.17) will be negative and this fact can be


used to define resistive forces to inhibit the tangling. The additional forces added in
AUTODYN-2D are in planar symmetry

( )
( )
F
C A m y y
t d
F
C A m x x
t d
F F
F F
F F
F F
x
T a
y
T a
x x
y y
x x
y y
1
1
2 1
2 1
4 1
4 1
2 4
2 2
2 4
2 2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
=

=

=
=
=
=
(3.56)
where

( ) ( d x x y y
2
2 4
2
2 4
2
= + )
In axial symmetry the forces are identical to those in equations (3.56) with the exceptions

( )
( )
F
y F
y y
F
y F
y y
y
y
y
y
2
1
4
1
2
2 4
4
2 4
=
+
=
+
(3.57)
The magnitude of these inhibiting forces is governed by the constant C
T
which must be less
than unity. In practice it is chosen to be nearer 0.1 and a large value should not be chosen if
at all possible since these forces do not conserve angular momentum. These forces produce
a change in the internal energy of the zone equal to that defined in equation (3.54) but with k
= 1, 2 and 4 only. This value must also be added to the zonal internal energy.

In reality any of the nodes 1, 2, 3 or 4 may be the re-entrant node and the triad (1, 2, 4) in
the equations above will be changed to the appropriate triad (2, 3, 1), (3, 4, 2) or (4, 1, 2)
dependent upon the recognition of a triangle of negative area.

47

48
7. Nodal Accelerations, Velocities and Displacements
After the nodal forces (including the inhibitive forces aimed at avoiding hourglassing and
mesh tangling) have been computed the nodal accelerations are derived by equating
acceleration to force divided by mass. Therefore the accelerations are

&&
&&
x
F
m
g
y
F
m
g
x
p
x
y
p
y
= +
= +
(3.58)
where g
x
, g
y
are the components of gravitational acceleration and m
p
is the mass attributed
to the node, which is taken to be the sum of the masses of the surrounding quadrants of the
neighboring zones. Each quadrant is assumed to have one quarter of the mass of the
relevant zone so m
p
is equal to one quarter of the sum of the four surrounding cell masses.

With the accelerations at time n determined, the velocities at time n+1 2 are found from

& & &&
& & &&
x x x
y y y
n n n
n n n
+
+
= +
= +
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
t
t
n
n
(3.59)
and finally x and y are updated to time n+1 by integrating the velocities

x x x t
y y y t
n n n n
n n n n
+ +
+ +
= +
= +
1 1 2
1 1 2
&
&
+
+
1 2
1 2
1.
(3.60)

Static Damping (Dynamic Relaxation)
AUTODYN-2D is a program for solving flow problems which vary with time and all the
previous sections have presented relations which integrate the solution from one time to
another slightly greater time. Nevertheless the code can also be used to solve a static
equilibrium non-linear stress problem. This capacity can be very useful if a transient problem
has initial conditions which include non-zero, non-linear stress distributions. The procedure
is to introduce a damping force which is proportional to the nodal velocities and which is
aimed to critically damp the lowest mode of oscillation of the static system. The solution is
then computed in time in the normal manner until it converges to an equilibrium state. If the
lowest mode of the system has period T then we may expect the solution to converge to the
static equilibrium state in a time roughly 3T if the value of T is that for critical damping.

When the dynamic relaxation option is used the equations normally used to determine
velocities (see equations (3.59)) are modified as follows


( )
( )
& ( ) & &
& ( ) & &
x R x R
y R y R
n
d
n
d
n n
n
d
n
d
n
+
+
= +
= +
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
1 2 1
1 2 1

&
&
x t
y t
n
(3.61)
where the static damping, R
d
, is input by the user. The value of R
d
for critical damping of the
lowest mode is
R
t T
t T
d
=
+
2
1 2

(3.62)
where T is the period of the lowest mode of vibration of the system (or a close approximation
to it). Usually

t T R
t
T
d
<<
2
(3.63)
A reasonable estimate of T must be used to ensure convergence to an equilibrium state but
if the value of T is not known accurately then is it recommended that the user over-estimates
it, rather than underestimating it. Approximate values of t and T in equation (3.62) can
usually be obtained by first performing a dynamic analysis without static damping.

8.
1.
Boundary Conditions
In the integrations performed above in equations (3.59) and (3.60) it is necessary to take
note and incorporate whatever boundary conditions and constraints have been defined or
become operative during the process of solution. For example, the material in the
Lagrangian subgrid currently being updated may have collided with another subgrid so that
there are impact conditions or slide conditions to impose on the interface between the two
subgrids. These conditions will be discussed fully in Chapter 10. However there are other
external boundary conditions which can be specified at the beginning of the calculation and
which do not involve interaction with other subgrids and these conditions are discussed
below.

Velocity Constraints
After calculating velocities & x
n+1 2
and & y
n+1 2
from equations (3.59) any imposed constraints
on velocities or grid positions are introduced and the newly computed velocities adjusted to
comply with these constraints. Typical velocity boundary constraints are
constant x and/or y component of velocity
constant radial and/or constant angular velocity
maximum and minimum limits of the coordinates of x and/or y
49

adjustments to y if necessary to ensure that (in axial symmetry) grid points originally on
the axis remain on the axis whilst points originally off axis remain off axis

The imposition of any of these constraints will cause adjustments to the velocities and these
adjustments will in turn change the total momentum of the system. The impulse on the
system and the work done on the system are calculated and accumulated in order to check
energy and momentum conservation. If the new constrained velocities are & x
B
n+1 2
, & y
B
n+1 2
then
the x and y impulses due to the constraints are equal to

( )
( )
I m x x
I m y y
x p B
n n
y p B
n n
=
=
+ +
+ +
& &
& &
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
(3.64)
while the work done by the constraint is
W I
x x
I
y y
x
B
n n
y
B
n n
=
+ |
\
|
.
| +
+ |
\
|
.
|
+ +
& & & &
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 2
2.
3.
(3.65)

Pressure Boundaries
These have been discussed previously in Section 3.6.

Transmitting Boundaries
In order to economize on problem size it is sometimes advantageous for problems which
have only outward traveling solutions (e.g. an expanding high pressure source) to limit the
size of the grid by a boundary condition which allows outward traveling waves to pass
through it without reflecting energy back into the computational grid. In practice it proves
impossible to include a simple boundary condition which is accurate for all wave strengths
but the condition programmed into AUTODYN-2D gives a reasonable approximation over a
wide spectrum. However it should always be borne in mind that the condition is only
approximate and some reflected wave, however small, will be created and care must be
taken that such a wave does not have a significant effect on the later solution. Note that the
following analysis deals only with the normal component of velocity of the wave and the
velocity component parallel to the boundary is assumed to be unaffected by the boundary.

For a one-dimensional wave traveling in the direction of increasing x, the conditions on the
rearward facing characteristic are
dp cdu on
dx
dt
c = = 0 (3.66)
50


where c is the acoustic impedance ( is the local density and c is the local sound speed)
and dp and du are the changes of pressure and velocity normal to the wave along the
characteristic. Since it is assumed that no wave energy is being propagated back in the
direction of decreasing x the error in applying the condition in (3.66) on a non-characteristic
direction is in general small and in AUTODYN it is applied on the transmitting boundary in
the form
(3.67) | || | p p u u c
ref N ref
boundary
= +
where u
N
is the component of mean velocity normal to the boundary and [c]
boundary
is
normally the value of c in the boundary cell at time n. The values of p
ref
and u
ref
are
reference values set at input and are normally zero. In that case equation (3.67) becomes
(3.68) p c u
N
=
which is exact for a plane elastic longitudinal wave propagating in an infinite elastic medium
(and shows the limitation of the method when applied to shocks of large magnitude).

Given the velocity components
( )
and u u
x y
1 1
,
( )
u u
x y
2 2
, at the two boundary nodes (x
1
, y
1
)
and (x
2
, y
2
) of the boundary cell, u
N
is determined from

| |
| |
| |
| |
u u u
u u u
u
u y y u x x
y y x x
x x x
y y y
N
x y
= +
= +
=
+
+
1
2
1
2
1 2
1 2
2 1 1 2
2 1
2
1 2
2
1
2
( ) (
( ) ( )
)
9.
(3.69)

Timestep
Since the numerical algorithm used in AUTODYN is an explicit scheme there is a maximum
time step of integration which must be observed if the numerical solution obtained is to be a
reasonable representation of the true solution (see e.g. Richtmeyer (1957), Richtmeyer &
Morton (1967)). The value of this time step depends on several parameters of the numerical
method and solution so the local time step ensuring stability is calculated for each mesh
point. The minimum value of all these local values is multiplied by a safety factor (currently a
default value of 2/3 is built into the code) and this is chosen as the time step for the next
update.

In a Lagrangian mesh the time step must satisfy the CFL or Courant condition
51

t
d
c
(3.70)
where d is a typical length of a zone (defined as the area of the zone divided by the longer
diagonal of the zone) and c is the local sound speed. This ensures that a disturbance does
not propagate across a zone in a single time step.

The inclusion of the pseudo-viscous stresses discussed in Section 3.6 impose further
restrictions on the time step in order to ensure stability. Von Neumann and Richtmeyer
(1950) showed that the inclusion of the quadratic q-term required a stability condition
t
C
V
V
Q
2
2
1
4
(
&
(3.71)
The inclusion of the linear q-term imposed a stability condition
t
d
C c
L
3
2
(3.72)
The constants C
Q
and C
L
are the constants introduced in equation (3.6.12) and
&
V V is the
modulus of the rate of change of volume.
Finally, the time step chosen is
(3.73)
|
t k Min t t t =
1 2 3
, ,
|
10.
The minimum value of t must be found for all zones and this value will be used for all zones
for the next time step of integration.

Conservation of Momentum and Energy
For each zone the running sums of mass, volume, energy (internal, kinetic and specific
distortional energy) and momentum (both x and y components) are determined and stored.
Periodically these sums can be examined and, if desired, plotted for each subgrid and as an
overall total. Clearly errors within the calculational algorithm, the introduction of anti-tangle
forces and other palliatives will preclude the absolute conservation of mass, momentum and
energy but the errors must not be unacceptably large if the solution is to have credibility. By
default AUTODYN allows errors of up to 5% before warnings are given to the user.

52


53
11.
,
Rezoning
As stated in the introduction to this chapter an inherent disadvantage of a grid based
Lagrangian formulation is that the initial mesh may become highly distorted during the
calculation and lead to significant loss of accuracy and unacceptably small time steps of
integration. In order to continue the calculation it is sometimes necessary, or desirable, to
rezone the grid and in AUTODYN-2D this can be done using a powerful interactive
capability. Full rezoning, which involves the remapping of the current solution onto a new
numerical mesh may be invoked when one or more of the following conditions occurs during
a calculation.
A zone has become degenerate
A particular zone or group of zones has become very small resulting in a very small
timestep
A particular region or subgrid (or part of a subgrid) is no longer of relevance in the
continuance of the solution so it can be discarded
The flow solution has reached the physical boundary of the initially defined mesh and it is
desired to extend the mesh further by adding zones
It is desired to locally increase or decrease the zonal resolution
A shear plane has appeared and it is required to introduce a slide line
Rezoning is carried out in two stages and users are referred to the Rezone Tutorial. First the
new mesh geometry is defined (both physically in (x, y) space and in (I, J) space). Then the
remap phase maps the old zonal quantities onto the new zones. After the remap a summary
of the volume, mass, momentum and energy conservation is given and if this should prove
unsatisfactory then it is recommended that the rezone be modified and the remap repeated.
Note that if parts of the mesh are discarded during the rezone phase then the conservation
summary will naturally show intentional losses of volume, mass, momentum and energy.
In the following description of the rezoning procedure the new mesh is defined by the index
parameters (I, J) while the old mesh has the corresponding index parameters (K, L). The
physical variables on the new grid F
I, J
are determined from the corresponding variables F
K, L

on the old mesh by the relation
(3.74) ( ) F f I J K L F
I J K L ,
, , , =
where f(I, J, K, L) is the fraction of the old zone (K, L) intersecting the new zone (I, J) and the
summation is over all old zones which intersect the new zone (I, J). However the momenta
at the nodes and the cell masses are first calculated by considering quarter cells instead of
complete cells to ensure better conservation. The remaining cell variables including total
energy are remapped using equation (3.74), while velocities are determined by dividing
momenta by the relevant grid masses. This allows the kinetic energy to be determined and
this is subtracted from the total energy to give the internal energy of the cell.


54
As the remap proceeds a new cell gets progressively filled with material and physical
variables from overlapping cells on the old mesh and the fraction of the new cell covered
(FVTOT) is continually being updated. If FVTOT exceeds unity during the scan over cells of
the old mesh no further overlapping cells are sought and the process moves on to
remapping onto the next cell of the new mesh. At the end of the remapping process all
physical quantities in this cell are scaled down by the final value of FVTOT. If at the end of
the remapping there are cells with values of FVTOT less than unity the cell has not been
fully covered by old cells. For such cells the final value of FVTOT is compared with the value
of the rezone volume cutoff. This parameter, FVCUT has a default value of 0.9 but can be
changed by the user by choosing the Cutoff option in the Rezone menu.

FVTOT is then compared with FVCUT and three possible situations arise

FVCUT < FVTOT < 1 all physical quantities are scaled up by 1/FVTOT
FVTOT < 1 - FVCUT the cell is declared unused
1 - FVCUT < FVTOT < FVCUT the remap is rejected and an error message is
displayed giving the position of the cell causing
rejection
It is recommended that the user study the AUTODYN Rezone Tutorial for further information
and advice on using the interactive capabilities of the Rezone facility.


55
Chapter 4.
1.
Lagrange Processor in 3D
Introduction
In Chapter 3 the Lagrange Processor for the solution of two-dimensional dynamic problems
was described. However there are many problems of significance which cannot be described
in two-dimensional geometry. For example, Figure 4-1 shows a round-nosed steel projectile
obliquely striking an aluminum slab (only one half of the system is shown because of
symmetry). The two-dimensional analogue of this system (a semi-infinite steel plate striking
obliquely an aluminum infinite target) would in no way simulate the true dynamic behavior of
the system following impact and full three-dimensional analysis is necessary to obtain the
actual solution. The three-dimensional Lagrange processor in AUTODYN-3D is based on the
approach derived in HEMP-3D by Wilkins et al (1974) and is a logical extension to the 2D
processor described in Chapter 3. Many of the features of the 2D processor translate across
without change while some extend simply to accommodate the three-dimensionality. A few
of the capabilities of the 2D processor are not available in the current version of the 3D
processor. For example, there is no interactive rezoning facility in the current version of the
3D Lagrange processor.
Steel Projectile
Aluminium
Target

Figure 4-1 Oblique Impact of a Steel Projectile on an Aluminum
Target

The Lagrange coordinate system can accurately follow particle histories, and therefore
accurately define material interfaces and also follow stress histories of material in elastic-
plastic flow. Materials are defined on a structured (I, J, K) numerical mesh of six sided brick-
type (hexahedral) elements and the eight vertices, or nodes, of the mesh move with the
material flow velocity. Material stays within the element in which it originally lay. As with the
2D version it is undesirable to choose a mesh geometry in which any of the aspect ratios of
one side of the element to another side becomes excessive.

56

The partial differential equations to be solved express the conservation of mass, momentum
and energy in Lagrangian coordinates. These, together with a material model (see Chapter
11) and a set of initial and boundary conditions, define the complete solution of the problem.
Material associated with a Lagrangian zone stays with that zone under any deformation.
Thus a Lagrangian grid moves and distorts with the material it models and conservation of
mass is automatically satisfied. The density at any time can be determined from the current
volume of the zone and its initial mass

= =
0 0
V
V
m
V
(4.1)
ij

&&
&&
&&
x
x y z
y
x y z
z
x y
xx
xy
xz
yx yy yz
zx
zy
zz
= + +
= + +
= + +
z
(4.2)
The stress tensor is separated into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric component
(see Section 11.3 for a full discussion on this).


(4.3)
( )
( )
( )
xx xx
yy yy
zz zz
xy xy
yz yz
zx zx
p q s
p q s
p q s
s
s
s
= + +
= + +
= + +
=
=
=
actual equations solved the hydrostatic pressure p is augmented by a pseudo-viscous force
q which will be discussed more fully in Section 6 on nodal forces.

57
ij
The strain tensor is determined from the relation between the strain rates and the
velocities( ) . &, &, & x y z

&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &
xx
yy
zz
xy
yz
zx
x
x
y
y
z
z
x
y
y
x
y
z
z
y
z
x
x
z
=
=
=
= +
|
\
|
.
|
= +
|
\
|
.
|
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2
1
2
1
2
(4.4)
and these strain rates are related to the rate of change of volume by:

&
& & &
V
V
xx yy zz
= + + (4.5)
For elastic behavior of a material we may derive from equation (4.5) and Hookes Law
relations between the deviatoric stress rates and the strain rates

& &
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &
& &
& &
s G
V
V
s G
V
V
s G
V
V
s G
s G
s G
xx xx
yy yy
zz zz
xy xy
yz yz
zx zx
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
=
=
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
(4.6)
rotations, plastic flow, damage and failure as described below and more fully in Chapter 11
on Material Modeling.

of state
(4.7) ( p f e = , )

( )
& & & & & &
e
= + + + + +
1
2 2 2

&
3.
(4.8)

Lagrange Subgrids

As indicated above a specific region of interest is covered by a set (or grid) of brick shaped
zones, elements or cells on which the flow and state variables (position, velocity, pressure
etc.) are defined. This region, or subgrid, if followed within a Lagrangian coordinate system
is known as a Lagrange subgrid and it may form a part of a set of regions or subgrids,
some of which may be treated with different solution techniques (e.g. Shell, ALE). A subgrid
is a group of cells (or zones) which is regular in index space (I, J, K space) although it may
form an irregular volume in (x, y, z) space. The cells are organized in columns I = 1 to IMAX,
J = 1 to JMAX and K = 1 to KMAX. Each brick element within the subgrid has eight corner
nodes forming in (x, y, z) space a generalized hexahedral shape with, in general, non-planar
faces (this is discussed more fully in Section 6). The index space of each subgrid is
independent of any of the other subgrids defined in the problem.
58


.Each subgrid node is identified by its unique (I, J, K) index as shown in Figure 4-2 while
each zone interior is defined by a unique (I, J, K) index which is identified with the upper-
rightmost (in (I, J, K) space) node of the zone.

update the solution by successive timesteps. Following Wilkins, an explicit central difference
scheme is used. There are however some differences in the details of the methods used in
AUTODYN-3D, primarily resulting from the need to deal with subgrid interactions.

A
B
C
I-1, J-1, K-1 I, J-1, K-1
I, J, K-1
I-1, J, K-1
I-1, J-1, K
I-1, J, K I, J, K
I, J-1, K
I, J, K
I
J
K

Figure 4-2 (I, J, K) Convention for Zones and Nodes
The series of calculations that are carried out in each incremental timestep (or cycle) in a
Lagrange subgrid are shown schematically in Figure 4-3 below. Starting at the bottom of the
figure the boundary and/or interactive forces are updated and combined with the forces for
inner zones computed during the previous time cycle. Then for all non-interactive Lagrangian
nodes the accelerations, velocities and positions are computed from the momentum
the zonal pressures, stresses and energies may be calculated, providing forces for use at
the start of the next integration cycle. Details of these steps in the calculation are given in the
following sections. For the coupling of Lagrangian subgrids to other subgrids there are

59

Nodal Velocities
& Displacements
Zone Volumes
& Strain Rates
Zone Pressures
& Stresses
Nodal forces
Nodal Accelerations
Material Model
Conservation of Momentum Force/Mass
Integration
Direct Calculation
Boundary or Interactive Forces

Figure 4-3 Lagrange Computation Cycle
1.
)
Centering of Variables
In the three-dimensional Lagrangian grid of cuboids, positions (x, y, z), material velocities
and material accelerations (
&, &, & x y z ( )
&&, &&,&& x y z are defined at the zone corners, which are also
called grid points or nodes. Material quantities which define the state of the material such as
pressure, density, internal energy, stress deviators, strain deviators and temperature are
defined at zone centers. The grid points move with the velocities defined at those points and
the zones deform according to the movement of the nodes. The mass of the zone is also
defined at the zone center. .

An eighth of the mass of each zone can be associated with each node of the zone. Thus, if
required, the mass associated with a node is one eighth of the sum of the masses of the
eight zones surrounding the node.
x y z , ,
&, &, & x y z
&&, &&,&& x y z
p, e,
, m, T

60


Figure 4-4 Location of Variables
61
4. Zone Volumes and Strain Rates
The cuboidal elements deform as the material they define deforms. The shape of the
element is defined by the position of the eight corner nodes, and these positions must be
used to calculate the volume of the element. In two dimensions the area of a quadrilateral
(and hence the volume of a cell in planar or axial symmetry - see Chapter 3) is uniquely
prescribed by its vertices but the extension to three dimensions of a generalized cuboidal
element is more difficult since the four vertices of a cell face do not, in general, determine a
plane. Figure 4-5illustrates an arbitrary cell surface in three-dimensional space. Clearly the
volume of the associated cuboid would be arbitrary since we can choose either Figure 4-5(a)
or (b) as a planar choice for the surface 1-2-3-4 and similar arbitrariness can exist for the five
other faces.

1
3
2 4
(a)
1
3
2 4
(c)
1
3
2 4
(b)

Figure 4-5 Surfaces Defined by Four Cell Nodes
A successful algorithm which defaults to the correct volume is used in the SALE-3D code
(Amsden and Ruppel 1981). This uses a mapping procedure that relates points in physical
space to points in logical space. Then the four vertices of a face of a computational cell will
define the unique ruled surface of Figure 4-5(c) rather than either of the two arbitrary
surfaces of Figure 4-5(a) or (b). This mapping prescribes the same cell-face surface when
viewed from either side and ensures continuity across a cell face. Thus, no portion of any
cell overlaps any other, all volume is accounted for and the volumes change smoothly and
continuously as the Lagrangian nodes move during the calculation.

The logical coordinates in (I, J, K) space are defined as (, , ) and a coordinate
transformation is performed to transform into the logical space. A generalized trilinear
interpolation is used in which , and are the interpolation variables, which vary between 0
and 1 in a given cell (see Figure 4-6). If x is the physical coordinate, the relationship
between the physical and logical position within any given cell, (see Figure 4-6) can be
written

1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
1 2
4 3
5 6
7 8
(0, 0, 0) (1, 0, 0)
(0, 1, 0) (1, 1, 0)
(1, 1, 1)
(0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 1)
(0, 1, 1)
x
y
z

Figure 4-6 Relationship between Computational Cell in the Physical
(x,y,z) Space to the Unit Cube in (, , ) Space

( )( ) ( ) ( )
| |
( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
| |
x x x x x
x x x x
= + + +
+ + + +
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1

(4.9)
where x
1
, x
2
, ....., x
8
are the eight vertices of the hexahedral element.

The cell volume is then given by

( )
( )
V
x y z
d d d =

, ,
, ,
0
1
0
1
0
1
(4.10)
where
( )
( )

x y z , ,
, ,
is the Jacobian of the transformation.

Carrying out the integration in equation (4.10) an expression for the volume in terms of the
coordinates of the cell can be derived as
V C x i j
ij i j
i j
= =
1
3
1 2 3 1 8
,
,
, , ; K = (4.11)
62


This can be written in several ways but the form programmed in AUTODYN-3D is
V C
xj j
j
=
=
1
12
1
8
x (4.12)
where

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
C y z z z z y z z y z z z z
y z z z z y z z y z z
x1 2 3 6 4 5 3 2 4 4 2 5 3 8
5 2 4 6 8 6 2 5 8 4 5
= + + + +
+ +

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
C y z z z z y z z z z y z z
y z z y z z z z y z z
x2 1 3 6 4 5 3 1 6 4 7 4 1 3
5 1 6 6 1 3 5 7 7 3 6
= + +
+ + +

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
C y z z y z z z z y z z z z
y z z y z z z z y z z
x3 1 2 4 2 1 6 4 7 4 1 8 2 7
6 2 7 7 2 4 6 8 8 4 7
= + + +
+ + +

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
C y z z z z y z z y z z z z
y z z y z z y z z z z
x4 1 2 5 3 8 2 1 3 3 1 8 2 7
5 1 8 7 3 8 8 1 3 5 7
= + + + +
+ +
(4.13)

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
C y z z z z y z z y z z
y z z z z y z z y z z z z
x5 1 2 4 6 8 2 1 6 4 1 8
6 1 8 2 7 7 6 8 8 1 6 4 7
= + + +
+ + + )

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
C y z z y z z z z y z z
y z z z z y z z z z y z z
x6 1 2 5 2 1 3 5 7 3 2 7
5 1 8 2 7 7 2 5 3 8 8 5 7
= +
+ + + +
)

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
C y z z y z z z z y z z
y z z y z z z z y z z z z
x7 2 3 6 3 2 4 6 8 4 3 8
5 6 8 6 2 5 3 8 8 3 6 4 5
= +
+ + + +
)

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
C y z z y z z y z z z z
y z z z z y z z y z z z z
x8 1 4 5 3 4 7 4 1 3 5 7
5 1 6 4 7 6 5 7 7 3 6 4 5
= + + +
+ + +
)

63

Since the mass within a Lagrangian element remains constant throughout the calculation the
density is then calculated from the volume and the initial mass within the element using
=
m
V
(4.14)
The initial mass in the element is calculated at the start of the calculation from the initial
cuboidal volumes, calculated with the above equations, based on the initial grid and the
initial density.

1. Strain Rates
To calculate the strain rates the velocity flux through the surfaces of the cuboidal element
needs to be determined. The velocity derivatives are integrated over the volume of the
element and the volume integral converted to a surface integral by Greens Theorem as
follows.

f
x
dV f dS
i
i V
i
S

= n i (4.15)
where n is the unit vector normal to the surface.

The surface integrals are evaluated by dividing the element surfaces into triangles based on
each node (note that this procedure will cover the surface twice when summed over all eight
nodes). The velocity associated with a given triangle is taken as the average of the velocities
defined at the nodes of the triangle and the surface area vectors are taken to point out of the
zone surface. The scalar product of the area vector with the direction vector multiplied by the
average velocity gives the velocity flux through the surface in the required direction. It follows
that, changing from integrals to sums over the nodes, and setting f x = & , using the notation
of Figure 4-7
A
B
C
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
8
I-1, J-1, K-1
I, J-1, K-1
I, J, K-1 I-1, J, K-1
I-1, J-1, K
I-1, J, K I, J, K
I, J-1, K

Figure 4-7 (I, J, K) Convention for Zones and Nodes
64


( ) ( ) ( )
| |
&
& & &
x
x V
x x x
AB CA BC
n
= + +
=
1
4
1
8
A B i C A i B C i (4.16)
where, for node 1

( )
( )
( )
& & &
& & &
& & &
x x x
x x x
x x x
AB
CA
BC
= + +
= + +
= + +
1
3
1
3
1
3
1 2 4
1 4 5
1 2 5
&
&
&
x
x
x
(4.17)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) A B i = y y z z y y z z
4 1 2 1 2 1 4 1
(4.18)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
C A i = y y z z y y z z
5 1 4 1 4 1 5 1
(4.19)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) B C i = y y z z y y z z
2 1 5 1 5 1 2 1
(4.20)
The expressions in equations (4.17) to (4.20) have to be evaluated for nodes 2 to 8 and
summed in equation (4.16).

In a similar manner
( ) ( ) ( )
| |
&
& & &
x
y V
x x x
AB CA BC
n
= + +
=
1
4
1
8
A B j C A j B C j (4.21)
where
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) A B j = z z x x z z x x
4 1 2 1 2 1 4 1
(4.22)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
C A j = z z x x z z x x
5 1 4 1 4 1 5 1
(4.23)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) B C j = z z x x z z x x
2 1 5 1 5 1 2 1
(4.24)
Again equations (4.17) and (4.22) to (4.24) have to be evaluated for nodes 2 to 8 and all
summed in equation (4.21).

65

For the remaining derivative of x in a similar manner we have
( ) ( ) ( )
| |
&
& & &
x
z V
x x x
AB CA BC
n
= + +
=
1
4
1
8
A B k C A k B C k (4.25)
where
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) A B k = x x y y x x y y
4 1 2 1 2 1 4 1
(4.26)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
C A k = x x y y x x y y
5 1 4 1 4 1 5 1
(4.27)
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) B C k = x x y y x x y y
2 1 5 1 5 1 2 1
(4.28)
Equations (4.17) and (4.26) to (4.28) are evaluated for the remaining nodes 2 to 8 and all the
terms summed in equation (4.25).

The remaining velocity derivatives required to calculate the components of strain are
determined by replacing in the above equations by and then by , e.g. to calculate & x & y & z
& y x the equations (4.16) to (4.20) for & x x are used but replacing all references to
by the corresponding . A similar procedure is used for the other remaining derivatives.
& x
& y

Finally the rate of change in volume is obtained from

&
& & &
& &
V
V
x
x
y
y
z
z
xx yy zz
= + +
= + +

&
5.
1.
(4.29)
Pressures and Stresses
Stress Increments
Having determined the strain rates and the volume change, the stress deviators can be
calculated from equations (4.6) and the rotation corrections (see below)
66


s s G t
V
V
s s G t
V
V
s s G t
V
V
s s G t
s s G t
s
xx
n
xx
n
xx
n
xx
n
yy
n
yy
n
yy
n
yy
n
zz
n
zz
n
zz
n
zz
n
xy
n
xy
n
xy
n
xy
n
yz
n
yz
n
yz
n
yz
n
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
= +
|
\
|
.
|
(
+
= +
|
\
|
.
|
(
+
= +
|
\
|
.
|
(
+
= + +
= + +
1
1 2
1
1 2
1
1 2
1 1 2
1 1 2
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

zx
n
zx
n
zx
n
zx
n
s G t
+ +
= + +
1 1 2
2
&

(4.30)
where G is the shear modulus.

The deviatoric stresses are tested to determine whether plastic yielding has taken place, and
this is described fully in Section 11.3. If yielding has occurred the deviators are scaled down

2. Stress Rotation Correction
The terms etc., which have been added to the equations for the stress deviators are
corrections for zone rotation. As a Lagrangian zone undergoes a rotation in three
dimensions the stress tensor rotates with the material and must be rotated through the same
angles. Since, in the above equations, the cuboidal element has rotated during the time
interval
xx
n
t
n n
+1 2 1 2
t t =

the stresses at time must be adjusted so that they will be
referred to the (x, y, z) coordinate system in their new positions (Wilkins (1964)). The
correction terms are given by
t
n
(4.31)
( )
( )
( )

xx z xy y zx
yy z xy x yz
zz x yz y zx
yy xx
xy z xx yy y yz x zx
yz x yy zz z zx y xy
zx y zz xx x xy z yz
= +
=
=
=
= +
= +
= +
2 2
2 2
2 2
where
67

x
y
z
z
y
y
z
t
x
z
z
x
t
y
x
x
y
t
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
1
2
1
2
1
2
& &
& &
& &
(4.32)
The deviatoric stresses are tested to determine whether plastic yielding has taken place and
this is described fully in section 11.3. If yielding has occurred the deviators are scaled down

The change in specific distortional energy, e
z
, is

| |
e s s s s s s
V
m
t
z xx xx yy yy zz zz xy xy yz yz zx zx
= + + + + +
& & & & & &
2 2 2 (4.33)
The new value of the hydrostatic pressure p is obtained from the simultaneous solution of
the equation of state
(4.34) ( p f e = , )
and the energy equation
e e e
p p
q
V
m
n n
z
n
n n
n
n
+ +
+
+
+
= +
+
+
(
1 1 2
1
1 2
1
2

(4.35)
Equation (4.35) includes the effect of the pseudo-viscous pressure components which are
included to both capture shocks and damp oscillations behind shocks (these will be
discussed in the next section).

The updated stress tensor is finally

( )
( )
( )
zx zx
yz yz
xy xy
zz zz
yy yy
xx xx
s
s
s
s q p
s q p
s q p
=
=
=
+ + =
+ + =
+ + =
(4.36)
68


(Note: the output variables for
xx
,
yy
, and
zz
in AUTODYN-3D do not include the q(artificial
viscosity) term as shown in equation 4.36. For simplicity of expressing the nodal force
equations below it is included in the total stress tensor as above.)
6.
1.
Nodal Forces
Once the updated stress tensor has been calculated the final phase of the computational
cycle is the evaluation of the nodal forces, which consist of several types. In addition to the
forces on internal nodes there are the boundary or external forces to consider. There are
also the pseudo-viscous forces mentioned in the previous section and finally additional
hourglass forces are included in the finite difference formulation to inhibit possible mesh
deformations which have no physical significance.

Internal Forces
The equations of motion in three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates are

&&
&&
&&
x
x y z
y
x y z
z
x y
xx
xy
xz
yx yy yz
zx
zy
zz
= + +
= + +
= + +
z
(4.37)
These equations are multiplied by dV and by means of Greens Theorem we can derive
surface integrals around the octahedron surrounding the relevant node (see Figure 4-8
below). As stated earlier, the mass associated with a node is
m
p
n
=
=
1
8
1
8
m
n
(4.38)
and the equation defining motion in the x-direction is
m x
F
x
F
y
F
z
p
xx
xy
zx
&& = + +
(4.39)
69

A
B
C
D
E
B
C
E
D
F
00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
x
z
y
0
A
B
F
E
D
C
Octahedron
I
K
J
x
y
z

Figure 4-8 Determination of Nodal Forces in Three Dimensions
where the contribution of stress from each of the eight surrounding elements ((
xx
)
n
, n = 1 to
8) is accounted for.
70


( ) (

F
x
A
xx
xx
n
n
n
=
=
1
4
1
8
)
(4.40)
where A
n
is the area of projection of the octahedral face in element n onto the plane x = 0

Similar expressions can be found for
F
y
xy
and
F
z
zx
.

The contribution from element 1 to the force on node 0 in the notation of Figure 4-8 is

( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
xx F E D E F E D E
xy F E D E F E D E
zx F E D E F E D E
y y z z z z y y
z z x x x x z z
x x y y y y x x

+
+ (4.41)
The total force on node 0 will be the sum of the separate contributions from the eight
elements surrounding the node.

The equation governing motion in the y direction is
m y
F
x
F
y
F
z
p
xy yy yz
&& = + +
(4.42)
where the contribution to the y component of force at node 0 from element 1 is

( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
xy F E D E F E D E
yy F E D E F E D E
yz F E D E F E D E
y y z z z z y y
z z x x x x z z
x x y y y y x x

+
+ (4.43)
Again the expressions will be summed over all eight elements to obtain the total y
component of force for the node.

The equation governing motion in the z direction is
m z
F
x
F
y
F
z
p
zx
yz
zz
&& = + +
(4.44)
71

where the contribution to the z component of force at node 0 from element 1 is

( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
zx F E D E F E D E
yz F E D E F E D E
zz F E D E F E D E
y y z z z z y y
z z x x x x z z
x x y y y y x x

+
+
2.
(4.45)
Again the expressions will be summed over all eight elements to obtain the total z
component of force for the node.

External Forces
If the point (I, J, K) is a boundary node the octahedral surfaces in Figure 4-9 have to be
modified to be consistent with the boundary, and while the contributions of internal forces to
the zonal nodes (including the boundary nodes) remain unchanged, there may be external
forces acting on the boundary which must be included in the integrals to determine the final
nodal forces.

B
E
D
F
0
1
4
3
2
C
P(t)
G
Figure 4-9 Surface of Integration for a Boundary Force
Assume that the boundary is along the face J = constant as illustrated in Figure 4-9 and that
a pressure p = P(t) acts on the boundary. For element 1, the force acting on the boundary
face of element 1 in the surface integral is P times the area of the shaded triangle, acting
normally to the boundary face. This force is divided equally between the four nodes on the
boundary face of element 1.

72


The boundary forces on each of the four points 0, D, E and G due to the external pressure
are therefore

( )( ) ( )( | | )
( )( ) ( )( | | )
( )( ) ( )( | |
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
y y x x y y x x P F
x x z z x x z z P F
z z y y z z y y P F
E D D E z
E D D E y
E D D E x
=
=
=
)
3.
(4.46)
The forces in equations (4.46) must be added to the forces computed in the previous section
when determining the accelerations of boundary points.

Pseudo-Viscous Forces
Because of the nonlinearity of the flow equations, shocks can form even though the initial
conditions are smooth. Therefore, in order to handle the discontinuities in the flow variables
associated with such shocks, it has been standard practice to introduce extra viscous terms
into the solutions. These additional terms have the effect of spreading out the shock
discontinuities over several zones and thus allow the code to continue to compute a smooth
solution, even after shock formation and growth. The early approaches of von Neumann and
Richtmeyer (1950) introduced a term to add to the pressure which was quadratic in the strain
rate and they demonstrated its efficacy so strongly that most hydrocodes since that time
have used a similar term to capture shocks. However, small oscillations occurred in the flow
behind the shocks and to damp these oscillations various researchers, including Wilkins
(1980), proposed an additional term which was linear in the strain rate and it is this
combination which is in general use today in many codes, including AUTODYN-2D and 3D.

The actual terms in AUTODYN-3D are added to the hydrostatic pressure p in the energy and
momentum equations and are

q C d
V
V
C cd
V
V
for
V
V
for
V
V
Q L
=
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
(
(
|
\
|
.
|
<
=
|
\
|
.
|
>
& &
&
2
0
0 0
&
(4.47)
where C
Q
and C
L
are constants, is the current local density, d is a typical length (here
defined to be the volume of the zone divided by the square of the longest diagonal of the
zone and scaled to give 2D/3D compatibility for square and cubic elements), c is the local
sound speed and
&
V V is the volume change already defined in Section 4.2. Note that the
pseudo-viscous term is only added when the flow is compressing since such terms are not
necessary, and would prove excessively dispersive, if they were added to rarefying flows.

73

74
4. Hourglass Damping
Since hexahedral elements are used together with single point integration, hourglass
modes of deformation can occur. Since the expressions for strain rates and forces involve
only differences in velocities and/or coordinates of diagonally opposite nodes of the cuboidal
element, if the element distorts in such a way that these differences remain unchanged there
will be no strain increase in the element and therefore no resistance to this distortion. An
example of such a distortion in 2D is illustrated in Figure 4-10 where the two diagonals
remain the same length even though the cell distorts. Visualization in three dimensions is
much more difficult but if such distortions occur in a region of many elements (as is probably
the case in 3D) patterns such as that shown in Figure 4-11 occur and the reason for the
name of hourglass instability is more easily understood.
2 1
3 4
2 1
3 4

Figure 4-10 2D Zone Distortion with No Change of Strain or Stress
s
Figure 4-11 3D Hourglass Distortion
In order to avoid such hourglassing from happening a set of corrective forces are added to
the solution. These are proportional to velocity differences but the 3D formulation is
considerably more complicated than the 2D analogue because of the increased number of
degrees of freedom for the nodes that exist in 3D.


The scheme implemented in the current version of AUTODYN-3D was developed by
Hallquist (1982) for DYNA3D and seeks to inhibit high frequency hourglass oscillations while
having a negligible effect on the longer term global deformations. It is presented here without
further justification.

Various combinations of velocities are formed as follows
75
8
8
8
8
D
(4.48)
&
& & & & & & & &
&
& & & & & & & &
&
& & & & & & & &
&
& & & & & & & &
X x x x x x x x x
X x x x x x x x x
X x x x x x x x x
X x x x x x x x x
A
B
C
D
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with similar expressions for being formed by replacing
, etc. by or etc. Then, if
&
,
&
,
&
,
& &
,
& &
,
&
Y Y Y Y and Z Z Z Z
A B C D A B C
& x
1
& y
1
& z
1
A C cV
H H
=
2 3
(4.49)
where C
H
is a constant and c is the local soundspeed, the damping forces added to the
forces at each corner of the element are
(4.50)
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
F A X X X X
x H A B C D
x H A B C
x H A B C D
x H A B C
x H A B C D
x H A B C
x H A B C D
x H A B C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
= + + +
= +
= +
= +
=
= + +
= + +
= + +
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
D
D
D
D
with analogous expressions being used for the y and z components of the damping force.

Note that
(4.51) F
xn
n
=
=
0
1
8

so that the addition of these forces does not affect the momentum balance.

The change in specific internal energy of the zone due to the addition of these forces is
(

e
t
m
F x F z F z
xn n zn n zn n
n
= + +
(
=
& & &

1
8
)
7.
(4.52)

Nodal Accelerations, Velocities and Displacements

After the nodal forces (including the inhibitive forces aimed at avoiding hourglassing) have
been computed the nodal accelerations are derived by equating acceleration to force divided
by mass. Therefore the accelerations are

&&
&&
&&
x
F
m
g
y
F
m
g
z
F
m
g
x
p
x
y
p
y
z
p
z
= +
= +
= +
(4.53)
where g
x
, g
y
, g
z
are the components of gravitational acceleration and m
p
is the mass
attributed to the node, which is equal to one eighth of the sum of the eight surrounding cell
masses.

Once the accelerations have been calculated at time n the velocity & x
n+1 2
and nodal
positions x
n
and x
n+1 2
can be calculated by
& & && x x x
n n n +
= +
1 2 1 2
t
n
(4.54)
x x x t
n n n n + +
= +
1 1 2
&
+1 2
(4.55)

(
x x
n n + +
= +
1 2 1
1
2
)
x
n
(4.56)
and similar expressions hold for the determination of & , & , , , y z y z y andz
n n n n n n + + + + + + 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2
.

76


77
1. Static Damping (Dynamic Relaxation)
AUTODYN-3D is a program for solving flow problems which vary with time and all the
previous sections have presented relations which integrate the solution from one time to
another slightly greater time. Nevertheless the code can also be used to solve a static
equilibrium non-linear stress problem. This capability can be very useful if a transient
problem has initial conditions which include non-zero, non-linear stress distributions. The
procedure is to introduce a damping force which is proportional to the nodal velocities and
which is aimed to critically damp the lowest mode of oscillation of the static system. The
solution is then computed in time in the normal manner until it converges to an equilibrium
state. If the lowest mode of the system has period T then we may expect the solution to
converge to the static equilibrium state in a time roughly 3T if the value of T is that for critical
damping.

When the dynamic relaxation option is used the equations normally used to determine
velocities (see equations (4.54)) are modified as follows

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
& &
& &
& &
x R x R
y R y R
z R z R
n
d
n
d
n n
n
d
n
d
n n
n
d
n
d
n n
+
+
+
= +
= +
= +
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1

&&
&&
&&
x t
y t
z t
(4.57)
where the static damping, R
d
, is input by the user. The value of R
d
for critical damping of the
lowest mode is
R
t T
t T
d
=
+
2
1 2

(4.58)
where T is the period of the lowest mode of vibration of the system (or a close approximation
to it). Usually

t T R
t
T
d
<<
2
(4.59)
A reasonable estimate of T must be used to ensure convergence to an equilibrium state but
if the value of T is not known accurately then is it recommended that the user over-estimates
it, rather than underestimating it. Approximate values of t and T in equation (4.58) can
usually be obtained by first performing a dynamic analysis without static damping.

8. Boundary Conditions

In the integrations performed above in equations (4.54) and (4.55) and the corresponding
equations for y and z it is necessary to take note and incorporate whatever boundary
conditions and constraints have been defined or become operative during the process of

solution. For example, the material in the Lagrangian subgrid currently being updated may
have collided with another subgrid so that there are impact conditions or slide conditions to
impose on the interface between the two subgrids. These conditions will be discussed fully in
Chapter 10. However there are other external boundary conditions which can be specified at
the beginning of the calculation and which do not involve interaction with other subgrids and
these conditions are discussed below.

78
1. Velocity Constraints
After calculating velocities &
n+1 2
x , & y
n+1 2
and & z
n+1 2
from equations (4.54) any imposed
constraints on velocities or grid positions are introduced and the newly computed velocities
adjusted to comply with these constraints. Typical velocity boundary constraints in
AUTODYN-3D are:
constant x and/or y and/or z component of velocity
constant radial velocity
maximum and minimum limits on the coordinates of x and/or y and/or z
adjustments to x, y or z coordinates if necessary to ensure that grid points originally on
planes of symmetry remain on planes of symmetry while points originally off planes of
symmetry remain off such planes
B
n+1 2
, & y
B
n+1 2
and
& z
B
n+1 2
then the x, y and z impulses due to the constraints are equal to:

( )
( )
( )
I m x x
I m y y
I m z z
x p B
n n
y p B
n n
z p B
n n
=
=
=
+ +
+ +
+ +
& &
& &
& &
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
(4.60)
While the work done by the constraint is:
W I
x x
I
y y
I
z z
x
B
n n
y
B
n n
z
B
n n
=
+ |
\
|
.
| +
+ |
\
|
.
| +
+ |
\
|
.
|
+ + +
& & & & & &
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 2 2
2.
(4.61)

Pressure Boundaries
These have been discussed previously in Section 6.


79
3. Transmitting Boundaries
In order to economize on problem size it is sometimes advantageous for problems which
have outward traveling solutions (e.g. an expanding high pressure source) to limit the size of
the grid by a boundary condition which allows outward traveling waves to pass through it
without reflecting energy back into the computational grid. In practice it proves impossible to
include a simple boundary condition which is accurate for all wave strengths but the
condition programmed into AUTODYN-3D gives a reasonable approximation over a wide
spectrum. However it should always be borne in mind that the condition is only approximate
and some reflected wave, however small, will be created and care must be taken that such a
wave does not have a significant effect on the later solution. Note that the following analysis
deals only with the normal component of velocity of the wave and the velocity component
parallel to the boundary is assumed to be unaffected by the boundary.

For a one-dimensional wave traveling in the direction of increasing x the conditions on the
forward facing characteristic are
dp cdu on
dx
dt
c =
)
(4.62)
where c is the acoustic impedance ( is the local density and c is the local sound speed)
and dp and du are the changes of pressure and velocity normal to the wave along the
characteristic. Since it is assumed that no wave energy is being propagated back in the
direction of decreasing x the error in applying the condition in (4.62) on a non-characteristic
direction is in general small and in AUTODYN it is applied on the transmitting boundary in
the form
(4.63)
| || |
p p u u c
ref N ref
boundary
= +
where u
N
is the component of mean velocity normal to the boundary and [c]
boundary
is
normally the value of rc in the boundary cell at time n. The values of pref and uref are
reference values set at input and are normally zero. In that case equation (4.63) becomes
(4.64) p c u
N
=
which is exact for a plane elastic longitudinal wave propagating in an infinite medium (and
shows the limitation of the method when applied to shocks of large magnitude).

Given the velocity components
(
at the boundary nodes u u u
x y z
k k k
, , ( ) x y z
k k k
, , , k = 1, 2,
3, 4 of the boundary cell, u
N
is determined from
u P u P u P
N x y
=
1 2 3
u
z
(4.65)
where the direction cosines of the normal to the transmitting face are

( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( )( ) ( )(
|
( )
)
|
P
d
y y z z z z y y
P
d
z z x x x x z z
P
d
x x y y y y x x
where
d P P P
1 1 3 2 4 1 3 2
2 1 3 2 4 1 3 2
3 1 3 2 4 1 3 2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1 2
1
1
1
=
=
=
= + +
4
4
4
(4.66)
and

| |
| |
| |
u u u u u
u u u u u
u u u u u
x x x x
y y y y
z z z z
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
1
4
1
4
1
4
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3 4
x
y
z
4
4
9.
(4.67)

Time-step

reasonable representation of the true solution. (see e.g. Richtmeyer (1957), Richtmeyer &
update.

In a Lagrangian mesh the time step must satisfy the CFL or Courant condition
t
d
c
(4.68)
where d is a typical length of a zone (defined as the volume of the zone divided by the
square of the longest diagonal of the zone and scaled by 2 3 ) and c is the local sound
80


speed. This ensures that a disturbance does not propagate across a zone in a single time
step.

The inclusion of the pseudo-viscous stresses discussed in Section 6 impose further
t
C
V
V
Q
2
2
1
4
(
&
(4.69)
t
d
C c
L
3
2
(4.70)
The constants C
Q
and C
L
are the constants introduced in equation (4.6.8) and
&
V V is the

(4.71)
|
t kMin t t t =
1 2 3
, ,
|
10.
The minimum value of t must be found for all zones for the next time step of integration.

Conservation of Momentum and Energy

For each zone the running sums of mass, volume, energy (internal, kinetic and specific
distortional energy) and momentum (both x, y and z components) are determined and
stored. Periodically these sums can be examined and, if desired, printed out for each subgrid
and as an overall total. Clearly errors within the calculational algorithm, the introduction of
pseudo-forces and other palliatives will preclude the absolute conservation of mass,
momentum and energy but the errors must not be unacceptably large if the solution is to
have credibility. By default AUTODYN allows errors of up to 5% before warnings are given to
the user.
81
Chapter 5. ALE Processor in 2D and 3D

82
Chapter 5.
1.
ALE Processor in 2D and 3D
Introduction
In Chapters 3 and 4 the Lagrange processors in AUTODYN-2D & 3D have been described
and they have been shown to be ideal for determining the behavior of materials which
undergo relatively low distortion and possibly large displacements, since the gridpoints move
with the particle motion of the material. Material interfaces and history dependent material
behavior are well described using Lagrange processors. The major disadvantage of the
Lagrange algorithm is that if the material suffers severe distortion or gross movement the
numerical mesh may become tangled or highly non-uniform causing inaccuracies in the
solution, a large reduction of the computational timestep or even complete stoppage of the
calculation.
In the Euler processor, to be described in Chapter 7, the numerical mesh stays fixed in
space and the material flows through it; therefore by definition there is no possibility of mesh
distortion. Material is transported from cell to cell and therefore an Eulerian formulation is
ideally suited to compute large deformations in fluid flow. However it is more difficult to track
accurately free surfaces, material interfaces and history dependent material behavior. Care
must also be taken to limit the numerical diffusion associated with material convection from
cell to cell.
In an attempt to combine the best features of both Lagrange and Euler processors, whilst
removing some of their disadvantages, various coupled Euler-Lagrange computer codes
were developed (e.g. Frank & Lazarus, (1964); Noh, (1964)). These, with some degree of
success, computed some sub-regions on Eulerian grids and other sub-regions on
Lagrangian grids (as can be done in AUTODYN). However, with further development, the
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrange Euler) technology was developed in the 1970s (e.g. Harlow &
Amsden, (1971): Amsden & Hirt, (1973); Hirt, Amsden & Cook, (1974)). In such a processor
the grid in any or all sub-regions may be redefined continuously in arbitrary and predefined
ways as the calculation proceeds (this effectively provides a continuous rezoning facility).
However in the original developments the numerical solution was updated implicitly to
provide a flow-speed versatility from the incompressible limit to the high Mach number
regime. In AUTODYN the integration step is explicit and the algorithms used in
AUTODYN-2D & 3D are extensions of the Lagrange processors described in Chapters 3 and
4.
For the AUTODYN ALE processor an additional computational step is included, as described
by Amsden et al (1980,1981) for the SALE and SALE 3D codes, to move the grid and remap
the solution onto the new grid. The AUTODYN user can apply various predefined grid
motions to selected regions of the computational grid - if no specification for grid motion is
made a node is treated as pure Lagrange by default. The potential advantage of the ALE
technique is that the user has freedom to be able to predefine the dynamic configuration of
the computational mesh, both in space and time, which may allow the solution to have the
best features of both Lagrange and Euler techniques. However, to some extent this
advantage is only partially realized as it may sometimes depend on the user having a
reasonable knowledge of the general behavior of the required solution. In addition, currently
in AUTODYN, free surfaces and material interfaces are still required to be treated as pure
Lagrange grid points. Consequently the ALE algorithm can only be applied to nodes in the


interior of materials and cells will continue to contain only a single material (i.e. there will be
no mixed cells). The ALE processor can reduce and sometimes eliminate the need for
Lagrange rezoning and allow a calculation to be continued to later times than would be
possible using a pure Lagrange processor. However, currently the ALE processor cannot
always be substituted in place of a pure multi-material Euler processor for large-distortion,
large-flow problems.
83
Since the ALE algorithm is an extension of the Lagrange technique the partial differential
equations to be solved express the conservation of mass, momentum and energy in
Lagrangian coordinates. These, together with a material model (see Chapter 11) and a set of
initial and boundary conditions, define the complete solution of the problem. These
equations have been described fully in Chapters 3 (2D) and 4 (3D) and readers should refer
to those chapters before reading further. The material associated with a Lagrangian zone
stays with that zone under any deformation but will be advected from one zone to an
adjoining zone if the computational mesh is redefined in the ALE processor. Thus while the
density at any time can be determined from the current volume of the zone and its current
mass
=
m
V
(5.1)
this is not the same equation as (3.1) or (4.1) since m is a variable function in equation (5.1)
whereas it is a constant (the initial zone mass) in the two earlier equations. To make this
chapter easier to follow the governing equations for 3D flow are listed below briefly. The
analogous equations in 2D can be obtained from Chapter 3.
ij
and in three dimensions may be written, in Cartesian
coordinates as used in AUTODYN-3D, as
&&
&&
&&
x
x y z
y
x y z
z
x y
xx
xy
xz
yx yy yz
zx
zy
zz
= + +
= + +
= + +
z
(5.2)
The 3D stress tensor is separated into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric
component s (see Section 11.3 for a full discussion on this)

( )
( )
( )
xx xx
yy yy
zz zz
xy xy
yz yz
zx zx
p q s
p q s
p q s
s
s
s
= + +
= + +
= + +
=
=
=
(5.3)
actual equations solved the hydrostatic pressure p is augmented by a pseudo-viscous force
q which is discussed more fully in Section 4.6 on nodal forces.
The strain tensor
ij
in 3D is determined from the relation between the strain rates and the
velocities ( &, &, &) x y z
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &
xx
yy
zz
xy
yz
zx
x
x
y
y
z
z
x
y
y
x
y
z
z
y
z
x
x
z
=
=
=
= +
|
\
|
.
|
= +
|
\
|
.
|
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2
1
2
1
2
(5.4)
and these strain rates are related to the rate of change of volume by
&
& & &
V
V
xx yy zz
= + + (5.5)
For 3D elastic behavior of a material we may derive from equation (5.5) and Hookes Law
relations between the deviatoric stress rates and deviatoric strain rates
84


& &
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &
& &
& &
s G
V
V
s G
V
V
s G
V
V
s G
s G
s G
xx xx
yy yy
zz zz
xy xy
yz yz
zx zx
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
=
=
=
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
(5.6)
rotations, plastic flow, damage and failure as described in Chapters 3 and 4 and more fully in
Chapter 11 on Material Modeling.
of state
( p f e = , ) (5.7)
( )
& & & & & &
e
= + + + + +
1
2 2 2

&
3.
(5.8)
ALE Subgrids
In AUTODYN an ALE subgrid is identical to a Lagrange subgrid in initial definition and
subsequent calculation except for the addition of a possible rezoning phase during each
computational cycle. Thus a subgrid is a group of cells (3D) or zones (2D) which is regular in
(I, J, K) (3D) or (I, J) (2D) space although it may form an irregular volume in real space. For
further details of Lagrange subgrids readers should refer to Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of this
manual. Complex geometries can be built up from multiple subgrids in a manner similar to
that described in the earlier chapters for pure Lagrange subgrids. In the case of ALE
subgrids they can be interfaced with other ALE subgrids, Lagrange or Shell subgrids but the
interfaces between all the subgrids currently must be Lagrangian.
In 2D each subgrid node is identified by its unique (I, J) index as shown in Figure 5-1(a)
while each zone interior is defined by a unique (I, J) index which is identified with the upper-
rightmost (in (I, J) space) node of the zone. In 3D each subgrid node is identified by its
unique (I, J, K) index as shown in Figure 5-1(b) while each zone interior is defined by a
unique (I, J, K) index which is identified with the upper-rightmost (in (I, J, K) space) node of
the zone.

85

I-1, J-1 I, J-1
I, J
I-1, J
I, J
I
J
A
B
C
I-1, J-1, K-1 I, J-1, K-1
I, J, K-1 I-1, J, K-1
I-1, J-1, K
I-1, J, K
I, J, K
I, J-1, K
I, J, K
I
J
K

(a) 2D zone indexing (b) 3D zone indexing
Figure 5-1 Convention for Zones and Nodes in 2D and 3D
Geometries
update the solution by successive timesteps. Following Wilkins (1964) and Wilkins et al
(1974), an explicit central difference scheme is used . There are however some differences
in the details of the method used, primarily resulting from the need to deal with subgrid
interactions.
The series of calculations that are carried out in each time incremental cycle in an ALE
subgrid are shown schematically in Figure 5-2 below. Comparison with Figure 3-4 and
Figure 4-3 shows that they are identical except for the inclusion of an additional step which,
if required, rezones the computational grid and determines modified velocities and advective
fluxes for the new grid before calculating nodal forces on the new grid. Starting at the bottom
of the figure the boundary and/or interactive forces are updated and combined with the
forces for inner zones computed during the previous time cycle. Then for all non-interactive
ALE nodes the accelerations, velocities and positions are computed from the momentum
the zonal pressures, stresses and energies may be calculated. The ALE rezoning step can
then be entered to remap the solution onto the predefined new grid and recalculate the
pressure. The calculation then returns to the original Lagrange cycle to obtain the nodal
forces for use at the start of the next integration cycle. Details of the steps in the calculation
other than the ALE calculational step are given in the relevant sections in Chapters 3 and 4
and are not repeated here. For the coupling of ALE subgrids to other subgrids there are
86


Nodal Velocities
& Displacements
Zone Volumes
& Strain Rates
Zone Pressures
& Stresses
Nodal forces
Nodal Accelerations
Material Model
Conservation of Momentum
Force/Mass
Integration
Direct Calculation
Boundary or Interactive Forces
Is ALE Rezoning Required?
No
Yes
Modified Velocities
Advective Fluxes
Recalculated Pressures

Figure 5-2 ALE Computation Cycle
4. ALE Methodology
When large distortions are not expected throughout a calculation a purely Lagrangian
approach, allowing the computational grid to move with the material, will provide acceptable
solutions. However in many problems large fluid motions can, if calculated with a purely
Lagrange processor, lead to Lagrangian cells of extreme aspect ratios, to degenerate cells
which have turned inside out and regions of cells which are completely chaotic in real space
although in index space they remain structured. These effects can often be ameliorated by
moving the vertices of the computational grid relative to the fluid in order to maintain a
reasonable (not necessarily ideal) mesh structure in real space. However whenever a grid
vertex is moved relative to the fluid there must be an exchange of material among the cells
surrounding the vertex. This is carried out in the ALE computational step by treating the
exchange as an advective flux.
As stated earlier there is a wide range of rezoning options built into both AUTODYN-2D and
AUTODYN-3D. This is made possible by determining a set of grid vertex velocities u
G
over
the calculational mesh which will constrain the grid motion in the required manner. For
example, if the grid velocity field computed before entering the ALE calculational step is u
L
,
then if u
G
is set equal to u
L
the calculation will be purely Lagrangian. If u
G
is set identically
zero everywhere then the calculation will be purely Eulerian. In practice the chosen grid
velocity field will lie somewhere between these two extremes. This is achieved by modifying
the relative velocity, u
REL
= u
G
- u
L
by means of a relaxation factor (see the ALE Tutorial).
This relaxation parameter has a value (defined on input by the user) between 0.0 and 1.0. If
not predefined then, by default, it is set equal to 1.0 which will result in the node being
moved completely to its newly defined ALE position. For values less than 1.0 the node will
be moved that fraction of the distance from its current position to its new ALE position.
87

ALE rezoning will be most accurate and efficient when the remapping phase does not
involve large advective fluxes (i.e. there should not be large differences between current
vertex and constrained positions). The timestep constraint imposed during ALE
computations will automatically ensure that the advective fluxes are not too large (see
section 5.11). However, this does mean that the calculations will be more expensive than an
equivalent calculation using the Lagrange processor. It is also important to remember that
there is also a measure of diffusion, which occurs because of the advection.
88
5. Grid Motion Constraints
There are several options for the motion constraints in AUTODYN-2D. These are
Free (Lagrange): This is the default. Each vertex moves in a purely Lagrangian motion
with the material.
Fixed (Euler): Each vertex is fixed in (x, y) space.
Equipotential: An equipotential algorithm is called to position the vertex (I, J) relative to
its nearest neighbors. This is the most general choice when little is known about the
solution to be computed.
Flow averaged: Flow averaging is useful in maintaining good spacing of grid lines in the
direction of flow. An octagon is connected around each (I, J) vertex by joining the eight
surrounding vertices. The velocity vector at (I, J) intersects this octagon at two points and
the vertex (I, J) is moved to the midpoint of these intersections.
Equal spacing in X: The x-coordinate of each vertex (I, J) is moved to the average
position of its four neighbors. The y-coordinate is unchanged.
Equal spacing in Y: Interchange x and y in the above description.
Equally spaced I: Each vertex is moved to a point equidistant between adjacent I-lines.
Equally spaced J: Change I to J in the above description.
Equally spaced (I, J): Each vertex is moved to the midpoint between adjacent I-lines and
J-lines
These three options are
analogous to those above with the
addition of a geometric ratio for
the spacing between adjacent
lines
Geometrically spaced I
Geometrically spaced J (
Geometrically spaced (I, J) )
User defined: The user may define motion constraints using the subroutine EXALE
There are similar constraints in the 3D processor but the addition of space parameter Z,
index parameter K and greater sophistication for the equipotential option increases the
number of possible constraints to 23.


We recommend that you use the Lagrange, Euler and Equipotential motion constraints.
89
6.
)
,
)
,
Regrid Phase in 2D
During the regrid phase of the ALE processor the vertices are moved to the chosen
constrained positions (one of the above options), allowing for the relaxation factor, and the
relative velocities are determined. If the grid velocity vector is
( ) ( ) (
u , ,
G G G
u I J v I J = (5.9)
and the relative velocity vector is
( ) ( ) (
u , ,
REL REL REL
u I J v I J = (5.10)
Then, relative to the positions of the nodes (x(I, J) , y(I, J))
n
at the beginning of the ALE step,
the new positions of the constrained grid nodes are
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
x I J x I J u I J t
y I J y I J v I J t
n n
G
n n
G
, , ,
, , ,
+
+
= +
= +
1
1
(5.11)
However, in order to evaluate the advective fluxes of material properties into the cells of the
new grid it is necessary to determine the positions that the cells would have had if the
rezoning was not taking place. These potential Lagrange coordinates, denoted by (x
p
(I, J),
y
p
(I, J)) can be determined relative to the constrained grid
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
x I J x I J u I J t
y I J y I J v I J t
p
n n
REL
p
n n
REL
, , ,
, , ,
+ +
+ +
=
=
1 1
1 1
(5.12)
where is the relaxation factor.
Then, referring to Figure 5-3 below, we can calculate the volume swept out by each of the
four faces of a cell relative to their potential Lagrangian positions.

I, J
I, J - 1
I + 1, J
I, J + 1
I -1 , J
1
2
4
3
P1
P4
P2
P3

Figure 5-3 Potential Lagrange and constrained grids
The volume swept out by the uppermost I-face (P1-P2) in moving to its constrained position
(1-2) is indicated by the shaded area (1-2-P2-P1) and we can calculate this volume in an
identical manner to that described in Section 3.4, namely to divide the above quadrilateral
into two triangles, whose areas are
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
| |
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
| |
A P A x x y y y y x x
A P P A x x y y y y x x
a P P
b P P P P P
1 2 2
1
2
1 2 1
1
2
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
= =
= = )
P
(5.13)
In the case of planar symmetry the zonal volume is equal to the zonal area, since unit
thickness is assumed. The volume swept out is therefore
( )( ) ( )(
| |
V A A
V x x y y y y x x
a b
P P P P
= +
=
1
2
1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
)
(5.14)
For axial symmetry the volume of the swept-out zone is calculated from the volumes of the
two toroids generated by rotating the two triangles about the axis of symmetry. The volume
of each toroid is equal to the triangular area times 2r where r is the radius of the centroid of
the triangle. Thus the total volume of the swept-out zone in axial symmetry is
( ) (
| |
V A y y y A y y y
a P b P P
= + + + + +
2
3
1 2 2 1 2 1
) (5.15)
Note that in AUTODYN the term is omitted for grid cells so if the volume of a cell is
examined the value obtained will be that computed by equation (5.15) divided by .
90


Note also that this volume swept out by the uppermost face of the center cell will be equal in
magnitude but of opposite sign to the volume swept out by the lowermost face of the cell
immediately above it. Thus total volume will be conserved.
91
7. Advective phase in 2D
Associated with each swept-out volume at each face there are fluxes of mass, momentum
and energy. For example, the mass crossing the uppermost face of the cell (I, J) might be
computed as the product of the volume (in planar symmetry) calculated in equation (5.14)
times the average fluid density of the cells (I, J) and (I, J+1) located on either side of the face
in question. Unfortunately this so-called centered differencing leads to numerical
instabilities. To avoid this instability AUTODYN uses donor cell or upwind differencing
which is stable but introduces some diffusion. This means that, in the above example, the
density associated with the flux would be equal to the density in the cell (I, J) when the flux is
leaving the cell (I, J) and equal to the density in the cell (I, J+1) if the flux is entering the cell
(I, J). The density is denoted
L
.
We denote by 2F
JG
the shaded volume in Figure 5-3, the volume swept-out by the face
between the cells (I, J) and (I, J+1) (i.e. J becoming greater). Similarly the volume swept out
by the face between the cells (I, J) and (I, J-1) is defined as 2F
JL
(i.e. J becoming less). The
remaining two volumes are defined in a similar manner as 2F
IL
and 2F
IG
. In addition we
define a
JG
= sign (F
JG
) i.e.
a if F
a if F
JG JG
JG JG
= + >
= <
1 0
1 0
(5.16)
with similar definitions for a
JL
, a
IG
, and a
IL
.
1. Mass
The mass in the constrained cell (I, J) is given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
| |
( )
m I J m I J F a I J
F a I J
F a I J
F a I J
F a F a F a F a I
n n
JG JG L
IL IL L
JL JL L
IG IG L
JG JG IL IL JL JL IG IG L
, , ,
,
,
,
,
+
= + + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ + + +
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
J
2.
(5.17)
Momentum and energy
The advection of momentum requires an extra step since cell momenta are not primary
variables and cell-centered momentum fluxes are used for consistency with mass and
energy advection. The velocities used in these momenta are the average of the vertex
velocities for the cell in question. Thus

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
| |
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
| |
u I J u I J u I J u I J u I J
v I J v I J v I J v I J v I J
av L L L L
av L L L L
, , , , ,
, , , , ,
= + + +
= + + +
1
4
1 1 1 1
1
4
1 1 1 1
(5.18)
Advection of energy can involve either internal energy or total energy as a user invoked
option. If the choice is total energy then the specific total energy I(I, J) is determined as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
|
I I J e I J u I J v I J
av av
, , , , = + +
1
2
2 2
|
(5.19)
Then the total energy in the constrained grid is given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
m I J I J m I J I J F a I J
F a I J
F a I J
F a I J
F a F a
F a F a I J
n n n n
JG JG
L
IL IL
L
JL JL
L
IG IG
L
JG JG IL IL
JL JL IG IG
L
, , , , ,
,
,
,
{
} ,
+ +
= + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I I I
I
I
I
I
+
,
,
(5.20)
A similar expression holds for the advection of internal energy by replacing I by e in the
above equation.
From equation (5.8) we define the cell momenta as
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
umom I J I J u I J
vmom I J I J v I J
L av
L av
, ,
, ,
=
=

(5.21)
Then as for the mass and total energy we may determine the change in cell momenta as
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
um I J F a umom I J
F a umom I J
F a umom I J
F a umom I J
F a F a
F a F a umom I J
n
JG JG
IL IL
JL JL
IG IG
JG JG IL IL
JL JL IG IG
, ,
,
,
,
{
} ,
+
= + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
(5.22)
and
92


( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
vm I J F a vmom I J
F a vmom I J
F a vmom I J
F a vmom I J
F a F a
F a F a vmom I J
n
JG JG
IL IL
JL JL
IG IG
JG JG IL IL
JL JL IG IG
, ,
,
,
,
{
} ,
+
= + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
(5.23)
3. Update cell velocities
To change the velocities it is necessary to recalculate the vertex masses, which as defined
in Section 3.3 are the sum of one quarter of the masses of the four zones surrounding the
vertex.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( m I J m I J m I J m I J m I J
p
n
, { , , , ,
+
= + + + + + +
1 1
4
1 1 1 )} + 1 (5.24)
The momentum at the vertex is defined as the vertex velocity times the vertex mass, i.e. the
original vertex u momentum at the vertex (I, J) is m
p
(I, J) u
L
(I, J). This momentum is
increased by contributions from the changes in momentum in the four cells surrounding the
vertex. We therefore obtain for the updated vertex velocity at the vertex (I, J)
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
u I J
m I J
m I J u I J um I J
um I J um I J um I J
n
p
n p L
n
,
,
{ , , { ,
, , , }
+
+
+
= +
+ + + + + + +
1
1
1
1 1
4
1 1 1
} 1
(5.25)
and
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
v I J
m I J
m I J v I J vm I J
vm I J vm I J vm I J
n
p
n p L
n
,
,
{ , , { ,
, , , }
+
+
+
= +
+ + + + + + +
1
1
1
1 1
4
1 1 1
} 1
4.
(5.26)
The velocity field is then examined to determine whether any velocity constraints from
external boundary conditions have been violated. This has been discussed in Section 3.8 of
this Manual.
Advection of Other Variables
In addition to the flow variables discussed above several other variables are also advected in
the same manner. Among these are the pressure p, viscous pressure q, the distortional
energy, temperature, effective plastic strain, effective strain, the damage factor D, the
compaction parameter for porous materials , and the three elements of the stress tensor,
xx
,
yy
and
xy
. These are all advected in the same manner as shown in equation (5.17).
The stress deviators are translated unchanged since the material has not suffered distortion
during the rezoning process.
93

94
5.
8.
Reevaluation of the Pressure
Finally the hydrostatic pressure p is recalculated from the new cell density (i.e. new cell
mass divided by new cell volume) and new cell energy by means of the equation of state.
The components of total stress must then clearly be changed because of the recalculated
value of p.
Regrid Phase in 3D
In a similar manner to that described in the section for the 2D ALE processor, during the
regrid phase in 3D the vertices are moved to the chosen constrained positions (allowing for
the relaxation factor) and the relative velocities are determined. If the grid velocity vector is
( ) ( ) ( ) (
u , , , , , , ,
G G G G
u I J K v I J K w I J K =
)
, (5.27)
and the relative velocity vector is
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
u , , , , , , ,
REL REL REL REL
u I J K v I J K w I J K = , (5.28)
Then, relative to the positions of the nodes (x(I, J, K), y(I, J, K), z(I, J, K))
n
at the beginning of
the ALE step, the new positions of the constrained grid nodes are
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
x I J K x I J K u I J K t
y I J K y I J K v I J K t
z I J K z I J K w I J K t
n n
G
n n
G
n n
G
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
+
+
+
= +
= +
= +
1
1
1
(5.29)
However, in order to evaluate the advective fluxes of material properties into the cells of the
new grid it is necessary to determine the positions that the cells would have had if the
rezoning was not taking place. These coordinates, denoted by (x
p
(I, J, K), y
p
(I, J, K),
z
p
(I, J, K)) can be determined relative to the constrained grid
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
x I J K x I J K u I J K t
y I J K y I J K v I J K t
z I J K z I J K w I J K t
p
n n
REL
p
n n
REL
p
n n
REL
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
+ +
+ +
+ +
=
=
=
1 1
1 1
1 1
(5.30)
where is the relaxation factor.
In 3 dimensions it not easy to visualize graphically the volume swept out by each of the six
faces of a cell relative to their potential Lagrangian positions since, as described in Section
4.4, the four vertices of each face define a ruled surface which is difficult to portray in two
dimensions. To display a cell and its potential Lagrangian position with clarity has proved
impossible. Figure 5-4, therefore, shows only one face of a three dimensional cell in its
constrained position, together with the potential Lagrangian position of the same face.


1
2
3
4
P3
P4
P1
P2

Figure 5-4 Face of a three-dimensional cell in potential Lagrange
and constrained grids
The shaded volume indicates the volume swept out by the face (P1-P2-P3-P4) in moving to
its constrained position (1-2-3-4) and it can be calculated by the method described in
Chapter 4.4 .
Note also that this volume swept out by this face of the center cell will be equal in magnitude
but of opposite sign to the volume swept out by this same face for the cell immediately
adjacent to it. Thus total volume will be conserved. These volumes can be determined for all
faces of each cell.
95
9. Advective Phase in 3D
As in the 2D processor, associated with each swept-out volume at each face there are fluxes
of mass, momentum and energy. For example, the mass crossing any face of the cell
(I, J, K) might be computed as the product of the volume calculated in Chapter 4.4 times the
average fluid density of the cells on either side of the face in question. Unfortunately this so-
called centered differencing leads to numerical instabilities. To avoid this instability
AUTODYN uses donor cell or upwind differencing which is stable but introduces some
diffusion. This means that the density associated with the flux would be equal to the density
in the cell (I, J, K) when the flux is leaving the cell (I, J, K) but equal to the density in the
neighboring cell if the flux is coming from that cell. The density is denoted as
L
.
We develop the notation used in the 2D ALE section in order to construct equations for the
advection of flow variables. Let 2F
IG
, be the volume swept-out by the face between the cells

(I, J K) and (I+1, J, K) (i.e. I becoming greater). Similarly the volume swept out by the face
between the cells (I, J, K) and (I-1, J, K) is defined as 2F
IL
(i.e. I becoming less ). The
remaining four volumes are defined in a similar manner as 2F
JL
, 2F
JG
, 2F
KL
and 2F
KG
. In
addition we define a
IG
= sign (F
IG
) i.e.
a if F
a if F
IG IG
IG IG
= + >
= <
1 0
1 0
(5.31)
with similar definitions for a
IL
, a
IG
, a
JL
, a
KG
and a
KL
.
96
1. Mass
The mass in the constrained cell (I, J, K) is then given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
m I J K m I J K F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a F a F a
F a F a F a I J
n n
IL IL L
IG IG L
JL JL L
JG JG L
KL KL L
KG KG L
IL IL IG IG JL JL
JG JG KL KL KG KG L
, , , , , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
{
} , ,
+
= + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
K
2.
(5.32)
Momentum and Energy
The advection of momentum requires an extra step since cell momenta are not primary
variables and cell-centered momentum fluxes are used for consistency with mass and
energy advection. The velocities used in these momenta are the average of the vertex
velocities for the cell in question. Thus


( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
u I J K u I J K u I J K u I J K
u I J K u I J K u I J K
u I J K u I J K
v I J K v I J K v I J K v I J K
v I J K v I J K v I J K
v I J K
av L L L
L L L
L L
av L L L
L L L
L
, , { , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , }
, , { , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, ,
= + +
+ + +
+ +
= + +
+ + +
+
1
8
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1
8
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 ( ) ( )
( )
)
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
( ) ( )
+
= + +
+ + +
+ +
1 1 1 1
1
8
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
v I J K
w I J K w I J K w I J K w I J K
w I J K w I J K w I J K
w I J K w I J K
L
av L L L
L L L
L L
, , }
, , { , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , }
)
(5.33)
Advection of energy can involve either internal energy or total energy as a user invoked
option. If the choice is total energy then the specific total energy I(I, J) is determined as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
| |
I I J K e I J K u I J K v I J K w I J K
av av av
, , , , , , , , , , = + + +
1
2
2 2 2
) (5.34)
Then the total energy in the constrained grid is given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
m I J K I J K m I J K I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a I J K
F a F a
F a F a
F a F a
n n n n
IL IL
L
IG IG
L
JL JL
L
JG JG
L
KL KL
L
KG KG
L
IL IL IG IG
JL JL JG JG
KL KL KG KG
, , , , , , , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
{
}
+ +
=
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ +
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( ) ( ) I
L
I J K , ,
(5.35)
A similar expression holds for the advection of internal energy by replacing I by e in the
above equation.
From equation (5.31) we define the cell momenta as
97

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
( ) ( ) ( )
umom I J K I J K u I J K
vmom I J K I J K v I J K
wmom I J K I J K w I J K
L av
L av
L av
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
=
=
=
) (5.36)
Then as for the mass and total energy we may determine the change in cell momenta as
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
um I J K F a umom I J K
F a umom I J K
F a umom I J K
F a umom I J K
F a umom I J K
F a umom I J K
F a F a
F a F a
F a F a umom I J K
n
IL IL
IG IG
JL JL
JG JG
KL KL
KG KG
IL IL IG IG
JL JL JG JG
KL KL KG KG
, , , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
{
} ,
+
= +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ +
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 ,
3.
(5.37)
and similar expressions for the change in v momentum and w momentum.
Update cell velocities
To change to velocities it is necessary to recalculate the vertex masses, which as defined in
Section 4.3 are the sum of one eighth of the masses of the eight zones surrounding the
vertex.
( ) ( ) ( ) (
( ) (
( ) ( )
( )
m I J K m I J K m I J K m I J K
m I J K m I J K
m I J K m I J K
m I J K
p
n
, , { , , , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, , }
+
= + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + +
1 1
8
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
)
)
+
(5.38)
The momentum at the vertex is defined as the vertex velocity times the vertex mass, i.e. the
original vertex u momentum at the vertex (I, J, K) is m
p
(I, J, K) u
L
(I, J, K). This momentum
is increased by contributions from the changes in momentum in the four cells surrounding
the vertex. We therefore obtain for the updated vertex velocity at the vertex (I, J, K)
98


( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
u I J K
m I J K
m I J K u I J K
um I J K um I J K um I J K
um I J K um I J K
um I J K um I J K
um I J K
n
p
n p L
n
, ,
, ,
{ , , , ,
{ , , , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, , } }
+
+
+
=
+ + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + +
1
1
1
1
1
8
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1

) +
4.
5.
10.
11.
(5.39)
and similar expressions for v(I, J, K)
n + 1
and w(I, J, K)
n + 1
.
The velocity field is then examined to determine whether any velocity constraints from
external boundary conditions have been violated. This has been discussed in Chapter 4.8 of
this Manual.
Advection of Other Variables
In addition to the flow variables discussed above several other variables are also advected in
the same manner. Among these are the pressure p, viscous pressure q, the distortional
energy, temperature, effective plastic strain, effective strain, the damage factor D, the
compaction parameter for porous materials , and the elements of the stress tensor,
xx
,
yy
,
zz
,
xy
,
yz
and
zx
. These are all advected in the same manner as shown in equation (5.32).
The stress deviators are translated unchanged since the material has not suffered distortion
during the rezoning process.
Reevaluation of the Pressure
Finally the hydrostatic pressure p is recalculated from the new cell density (i.e. new cell
mass divided by new cell volume) and new cell energy by means of the equation of state.
The components of total stress must then clearly be changed because of the recalculated
value of p.
Conclusion of ALE Phase
At the conclusion of the ALE phase, either in 2D or 3D the program is returned to the
Lagrange processor for the calculation of Nodal Forces (see Chapter 3.6 or 4.6).
Time-step
reasonable representation of the true solution. (See e.g. Richtmeyer (1957), Richtmeyer &
update.
99

In an ALE subgrid the time step must satisfy the CFL or Courant condition, assuming
Euler type advection;
t
d
c u
+
(5.40)
where d is a typical length of a zone (defined as the volume of the zone divided by the
square of the longest diagonal of the zone and scaled by 2 3 ) and c is the local sound
speed and |u| is the flow speed. This ensures that a disturbance does not propagate across
a zone in a single time step.
For regions involving high material velocities it has been found useful to add an additional
safety factor to the timestep calculation that gives more flexibility when using Euler-FCT ALE
and SPH subgrids. The safety factor can be reduced to improve stability and has the effect
of reducing the timestep as flow velocities increase.

For ALE, Euler and SPH processors, the stability timestep criterion presented in equation
5.40 is modified to:

t = d / ( c + (|u|/k
n
) ) (5.40a)

where: d is the local dimension of the cell
c is the local soundspeed
u is the material velocity
k
n
is the velocity safety factor, 0.0 < k
n
1.0

The default value for k
n
is 1.0, so if the user makes no changes, behavior will be the same
as equation (5.40). Values of less than 1.0 can improve stability where advection flow
velocities are high. Also, the need to use the existing maximum velocity cutoff option to
control non-physical large velocities may be obviated by use of the k
n
safety factor.

The inclusion of the pseudo-viscous stresses, discussed fully in Section 4.6, impose further
t
C
V
V
Q
2
2
1
4
(
&
(5.41)
t
d
C c
L
3
2
(5.42)
100


The constants C
Q
and C
L
are the constants introduced in equation (4.47) and
&
V V is the

(5.43)
|
t kMin t t t =
1 2 3
, ,
|
The minimum value of t must be found for all zones for the next time step of integration.

101

102


Chapter 6. Thin Shell Processor in 2D

103
Chapter 6.
1.
Thin Shell Processor in 2D
Introduction
For many engineering applications it is necessary to calculate the deformation of relatively
thin structures. Thin shell structures could potentially be analyzed using the Lagrange
processor described in Chapter 3 but in order to calculate the effect of bending of the
structure it would be necessary to define at least two zones (and probably more) through the
thickness of each shell. The resulting time step as calculated in Chapter 3.9 for such
Lagrange subgrids would be small and the overall calculation prohibitively expensive.

To overcome this problem a thin shell processor is included in AUTODYN-2D. The
formulation follows the approach described by Cowler (1973) and Cowler & Hancock (1979).
In this formulation it is assumed that:
The normal stress through the shell is small and can be neglected in comparison to the
meridional and circumferential stresses. Thus a biaxial stress distribution exists.
A line initially normal to the midsurface of the shell remains straight and normal to the
deformed midsurface as the shell deforms (i.e. transverse shear is neglected).
The density of the shell is assumed to remain constant so there is no volume change
during deformation of the shell. As a consequence, significant changes in the shell
thickness can occur during plastic deformation.
The computational cycle is illustrated graphically in Figure 6-1. Knowing the displacements,
new strains can be calculated from which the stresses may be determined, taking into
account the possibility of the shell yielding plastically. Bending moments can then be
calculated, nodal forces determined, accelerations obtained as force/mass and the
equations of motion integrated to obtain velocities and displacements for the start of the next
cycle. This is entirely similar to the cycle for Lagrangian subgrids described in Chapter 3.

The finite difference equations used in the shell processor apply to shells of arbitrary shape
in either planar or axial symmetry and include full bending theory. The equations are solved
explicitly and have a stability time-step governed only by the length of the shell segments.

The shell processor may also be used in a mode whereby it represents a membrane. When
this option is used the bending behavior is not included and a uniform stress distribution
through the thickness is assumed.


New Stresses
Integration of
Stresses Over Shell
Thickness
Stress Resultants and
Bending Moments
Equilibrium
Equations
Nodal Forces
Equations of
Motion
New Displacements
Strain-Displacement
Equations
Kirchoff Equations
New Strains
Incremental Stress-
Strain Relations and
Yield Condition
Boundary and/or Interactive Forces

Figure 6-1 Computational Cycle for Shells
104
The shell formulation is applicable to both planar and axial symmetry and the nomenclature
for these geometries are shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 respectively.

In Figure 6-2 the arc length along the shell is denoted by s and the normal at the point s
makes an angle with the x-axis. Consider an infinitesimal length s, at (s, ). Then the
radius of curvature R
is given by
R
s
= (6.1)


Figure 6-2 Nomenclature for a Thin Shell in Planar Symmetry

Figure 6-3 Nomenclature for a Thin Shell in Axial Symmetry
105

In the case of axial symmetry the system is described by the curvilinear coordinate system
(s, , ) as shown in Figure 6-3. If we consider an infinitesimal segment of length s at (s, ,
), the radii of curvature are given by

R
y
R
s
=
=
sin
(6.2)

1. Strain - Displacement Relations
With the assumptions listed in Section 6.1, let the thin shell in axial symmetry have thickness
h and the increments in the principal strains over a timestep t are ( )
z and . If z
is the distance from the middle surface (-h/2 z h/2) and m denotes the midsurface, then
these strain increments are given by
( )
z
(6.3)

( )
&
( )
( )
&
( )
z z t z
z z t z
m
m
= =
= =

where and are curvatures, equal to the reciprocals of R

and R
respectively.

The midsurface strain increments and curvatures are given by (see Figure 6-4)

m
m
s
s
s
y
y
y
=
=
=
=
( )
sin
(6.4)
In planar symmetry and
= 0

= 0 .

106


Figure 6-4 Internal Forces on a Shell Element in Planar
Symmetry

107
2. Equations of Motion

Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 illustrate, for planar and axial symmetry, the internal forces acting
on a deformed shell element of length s, subject to a biaxial state of stress. In Figure 6-5,
N
and N

are the hoop and in-plane forces per unit length acting along the principal axes,
M
and M
are the bending moments and Q
is the transverse shear force. In planar

symmetry the -related functions are absent.


Figure 6-5 Internal Forces on a Shell Element in Axial Symmetry
The equations of motion for a thin shell element illustrated in Figure 6-4and Figure 6-5 are
(6.5)
mx f f
my f f
x
i
x
e
y
i
y
e
&&
&&
= +
= +
where
m is the mass of the shell per unit length
are the components of acceleration ( &&, && ) x y
are the internal forces per unit area ( , ) f f
x
i
y
i
are the external forces per unit area ( , f f
x
e
y
e
)
In planar symmetry

f
A
s
f
B
s
x
i
y
i
=
=
(6.6)
108


and in axial symmetry

f
y
yA
s
f
y
y B
s
N
y
x
i
y
i
=
=
1
1

( )
( )
(6.7)
where
(6.8)
A N Q
B N Q
= +
=

sin cos
cos sin
The equation for conservation of angular momentum is used to determine the shear force
per unit length Q
. When the effect of rotational inertia is neglected (it involves factors of

higher order in the shell thickness) the resultant equation is, in planar geometry
Q
M
s
= (6.9)
and for axial symmetry

( )
Q
M
s
M M
y

= +
cos
(6.10)
The stresses and bending moments are related to the principal stresses through
N
h
h

=
( )
2
2
z dz (6.11)
M z z
h
h

=
( )
2
2
dz (6.12)
N
h
h

=
( )
2
2
z dz (6.13)
M z z
h
h

=
( )
2
2
dz (6.14)
109

110
where
(z),
3.
1.
(z) are the principal stresses at a distance z from the mid-surface of the
shell.

Shell Subgrids
A shell subgrid is composed of a set of linear segments joined at nodes and conforms to
the organization of (I, J) index-space used for other types of subgrids in AUTODYN-2D by
being considered as a grid with a single column (I = 1) and with JMAX rows where JMAX is
the number of nodes.

The variables carried through from one time step to the next are those defined at the mid
surface of the linear segment, some at the midpoint of the segment and some at the nodes
(see below). However calculation of the forces N
and N
, and bending moments M
and M

require the integration of stresses through the shell thickness. In order to be able to carry out
such integrations the concept of sublayer stresses is introduced. The integrals (6.11) to
(6.14) are evaluated by Gaussian integration of a predefined order (the default value in
AUTODYN-2D is 3) which therefore fixes the number of integration stations or sublayers at
which the stresses are to be defined.

Once the midsurface strains and curvatures have been evaluated (see equations (6.1), (6.2)
and (6.4)) the strain increments can be obtained in each of the sublayers across the shell
thickness at both nodes and segment centers using the relations (6.3). The stresses are
then updated in each sublayer using the material constitutive relations (see Chapter 11 ) and
finally the mid-surface stress resultants and bending moments are obtained by integration
using equations (6.11) to (6.14).

Interaction With Other Subgrids
The force-mass method used in AUTODYN-2D to calculate the acceleration of vertices of
shell subgrids makes it very simple to join different Lagrange and Shell subgrids together.
The total force associated with an interactive vertex (a vertex belonging to more than one
subgrid) is simply the sum of the forces exerted on it by all surrounding zones/segments of
each subgrid. Similarly the mass associated with the vertex is the sum of the masses
contributed by each of the surrounding zones/segments of each subgrid. Forces exerted by
Euler subgrids are included in the above summations but no mass contributions are made by
Euler subgrids. Thus Euler subgrids provide a pressure boundary condition for shell
subgrids.

Shell subgrids can be joined together but the end nodes can only be connected to each
other with a free-hinged joint. However, shells can be overlapped or combined with a
Lagrange subgrid to give rigidity (see Figure 6-6).


Joined Nodes

Figure 6-6 Interaction of One or more Shell Subgrids
2. Centering of Variables
The mid-surface of a shell is represented by a number of vertices or nodes (from J = 1 to J =
JMAX) connected by linear segments (see Figure 6-7). The centering of the variables is
illustrated also in Figure 6-7. Shell coordinates (x, y), velocity components ( , the shell
thickness (h), bending moments (M
& , & ) x y
, M
) and the principal curvatures of the mid-surface are

centered at nodal positions. Stress resultants (N
, N
), the angle (), the segment length (s)

and the mid-surface strains (
) are centered at mid-segment positions. If nodal variables

are required at mid-segment positions or if mid-segment variables are required at nodal
positions simple averaging is used. This centering is consistent with that used in the
Lagrangian subgrids (see Chapter 3) and allows straightforward coupling with Lagrange
subgrids and application of boundary conditions.

( , , &, &, , , , , x y x y h M M

( , , , , , ) N N s

Segments
Middle Surface
h
Nodes
J - 1
J -
J
J +
J + 1

Figure 6-7 Representation of Shell Elements and Centering of
Dependent Variables
111

112
3.
4.
Segment Masses and Volumes
At the start of a calculation the shell generator computes a mass for each of the shell
segments. A quadrilateral zone is defined for each linear shell segment by a displacement of
the shell contour normal to itself so as to define two shell surfaces which are separated by
the prescribed thickness. An area A, the volume V and mass V can thus be ascribed to
each segment and these remain constant throughout the calculation. However the thickness
h will change as the thin shell deforms. Since the thickness is a node centered quantity, the
strain increments, which are segment centered quantities, must be averaged.

Strains and Curvatures

Strains and curvatures of the midsurface are evaluated using a finite difference
representation of equations (6.4)

( ) ( )
| |
( ) s x y
J J J + + +
= +
1 2 1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
(6.15)

( )
( )
| |
|
J
J
J J J J
t
s
x x y y
+
+
+ + + +
= +
1 2
1 2
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
&
|
& (6.16)

( )
| |
| |
( )
J
J J
J J
J
t y y
y y
in axial symmetry
in planar symmetry
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
=
1 2
1
1
1 2
0
& &
(6.17)
where

x x
x x
J J
J J
+ +
+ +
= x
x
J
J
=
1 2 1
1 2 1
& & &
(6.18)

y y
y y
J J
J J
+ +
+ +
= y
y
J
J
=
1 2 1
1 2 1
& & &
(6.19)
All the quantities in the above equations are centered at time n +1 2

The meridional curvature at a shell node is evaluated using the formula
( )
J


( )
d
dt
d
dt s
=
|
\
|
.
|
(6.20)
where, since the angle of a shell segment is defined by its linear slope, the change in
angle is equal to the change in the angle between two segments as shown in Figure 6-8.
The angle can be evaluated in terms of the vector dot and cross products of the two line
segments, expressed by the vectors a and b.
tan
sin
cos
Df
Df
Df
b a
b a
= =

(6.21)
so
=

|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
tan tan
1
b a
b a
c
d
1
(6.22)

b
J - 1
J
J + 1
a

Figure 6-8 Angle between Two Line Segments
By taking the time derivative of (6.22) we can derive an expression for the increment in
meridional curvature

( )
( ) ( )
| |

J
J J
d d
d
t
s s
=

+
|
\
|
.
|
+
+
c c
c
&
&
2 2
1 2 1 2
1 2
(6.23)
where the time derivatives of the cross and dot products are
(6.24)
&
&
&
& &
&
c b a b a
b a b a
= +
= + d
113

The hoop curvature
,
in axial symmetry, is defined in equation (6.4) as

=
sin
y
(6.25)
Therefore, if (6.25) is differentiated with respect to time, we obtain
( )

= =
(
&
sin
&
sin t
t
y
d
dt
y
y
(6.26)
where, since sin = x / s
( )
( )
( ) ( )
| |
d
dt
x x
d
dt
s s
m
J J
sin
&
(
+
+

1 2
1 2 1 2
(6.27)

1. Curvatures at an End Node
Since the calculation of curvatures requires 3 nodes, i.e. two line segments, it is necessary
at an end node to add a dummy segment to create a third node and then use the two-
segment analysis described above. This dummy segment rotates freely unless constraints
are applied.

A constant angle boundary condition fixes the angle of the dummy segment to the
prescribed angle throughout the calculation (see Figure 6-9). This is usually used with a zero
velocity constraint on the end node to effect a clamped boundary condition.

114


Figure 6-9 Constant Angle Constraint at an End Node
At a free end node, where there will be zero meridional moment, it can be shown that
(6.28)

=
where is Poissons Ratio. In planar symmetry
= 0 so we have
= 0 also. In axial
symmetry is evaluated from equations (6.25) and (6.26) and
then determined
from (6.28).

5.
2
Stresses

As stated earlier the constitutive relations for a thin shell are formulated on the assumption
that the stress component normal to the shell surface is small and can be neglected. Then a
biaxial state of stress exists in every layer within the shell with the principal directions along
the curvilinear coordinates of the mid-surface. With this assumption large inelastic
deformations are analyzed by material constitutive relations in a similar way to the method
used for materials in a triaxial state of stress (see Chapter 11, Section 3 for a full description
of the approach).

For a biaxial stress system the von Mises yield condition reduces to (see equation 11.84)
(6.29)
( )
f Y Y

, , = +
2 2
0
where Y is the yield stress in uniaxial tension and
and
are the principal stress

components on the mid-surface. Elastic stress increments are applied using Hookes Law

( ) |

'
n
n
E
+
= +
(
+
1
2
1

|
(6.30)
( )
|

'
n
n
E +
= +
(
+
1
2
1

|
(6.31)
where E is Youngs Modulus and is Poissons Ratio.

If the incremented stresses

and
violate the yield condition (6.29) they must be

reduced to values and such that the new state of stress lies on the yield surface

115

given by the equality sign in equation (6.5.1). This is done by decomposing the strain
increments into elastic and plastic strain increment components
116
(6.32)

= +
= +
e p
e
The elastic increments must satisfy equations (6.30) and (6.31) while the plastic increments
are obtained from the theory of plastic potential
(6.33)
( )
( )

p
p
=
=
2
2
where is a constant of proportionality. Equations (6.29) to (6.33) are solved simultaneously
to obtain the new stresses and . The yield stress Y can be varied to allow for isotropic
hardening due to plastic work (see Chapter 11 for available models).

One mode of failure for the shell included in the current version of AUTODYN is based on
the effective plastic strain. At each cycle in which the yield criterion (6.29) is violated, and
the procedure outlined above is carried out, an increment of effective plastic strain is
computed as follows
| | (
eff
p
G
f Y Y = +
1
3
2
1 2
)
6.
(6.34)
where f is given in equation (6.29) and G is the shear modulus. The effective plastic strain is
the integrated value of these increments during the calculation and if it should exceed a
predefined limit local failure of the shell is assumed to have occurred.

Stress Resultants and Bending Moments

The stress resultants and bending moments are obtained by integration of the principal
stresses through the shell thickness at mid segments (for stress resultants) and at nodes (for
bending moments).

It is not possible to define the stress distributions through the shell analytically since elasto-
plastic behavior is included in the formulation. Therefore, in order to evaluate the integrals in
equations (6.11) to (6.14), the stresses are determined at a finite number of sublayers
through the thickness of the shell and the integrals determined by Gaussian quadrature. The
equations (6.11) to (6.14) are replaced by sums


117
W
W
W
W
(6.35) N
k k
k

=
=
1
(6.36) M z
k k k
k

=
=
1
(6.37) N
k k
k

=
=
1
(6.38) M z
k k k
k

=
=
1
where
k is the sublayer index
W
k
is the Gaussian weight coefficient
z
k
is the sublayer coordinate

k
,
7.
k
are the stresses calculated at sublayer k
The default values of thickness and weighting factors in AUTODYN are defined for 3 stations
through the thickness.

Note that if only one integration station is defined in evaluating the integrals both bending
moments will be identically zero (and hence the transverse shear resultant will be zero) and
the result will be a membrane solution to the shell equations.

Nodal Forces

The shell internal forces are expressed in terms of the stress resultants N
and N
and the
transverse shear resultant Q
.
. The latter function is defined as
Q
dM
ds

= (6.39)
in planar symmetry and

( )
Q
dM
ds
M M
y

= +
cos
(6.40)

in axial symmetry.

If we consider the two adjacent shell segments in Figure 6-10 then equation (6.39) can be
approximated at the center of the segment (J, J + 1) by

( )
( ) ( )
| |
( )
Q
M M
s
J
J
J
+
+
+
=

1 2
1
1 2
J
(6.41)
In the case of axial symmetry equation (6.40) is approximated by
( )
( ) ( )
| |
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q
M M
s
M M
y
M M
y
J
J J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J

+
+
+
+
+
+
=

+

+

(
(
1 2
1
1 2
1
1
1
1
2
cos (6.42)
and it is assumed that (M
- M
) / y = 0 if y = 0.

To derive the force necessary to accelerate a node in terms of the stress resultants at the
mid-segment positions of the two adjacent shell segments the equations of motion are
integrated from the mid-point of one segment to the mid-point of the next. Consider the three
consecutive nodes on the two segments shown in Figure 6-10. We integrate equations
(6.2.5) using (6.2.6) and (6.2.7).
J - 1
J
J + 1
J -
J +
(s)
J+

Figure 6-10 Nodal Force Calculation on Two Adjacent Segments

1. Planar Symmetry
In planar geometry we obtain
(6.43)
h xds F F
h yds F F
x
i
x
e
y
i
y
e
&&
&&
= +
= +
118


where the internal shell forces are

F
A
s
ds
F
B
s
ds
x
i
y
i
=
=
(6.44)
with
(6.45)
A N Q
B N Q
= +
=

sin cos
cos sin
and the external forces are
(6.46)
( )
( )
F S P
F S P
x
e
y
e
=
= +
sin cos
cos sin

ds
ds
where P is the normal stress and S is the shear stress due to external sources. The sign
convention for P and S applied to the segment (J, J+1) is that a positive value for P will push
the shell to the left for someone traveling from node J to node J+1, while a positive S will
push the shell in the direction from J to J+1. Note that currently in AUTODYN-2D, S is
identically zero since most fluid-structure interaction problems have such large Reynolds
Numbers that fluid viscosity effects are negligible, and therefore only normal external
pressure forces can be applied.

Equations (6.43) can be written as

( )
( )
1
2
1
2
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
m m x F
m m y F
J J J x
i
x
e
J J J y
i
y
e
+
+
+ =
+ =
&&
&&
F
F
+
+
(6.47)
while the internal force integrals may be evaluated as

F A A
F B B
x
i
J J
y
i
J J
=
=
+
+
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
(6.48)
Considering the forces exerted by a shell segment on its nodal endpoints it follows that
for the segment (J, J+1)
119

( ) F A
x
i
J
J
=
+1 2
(6.49)
( ) F B
x
i
J
J
=
+1 2
(6.50)
( ) F A
x
i
J
J
+
+
=
1
1 2
(6.51)

( )
F B
y
i
J
J
+
+
=
1
1 2
(6.52)
Note that

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
F F
F F
x
i
J
x
i
J
y
i
J
y
i
J
+ =
+ =
+
+
1
1
0
0
showing that an element exerts no force on itself, a necessary condition if momentum is to
be conserved.

The external force exerted by boundary stresses on the shell segment (J, J+1) is taken
simply as

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
F S P s
F S P s
x
e
J J
y
e
J J
=
= +
+
+ +
sin cos
cos sin

1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
+
(6.53)
and this force is divided equally between the two nodes so that
( ) F
x
e
J
x
e
=
1
2
F (6.54)
( ) F
x
e
J
x
e
+
=
1
1
2
F (6.55)

( )
F
y
e
J
y
e
=
1
2
F (6.56)
120


( )
F
y
e
J
y
e
+
=
1
1
2
F
2.
(6.57)
Axial Symmetry
In the case of axial symmetry the force on a node is calculated in a similar manner to the
above by integrating the equations of motion from mid-point to mid-point of the adjacent
segments. This gives
(6.58) h x yds F F
x
i
x
e
&& 2 = +
(6.59) h y yds F F
y
i
y
e
&& 2 = +
where the forces are estimated using equations (6.7)

( )
F
y
yA
s
yds
x
i
=

(
(
1
2
(6.60)

( )
F
y
y B
s
N
y
yds
y
i
=
(
(
1
2
(6.61)
(6.62) | | F S P y
x
e
=
sin cos 2 ds
ds (6.63) | | F S P y
y
e
= +
cos sin 2
The derivative in equation (6.7.23) can be expanded to give
F
dB
ds
B N
y
yds
y
i
= +

(
cos
2 (6.64)
and the accelerations x and y removed from under the integral signs. The integrals are then,
as in planar symmetry, evaluated as half the mass of each of the two adjoining segments.
After some manipulation the integrals for and can be evaluated to give the following
expressions for the force contribution of segment (J, J+1) to node J.
F
x
i i
F
y
121

( ) ( )
F y A
x
i
J
J J
=
+
2
1 2 1 2
*
+
(6.65)

( )
( )
F y B
s B N
y
y
i
J
J J
J J
J
= +
|
\
|
.
|
|
(
(
+
+ +
+
2
2
1 2
1 2 1 2
1 2

cos
(6.66)
where

( )
( )
cos
sin
=

=

=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
y y
s
x x
s
y
y y
J J
J
J
J
J
J J
1
1 2
1
1 2
1 2
1
2
J
(6.67)
and the following expression has been used for
( )
y
J +1 2
*
,in equation (6.65), instead of the
mid-point as the average of y
J
and y
J + 1
since it has been found to give greater accuracy

( )
( )
( )
y
y y
y y
J
J J
J J
+
+
+
=
+
+
1 2
2
1
2
1
*
(6.68)
Similarly the forces exerted on node (J + 1) by the segment (J, J+1) can be shown to be
( ) ( )
F y
x
i
J
J J
+
+
=
1
1 2 1 2
2
*
A
+
(6.69)

( )
( )
( )
F y B
s
B N
y
y
i
J
J J
J
J
J
+
+ +
+
+
+
= +

(
( 1
1 1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
2
2

cos
(6.70)
The sum of the internal forces exerted by a shell segment on its two nodes are
(6.71) ( ) ( ) F F
x
i
J
x
i
J
+
+1
0 =

( ) ( )
( ) F F N s
y
i
J
y
i
J
J
+ =
+
+
1
1 2
2
(6.72)
122


The radial forces sum to a good approximation to the hoop force so, as in planar symmetry,
momentum is conserved.

The external forces exerted by the boundary stresses on the shell segment (J, J+1) are
approximated simply by
( )
( ) F S P y s
x
e
J
J J
=
+
+ +
sin cos
1 2
1 2 1 2
2 (6.73)
( )
( ) F S P y s
y
e
J
J J
= +
+
+ +
cos sin
1 2
1 2 1 2
2 (6.74)
and these forces are distributed between the two nodes J and J+1 in a weighted manner as
( ) F
x
e
J
x
e
=
1
2
F (6.75)
( ) F
x
e
J
x
e
+
=
1
1
2
F
)
(6.76)

( )
(
F
y
y y
F
y
e
J
J
J J
y
e
=
+
+1
(6.77)

( )
( )
F
y
y y
F
y
e
J
J
J J
y
e
+
+
+
=
+
1
1
1
(6.78)

8. Boundary Conditions

Once the forces at the shell nodes have been determined the accelerations of the nodes are
given by nodal force divided by nodal mass in the same way as described for Lagrange
subgrids in Chapter 3. In a similar manner the boundary constraints described for Lagrange
subgrids are also applicable to shell subgrids. However in addition a shell subgrid can have
additional constraints applied to the end segments, e.g. free end or clamped end. The
condition for a free end has been described in Section 6.4 (see equation (6.4.14)). If a
clamped end is required then a zero velocity condition can be imposed on the relevant node
together with a constant angle constraint, as detailed in Section 6.4.

123

124
1. Velocity Constraints
After calculating velocities & x
n+1 2
and & y
n+1 2
, any imposed constraints on velocities or grid
positions are introduced and the newly computed velocities adjusted to comply with these
constraints. Typical constraints boundary conditions are
constant x and/or y component of velocity (in planar symmetry)
constant radial and/or constant angular velocity (in axial symmetry)
maximum and minimum limits on the coordinates of x and/or y
adjustments to y if necessary to ensure that (in axial symmetry) grid points originally on
the axis remain on the axis while points originally off axis remain off axis.
B
n+1 2
, & y
B
n+1 2
then
the x and y impulses due to the constraints are equal to

( )
(
I m x x
I m y y
x p B
n n
y p B
n n
=
=
+ +
+ +
& &
& &
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
)
(6.79)
while the work done by the constraint is
W I
x x
I
y y
x
B
n n
y
B
n n
=
+ |
\
|
.
| +
+ |
\
|
.
|
+ +
& & & &
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 2
(6.80)

2.
9.
Pressure Boundaries
As described in the previous section external pressures contribute to the force on shell
nodes. Such pressures can occur because of fluid-structure interaction between the shell
and adjoining Lagrange, ALE or Euler subgrids. Alternatively there may be an applied
pressure P(t) acting on the shell. In the current version of AUTODYN the function P(t) can
specify a constant pressure, a triangular function or one of several other functions. The
manner in which this applied pressure is divided between the nodes has been described in
the previous section.

Time Step
The stability requirement of the explicit time integration of the finite difference representation
of the thin shell equations of motion is governed by the usual limitation that the time step of


integration must be less than the time for a wave to travel the length of the shortest shell
segment, i.e.
t Min
s
c
1

(6.81)
where c is the elastic wave speed in the shell material

( )
c
E
=
(
(
1
2
1 2
(6.82)
The stability requirement for bending waves is that
t Min
s
c
s
h
2

(

(6.83)
which should be less restrictive than t
1
as the length is usually longer than the segment
thickness.
Finally the chosen time step is
(6.84)
|
t k Min t t =
1 2
,
|
where k is the safety factor (the default value is 2/3).

The minimum value of t must be found for all zones and this value will be used for all
segments for the next step of integration.
125

126
Chapter 7.
1.
2.
Thin Shell Processor in 3D
Introduction

This chapter describes a finite element procedure of AUTODYN3D for transient analysis of
plates and shells in three-dimensional space. Because of the emphasis on speed, the
Belytschko-Tsay element (Belytschko, T, et. al. (1984), the bilinear four-node quadrilateral
shell elements with one quadrature point and an hourglass control, is adopted. Modifications
to the original formulation presented later by Belytschko and others (Belytschko, T, et. al.
(1992)) are also considered.
The report is organized as follows. In section 2, Mindlin plate theory is described, starting
with the basic assumptions, geometry and kinematics. Section 3 describes the finite-element
implementations of the Belytschko-Tsay shell element based upon Mindlin theory and a
corotational formulation in explicit time integration. Section 4 is treats nonlinear hourglass
control.
It should be noted that three different coordinate systems are employed in the following
sections: the global Cartesian coordinate system that is fixed in space; the local corotational
coordinate system that rotate with material; the local principal inertia coordinate system
where the Euler equations for rigid-body rotations are solved.

Elements of Mindlin plate theory

Consider a flat plate, with a local coordinate system ( ), placed in the global Cartesian
coordinate system ( X Y ), Fig.1. Thickness is specified as h (
$, $, $ x y z
Z , , h z h / $ / 2
$, $, $ x y z
2 ). When
the plate deforms, the rate of deformation may be measured by the local strain rate tensor,
which requires calculating the derivatives of velocity vector with respect to ( ).
Plate theory assumes that one dimension (thickness) of the body is very small as compared
to the other two dimensions. This assumption leads us to the difficulty that the derivative with
respect to that particular direction cannot be evaluated. $ z

To render solutions possible Mindlin plate theory postulates:
1. The straight line A-A(Fig.2) initially orthogonal to the midplane remain straight B-
B (Fig.3) after deformation, but not necessarily orthogonal to the midplane
( z ), $ = 0
2. A plane stress state exists in each $ z = constant plane.

The first assumption allows us to introduce three new independent variables, the angular
velocities ( ), which are constant through thickness. The velocity of an arbitrary point
$
,
$
,
$

x y z


127
z
z
in the shell is, therefore, defined by the velocity ( ) and the angular velocities
( ) of the midplane
$ , $ , $ u u u
x
m
y
m
z
m
$
,
$
,
$

x y
u
$
$
d
xx
$
d
yy
$
d
xy
$
d
yz
$
d
zx
$
d
xx
$
d
yy
$
d
xy
$ $ $
$
u u z
x x
m
y
= +
$ $ $
$
u u z
y y
m
x
=
, (7.1a)
, (7.1b)
$ $ u
z
m
= (7.1c)
,
$
$
x y
= constant in the z direction
(7.1d)

The second terms in the right-hand side of Eq.(7.1a) and Eq.(7.1b) express that the point is
on a plane -distance away from the midplane. The quantities with the hat ^ are called
local variables expressed in terms of the local base vectors. These vectors are defined in the
next section.
$ z
The local strain rate tensor is defined by
$
d
$
$
u
x
x
=

(7.2a)
$
$
u
y
y
=

(7.2b)
$
$
$
$
u
y
u
x
x
y
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.2c)

$
$
$
$
u
z
u
y
y
z
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.2d)

$
$
$
$
u
x
u
z
z x
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.2e)

By substituting Eqs.(7.1) into Eq.(7.2) we obtain the strain rates, which include no
differentiation concerning to z . $
$
$
$
$
$
u
x
z
x
x
m
y
= +
(7.3a)

$
$
$
$
$
u
y
z
y
y
m
x
=
(7.3b)

$
$
$
$
u
y
u
x
x
m
y
m
= +
1
2

$
$
$
$
$
z
y x
y
x
+
|
\
|
.
|
|
(
(
(
(7.3c)

$
$
$
$
d
u
y
yz
z
m
x
=
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.3d)

$
$
$
$
d
u
x
zx
z
m
y
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.3e)
(
|
$ $

xx xx yy
E
=
1
(
|
$ $

yy yy yy
E
=
1
(
|
$ $

zz zz xx
E
=
1
(
$ $

xx xx
E
=
+
1
2
(
$

yy xx
E
=
+
1
2
$ z
(
$ $

zz xx yy
=
+
1
(

zz xx
=
+
1
xx
(
$ $
xx xx
E
=
+
1
2
(

yy xx
E
=
1
2
zz
= 0
You may notice that one component of the strain rates is absent in Eqs.(7.3), which is
supplemented by the second assumption. For elastic material the stress-strain relation is
defined as,
$
d
zz
)
|
$ $

zz
+ (7.4a)

$ $

zz
+ (7.4b)

)
$ $
yy
+ (7.4c)
)
|
|

By substituting the plane stress condition,
$
zz
=0, into Eqs.(7.4), we have the normal
stresses,
)
$
yy
(7.5a)
)
$ $
yy
(7.5b)

and the normal -strain component in the local corotational system,
)
$
(7.6)

Eq.(7.6) is expressed incrementally,
)
$

yy
(7.7)
$
The strain increments and
$
yy
are obtained by integrating d and d in time,
respectively. The three components of the strain rates, Eq.(7.3a,b,c), are evaluated at a set
of Gauss points through the thickness.
$
xx
$
yy
The incremental normal stresses are computed by plane-stress constitutive equations,
)

yy

$
)
$

yy
+ (7.8a)
$

128


while, the transverse shear stresses are computed by Hooks law,

$ $

xy xy
G = 2
129
3.
1.
yz yz
G = 2

$ $

zx zx
G = 2
(7.8b)

The above stresses must be evaluated at same integration points as the strain rates.

Finite element formulations
Corotational Coordinate System

As the material time-derivative of the Cauchy stress,
&
, does not satisfy the criterion of
objectivity under a rigid rotation, the Jaumann rate of the Cauchy stress, , defined by
Eq.(7.9), is utilized generally by the Lagrange processor in the global Cartesian coordinate
system.
&
( )
J
& &
( )

J
= + (7.9)
where, is the spin tensor. The second and third terms are added to the stress rate with
a view to considering rotation corrections
&
In this section we define another coordinate system, the corotational coordinate system that
rotates rigidly with the material body. The stress rate evaluated in this system automatically
satisfies the criterion of the objectivity under a rigid rotation. We can, therefore, directly
compute the left-hand side of Eq.(7.9).
The corotational coordinate system ( ) is constructed as shown in Fig.1. The midpoints
of the sides are connected by lines, r and r , where
$, $, $ x y z
ac bd
r r r
ac a c
= , and . The
unit vector is assumed to be the normal to the vector and r ,
r r
bd b d
= r
$ e
3
r
ac bd
$ e r r r r
3
=
ac bd ac bd
(7.10)

The other tow unit-vectors are given by
$ e r r
1
=
ac ac
(7.11)
$ $ e e e
2 3
= $
1
(7.12)
The above base vectors define the transformation matrix:
( ) A e e e
L G
e e e
e e e
e e e
= =
|
\
|
.
|
|
|
$ , $ , $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
1 2 3
11 21 31
12 22 32
13 23 33
(7.13)

The matrix transforms an arbitrary local vector A
L G
1
to the corresponding global vector
as follows
$ p
p
p = A p
L G
$ (7.14a)
In components form,

p
p
p
e e e
e e e
e e e
p
p
p
x
y
z
x
y
z
|
\
|
.
|
|
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
|
|
|
\
|
.
|
|
|
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$
$
$
11 21 31
12 22 32
13 23 33
(7.14b)

130
2. Interpolation Function And Isoparametric Formulation
The coordinates of any point on the midplane can be written by using the coordinates of the
four nodes and the corresponding natural coordinates ( , ) as
$ $ $ $ $ x x N x N x N x N = + + +
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
,
$ $ $ $ $ y y N y N y N y N = + + +
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
, (7.15)
$ $ $ $ $ z z N z N z N z N = + + +
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

( ) N N
I I
= ,
where
( )( ) N
1
1
4
1 1 = ,
( )( ) N
2
1
4
1 1 = + ,
( )( ) N
3
1
4
1 1 = + + , (7.16)
( )( ) N
4
1
4
1 1 = + , ( 1 1 , ).
are the interpolation functions or the shape functions. Inserting specific values of (-1,
-1), (1,-1), (1,1) and (-1,1) into ( , ) of Eq.(7.15) yield ( ), ( ), ( )
and ( x y ), respectively.
$ , $ , $ x y z
1 1 1 2 3
4
$ , $ , $ x y z
2 2
$ , $ , $ x y z
3 3
$ , $ , $ z
4 4
The isoparametric formulation enables us to approximate the value of a variable at any
point of the element by using defined at each node and the shape functions ,
p
, p
I
( ) N
I

p p p p p p ( , ) ( , ) = + + + =
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
N N N N N
I I
, (7.17)

Note that the midplane integration point is located at the element center ( , . At
this point the values of the shape functions and are simply
) ( , ) = 0 0
p

1
A global vector is a vector defined in the global Cartesian coordinates, similarly a vector defined in
the local corotational coordinates is termed as a local vector.


( )
N N N N
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1
4
0 0
1
4
= = = =
= + + + p p p p ( , ) p
(7.18)
And the derivatives of the shape functions are given by
N
N
N
N
1
2
3
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
=
=
=
=

N
N
N
N
1
2
3
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
=
=
=
=
(7.19)

Replacing with the local velocity ( ) and the local angular velocities ( ) of
the midplane, one obtains
p $ , $ , $ u u u
x
m
y
m
z
m
$
,
$
x y
$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
u u N u N u N u N
u u N u N u N u N
u u N u N u N u N
N N N N
N N N N
x
m
x x x x
y
m
y1 y y y
z
m
z z z z
x x x x x
y y1 y y y
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
1 2 2 3 3 4
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
1 2 2 3 3 4

4
4
3.
(7.20)

Strain Rates And B Matrix
The strain rates of the quadrilateral element are given by substituting Eq.(7.20) into Eq.(7.3).
$
$
$
$
$
$
d u
N
x
z
N
x
xx xI
I
yI
I
= +
(7.21a)
$
$
$
$
$
$
d u
N
y
z
N
y
yy yI
I
xI
I
=
(7.21b)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
d u
N
y
u
N
x
z
N
y
N
x
xy xI
I
yI
I
yI
I
xI
I
= + +
|
\
|
.
|
(
1
2

(7.21c)
$
$
$
$
d u
N
y
N
yz zI
I
xI I
=
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.21d)
131

$
$
$
$
d u
N
x
N
zx zI
I
yI I
= +
|
\
|
.
|
1
2

(7.21e)

Thus, computation of strain rates involves the evaluation of the derivatives of the shape
functions with respect to the local coordinates ( ) at the midplane integration point,
. For instance the term
$, $ x y
( , ) ( , ) = 0 0 $ / $ u N x
xI I
in Eq.(7.21a) is written fully as
$
$
$
$
$
$
u
N
x
u
N
x
u
N
x
xI
I
x x

=
|
\
|
.
|
+
|
\
|
.
|
= = = =
1
1
0
2
2
0

+
|
\
|
.
|
+
|
\
|
.
|
= = = =
$
$
$
$
u
N
x
u
N
x
x x 3
3
0
4
4
0

(7.22)
In general the following B matrix must be calculated to obtain the strain rates at the
integration point = = 0 .
B =

(
=

(
(
(
(
= =
B B B B
B B B B
N
x
N
x
N
x
N
x
N
y
N
y
N
y
N
y
x x x x
y y y y
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
0

(7.23)

In two dimensions the local coordinates ( ) are related to the natural coordinates ( $, $ x y , )
using the Jacobi matrix[J]
| |

|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
J
x
y
$
$
(7.24)
where,
| | J
x y
x y
=
|
\
|
.
|

$ $
$ $
. (7.25)

The inverse of Eq.(7.24) yields,
| |

$
$ det
$ $
$ $
x
y J
y y
x x
|
\
|
.
|
=

|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
1
. (7.26)

The derivatives of may be derived as follows. Putting into Eq.(7.26) one obtains N
1
N
1
| |

N x
N y J
y y
x x
N
N
1
1
1
1
1
$
$
det
$ $
$ $
|
\
|
.
|
=

|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
(7.27)

132


When the above equations is evaluated at the origin of the natural coordinates = = 0 ,
the expressions for the derivatives become simple. The gradients of the local coordinates in
terms of the natural coordinates at = = 0 are obtained from Eq.(7.15) and Eq.(7.19).
( )
( )

$
$ $ $ $ ,
$
$ $ $ $ ,
x
x x x x
y
y y y y
= =
= =
= + +
= + +
0
1 2 3 4
0
1 2 3 4
1
4
1
4

( )
( )

$
$ $ $ $ ,
$
$ $ $ $ .
x
x x x x
y
y y y y
= =
= =
= + +
= + +
0
1 2 3 4
0
1 2 3 4
1
4
1
4
(7.28)
Gauss integration with J K quadrature points gives
A dS J d d J w w
S
j
k
K
j
J
k k
= = =

= =

det[ ] det[ ( , )]
1
1
1
1
1 1
j
(7.29)
where, A is an element area and are the weight factors. Accordingly the Jacobian with
one quadrature point (J=K=1) yields
w
j

A J = det[ ( , )] 0 0 2 2 (7.30)

Substituting Eq.(7.28) and Eq.(7.30) into Eq.(7.27) we obtain

N x
N y A
y
x
1
1
24
42
1
2
$
$
$
$
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
, (. ) (. ) (. )
ij i j
= (7.31)

The remaining derivatives of , and with respect to ( ) are given by carrying
out similar computation described above. Thus, B matrix is expressed as
N
2
N
3
N
4
$, $ x y

I=1 I=2 I=3 I=4
B=
|
\
|
.
| =
|
\
|
.
|
B
B
A
y y y y
x x x x
xI
yI
$
$
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
1
2
24 31 42 13
42 13 24 31
(7.32)

The strain rates Eq.(7.21) are given in terms of B matrix components as follows
133

( )
( )
( )
$
$ $ $
$ $
$
$ $ $
$ $
$
$ $ $ $
$
$ $ $ $
$
$ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $
d B u B u z B B
d B u B u z B B
d B u B u B u B u
z B B B B
d B u B u
xx x x x x x y13 x y
yy y y13 y y y x y x
xy y x y x x y13 x y
y y13 y y x x x x
yz y z y z
= + + +
= + +
= + + +
+
= +
1 13 2 24 1 2 24
1 2 24 1 13 2 24
1 13 2 24 1 2 24
1 2 24 1 13 2 24
1 13 2 24
1
4

( )
$ $ $ $

x x x x 1 2 3
+ + +
4
4.
(7.33)

Curvature terms for warped elements
When deriving Eq.(7.33) the four nodes of the quadrilateral element are assumed to be
coplanar viz. the element is flat. In order to account for warped geometry Belytschko et al
introduce curvature terms which are added to the strain rates. Autodyn-3D defines these
terms as
( )
$ $ $ $
$ $

xx
c
y x y x
z
A
z B u B u = +
4
1 24 2 13

(
$ $ $ $
$ $

yy
c
x y x y13
z
A
z B u B u = +
4
1 24 2
)
(7.34)
( )
$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $

xy
c
y y y y13 x x x x
z
A
z B u B u B u B u = +
2
1 24 2 1 24 2 13

where,
z z z z z
I I
z = = + + + $ $ $ $
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
$ (7.35)
( ) (
|
I I xI yI
h B x x B y y = + +
1
4
12 34 12 34 $ $
$ $ $ $
)
|
|
1.
(7.36)
| h
I
= 1 11 1 , , , (7.37)
and couples them with the respective components ( ) of the strain rates,
Eq.(7.33).
$
,
$
,
$
d d d
xx yy xy

Resultant Membrane Forces And Moments
The three components ( ) of the strain rates, Eq.(7.33) together with Eq.(7.34),
are evaluated at a selected number of quadrature points through thickness, while the
components ( d ) are computed only once for each element. The stresses in the j-
the sublayer (j=1,2,..J) of the plate are updated from their old values in terms of the
strain rates which are integrated in time.
$
,
$
,
$
d d d
xx yy xy
$
,
$
d
yz zx
$
( )
j
$
( )
j old

134


( )
$ $
$ $
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) /

xx
j
xx
j
xx
j
yy
j n
E
d d t = +
+
+ old
1
2
1 2

( )
$ $
$ $
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) /

yy
j
yy
j
xx
j
yy
j n
E
d d t = +
+
+ old
1
2
1 2

$ $
$
( ) ( ) ( ) /

xy
j
xy
j
xy
j n
Gd t = +
+ old
2
1 2
(7.38)
$ $
$
( ) ( ) ( ) /

yz
j
yz
j
yz
j n
Gd t = +
+ old
2
1 2

$ $
$
( ) ( ) ( ) /

zx
j
zx
j
zx
j n
Gd t = +
+ old
2
1 2

Define the normal and shear stress resultants as
( ) | |
$ , $ , $ $
,
$
,
$ $
( ) ( ) ( )
/
/
n n n d
xx yy xy xx
j
yy
j
xy
j
h
h
=

2
2
z
(7.39)
and
( ) | |
$ , $ $
,
$ $
( ) ( )
/
/
q q dz
x y zx
j
yz
j
h
h
=

2
2
(7.40)
The bending moments are defined as
( ) | |
$ , $ , $ $
,
$
,
$ $ $
( ) ( ) ( )
/
/
m m m zdz
xx yy xy xx
j
yy
j
xy
j
h
h
=

2
2
(7.41)
where is taken as the middle plane of the element and h is the total thickness. $ z = 0
These forces and moments may be approximated numerically as
$ $
, $ $
, $ $
( ) ( ) ( )
n h w n h w n h w
xx j xx
j
j
J
yy j yy
j
j
J
xy j xy
j
j
J

= = =

1 1 1

$ $
, $ $
q h q h
x zx y
= =
yz
(7.42)
$ $
, $ $
( ) ( )
m h w m h w
xx j j xx
j
j
J
yy j j yy
j
j
J

= =

2
1
2
1

$ $
( )
m h w
xy j j xy
j
j
J

=
2
1

where, are the weight factors and w
j

j
are Gauss points.

2.
+
Nodal Forces
The nodal forces are given by the combination of the contributions from the resultant forces
and moments, Eq.(7.42), and from the hourglass stresses described in the next section.
The nodal forces for the node I in the local corotational coordinate system are obtained as
follows:
( )
$
$ $
$
$ $
F A B n B n f
xI xI xx yI xy xI
= +
H

135

136
+
( )
$
$ $
$
$ $
F A B n B n f
yI yI yy xI xy yI
= +
H

(
$
$ $
$
$ $
F A B q B q f
zI xI x yI y
= +
H
)
zI
+ (7.39)
( )
$
$ $ $
$ $
M A B m B m m m
xI yI yy xI xy yz xI
= +
1
4

H
$ +
( )
$
$ $ $
$ $
M A B m B m m m
yI xI xx yI xy zx yI
= + +
1
4

H
$
$
M
zI
= 0
where ( ) are the hourglass forces,
$
,
$
,
$
, $ , $ f f f m m
xI yI zI xI yI
H H H H H
is the shear correction factor (=5/6).


137
.
Chapter 8. Reserved

138
Chapter 8.
Chapter 9.
Chapter 10.

Reserved
Reserved
Reserved

Chapter 10. Reserved

139
.

Chapter 11. Material Modeling

140
Chapter 11.
1.
1.
Material Modeling
Introduction

AUTODYN utilizes the differential equations governing unsteady material dynamic motion
express the local conservation of mass, momentum and energy. In order to obtain a
complete solution, in addition to appropriate initial and boundary conditions, it is necessary
to define a further relation between the flow variables. This can be found from a material
model which relates stress to deformation and internal energy (or temperature). In most
cases, the stress tensor may be separated into a uniform hydrostatic pressure (all three
normal stresses equal) and a stress deviatoric tensor associated with the resistance of the
material to shear distortion (as is the case for most materials in AUTODYN). Then the
relation between the hydrostatic pressure, the local density (or specific volume) and local
specific energy (or temperature) is known as an equation of state.

The equation of state can be determined from knowledge of the thermodynamic properties of
the material and ideally should not require dynamic data to build up the relationship.
However, in practice, the only practical way of obtaining data on the behavior of the material
at high strain rates is to carry out well-characterized dynamic experiments. It is important to
recognize that, since the relationship is required for use in a numerical code, an analytic
form is chosen to facilitate solution. Such an analytic form is at best an approximation to the
true relationship. Further, the equation of state may be given in extensive tabular form and in
that case the analytic form chosen can be considered as an interpolation relationship.

Thermodynamic Equilibrium
In the consideration of the behavior of the materials in the following sections, viscosity, heat
conduction and deviation of the medium from thermodynamic equilibrium (at any instant
and any point) will be neglected. Some critical comments concerning the neglect of these
phenomena will be made later in Section 9 that will also include some comments on
turbulence effects.

Disregarding the above effects then, at each instant and each point in a fluid, there is a
definite state of thermodynamic equilibrium defined by:
p hydrostatic pressure
density

0
initial density
v specific volume = 1/

v
0
initial specific volume = 1/
0

compression = /
0
1
e specific internal energy
S specific entropy


i specific enthalpy = e + pv
T temperature

It is well known from thermodynamics that only two of the parameters p, T, v, e and S are
independent. Therefore, in order to maintain maximum consistency with the form of
equations of motion we are using, we will normally seek equations of state in the form p = f
(v, e) although other forms have been derived in the past.

The internal energy gained by a small region of the material during a change from one state
(or time) to another is the heat (or energy) input into the region plus the work done on the
region by the action of the external pressure forces. This can be expressed in the relation
(11.1) de TdS pdV =
If the energy input is known in a predefined way (as might be the case for high explosives)
this relation can be written
(11.2) de Q p dV =
where Q is the amount of energy input in the relevant time interval.

Neglecting heat conduction and viscosity implies that, if there is no external source of energy
Q as a particle (or region) of the material moves about, the specific entropy of the moving
particle remains constant, i.e. the changes in state at the particle are adiabatic or
isentropic. However, as we shall see later, the specific entropy of a particle can change if it
is overrun by a discontinuity such as a shock. There are several situations of interest to
AUTODYN users where Q will be non-zero, such as high explosive detonations, nuclear
energy releases in reactor accidents, phase changes etc. However these will not change the
basic relationships between the thermodynamic parameters.

Among further thermodynamic relations which may prove useful or relevant in later sections
are:

The volume coefficient of expansion is given by:
3
1
=
|
\
|
.
|
v
v
T
p
(11.3)
The specific heat at constant pressure C
p
is given by:
C
i
T
T
S
T
p
p p
=
|
\
|
.
| =
|
\
|
.
|
(11.4)
141

The velocity of sound c is:
c
p
v
p
v
s
s
2 2
=
|
\
|
.
| =
|
\
|
.
|
(11.5)
c v p
p
e
p
v
v e
2 2
=
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
(11.6)
An important parameter required later is the Gruneisen Gamma , defined as
=
|
\
|
.
| = =
|
\
|
.
| v
p
e
c
Jc
T
v
v p s
3
2
ln
ln
(11.7)
where J is the mechanical equivalent of heat.

The bulk modulus K is
K v
p
v
c
s
=
|
\
|
.
| =

2
(11.8)
and the adiabatic exponent is:

=
|
\
|
.
| =
ln
ln
p
v
c
pv
s
2
(11.9)
2. Phase Diagrams
An object subjected to impact, deformation at high strain rates, energy input or other
constraints will obviously suffer large changes in the thermodynamic states of its material
throughout its volume. It may at any time have regions which are solid, liquid, gaseous or
even mixed phases of gas and liquid. Historically most equations of state have been
restricted to the compression phase and much less consideration has been given to the
behavior of materials for densities less than normal.

The ideal equation of state would cover all regions in the phase plane (see Figure 11-1):
the solid phase
with options for polymorphic phase changes and for material strength
the liquid phase with data on the melt locus where solid changes to liquid
the two-phase liquid-vapor coexistence region with definition of the saturation curve
142


and finally the vapor region at high temperatures and high expansions

Figure 11-1 Phase Diagram, Hugoniot and Adiabats

The two-phase states should cover both the liquid-vapor regions at high temperatures and
positive pressures and the cavitated states where gaseous bubbles can form in a liquid
when the pressure falls below a reference state and the temperature is also low. Clearly to
determine a single analytic relationship to encompass all these greatly different regions of
phase space would be impossible and many approaches have been made in the past to
provide analytic fits which are valid only in limited regions of the values of internal energy
and volume i.e. in (e, v) space. Some of these will be described in the next Section.

Again historically, because many of the early problems considered in hydrocodes were of
materials deformed by strong dynamic impact (or shocks), the forms of early equations of
state concentrated on material behavior on or near the region of states which the material
may reach if it is shocked from its initial state. The locus in the pressure/volume (p, v) plane
of all states achievable by shocking the material from an initial state (p
0
, v
0
) is known as the
shock Hugoniot. The relationship in regions neighboring the Hugoniot is achieved by
analytic expansion involving the Gruneisen Gamma (see next section).

143

The experimental fact is that for most solids and many liquids, that do not undergo a phase
change, the values on the shock Hugoniot for shock velocity U and material velocity behind
the shock u
p
can be adequately fitted to a straight line
(11.10) U c s u
p
= +
0
This is the case even up to shock velocities around twice the initial sound speed c
0
and
shock pressures of order 100 Gpa (1 Mbar). For materials where a linear fit is not adequate
a quadratic form in u
p
has sometimes been used or at other times piecewise linear or
piecewise quadratic (U, u
p
) forms have been used.

144
3.
4.
5.
0
Material Strength Effects
Most of the above comments refer to the hydrostatic pressure component of the stress
tensor. If the material is a solid and has finite shear strength then in addition to the
calculation of the hydrostatic pressure it is necessary to define relations between shear
stress and strain. We also require relations to define the transition between elastic and
plastic strain, both in compression and release, and a relation to define the onset of
fracture. The yield criterion governing the transition from elastic to plastic behavior may
involve only a constant yield strength, or this strength may itself be a function of the degree
of strain (work hardening), the rate of strain and/or the temperature of the material
(energy dependency). These aspects will be discussed in Sections 3 and 4, while problems
of materials subjected to tensile strain, fracture and blow-off will be treated fully in
Sections 7 and 8.

Complex Materials
Equations of state and constitutive relations for non-homogeneous materials (such as soils,
rocks and concrete) or for non-isotropic materials (such as laminates) require even more
complex relationships. Some of these will be discussed later in Section 5.

High Explosives
Understandably, the forms of equation of state derived for the products of detonation of
high explosives have been produced in a different manner from those for inert materials
(they will be discussed fully in Section 8). Note that except for problems which study shock
initiation of high explosives or build up to detonation it is seldom necessary to derive an
equation of state for inert explosive since if high explosive is undetonated it is at rest in an
undisturbed state. Its condition is therefore well defined.

It has been generally found that for most high explosives of interest the measured detonation
velocity D is a linear function of the loading density
0
of the form
(11.11) D D A = +
0

where D
0
and A are constants.


145
6. Calculation of Temperature
Although it is usually the case that the state variables required in AUTODYN are p, v and e
there is sometimes a requirement to obtain the local value of temperature (if say material
properties vary in a known way with temperature or if thermodynamic equilibrium conditions
are required inside a detonation reaction zone). For a purely hydrodynamic form of equation
of state, if we assume that the values of temperature as well as energy are known on some
curve in (p, v) space, e.g. the line v = v
0
, then from equation (11.7) we have
( ) v
v
T
T
v
s
=

|
\
|
.
|
(11.12)
Thus by integrating along adiabats we find

| |
( )
( ) ( )
ln T
v dv
v
T v
T v
v
v
0
0
=

(11.13)
In particular, if is constant (= n, say) we obtain
(11.14) ( ) Tv g S
n
=
where g(S) is a function of entropy and so is constant along an adiabat. Thus for any point
(p, v, T) if the adiabat is dropped back to the reference curve on which T is known and
values (T
1
, v
1
) are determined, then
(11.15) Tv T v
n
=
1 1
n
2.
However this assumes that the adiabats can be calculated in a material with zero material
strength and in many cases this procedure is neither convenient nor relevant. A different
procedure is used in AUTODYN where the temperature is integrated up at each timestep
together with the other flow variables. Since its derivation is carried out for a full stress
tensor the details are delayed until the end of Section 3. The formulation can however be
simplified for a pure hydrodynamic material of zero shear strength.

Forms of Hydrodynamic Equations of State

As stated in the previous section material stresses are considered by separating out the
stress tensor into two components, a stress associated with a uniform hydrostatic pressure
(all three normal stresses equal) plus a stress associated with the resistance of the material
to shear distortion. The first component will be discussed in this section while the second will
be discussed in Section 11.3.


In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium it was shown in Section 1 that the local hydrostatic
pressure p, the specific volume v and the specific energy e could be related through an
equation of state p = f (v, e). In general the form of this equation can take many forms,
analytic or tabular. However in practice only certain forms are practicable since it is
necessary in hydrocodes at each timestep to solve the equation of state simultaneously with
the energy equation
(11.16) de pdv + = 0
having solved the mass and momentum conservation equations for velocity and density.

146
1. Solution of The Energy Equation And Equation of State
AUTODYN supplies several models for which the user need only supply a few parameters
but it will be seen that they are all of the form
(11.17) ( ) ( ) p A v B v e = +
0
i.e. for constant v the pressure varies linearly with the internal energy e.

With this formulation the simultaneous solution of energy equation and equation of state in
AUTODYN may be written
( e e
v
p p
n n n n +
=
|
\
|
.
| +
1
2
)
+1
n+
(11.18)
(11.19) p A B e
n n n + + +
= +
1 1 1
0
1
Substituting (11.19) into (11.18) gives

( e e
v
p A B e
n n n n n n + +
=
|
\
|
.
| + +
1 1
0
1
2
)
+ + 1
(11.20)

( )
e
e
v
p A
v
B
n
n n
n
+
+
+
=

|
\
|
.
| +
(
+
|
\
|
.
|
(
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
n
(11.21)
p
n+1
then follows from (11.19).


147
2.
3.
Materials In Tension And Expansion
Because solids are able to withstand a certain amount of tensile stress it is necessary to
consider extending the equations of state into limited regions of negative values of the
pressure. However because the analytic forms derived for ranges of positive pressure may
not be valid for extrapolation into the negative regions care must be taken in using some
forms of equation of state. The hydrodynamic tensile limit, sometimes referred to as p
min
,
is the minimum pressure to which the material can sustain continuous expansion. If the
material pressure drops below this limit in a cell it is assumed that the material will fracture,
or in some manner lose its uniform and continuous ability to sustain a tensile pressure. This
would then form the lower limit of the analytic equation of state. Regardless of the definition
of a value of p
min
it may be necessary to provide a different analytic form for negative
values of pressure from that used for positive values (but taking care to ensure continuity of
function and derivatives at p = 0). This will be discussed further below for various forms of
equation of state as they are discussed individually.

Materials may also get into states of density less than normal because they are subjected to
very large energy inputs and become hot. In hypervelocity impact problems the shock
energy itself may be sufficient to melt or vaporize the material. Deriving equations of state to
cover all these different scenarios is a skilled process but much effort has been expended by
many workers on this general problem. Consequently several different forms of equation of
state have been developed and each has advantages and disadvantages. Some of these will
be discussed as each form of equation of state is introduced.

Ideal Gas Form of Equation of State
One of the simplest forms of equation of state is that for an ideal polytropic gas which may
be used in many applications of AUTODYN to the motion of gases. This may be derived
from the laws of Boyle and Gay-Lussac and expressed in the form
p v RT = (11.22)
where the constant R may be taken to be the universal gas constant R
0
divided by the
effective molecular weight of the particular gas.

In an ideal gas the internal energy is a function of the temperature alone and if the gas is
polytropic the internal energy is simply proportional to temperature and this may be written
as
(11.23) e c T
v
=
where the constant c
v
is the specific heat at constant volume. This leads to the entropic
equation of state
(11.24) ( ) p v f S
=


where S is specific entropy and the adiabatic exponent is a constant (equal to 1 + R / c
v
).
Thus, since entropy is constant on an adiabat and the specific entropy of a particle remains
constant except when it is overrun by a shock, it follows that the equation of state for a gas
which has uniform initial conditions may be written as
(11.25) p v cons t
= tan
and the pressure is related to the energy by
148
e
p
4.
(11.26) ( ) p = 1
This form of equation has much to commend it for its simplicity and ease of computation.
This is known as the IDEAL GAS equation of state in AUTODYN and only the value of
need be supplied by the user.

In order to avoid complications with problems with multiple materials where initial small
pressures in the gas would generate small unwanted velocities the equation is modified for
use in AUTODYN as
(11.27) ( ) p e
shift
= + 1
where p
shift
is a small initial pressure defined to give a zero starting pressure. The reference
density may be reduced during a calculation in order to overcome potential numerical
problems as the compression tends to minus one (if this is done the compression is
recalculated before the calculation is restarted). Clearly this form of equation of state does
not allow negative values of pressure to occur and the two numerical palliatives will lead to
some errors at very large expansions. Solutions with this simple equation of state should
therefore be viewed critically when run to very long times or very large expansions.

Linear Equation of State
In the ideal gas equation it was shown that p was a function of both specific volume v and
specific entropy S. In many cases, especially if the material is a liquid or solid, the influence
of changes in entropy is small or negligible so that p may be considered a function of density
(or specific volume) alone. An alternative approach is to consider the initial elastic behavior
expressed by an approximation to Hookes Law which in the present notation can be written
as
p K = (11.28)
where = (/
0
) - 1, and K is the material bulk modulus. This form of equation of state is of
use only for fairly small compressions and should not be used if it is considered that large
compressions may occur. The AUTODYN user is prompted to supply the reference density
(
0
) and the material bulk modulus K.


149
5. Mie-Gruneisen Form of Equation of State
If the pressure, in terms of energy and volume is expressed as
(11.29) ( ) p f e v = ,
then a change in pressure dp can be written as
dp
p
v
dv
p
e
de
e v
=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
(11.30)
Integration of equation (11.30) allows the pressure to be expressed in terms of the volume v
and energy e relative to the pressure at a reference volume v
0
and reference energy e
0

dp
p
v
dv
p
e
de
p v e
e
e v
v
n v e e v
0 0 0 0 0

=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
, ,
, ,
(11.31)
The integration of equation (11.31) can be performed along any path desired and it is
convenient to integrate first at constant energy from v
0
to v, and then at constant volume
from e
0
to e, giving
p p
p
v
dv
p
e
de
v e
e
e v
v
o
v e
e v
= +
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
0
0
0
0
, ,
,
,
(11.32)
The Gruneisen Gamma is defined in equation (11.17) as
=
|
\
|
.
| v
p
e
v

and if it assumed that is a function of volume (or density) only then the second integral of
equation (11.32) can be evaluated

( )
|
p
e
de
v
v
e e
v
|
\
|
.
| =

0
| (11.33)
The first integral in equation (11.32) is a function only of volume and the reference energy
e
0
. If the reference state is denoted by e
r
then equation (11.32), together with equation
(11.33) becomes
( )
( )
( )
| p p v
v
v
e e v
r
= +
|
r
(11.34)

since
( )
p
v
dv p v p
e v e
r
v e
|
\
|
.
| =
0 0
0
0
,
,
(11.35)
Equation (11.34) is generally known as the Mie-Gruneisen form of equation of state. Note
that this form of equation is of the form where p varies linearly with e at constant v. It is thus
immediately soluble for p or e so is extremely suitable for solving with the energy equation
as discussed earlier in this section.

The functions p
r
(v), e
r
(v) are assumed to be known functions of v on some reference curve.
Possible reference curves include:
the shock Hugoniot
a standard adiabat e.g. the adiabat through the initial state (p
0
, v
0
) or, in the case of high
explosives, the Chapman-Jouget adiabat (qv).
the 0K isotherm
the isobar p = 0
the curve e = 0
the saturation curve
some composite curve of one or more of the above curves to cover the complete range
of interest of v
Use of this form of equation and various reference curves will result in several variants of
equations of state and some of these will now be described.

6. Polynomial Equation of State
This is a general form of the Mie-Gruneisen form of equation of state and it has different
analytic forms for states of compression and tension. The AUTODYN user is prompted to
input several parameters: the reference density (
0
), and constants A1, A2, A3, B0, B1, T1
and T2. If T1 is input as 0.0 it is reset to T1 = A1. The form of equation of state then defines
the pressure as

For > 0 (compression):
( ) p A A A B B e = + + + +
1 2
2
3
3
0 1 0
(11.36)
For < 0 (tension):
150


151
e (11.37) p T T B = + +
1 2
2
0 0

If A
3
is identically zero then the form of equation of state for the compressive phase has been
referred to as the Simple 2-D equation of state and has had extensive use in the past. Note
that as written the reference curve is e = 0 on which curve

p A A A for
p T T for
where
r
r
= + + >
= + <
=
1 2
2
3
3
1 2
0
0
0
1

(11.38)
However by redefining the coefficients A
i
, i = 1,2,3 the reference curve can be redefined as
one of the possible variants mentioned above e.g. the shock Hugoniot (see below) for the
compressive range > 0 and some extrapolated curve from the shock into the expansive
phase < 0.

The validity of this equation depends upon the ability to represent the variation of pressure
at e = 0 (or some other reference curve) as a simple polynomial in of no more than three
terms. This is probably true as long as the range in density variation (and hence range in )
is not too large. Note that in equation (11.36)
( ) v
B B
=
+
+
0 1
1

(11.39)
This allows a number of useful variants of the Gruneisen parameter to be described:

1. If B
0
= B
1
then = B
0
= constant (11.40)
2. If B
1
= 0 then = B
0
/ (1 + ) (11.41)
/ v = B
0
/ v
0
= constant
3. If B
0
B
1
0 (11.42)
= B
0
+ (B
1
- B
0
) (v
0
- v) / v
0
i.e. is linear in v.

7. The Shock Equation of State
The Rankine-Hugoniot equations for the shock jump conditions can be regarded as defining
a relation between any pair of the variables , p, e, u
p
and U. In many dynamic experiments
making measurements of u
p
and U it has been found that for most solids and many liquids
over a wide range of pressure there is an empirical linear relationship between these two
variables, viz.:
(11.43) U c su
p
= +
0

It is then found convenient to establish a Mie-Gruneisen form of equation of state based on
the shock Hugoniot, viz.
152
)
H
(11.44) ( p p e e
H
= +
where it is assumed that =
0

0
= constant and

( )
( )
| |
p
c
s
H
=
+

0 0
2
2
1
1 1
(11.45)
e
p
H
H
=
+
|
\
|
.
|
1
2 1
0
(11.46)
Note that for s > 1 this formulation gives a limiting value of the compression as the pressure
tends to infinity. The denominator of equation (11.45) becomes zero and the pressure
therefore becomes infinite for
1 - (s - 1) = 0 (11.47)
giving a maximum density of = s
0
(s - 1). However long before this regime is approached
the assumption of constant is probably not valid. Furthermore the assumption of a linear
variation between the shock velocity U and the particle velocity u
p
does not hold for too large a
compression. At high shock strengths some nonlinearity in this relationship is apparent,
particularly for non-metallics. To cater for this nonlinearity in AUTODYN the input calls for the
definition of two linear fits to the shock velocity - particle velocity relationship; one holding at low
shock compressions defined by v > VB and one at high shock compressions defined by v < VE.
The region between VE and VB is covered by a smooth interpolation between the two linear
relationships. See the adjoining Figure 11-2 and equations (11.48) below.


Figure 11-2 Bi-linear Fit to Shock Velocity-Particle Velocity
Relationship
In the AUTODYN input the user is prompted for values of the parameters C1, C2, S1, S2,
VE, VB,
0
and
0
. Then

( )( )
( )
VB v VE for
VB VE
VB v U U
U U
VE v for U U VB v for U U
u s c U u s c U
1 2
1
2 1
p 2 2 2 p 1 1 1
< <

+ =
= =
+ = + =
(11.48)
This form of equation of state should cover most materials. Data for this equation of state
can be found in various references (e.g. van Thiel 1967; Kohn 1969) and several of the
AUTODYN material libraries.

With the introduction of version 4, the shock equation of state has been further enhanced to
optionally include a quadratic shock velocity, particle velocity relation of the form:
2
p 2 p 1 0 s
u S u S C U + + = (11.43a)

The input parameter, S
2
, can be set to a non-zero value to better fit highly non-linear U
s
-u
p

material data

153

NOTE: In some cases when using this form of equation of state in Euler subgrids and mixed
cells with materials of widely differing compressibilities advantage may be taken of the fact
that the region of the equation of state plane covered by the materials of lower
compressibility is a narrow band lying close to the shock Hugoniot, i.e. the extrapolation from
the reference curve relationship will be small. The potential errors produced by using the
reference curve to simplify iterations to a common pressure in multiple material components
may be less than the errors resulting from ill-conditioned iterations using the full equations of
state. It is suggested therefore that, if it is found that the iterative process is becoming
increasingly difficult, the Shock EOS for the less compressible components be used with =
0, i.e. the equation of state simplified to
( ) p p
H
=
8.
1)
The lack of energy dependence in this equation will lead to a much simpler iteration.

Expansion Equations of State
As stated earlier, and as indicated in the polynomial equation of state, the formulation may
have to be changed when extrapolating the equation of state into the region of densities less
than normal. If the material is characterized by an analytic form, say, the Simple 2-D form
(11.49) ( ) p A A B B e = + + +
1 2
2
1 2 0

then expansion of this equation into the region of negative values of may lead to disaster
in some cases.

If we consider the case B
1
= B
2
so that = B
1
= constant then the adiabats are of the form
(11.50) ( ) p k k k g S v = + + +
+
0 1 2
2

(
where the constants k
0
, k
1
, and k
2
are functions of A
1
, A
2
and and the constant of
integration g (S) is a function of entropy and constant and unique on each adiabat.
Therefore, for some adiabats, expansion into states of tension ( < 0) can result in minimum
pressures less than a realistic fracture strength. (see Figure 11-3). Various palliatives have
been tried in the past. One version has been to replace the quadratic term A
2

2
by A
2

so that in tension the energy-independent part of the pressure is calculated as
(11.51) p A A =
1 2
2
However this leads to a discontinuity in the first derivative of the sound speed on the adiabat
as goes through zero. A better (or at least safer) approximation is to set the quadratic term
to zero if < 0.

154


Figure 11-3 Incorrect Minimum to Analytic Fit to Adiabats
If the material has been subjected to a large energy input, either from being shocked to high
pressures or from some external energy source then its energy density may be greater than
its sublimation energy or cohesive energy (e
s
), i.e. it may have sufficient energy to
completely separate the atoms and on expansion to large volumes it would behave like a
perfect gas. Its equation of state would then be of the form

( ) p H e e
where H
s
=
=
1 0 4 .
(11.52)
Hence an equation of state for an expansion phase for a material hot enough to expand into
a gaseous form will require a function for the Gruneisen Gamma which will fall from
0
, its
value at normal density, to H at large expansions. Formulations below, such as Tillotson and
Puff will include functions with this kind of behavior.

9. Tillotson Equation of State
This form of equation of state (Tillotson 1962, Allen 1967) was derived to provide an accurate
description of the material behavior of metallic elements over the very wide ranges of
pressure and density met in hypervelocity phenomena. Not only must such an equation of
state describe normal density material and its condition after shock but also its expansion
and change of phase in cases where the shock energy has been sufficient to melt or
vaporize the material. The pressure range can be so large that the low pressure regime of
this form of equation of state is defined as from 0 to 10 Mbar and high pressure from 10 to
about 1000 Mbar. Thus any pressure and results from normal laboratory experiments cover
155

only the low pressure region. For the derivation of an equation of state for the high
pressure region analytic forms provide best fit interpolations between Thomas-Fermi-Dirac
data at high pressures (above 50 Mbar) and experimental data at low pressures. The
formulation is claimed to be accurate to within 5% of the Hugoniot pressure and to within
10% of the isentrope pressures. It is therefore a very useful form of equation of state to use
for general hypervelocity impact problems.

156
10. Regions of Interest
The total range of the pressure-volume plane is divided into four regions as shown in Figure
11-4. The region to the left of the Hugoniot can only be reached by adiabatic (non-shock)
compression and is not relevant to impact problems. It is therefore excluded from the
present formulation. Region I represents the compressed phase of the material and extends
vertically to shock pressures of about 1000 Mbar. Region II describes material which has
been shocked to an energy less than the sublimation energy e
s
and will therefore, on
adiabatic release, return to zero pressure as a solid. There is no provision in this equation of
state to describe the material at pressures less than zero. Region IV is the expansion phase
of material which has been shocked to an energy e
s
/
sufficiently large to ensure that it will
expand as a gas at very large expansions. For convenience the change of phase is
assumed to take place at v = v
0
For large specific volumes, the formulation for Region IV
extrapolates to an ideal gas limit.

Figure 11-4 Regions of Interest in the (p, v) Plane

It is desirable, or even necessary, to ensure that the formulations in each region provide
continuous values of the pressure and its first derivatives at the boundaries between
contiguous regions. This is true for the boundary between Regions I and II at v = v
0
but if e
s
/


is set equal to e
s
difficulties may arise at the boundary between Regions II and IV at volumes
slightly greater than v
0
. To avoid this problem Region III is defined by setting
157
v
e e k e
s s
' = + (11.53)
(where e
v
is the vaporization energy at zero pressure determined, like the boiling point
energy e
s
, from thermodynamic data) and Region III lies between Regions II and IV where e
s

< e < e
s
/
. In this region the pressure is calculated as a mean between that calculated for
Regions II and IV. The constant k is determined empirically to ensure a well behaved
solution and in practice satisfactory solutions have been obtained with values of k in the
range of zero to one fifth.

11. Regional Formulations
In what follows let:

=
=
= +
0
0
0
2
1
1
e
e

The user in AUTODYN is prompted for the reference density
ref
(or
0
in the equations
below) and the constants in the Tillotson equation of state viz. a, b, A, B, , , e
0
, e
s
, and e
s
/

For Region I ( 0) the pressure p
1
is given by a Mie-Gruneisen equation of state but since
the formulation is to be valid for a very large range of pressure the Gruneisen Gamma is a
function of both v and e, not just a function of v alone. The constants fit the low pressure
shock data but they are adjusted to fit the asymptotic Thomas-Fermi behavior for the
variation of pressure at maximum compressions (like a monatomic gas). The formulation for
Region II is as for Region I with a slight modification to one term to avoid difficulties as
goes increasingly negative. In Region IV the formulation is chosen to give the correct
behavior both at high pressure/normal density and for very large expansion (where it must
converge to an ideal gas behavior). With these constraints the different formulations are:

For Region I ( 0)

the pressure p
1
is given by

2
0
0
1
B A e
b
a p + +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = (11.54)
For Region II ( < 0, e e
s
)

the pressure p
2
is given by the same formulation as that for Region I except that B = 0, i.e.
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = A e
b
a p
0
0
1
(11.55)
For Region III ( < 0, e
s
< e < e
s
/
)

the pressure p
3
is given by

( ) (
( )
)
p p
p p e e
e e
s
s s
3 2
4 2
= +

'
(11.56)
For Region IV ( < 0, e e
s
/
)

the pressure p
4
is given by

2
x x
0
0
0 4
e e A
e b
e a p

|
|
.
|
\
|
+

+ = (11.57)
where x = 1 - 1 / .

12. Puff Equation of State
Like the Tillotson formulation above this equation of state was constructed to cover the
behavior of material from cold shocked regions to hot, highly expanded regions. The
equation of state was first used in the PUFF/KO hydrocodes (Brodie & Hormuth, 1966:
Bakken & Anderson, 1969) and is based on a Mie-Gruneisen form but with a variable
Gruneisen Gamma in the expanded phase to give the required convergence to perfect gas
behavior at very large expansions if the energy e ( =
0
) is greater than the sublimation
energy e
s
. Like Tillotson the (p, v) plane is divided into separate regions according to
whether the material is compressed or expanded, and if expanded whether the energy is
less than or greater than the sublimation energy.

158


159
13. Regional Formulations
The AUTODYN user is prompted for a Gruneisen Gamma,
0
, an expansion coefficient, H
(the effective ideal gas constant at large expansions, - 1) the sublimation energy, e
s
, and
constants A
1
, A
2
, A
3
, T
1
and T
2
. Then the formulation is:

For Region I ( 0)

The pressure p
1
is given by
( ) ( ) p A A A
1 1 2
2
3
3
1 2 = + + + e (11.58)
in this equation =
0

0
.

For Region II ( < 0, e < e
s
)

the pressure p
2
is given by
( ) ( ) p T T
2 1 2
2
1 2 = + + e (11.59)
If T
1
is input as zero it is reset to T
1
= A
1

Region III ( < 0, e e
s
)

The pressure p
3
is given by
( )
| |
( ) ( ) { }
|
p H H e e N
s 3 0
1 2 2
1 1 = + exp
|
14.
(11.60)
where N = A
1
/
0
e
s
.

Note that unlike the Tillotson formulation, there is no interpolative region between Regions II
and III.

Two-Phase Equation of State
This formulation (Morgan 1973) only considers material which has expanded from normal
density but gives a realistic description of both the single phase (liquid or vapor) and the two-
phase (in which liquid and vapor co-exist) behavior of the expanding material, provided that
the conditions along the saturation curve for this material can be tabulated. The pressure-
volume (p, v) plane for v > v
0
is divided into two regions by the saturation curve (see Figure
11-5). Above this curve the material exists in a single phase state, either liquid or vapor,
while below the saturation curve both phases coexist. On the saturation curve the values of

p, v, e, and temperature T are tabulated at suitable intervals to ensure accurate
interpolations in the subsequent calculations (see below).

This equation of state should be used with some other form which will cover the region of
compressed states (Shock or Polynomial, say). In this way the whole (p, v) plane will be
covered.

Figure 11-5 Regions of Interest in the (p, v) Plane
15. Single Phase Region
In the single phase region the behavior of the material is described by a Gruneisen equation
of state of the form (first introduced in equation 11.18)
( p p v
v
v
e e v
r
= + ( )
( )
( )
)
r
(11.61)
where in this case p
r
(v), e
r
(v) and
r
(v) are the tabulated functions along the saturation
curve and are determined for a specific value of v by interpolation within the tabular entries.
It is assumed that on the liquid side of the saturation curve T
r
, e
r
and
r
vary quadratically
with v
r
along the curve and that p
r
may be obtained from a relationship of the form
log p
A
T
B
r
r
= +
1
1
(11.62)
On the vapor side of the saturation curve e
r
and
r
are taken to vary linearly with T
r
, and v
r

and T
r
are assumed to be related by
log v
A
T
B
r
r
= +
2
2
(11.63)
160


together with (11.62) for p
r
.

161
16.
v
l
e
l
Two-Phase Region
In the two-phase region below the saturation curve the specific volume v of the liquid-vapor
mixture may be written as
(11.64) ( ) v v
g
= + 1
and the internal energy e as
(11.65) ( ) e e
g
= + 1
where is the mass fraction of vapor in the liquid-vapor mixture and v
g
, v
l
, e
g
and e
l
are the
specific volumes and internal energies of the saturated liquid and vapor at the saturated
vapor pressure p and temperature T, i.e. they are conditions on the saturation curve.
Eliminating from equations (11.64) and (11.65) gives

( )
( )
( )
( )
v v
v v
e e
e e
g
g l
g
g l
(11.66)
This is an implicit equation defining p (or T) in terms of v and e.

Data on the saturation curve for water has been extracted from Morgans paper and included
as a standard option in AUTODYN. For any other material the user will have to supply the
required saturation curve data using subroutine EXTAB. The comments in EXTAB (in
USRSUB) explain how to use this subroutine.

17. Sesame equation of state
With the introduction of version 4, the Sesame equation of state tables have been included
in the form of a Sesame material library.

This is an extensive library of tables of thermodynamic properties developed and maintained
by the Equation of State and Opacity Group of the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos
National Laboratory in the USA. The library currently contains data for about 70 materials
including metals, minerals, polymers and mixtures. Most of the tables have data for very
wide ranges of density and energy, and are typically used for applications where these wide
ranges are required, for example when materials undergo phase changes.

The library is in a different format to the other AUTODYN material libraries; it cannot be
added to or modified by the user, and is found at the end of the material library list after

162
3.
ZERARM. Materials for use with the Sesame equation of state should only be retrieved from
the library rather than added under the Add/Mod option.

The Sesame EOS has been extensively used for aluminium hypervelocity impact simulations
at Century Dynamics (European Space Agency(ESA) CR(p) 4218, copies available from
ESA/ESTEC or Century Dynamics). This work used the Lagrange and SPH processors. Use
of this EOS with the Euler processor is as yet unproven.

In general, our experience suggests that the Sesame tables cannot be used as a black box.
The tables contain data for specific ranges in pressure, density, temperature space for each
material. Results should be interrogated thoroughly to ensure that simulated material states
are consistent with those expected for a particular application.

Modeling of strength effects
While there are many problems which can be calculated using a hydrodynamic equation of
state, such as those described in the previous section, there are many applications where
material strength effects (i.e. its resistance to shearing forces) cannot be ignored and indeed
may even dominate. Even in hypervelocity impact problems, where traditionally strength
effects could be ignored because of the extremely high stress levels produced, there exist two
regimes - far field and late times - where strength effects may be important. As the impact-
created stress levels decay away from the area of impact there may be regions in the target
where the local levels become of the order or less than the material strength. If this should be
the case the diverging wave would separate out into a two-wave structure, an elastic wave
followed by a plastic deforming wave, with consequent differences in material response. As the
projectile is slowed within the target the impact-produced stresses will also decrease and if the
target is sufficiently thick a later point in time may be reached when material strength effects
cannot be ignored.

It is clear that, unless the user can be certain from the outset that material strength effects
are not important (because the materials of interest are gases, fluids with no shear strength
or the stress levels in the system under study will always be so high that the strength of the
materials could only produce a minor perturbation and may be discounted), the problem
should be calculated as one with materials of finite shear strength in order to obtain a
realistic solution.

1. Numerical Methodology
The methodology followed in AUTODYN is that first formulated by Wilkins (1964) to extend
conventional numerical hydrodynamic codes to include the effects of material strength and
resistance to shear distortion. The technique adopted was to work with the stress deviators
which are the differences between the total stress and a uniform hydrostatic pressure (in
this section we only consider materials which have the same material properties in all
directions (i.e. isotropic media). Orthotropic materials are treated differently and this will be
described in Section 5.


163
2. Elastic Flow Region
In 3-D (x, y, z) space the state of stress in a continuous medium is defined at a given point
by six stress components

xx
,
yy
,
zz
,
xy
,
yz
,
zx

It is always possible to choose a rotated set of coordinate axes so that the shear stresses at
a given point are zero. Any three orthogonal axes that satisfy this condition are called
principal axes for the given point. The stresses in the directions of the principal axes on
surfaces normal to these axes are called principal stresses and are usually denoted by
1
,
2
, and
3
and the shear stresses are
(11.67)
12 23 31
0 = = =
A perfectly elastic material has a linear relationship between stress and strain and Hookes
law relates the stress at a point to the strain at the point. In terms of an incremental strain
resulting in an incremental stress this may be written as

&
&
&

i i
V
V
G =
|
\
|
.
| + 2 i = 1, 2, 3 (11.68)
Here and G are the Lam constants (G is used here instead of the usual unsubscripted
in order to avoid confusion with its use in equations of state and to be consistent with notation
in other strength models described below) and
1
,
2
,
3
are the strain rates in the directions of
the principal axes, and V is the volume. The dot describes a time derivative along a particle
path i.e. a Lagrangian formulation. Hookes Law in this way gives natural strains i.e. the
strain of an element is referred to the current configuration and not to the original
configuration.

Each of the stresses is broken into a hydrostatic component p and a deviatoric component s
where p is defined as the (negative) mean of the three principal stresses.
( p = + +
1
3
1 2 3
)
i
(11.69)
then
i = 1, 2, 3 (11.70)
i
i i
p s
p s
= +
= +
& & &
are positive in tension and negative in compression (the opposite to that for pressure).


As with the stresses the strain components are defined as the sum of a mean normal strain
and deviatoric strain components
1
,
2
and
3
where
( = + +
1
3
1 2
)
3
(11.71)
i = 1, 2, 3 (11.72)
i i
i i
+ =
+ =
&
& &
From the equation of continuity

& & &
&

1 2 3
+ + =
V
V
(11.73)
and it follows that
(11.74)
& & &

1 2 3
0 + + =
and

&
&
=
V
V 3
(11.75)
With the above definitions Hookes law may be rewritten
&
&
&
s G
V
V
i i
=
|
\
|
.
| 2
3
i = 1, 2, 3 (11.76)
(11.77) = K p
where
K
G
= +
|
\
|
.
|
2
3
= bulk modulus (11.78)
Also from (11.74) and (11.120) it follows that
(11.79) & & & s s s
1 2 3
0 + + =
and
164


(11.80) s s s
1 2 3
0 + + =
which may be interpreted as stating that the deviatoric components of the stresses do not
contribute to the average (hydrostatic) pressure but only to distortion of the volume.

165
3. Plastic Flow Region
The concept of elastic distortion is that if the material is loaded and subsequently unloaded
all the distortion energy is recovered and the material will revert to its initial configuration.
However real materials are unable to support arbitrarily large shear stresses so if the
distortion
is too great the material will reach its elastic limit and begin to distort plastically. If the
material is subsequently unloaded only the elastic distortion energy will be recovered and
the material will suffer permanent plastic strain. Several proposed yield criteria are to be
found in the literature, e.g. the Tresca condition which puts a predefined limit on the shear
stress (Case & Chilver, 1971) This however does not define a smooth yield surface. The
differences between the various yield criteria are usually much smaller than the uncertainties
in the applicable material constants. We are therefore free to make a pragmatic choice and
the Von Mises yield criterion (Von Mises 1928) is used in AUTODYN (as in most
hydrocodes) to describe the elastic limit and transition to plastic flow. This is a simple and
convenient criterion to apply, defines a smooth and continuous yield surface and is a good
approximation at high stress levels. This states that, given the principal stresses
1
,
2
and
3
, the local yield condition is
(11.81) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 2
2
2 3
2
3 1
2
2
2 + + = Y
where Y is the yield strength in simple tension. This can be also written as
(11.82) ( ) ( ) ( ) s s s s s s Y
1 2
2
2 3
2
3 1
2
2
2 + + =
which, with
s s s
1 2 3
0 + + =
may be reduced to
s s s
Y
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
+ + = (11.83)
Thus the onset of yielding, i.e. of plastic flow, is purely a function of the deviatoric stresses
(distortion) and does not depend upon the value of the local hydrostatic pressure unless the
yield stress Y itself is a function of pressure (as is the case for some of the strength models
discussed later).


The left hand side of equation (11.81) is proportional to the elastic energy of distortion per
unit volume or the energy required to change shape as opposed to the energy that causes a
volume change. The expression states therefore that plastic flow begins when the elastic
distortion energy reaches a limiting value {Y
2
/ 6G} and that this energy remains constant
during the plastic flow when plastic work (i.e. irrecoverable work) will be done. In (
1
,
2
,
3
)
space equation (11.81) describes the surface of a straight circular cylinder whose axis is
equally inclined to the
1
,
2
,
3
system of coordinates as shown in Figure 11-6. The radius
of the cylinder is (2Y / 3)
. The relationship s
1
+ s
2
+ s
3
= 0 defines a plane, known as the
octahedral plane, through the axes of the principal stresses whose normal is the axis of the
cylinder and the intersection of this plane with the cylinder results in a circle. If the stress
deviators s
1
, s
2
, s
3
give a point inside the circle, the material is within its elastic limit. Note
that in Shell subgrids
3
= 0 and the analogue of equation (11.81) is
(11.84)
1
2
1 2 2
2
+
and this is an ellipse in the (
1
,
2
) plane with its major axes inclined at 45 to the (
1
,
2
)
axes.

166


Figure 11-6 Von Mises Yield Criterion
If an incremental change in the stresses violates the Von Mises criterion then each of the
principal stress deviators s
1
, s
2
, and s
3
must be adjusted such that the criterion is satisfied. If
a new stress state n + 1 is calculated from a state n and found to fall outside the yield
surface (see Figure 11-6) it is brought back to the yield surface along a line normal to the
yield surface. This is done by multiplying each of the stress deviators by the factor

( )
( )
2 3
1 2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1 2
Y
s s s + +
(11.85)
By adjusting the stresses perpendicular to the yield circle only the plastic components of the
stresses are affected. It has been assumed in the above arguments and in the Figure 11-6
that the yield strength Y is constant. However the effects of work hardening can be
considered by making Y a function of strain energy. Y may also be made a function of
temperature (or energy) whereby the effects of thermal softening or even melting can be
incorporated into the calculation, e.g. Y can be reduced to zero in the case of melting. In the
latter case the stress deviators will automatically be set to, and remain, zero and the only
remaining stress will be the pressure p resulting in a purely hydrodynamic flow.
If the application of these concepts to one - dimensional strain for a perfectly plastic material
is considered we see from Figure 11-7 that the stress deviator, -s
1
, has a maximum value
2Y/3 for all strains beyond the elastic limit point A and the total stress = -p + s
1
has a two-
fold structure, an initial elastic section up to the elastic limit point and a plastic loading curve
from the elastic limit point onwards. In the negative pressure region the hydrostatic
component is limited to p = -Y / 3 so that the magnitude of the total tensile stress is Y
consistent with the original assumption for Y in the Von Mises criterion.

167

Figure 11-7 One-Dimensional strain: Elastic-Perfectly Plastic
Material
The slopes of the two curves give the propagation speeds of the two waves. The elastic
wave speed c
E
= [(K + 4G / 3) /
0
]
is greater than the plastic (or bulk) sound speed c

0
= [K /
0
]

so a shock wave separates out into two separate waves with the elastic wave running
ahead of the main plastic loading wave. If however the shock wave is so strong that its
hydrodynamic shock speed is greater than c
E
(as for the point Z in the Figure 11-8 below)
the plastic and elastic loading waves coincide and no separation into a two-wave loading
structure occurs.

If we consider the complete history of loading and unloading for elastic-plastic material
response we obtain a stress-strain relationship similar to that in Figure 11-8. The material
initially loads elastically up to the point A and then continues to load plastically up to the
point B of maximum loading. It then unloads elastically to the point C where again the stress
deviators will lie outside the yield surface and further unloading will cause plastic
deformation. When the loading - unloading stress has decreased to zero the material will
168


have suffered the permanent deformation represented by OD and any subsequent loading
will start from the point D. As stated above, the elastic loading wave runs ahead of the
plastic loading wave for loading pressures below that of the point Z and similarly the elastic
release wave propagates from the rear of the loading pulse ahead of the plastic release
wave and overtakes the slower plastic loading wave. This results in a greater (or more
rapid) attenuation of the peak stress than would have been the case for a pure
hydrodynamic wave.

Figure 11-8 Stress-Strain Relationship Showing Elas.-Plas. Mat.
Response
The results in Figure 11-9 illustrate the profiles of impact-induced waves with loading
pressures both below and above the value at which the plastic loading wave velocity equals
the elastic wave velocity. The elastic precursor seen in the lower pressure wave is absent in
the stronger wave. However the elastic release wave is clearly seen in both cases.
169

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Distance (cm)
S
t
r
e
s
s

T
x
x

(
k
B
a
r
)
T=2.0us
T=3.0us
T=5.0us
Elastic unloading
Plastic loading
Plastic unloading
Elastic loading precursor

(a) Plastic Shock Velocity Lower than Elastic Wave Velocity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Distance (cm)
S
t
r
e
s
s

T
x
x

(
k
B
a
r
)
T=2.0us
T=3.0us
T=5.0us
Elastic unloading
Plastic unloading
Shock loading

(b) Plastic shock velocity Higher than Elastic Wave Velocity
Figure 11-9 Stress Wave Profiles with and without Elastic
Precursors
It is worth noting that the elastic-plastic behavior illustrated in Figure 11-9 is that of a material
without a Bauschinger effect. An ideal work-hardening elastic-plastic material behaves
elastically with shear modulus G
0
until it yields; then at increasing stress levels plastic flow
occurs. When the direction of strain is reversed, the release path is again elastic until
reverse yield occurs at the previous yield value. Although most metals load in an
170


approximately ideal way many show some departures, known as the Bauschinger effect
(Cochran & Guinan 1976), from the ideal unloading and reverse loading curves. The
Bauschinger effect has been attributed to several causes, such as dislocation interactions,
formation of slip bands, twinning etc. In an attempt to model this effect in a pragmatic way
the Steinberg-Guinan model (described later) introduced a variable shear modulus. However
for many problems models using a constant shear modulus give reasonable results.

171
4. Calculation Of Effective/Geometric Strains
Four types of isotropic strain values are calculated in AUTODYN and each of these have
names as follows:
Effective plastic, ultimate or bulk strain
eff
p
Effective plastic strain rate
&
eff
p
Incremental effective, Von Mises or geometric strain
eff

Instantaneous effective, Von Mises or geometric strain
eff
The method by which these values are calculated is given below for the case of a 2D
element, in AUTODYN-2D.

The equations are, of course, modified for different element types (e.g. 2D shell elements)
and for AUTODYN-3D.

The plane which makes equal angles with each of the principal directions is called the
octahedral plane, as shown in Figure 11-6. The shear stress on this plane is given by

oct
J
=
2
3
2
(11.86)
where the second invariant of the stress deviators is given by:

( )
( ) ( ) (
| |
J
xx yy xy 2
2 2 2 2
1 2
2
2 3
2
3 1
2
1
2
2
1
6
= + + +
= + +

)
(11.87)
where is the total stress tensor in the ij direction. Directions xx, yy, and xy are global
axes directions and 1, 2 and 3 are the principal stress directions.
ij

The Von Mises yield criterion states that yielding begins when the octahedral shearing
reaches a critical value defined by

oct
k =
2
3
(11.88)
where k is the yield stress in pure shear.

The yield criterion is
(11.89) f J J k ( )
2 2
2
0 = =
Yielding will occur in a uniaxial tension test when

1 2 3
0 = =
y
, = (11.90)
Substituting these values in the above equations gives the uniaxial yield stress as

y
k = = 3 3J
2
(11.91)
In AUTODYN at each cycle the stress state is checked against the yield criterion and if the
yield criterion is exceeded an increment of effective plastic strain is computed as follows

eff
p y
G
=
3J
3
2

(11.92)
The effective plastic strain is the integrated value of these increments during the
calculation
(11.93)
eff
p
eff
p
dt =
The effective plastic strain rate is given by

&
eff
p eff
p
t
=

(11.94)
where is the current timestep and the incremental effective geometric strain is given
by
t

eff eff
dt =
(11.95)
where

| |

eff xx yy xy
t = + + +
2
3
2 2 2 2
1
2
(
& & & &
) (11.96)
172


where is the total strain tensor in the ij direction which includes elastic and plastic
components.
ij

The instantaneous effective/geometric strain is calculated directly from the principal strain
components

( ) ( )
| |

eff
= + + + + +
2
3
5
1
2
2
2
3
2
1 2 2 3 3 1 12
2
1 2
3 (11.97)
This value can therefore increase and decrease upon loading and unloading. This is in
contrast to the effective plastic strain and incremental effective strains which are always
monitonically increasing.

The effective strains for a 3D brick element in AUTODYN-3D are given by the analogous
equations

| |

eff xx yy zz xy yz zx
t = + + + + +
2
3
2 2 2 2 2 2
1
2
(
& & & & & &
) (11.98)

( ) ( ) ( )
| |

eff
= + + + + + + +
2
3
5 3
1
2
2
2
3
2
1 2 2 3 3 1 12
2
23
2
31
2
1 2
(11.99)

5.
6.
Strength Models
The original formulation of material strength effects considered that materials were elastic -
perfectly plastic. However is possible to generalize the approach by making the yield
function Y a function of material properties such as strain, strain rate, energy, temperature
etc. without excessively complicating the resultant calculations. Several of these more
sophisticated treatments have been implemented in the AUTODYN library, among them
Mohr-Coulomb (v d Hoek 1978a, 1978b, Hancock 1979), Johnson-Cook (Johnson & Cook
1983), Zerilli-Armstrong (Zerilli & Armstrong 1987, 1989), Steinberg-Guinan (Steinberg,
Cochran & Guinan 1980 ), Piecewise-linear, and Johnson-Holmquist (Johnson & Holmquist
1993). There is also provision for the user to write his own strength model as a provided
subroutine. These will be described briefly here; for more detailed descriptions the interested
user should refer to the original papers.

Mohr-Coulomb Model
This model is an attempt to model the behavior of dry soils, rocks, concrete and ceramics
where the cohesion and compaction behavior of the materials result in an increasing
resistance to shear up to a limiting value of yield strength as the loading increases. This is
modeled in AUTODYN by a piecewise linear variation of yield stress with pressure (see
Figure 11-10) up to a value Y
max
. With the introduction of version 4, the Mohr-Coulomb
strength model has been modified to allow any number of pressure-yield points, up to a
173

maximum of 10, to define the material strength curve. In tension (negative values of p) such
materials have little tensile strength and this is modeled by dropping the curve for Y(p)
rapidly to zero as p goes negative to give a realistic value for the limiting tensile strength.
Note that although the yield stress is pressure dependent the flow rule is volume
independent (see equation (11.80)) i.e. of the Prandtl-Reuss type. Scaling back the stress
deviators to the yield surface takes place in the plane s
1
+ s
2
+ s
3
= 0 and normal to the circle
formed by the intersection of the yield surface with this plane. This however is not the normal
to the yield surface in the three-dimensional (
1
,
2
,
3
) space. This non-associated flow
avoids the problem of shear induced dilatancy in soils and while theoretically it is possible to
obtain unstable non-unique solutions it has been shown (Bleich,1970) that this is an unlikely
occurrence and to date computational results have not indicated any uniqueness problems.

Figure 11-10 Mohr-Coulomb Model: Yield Stress as a Piecewise
Linear Function of Pressure
7. Johnson-Cook Model
This constitutive model aims to model the strength behavior of materials subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. Such behavior might arise in problems of
intense impulsive loading due to high velocity impact and explosive detonation. The model
defines the yield stress Y as

| || || | Y A B C T
p
n
p
m
= + + 1 1 log *
H
(11.100)
where

p
= effective plastic strain

p
*
= normalized effective plastic strain rate
T
H
= homologous temperature = (T - T
room
) / (T
melt
- T
room
)

The five material constants are A, B, C, n and m.

174


The expression in the first set of brackets gives the stress as a function of strain when
p
*

=
1.0sec
-1
and T
H
= 0 (i.e. for laboratory experiments at room temperature). The constant A is
the basic yield stress at low strains while B and n represent the effect of strain hardening.
The expressions in the second and third sets of brackets represent the effects of strain rate
and temperature, respectively. In particular the latter relationship models the thermal
softening so that the yield stress drops to zero at the melting temperature T
melt
. The
constants in these expressions were obtained by Johnson and Cook empirically by means of
dynamic Hopkinson bar tensile tests over a range of temperatures and other tests and
checked by calculations of Taylor tests of impacting metal cylinders on rigid metal targets
which provided strain rates in excess of 10
5
sec
-1
and strains in excess of 2.0.

Constants A, B, C, n, m and T
melt
for many ballistic materials of interest are available in the
AUTODYN material library.

175
8.
|
|
Zerilli-Armstrong Model
While the Johnson-Cook model predicted well the behavior of most materials tested in the
Taylor tests they acknowledged that the results for OFHC (oxygen free high conductivity)
copper did not agree well. In an approach seeking to improve on Johnson-Cook, Zerilli and
Armstrong proposed a more sophisticated constitutive relation obtained through the use of
dislocation dynamics. The effects of strain hardening, strain-rate hardening and thermal
softening (based on thermal activation analysis) have been incorporated into the formulation.
The effect of grain size has also been included. The relation has a relatively simple
expression and should be applicable to a wide range of fcc (face centered cubic) materials.
A relation for iron has also been developed and is also applicable to other bcc (body
centered cubic) materials. An important point made by Zerilli and Armstrong is that each
material structure type (fcc, bcc, hcp) will have its own constitutive behavior, dependent on
the dislocation characteristics for that particular structure. For example, a stronger
dependence of the plastic yield stress on temperature and strain rate is known to result for
bcc metals as compared with fcc metals. Their formulation attempts to model these
differences and therefore has much to commend it if experiments using different metals of
these types are being calculated.

The equations for the yield stress are:

For fcc metals
(11.101) | Y Y C C T C T = + +
0 2 3 4
exp log
&
For bcc metals:
(11.102) | Y Y C C T C T C
n
= + + +
0 1 3 4 5
exp log
&

where
= normalized effective plastic strain rate
T = temperature (degrees K)

The constants Y
0
, C
1
, C
2
, C
3
, C
4
, C
5
, and n for OFHC copper and Armco iron are in the
AUTODYN library.

176
9. Steinberg-Guinan Model
In this formulation the authors have assumed that while yield stress initially increases with
strain rate experimental data on shock-induced free surface velocity versus time records
indicate that at high strain rates (greater than 10
5
sec
-1
) strain rate effects become
insignificant compared to other effects and that the yield stress reaches a maximum value
which is subsequently strain rate independent. They have also postulated that the shear
modulus increases with increasing pressure and decreases with increasing temperature and
in doing this they have attempted to include modeling of the Bauschinger effect into their
calculations.[The Bauschinger effect is that elastic-plastic materials behave differently upon
stress unloading and reverse loading than when they are stress loaded (Cochran & Guinan,
1976)].

They have therefore produced expressions for the shear modulus and yield strength as
functions of effective plastic strain, pressure and internal energy (temperature) and
constants for 14 metals. They have demonstrated that, using this model, their computer
calculations have successfully reproduced measured stress and free-surface-velocity versus
time data for a number of shock wave experiments.

The constitutive relations for shear modulus G and yield stress Y for high strain rates are:
(
)
`
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|

+ = 300 1
0
3 1
0
0
T
G
G p
G
G
G G
T
p
) (11.103)
( ) (
n
T
p
t
G
G p
Y
Y
Y Y
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|

+ = 1 300 1
0
3 1
0
0
) (11.104)
subject to Y
0
[1 + ]
n
Y
max

where
T = temperature (degrees K)
= compression = v
0
/ v


and the primed parameters with the subscripts p and T are derivatives of that parameter with
respect to pressure and temperature at the reference state (T = 300 K, p = 0, = 0). The
subscript zero also refers to values of G and Y at the reference state.

The values of these parameters for the 14 metals are all in the AUTODYN library.

With the introduction of version 4, the Steinberg-Guinan Strength model has been enhanced
to include a melt temperature model. This prevents problems with unphysical shear modulii
which have been observed previously. The melt temperature is based on ambient melt
temperature and current density. The melt temperature has been added to all materials in
the STEINB material library. The melting temperature is set high for updated models
containing Steinberg-Guinan material.

177
10.
11.
Piecewise Model
This is a modification to the Johnson-Cook model where the dependence on effective plastic
strain (A + B
p
n
) in that model is replaced by a piecewise linear function of yield stress Y
versus effective plastic strain
p
. The strain rate dependence and thermal softening
expressions remain the same as in the Johnson-Cook model
.
Johnson-Holmquist Brittle Damage Model
The Johnson-Holmquist strength and damage model may be used for brittle materials such
as glass and ceramics (Johnson & Holmquist 1993). In this model, the strength of the
material is described as a smoothly varying function of intact strength, fractured strength,
strain rate and damage. The model can be used with either a linear or an energy
independent polynomial Equation of State. The forms of the strength and failure models are
shown below (Figure 11-11 and Figure 11-12):

Yield Stress,
Y
Pressure, P
Intact Surface (D = 0)
Damaged (0<D<1.0)
Fractured (D=1.0)
( )( )
* * * *
ln 1 C T P A
I
+ =
( )
* * * *
F I I D
D =
( ) ( ) | |
MAX
F
m
F
C P B MIN
* * *
ln 1 =


Figure 11-11 Johnson-Holmquist Strength Model
Pressure, P
Plastic
Fracture
Strain

=
p
Tp
eff
p
D
( )
2
* *
1
D
p
T
T P D + =

Figure 11-12 Johnson-Holmquist Failure Model
A Johnson-Holmquist material library containing data for Float Glass and 99.5% Alumina
ceramic is included with AUTODYN.

The following variables are implemented in AUTODYN to facilitate the Johnson-Holmquist
model:

DIL.ENERGY - The increment in energy due to damage which contributes to bulking
DIL.PRESS - The increment in cell pressure due to bulking effects in the material
178
12. Thermomechanical Material Model
As mentioned at times earlier in this section, material properties may depend strongly upon
the local temperature (e.g. in the case of local melting where the material shear strength
would drop to zero) and for these problems it becomes necessary to compute the
temperature throughout the material as time increases. An incremental procedure has been
incorporated into AUTODYN, based on an approach by Reaugh (Private communication),
and this is described briefly below.

Assume that the stress tensor
i
and internal energy e are state functions of the strain
j
and
the temperature T. In differential form changes in the stress and internal energy may be
written
d d
T
dT
i
i
k
T
i
e

=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
,
(11.105)


de
e
d
e
T
dT
k
T
=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
,
(11.106)
Where repeated Greek suffices in products implies summation over all components.

Consider equation (11.104) when all stress components are held constant, and write

i i
T T
k
|
\
|
.
|
=
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
(11.107)
The term

i
T
|
\
|
.
| is the linear thermal expansivity
i
in the i direction at constant stress and

i
j
k
j T
|
\
|
.
|
,
is the matrix C
ij
of isothermal mechanical modulii, which may be functions of
strain and temperature. Then equation (11.104) may be written as
d C d C d
i i i

= T (11.108)
If we consider the entropy density S the change in this variable can be written in incremental
form as
dS
S
d
S
T
dT
k
T
=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
,
(11.109)
and since the first law of thermodynamics can be written as
(11.110) de Tds v d
v
= +
v
where v is the specific volume, we can expand the change in specific energy by equation
(11.105) so that dS can also be expressed as
dS
T
e
d
T
e
T
dT
v
T
d
k
T
=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
1 1

,

(11.111)
If we compare the coefficients of d
and dT in equations (11.108) and (11.110), compute

and equate the two cross derivatives of S we obtain

e
v T
T
j
j
i
=
|
\
|
.
| (11.112)
179

If we also note that

e
T
|
\
|
.
| is the specific heat at constant strain (or volume) C
v
we obtain
from equation (11.105)
C dT de v T
T
d
v
=
|
\
|
.
|

(11.113)
But also, because de - v
equals dQ, the heat added, we obtain from equations

(11.107) and (11.112),
( ) dT
dQ
C
vT C d
v
=

(11.114)
For an isotropic material all the
i
are equal to one third of the volume coefficient of
expansion which was defined in equation (11.3) as
1
v
v
T

|
\
|
.
| . If furthermore K
T
is the
isothermal bulk modulus, equal to -v

p
v
T
|
\
|
.
| , where p is the hydrostatic pressure, then we may
write the sum in equation (11.113) as follows.
(11.115) C K
i
=
T

so that finally we obtain
dT
dQ
C
TK
C
dV
v
T
v
=

(11.116)
However this equation omits the effects of irreversible processes, i.e. the additional heat
produced by yielding. We assume that the heat due to plastic yielding is equal to the
irreversible work done dW which may be evaluated incrementally as
(11.117) dW vs d q dv
p
=

where q is the artificial viscosity, and

P
is the plastic strain deviator tensor. The final
expression for the temperature increment is therefore
dT
dQ
C
T
K
C
dv v
S d
C
qdv
v
T
v
p
v
= +

(11.118)
For an equation of state of the form
(11.119) ( ) ( ) p A v B v e = +
0
180


which is the normal form of equation of state used in AUTODYN then K
T
/ C
v
= B(v)
0
and
equation (11.117) becomes

v v
p
0
v
C
qdv
C
d vS
Tdv ) v ( B
C
dQ
dT
+ =

(11.120)
This is the form used in AUTODYN to compute the change in temperature. It is only
implemented for the following forms of equation of state only: Linear, Polynomial, Ideal gas,
Shock, Tillotson, and Puff.

13.
14.
User Defined Strength Model
This facility allows the user to customize his required strength model. Subroutine EXYLD
defines the yield stress as a function of the calculation variables and access to these
variables is provided through common blocks. A subroutine skeleton is provided.

Modeling of Porous Solids
Porous materials are extremely effective in attenuating shocks and mitigating impact
pressures. The material compacts to its solid density at relatively low stress levels but,
because the volume change is relatively large, a large amount of energy is irreversibly
absorbed thereby attenuating shocks by lengthening the wave in time and reducing it in
amplitude as more material is compacted. The energy lost by the incident shock is absorbed
by the porous material during compaction and this can lead to large temperature rises in the
porous material. Adequate modeling of the compaction must take this large temperature
(energy) rise into account if accurate solutions are to obtained.

Early modeling of porous materials (Salvadori et al 1960) used what was called the
snowplough model. In this case the porous material was assumed to compact to its solid
density at zero stress and after compaction to be incompressible. Using this model the
impulse of impact was assumed to be spread uniformly over the entire volume of compacted
material. A later development (Rempel et al 1966) allowed the region of compacted material
to have the hydrodynamic equation of state of the solid density material (such as those
described in Section 11.2) improving the modeling of the energy-absorbing characteristics of
the porous region. Other developments (Fowles & Curran 1962) indicated that if the porous
material had material strength, i.e. it was able to support an appreciable elastic stress before
compaction occurred, its shock attenuation capabilities were greatly enhanced.

This is the concept underlying the current models of ductile porous solids. The material is
visualized as solid material which contains a population of microscopic cells. separated by
cell walls, which give the material its initial distension. When stressed the initial elastic
compression is assumed to be due to elastic buckling of the cell walls and the plastic flow to
be due to plastic deformation of these cell walls. Material with low initial porosity have fewer
cells and thicker cell walls so that the stress required to cause buckling and subsequent
deformation of the cell walls will be greater. Once some plastic flow has taken place, even if
181

the fully compacted density hasnt been reached, unloading to zero stress will be elastic (as
will subsequent reloading until again the plastic limit is reached). This phenomenological
behavior is illustrated in the neighboring Figure 11-13.

AUTODYN has a variant of this methodology implemented in the current versions of the
code; one where the plastic compaction path is defined as a piecewise linear path. This will
be described more fully below.

Figure 11-13 Loading-Unloading Behavior for a Porous Solid
15. Piecewise-Linear Porous Model
The current AUTODYN porous model is one where the plastic compaction path is defined as
a piecewise linear path from which unloading and reloading can occur along an elastic line
as shown in Figure 11-14a. The porous model can then be combined together with any
strength model to simulate yielding due to shear deformations. However users should be
aware of the limitations of this approach and use the model with care. The use of a fixed
compaction path (which may be derived from static compression data, either in its original
state or arbitrarily enhanced to model dynamic data) is equivalent to using a Mie-Gruneisen
equation of state with an assumed value of zero for the Gruneisen Gamma. This ignores the
pressure enhancement due to the energy absorption which, as stated earlier, is very
significant for porous solids.

This model, therefore, can only be expected to give reasonable results if either the energy
increase per se is small (because the maximum stress levels are not large compared to the
pressure at which the porous material crushes to solid, or the initial porosity is small) or the
value of Gruneisen Gamma is small so that the pressure enhancement due to the deposited
energy is small. For concrete 0.1 to 0.3 (Matuska, 1984) and the initial distension is
small in order to retain strength. Provided that maximum stress levels are not too large,
calculations with this model should give not unreasonable results. For other porous materials
182


the user is warned to consider the data and expected stress levels carefully before using the
model.

1
2
3
4
5
Pressure P
P
min

0

s
Density
Failure
Porous Soundspeed c
por
Solid
Soundspeed c
s
Plastic Compaction Path
Elastic Unloading / Reloading Paths
(a)
1
2
3
4
5
Pressure P
P
min

B
i
Porosity
1.0
Failure
(b)
Density
Porosity
(c)
1
2
3
4
5
Failure
s
=
ref
i
1.0

183

Figure 11-14 Pressure, Density, and Porosity Curves for Piecewise
Linear Porous Equation of State
The input data for the porous model is as follows:

ref
or
s
reference or solid density; that is the density at zero pressure of the
fully compacted solid
c
por
bulk sound speed of the porous material
c
s
bulk sound speed of the solid, fully compacted material

1
to
10
up to ten density, pressure pairs defining a piecewise-linear plastic
p
1
to p
10
compaction path

0
the initial density which is defined when the material is filled into
the subgrid

Using this model, a material initially compacts from =
0
along an elastic path defined by
the differential equation

dp
d
c
init
=
2
(11.121)
until the pressure reaches the plastic yield stress defined by the value of the pressure in the
first (, p) pairs. Subsequent loading takes place along the plastic compaction path until the
material is fully compacted, at which time further compression takes place according to the
linear relationship
(11.122) ( p c
s
=
2
)
ref
As the material compacts, elastic / unloading uses a bulk sound speed interpolated between
c
p
and c
s

( )
c c c c
por s por int
= +

1
1
1
(11.123)
where

=
ref
/ current porosity (porosity is the reciprocal of compaction)

1
=
ref
/
1
starting porosity

and the path is always computed from the differential equation (11.121). The relationship
between the pressure and porosity can be seen in Figure 11-14b, whilst that between
density and porosity is shown in Figure 11-14c.

184


If failure occurs due to say reaching the hydrodynamic pressure limit p
min
the density and
compaction can decrease as shown in the figures. This simulates the tensile separation or
cracking of the material. Should subsequent compressive loading occur the pressure will
only decrease after these cracks have closed up.
It is important when using the model to ensure that the input data is such that the elastic
loading line from the initial density intersects the plastic compaction curve at the intended
position.

It should be noted that the soundspeed output by AUTODYN represents the combined
effects of the bulk soundspeed given above and that due to the presence of strength. Thus if
strength is being used the soundspeed will be:

3
4
2
int
G
c c + = (11.124)
where G is the current shear modulus
16. P- Model
Although the previous model gives good results for low stress levels and low materials it is
very desirable to obtain a single formulation for the modeling of a porous material which
gives a good representation over a wide stress range and variety of materials. Such a model
has been derived by Herrmann (1960) and this is implemented in AUTODYN.

Herrmanns P- model is a phenomenological approach to devising a model which gives the
correct behavior at high stresses but at the same time it provides a reasonably detailed
description of the compaction process at low stress levels. The principal assumption is that
the specific internal energy is the same for a porous material as for the same material at
solid density at identical conditions of pressure and temperature. Then the parameter is
introduced denoting the porosity, defined by
=
v
v
s
(11.125)
where v is the specific volume of the porous material and v
s
is the specific volume of the
material in the solid state and at the same pressure and temperature (note that v
s
is only
equal to 1 /
ref
at zero pressure). becomes unity when the material compacts to a solid. If
the equation of state of the solid material, neglecting shear strength effects, is given by
(11.126) ( p f v e = , )
as discussed in Section 2, then the equation of state of the porous material is simply
p f
v
e =
|
\
|
.
|
, (11.127)
185

where f (x, y) is the same function in both equations (11.126) and (11.127). This function
can be any of the equations of state which describe the compressed state of material, i.e.
Linear, Polynomial and Shock (but not those describing the expanded state).
In order to complete the material description the porosity must be specified as a function of
the thermodynamic state of the material, say,
186
) (11.128) ( = g p e ,
There is not enough data usually available to determine the function g(p, e ) completely but
fortunately most problems of interest involve shock compaction of the porous material, i.e.
the region of interest lies on or near the Hugoniot. On the Hugoniot, pressure and internal
energy are related by the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions so therefore along the Hugoniot
equation (11.127 ) can be expressed as
(11.129) ( ) = g p
with the variation with energy implicitly assumed. It is assumed that equation (11.128)
remains valid in the neighborhood of the Hugoniot (tacitly assuming that the compaction
strength is insensitive to the small changes in temperature in extrapolating small distances
from the Hugoniot).

The general behavior of the compacting porous material has been described earlier and the
(P-) model is constructed to reproduce this behavior. The P- variation to provide this
performance is shown schematically in Figure 11-15. The material yields elastically up to a
pressure p
e
and subsequent yield is plastic until the material is fully compacted at a
pressure p
s
. As described earlier, intermediate unloading and reloading is elastic up to the
plastic loading curve.

The choice of a suitable function g (p) is somewhat arbitrary as long as it satisfies certain
simple analytic properties enumerated by Herrmann in his original paper, and several forms
have been used by different researchers. A simple form (Butcher & Karnes 1968) found
adequate for porous iron is a quadratic form

( )
= +

(
1 1
2
p
s
s e
p p
p p
(11.130)
but cubic and exponential forms have also been proposed and the parameters adjusted to fit
experimental data. In AUTODYN, the exponent 2 in equation (11.129) can be any value to
allow for more flexibility in the fitting procedure. The parameters
p
, p
s
and p
e
are defined in
Figure 11-15.


Figure 11-15 Compaction of a Ductile Porous Material
Other workers have developed the basic P- model of Herrmann to give better fits to
experimental data for specific materials. Carroll & Holt (1972) modified equation (11.126) to
read
p f
v
e =
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
1

, (11.131)
where the factor 1 / was included to allow for their argument that the pressure in the
porous material is more nearly 1 / times the average pressure in the matrix material. It is
this form of the model that has been implemented in AUTODYN. A rate-dependent form has
been proposed by Butcher (1970) but in all these variants the parameters have to be
determined from experimental data and this procedure is far from simple.

4. Orthotropic Materials

In previous sections discussion has been restricted to the behavior of isotropic materials.
However there is at times a need to consider the treatment of materials where the properties
187

of materials are not identical in all directions (e.g. laminates, fiber reinforced materials etc.).
The methodology used in Section 3 whereby the total stress was divided into a
compressional component (the hydrostatic pressure p) and distortional components (the
stress deviators) with the change in the two components independently integrated in time.
Such a methodology is not appropriate in anisotropic materials and instead the stress
components are considered explicitly in the updating of stresses and strains from one time-
step to the next. Therefore there is no p = f(v, e) functional relationship used in this
approach. However the separation of the stress components into a hydrostatic pressure
(defined as before as the mean of the principal stresses) plus stress deviators is used as for
isotropic materials when plastic yielding occurs, the stress deviators being scaled down to
ensure that the stresses remain on the yield surface. The present formulation is only
implemented in AUTODYN for materials in Lagrange / ALE subgrids.

188
1. Orthotropic Elastic Model
The orthotropic linear elastic model implemented in AUTODYN uses an incremental stress-
strain relationship to calculate the stress at cycle n as follows:
| | | | | || |
n n
S
+
= +
1
&
t (11.132)
where

| |
| |
S stiffness matrix
strain rate vector
t time step
=
=
=
&
The inverse of the above stiffness matrix for two-dimensional configurations is

| | S
E E E
E E E
E E E
G
(
(
(
(
1
1 12 1 31 3
12 1 2 23 2
31 3 23 2 3
12
1 0
1 0
1
0 0 0 1 2
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/

(11.133)
and the principal strain-rate and stress vectors are:
and | | (11.134) | | &
&
&
&
&
(
(
(
(
11
22
33
12
(
(
(
(
11
22
33
12


where

E Young s Moduli in the principal directions
Poisson s Ratios
G Shear Modulus
i
ij
=
=
=
'
'
12
and where
ij
is defined as the transverse strain in the j-direction when the material is
stressed in the i-direction, i.e.:

ij
j
i
=
Note that

ij ji
i
j
E
E
=
|
\
|
.
|
|

The shear modulus G
12
is input for the strength model used in conjunction with this equation
of state (any strength model with a constant or strain dependent yield stress can be used).

The initial orientation of the principal anisotropic material axes may be defined in one of
three ways:
X-Y space: The first principal axis is parallel to the X-axis
Polar space The first principal axis for each cell is in the
direction of the line drawn from the polar origin to
the center of the cell.
I-J space The first principal axis for each cell is defined to be in the
direction of increasing I for that cell.
The second principal axis is defined to be orthogonal to the first principal axis in the (X, Y)
plane, while the third principal axis is defined to be orthogonal to the other two axes. In all
three cases a rotation angle can be specified. If the value specified is non-zero the first
and second principal axes are rotated anti-clockwise through this angle.

There are, of course, restrictions on the elastic constants that can be used for an orthotropic
material and these restrictions are more complex than those for an isotropic material. These
restrictions stem from the fact that the sum of work done by all stress components must be
positive in order to avoid the creation of energy. The first condition is that the elastic
constants should be positive:
189

E
1
, E
2
, E
3
, and G
12
are all > 0 (11.135)

Figure 11-16 Definition of the First Principal Axis
Secondly, the determinant of the stiffness matrix must be positive:
1 -
12

21
-
31

13
-
23

32
- 2
21

32

13
> 0 (11.136)
Finally the requirement for positive stiffness leads to:

( )
( )
( )
21 2 1
1 2
32 3 2
1 2
13 1 2
1 2
<
<
<
E E
E E
E E
(11.137)
Whenever the elastic constants in an AUTODYN-2D model are defined or redefined the
three conditions above are tested and the user is informed if any of them are violated.

2.
2
Orthotropic Strength Models
Any of the strength models with a constant or strain dependent yield stress described in
Section 11.3 can be used with the orthotropic model. When testing for plastic yielding the
average stress (i.e. pressure) is computed and used to determine the stress deviators. The
J
2
invariant
s s s s
xx yy tt xy
2 2 2
+ + +
is tested against 2Y
2
/ 3 to determine whether yielding has occurred. If it has then the plastic
flow is treated in an isotropic manner with the stress deviators for the cell scaled so that the
material state is dropped back normal to the yield surface. All subsequent flow of the yielded
material is treated in an isotropic manner. Users of this model should not normally compute
190


191
3.
5.
1.
solutions to the point where this post-yielding regime occurs in a significant fraction of the
total volume of the anisotropic material since it clearly no longer models the anisotropy of the
material in a realistic manner
.
Orthotropic Failure Models
Three orthotropic failure initiation models are implemented into the current versions of
AUTODYN. These test on material stress and/or strain and allow different tensile and shear
failure stresses and/or strains for each of the four principal (material) directions. These will
be discussed more fully in the next section.

Modeling of material failure

The discussion in Section 3 indicated how plastic yielding arose from the inability of real
materials to support arbitrarily large shear stresses. The separation of the flow into separate
elastic and plastic flow regimes was described, together with the criteria for recognizing the
switch between one regime and the other. In a similar manner real materials are not able to
withstand tensile stresses which exceed the materials local tensile strength. The
computation of the dynamic motion of materials assuming that they always remain
continuous, even if the predicted local stresses reach very large negative values, will lead to
unphysical solutions. Some model has to be constructed to recognize when tensile limits are
reached, to modify the computation to deal with this and to describe the properties of the
material after this formulation has been applied.

Failure Models
Several different modes of failure have been implemented in AUTODYN to provide the most
suitable form of failure criterion for different types of materials. They can be divided into
three categories of failure criteria:
Bulk (isotropic) failure These consider the material behavior in an overall (isotropic)
manner and allow for failure when some predefined flow variable reaches a critical value.
Directional failure These models can be used to model failure initiation which is
directionally dependent. They are therefore very appropriate for different failure modes
such as spalling, plugging, delamination, petalling and discing. They are only
implemented currently for Lagrange / ALE subgrids. They cannot be used for Euler
subgrids since it is not possible to accurately track principal directions in Euler cells and
they are currently not available in Shell subgrids.
Cumulative Damage, Johnson-Holmquist Damage These failure models have been
developed to describe the macroscopic inelastic behavior of materials such as ceramics
and concrete where the strength of the material can be significantly impaired by
crushing. The models can sometimes also be used to follow the behavior of metals
which are subjected to tensile stress levels below the ultimate tensile limit but for periods
of time long enough to initiate incipient spall.

192
Post-failure response of materials is isotropic for all of the above failure models. Following
failure, the failed material in that cell can no longer sustain any shear stress or any negative
pressures except in the case of the hydrodynamic tensile limit model, where it is assumed
that the material reheals, i.e. while the material pressure is set to zero in the cell for that
time step it is assumed that the material can sustain negative pressures down to the
hydrodynamic tensile limits in subsequent flow (it may of course reach that limit again and
the failure process will be repeated).

Note that in Euler subgrids material(s) in a cell which has failed have their volumes adjusted
and void created to satisfy the zero pressure criterion. These materials may be transported
into neighboring cells in the following time-step. They will not carry with them any knowledge
of the failure in the previous time-step and in the donor cell (other than the values of
pressure, volume etc. arising from the failure). The criterion for failure in the recipient cells
will test on the updated pressure etc. within those cells without knowledge of past histories.

While some of the different models can be used in all types of subgrids, others are
implemented in only specific types of subgrids. The current range of applicability is indicated
below:

Lagrange ALE Euler Shell
Hydrodynamic tensile limit

Bulk strain
Directional failure

Cumulative damage
Johnson-Holmquist damage
Allowable failure models
2.
3.
Bulk (Isotropic) Models
There are two models currently implemented in AUTODYN (other than the default of no
failure model thus allowing the stresses to decrease unchecked - an option not to be
recommended). These are based on (a) hydrodynamic tensile failure (usually referred to as
the PMIN option) and (b) bulk strain failure (ultimate strain)

Hydrodynamic Tensile Failure (Pmin)
This model can be used in any subgrid other than Shell and a constant hydrodynamic tensile
limit is specified for the material. Care must be taken to choose a realistic value for this limit.
If the value of the hydrodynamic pressure in a cell falls below this limit value bulk failure is
assumed to have occurred. The pressure is set to zero (as is the artificial viscosity term q),


193
4.
5.
6.
7.
the internal energy is recomputed and the material is assumed to have rehealed so that
negative pressures may occur in the next time-step but limited again by the hydrodynamic
tensile limit. This model is very simple to apply and allows calculations to proceed for long
periods of time with tensile waves propagating around the system. It can be used to model
spalling or cavitation. It avoids catastrophic failure and grossly unrealistic solutions occurring
but its very simplicity means that it can only be a rough approximation to reality and users
should treat the solutions with care and avoid drawing conclusions from details within the
spalled or cavitated regions.

Bulk Strain / Ultimate Strain / Effective Plastic Strain
This model can be specified with any plastic flow model and in all types of subgrid
(Lagrange, ALE, Euler and Shell). Bulk failure in a cell occurs when the effective plastic
strain exceeds the specified limit value. When this happens, the stress deviators are set to
zero and in post-failure flow in that cell the material cannot sustain any shear strength (i.e.
the flow is hydrodynamic) or any negative hydrodynamic pressure. If the pressure is
negative it is set to zero so that the total stress is zero. This may be used to model ductile
failure.

Directional Failure Models
The directional failure models can be used to model failure initiation which is directionally
dependent and contrasts with the bulk failure models already described. However, after
failure the failed material is assumed to be isotropic, to have no shear strength and to be
able to sustain only positive hydrodynamic pressures. The directional failure models can be
combined with any of the existing equations of state and strength models, except for the
Hydro strength model. They can only be used in Lagrange or ALE subgrids. The models test
on principal stress or strain or other options test on material stress or strain.

Principal Stress Failure
The user is prompted to specify
1. Maximum tensile failure stress
2. Maximum shear stress

The principal directions are defined by the principal stresses so that the shear stress 12, on
the principal plane, is zero. The maximum shear stress lies on planes at 45 degrees to the
principal directions. Failure is initiated if the maximum tensile principal stress, or the
maximum shear stress, exceed their specified limits.
Principal Strain Failure
1. Maximum tensile failure strain
2. Maximum shear strain


194
8.
9.
The principal directions are defined by the principal strains so that the shear strain 12, on the
principal plane, is zero. The maximum shear strains lie on planes at 45 degrees to the
principal directions. Failure is initiated if the maximum tensile principal strain, or the
maximum shear strain, exceed their specified limits.

Note that the principal strain angle will coincide with the principal stress angle only as long
as the cell remains elastic. If any plastic flow has taken place in the material within the cell
any subsequent value for the principal strain angle will not necessarily be the same as the
principal strain angle.

Principal Stress / Strain Failure
1. Maximum tensile failure stress
2. Maximum shear stress
3. Maximum tensile failure strain
4. Maximum shear strain

The principal directions are defined by the principal stresses so that the shear stress 12, on
the principal plane, is zero. The maximum shear stress lies on planes at 45 degrees to the
principal directions. In this option the tensile strains and the shear strains are calculated on
the principal stress directions, and these will only be principal strain directions if the material
in the cell has remained elastic.

Failure is initiated if any one of the maximum tensile principal stress, or tensile strain on the
principal stress direction, or the maximum shear stress or strain exceeds its specified limit.

Material Stress Failure
Note: In this option and the subsequent two material failure options the specified directions,
referred to as principal directions, are defined by the dominant geometric characteristics of
the material. These models are useful for materials which are likely to fail along pre-defined
material planes, for example where delamination failure occurs between layers in a
composite plate. Failure will be initiated if any of the principal material stresses or strains
exceed their respective specified failure levels. Note that because the principal directions
are defined by the material directions there can be a finite, non-zero, shear stress and strain
on the planes defined by these directions. Also the maximum direct stresses and strains can
lie on planes which are not coincident with the principal material planes, and the maximum
shear stress and shear strain may not be on a plane at 45 degrees to the principal material
plane.

1. The user is prompted to specify
2. Maximum tensile failure stress 11


195
10.
11.
5. Maximum shear stress 12
6. Material axes option
7. Rotation angle (degrees)
8. X-origin (Polar space)
9. Y- origin (Polar space)

The initial principal material direction is defined by the user through the input parameters
(5) to (8) and as detailed in Figure 11-16 in the previous section.

Failure is initiated if any of the principal material stresses exceed their respective specified
tensile failure stress limits. For shear failures the shear stress on planes parallel to the
principal directions are checked against the maximum shear stress 12.

Material Strain Failure
The used is prompted to specify
1. Maximum tensile failure strain 11
4. Maximum shear strain 12
6. Rotation angle (degrees)
7. X- origin (Polar space)
8. Y- origin (Polar space)


Failure is initiated if any of the principal material strains exceeds the respective specified
limit. For shear failures the shear strain on planes parallel to the principal directions are
checked against the maximum shear strain 12.

Material Stress/Strain Failure
4. Maximum shear stress 12

196
12.
8. Maximum shear strain 12
10.Rotation angle (degrees)
11.X- origin (Polar space)
12.Y- origin (Polar space)

Failure is initiated if any of the principal material stresses or strains exceed their respective
failure levels. For shear failures the values of the shear stress and strain on planes parallel
to the principal directions are checked against the inputted maximum shear stress and
strain.

Failure In Orthotropic Materials
As stated in Section 11.5 three failure models are implemented in AUTODYN-2D at present.
They are as follows:
1. Material stress
2. Material strain
3. Material stress/strain

These models allow different tensile and shear failure stresses and/or strains for each of the
four principal directions. Following failure in a cell, if the stress or strain reaches the user-
specified limiting value, the following occurs:
1. the principal material stress in the direction of failure is set to zero.
2. the shear modulus G is set to zero.
3. the shear stress
12
is set to zero.
4. the average stress (i.e. pressure) is recomputed, using the normal calculation

p = -(
11
+
22
+
33
) / 3
Post-failure behavior is effectually isotropic as for all the other failure models:
1. the orthotropic elastic incremental stress-strain relations are applied.
2. the average stress (pressure) is recomputed, using the calculation above
3. if the cell is in compression the principal stresses are set equal to the average
stress (pressure) i.e.
ii
= -p
4. if the cell is in tension all principal stresses, and therefore the average stress
(pressure), are set to zero, i.e.
ii
= -p = 0


197
13. Cumulative Damage Model
This model has been introduced to describe the macroscopic inelastic behavior of material
such as ceramics and concrete where the strength of the material can be significantly
degraded by crushing. The model can be used only with the Linear equation of state but can
be used in conjunction with any strength model currently available in AUTODYN (except
Johnson-Holmquist which has its own associated cumulative damage model). However,
since experiments indicate that ceramics show a marked increase in compressive strength
as the hydrostatic pressure is increased, it is most likely that this model will be used in
conjunction with the Mohr-Coulomb model which uses a yield strength that is a function of
the local hydrostatic pressure.

To model the progressive crushing and subsequent weakening of ceramic materials the
model computes a damage factor which is usually related to the amount of straining the
material is subjected to. This damage factor is used to reduce the elastic moduli and yield
strength of the material as the calculation proceeds. In the standard model damage is
represented by a parameter D which is zero for all plastic deformation for which the effective
plastic strain is less than a value EPS1. When the strain reaches EPS1 the damage
parameter D increases linearly with strain up to a maximum value D
max
(<1) at a value of the
effective plastic strain EPS2, as shown in Figure 11-17 below.
EPS1
EPS2 Effective Plastic Strain
Damage
1.0
D
max

Figure 11-17 Cumulative Damage as a Function of Effective Plastic
Strain

Thus

D D
EPS EPS
EPS EPS
=

|
\
|
.
|
max
1
2 1
(11.138)
If a different damage function is required this can be programmed by the user by means of
the user subroutine EXDAM.

To describe the progressive crushing of a material the damage function is used to reduce
the materials strength. Fully damaged material has some residual strength in compression
but none in tension. The current value of the damage factor D is used to modify the bulk
modulus, shear modulus and yield strength of the material.

a) The yield strength is reduced as follows:
If the hydrostatic pressure is positive
(11.139) ( Y Y
dam
= 1 ) D
(providing some residual strength when D reaches its maximum D
max
)
If the hydrostatic pressure is negative
Y Y
D
D
dam
=
|
\
|
.
| 1
max
(11.140)
These are illustrated graphically in Figure 11-18 below.
Damage
1.0
1 - D
max
Y
dam
/ Y
p > 0
p < 0
D
max

Figure 11-18 Yield Stress as a Function of Cumulative Damage
198


b) The bulk modulus and shear modulus are unaffected in compression, while in tension
they are progressively reduced to zero when damage is complete. In tension therefore they
are both reduced by the factor (1 - D/D
max
) as shown graphically in Figure 11-19 below.

For a more detailed account of the use of this type of model see Persson (1990).
Damage
1.0
K
dam
/ K
G
dam
/ G
p > 0
p < 0
D
max

Figure 11-19 Bulk and Shear Moduli as Functions of Cumulative
Damage
14. Johnson-Holmquist Damage Failure Model
As discussed under the Johnson-Holmquist strength model, this model has been
implemented for brittle materials such as glass and ceramics. The Johnson-Holmquist
strength model and Johnson-Holmquist failure model must be used together.
The Johnson-Holmquist Damage model was developed for the simulation of the
compressive and shear induced strength and failure of brittle materials. With the introduction
of version 3, the tensile behavior of the model has now been improved to allow for principal
tensile stress failure initiation in addition to the Hydrodynamic Tensile Limit. The crack
softening algorithm can also be used in conjunction with the principal stress failure criteria.
This improved tensile failure model can result in improved representation of radial and cone
cracks in simulations of impacts onto ceramics and glass.
199

Example of a bullet impact onto glass using the Johnson-Holmquist model, Principal Stress
Failure and Crack Softening

200
15. Crack Softening
A tensile crack softening model is included in AUTODYN to improve the modeling of the
post-failure response of brittle materials. The principal or material stress/strain failure
models are typically limited to instantaneous strength loss, and can only undergo bulk
compression at later times. These models have the following limitations:
In practice brittle materials do not fail instantaneously but gradually lose their load
carrying capacity as cracks propagate through the material.
The instantaneous failure models can give rise to very mesh sensitive results.

The crack softening model aims to improve these two aspects of the post-failure response
modeling of brittle materials and is implemented as follows:

Failure initiation is based on any of the standard tensile failure models. i.e. Hydro,
Principal Stress/Strain, Material Stress/Strain discussed above.
On failure initiation, the current maximum principal tensile stress in the cell is stored as
variable FAIL.STRES.
A linear softening slope (variable SOFT.SLOPE) is then defined to reduce the maximum
possible principal tensile stress in the material as a function of crack strain. This
softening slope is defined as a function of the local cell size and a material parameter,
the fracture energy G
f
. (Note that the fracture energy is related to the fracture toughness
through the relationship K EG
f
= ).
After failure initiation, a maximum principal tensile stress failure surface is defined to limit
the maximum principal tensile stress in the cell and an associated flow surface is used to
accumulate the crack strain.
Rankine plasticity is used to return trial elastic stresses to the failure surface and calculate
the increments in crack strain. The method of return to the yield surface is specified by
the user through the Global, Material, Options menu. The options are described in detail
below. The fully associative option is traditionally used with this model. However,


experience at Century Dynamics indicates that this leads to excessive bulking in the
material. The Associative in -space option is therefore the current default.

There are currently three options in relation to the crack softening plastic return algorithm:

No-Bulking - Associative in -plane only (Default)
Bulking Associative in - and meridional planes
Radial Return - Non-associative in - and meridional planes

The tensile cracking softening algorithm originates from quasi-static numerical analysis and
the associative (Bulking) type return algorithm would normally be used in such applications.
Experience at Century Dynamics however indicates that this option can lead to excessive
bulking of the material. The default option of associative in pi-space has therefore been
chosen. The options are shown described in the two figures below:
Meridional Plane:
Trial Elastic Stresses
Rankine Plasticity
(Tensile Cracking)
Yielding
(Shear Induced Cracking)
Pressure
J2
Rankine Failure Surface
Yield Surface (Strength model)
Non-associative flow in
Meridional Plane (Default)
Associative flow
in Meridional
Plane (Option)

-space:
Trial Elastic Stresses

1
von Mises Surface
Associative flow in
-Plane (Default)
Non-Associative flow in
-Plane (Option)
2

3

Rankine Failure Surface
201


203
16.
17.
The variable DAMAGE is used to monitor the level of crack strain in each cell in relation
to the strain at failure defined by the softening slope. The damage is defined to be 0.0 for
an intact cell and 1.0 for a fully failed cell.
The variable DAMAGE is used to monitor the level of crack strain in each cell in relation
to the strain at failure defined by the softening slope. The damage is defined to be 0.0 for
an intact cell and 1.0 for a fully failed cell.

Slope
Lf
G
t
f
=
2
2
Total Fracture
Area = G
f
/L

Figure 11-20 Crack Softening Basics

Crack softening can be used in conjunction with any solid equation of state and strength
model. After tensile failure initiation it should be noted that the equation of state is effectively
linear. Crack softening is currently only available for the Lagrange, ALE and SPH subgrids.

Crack Plotting

A post processing option has been included to improve the visualization of cracked and
damaged regions of a subgrid. The Cracked plot option is a variation on the Material Status
plot that allows the user to define a level of damage at which to plot a cell as failed. The plot
type is accessed through the Matplot, Cracked option.

User Defined Failure Model
In this option the user has to specify all or any of the parameters discussed above and he
can also specify parameters through to FC(40). The failure criteria can be programmed in

18.
6.
subroutine EXFAIL. Note that the user-subroutine EXFAIL is called for all failure models,
except None. The pre-defined options can therefore be modified if required.

User Defined Crack Softening
The user may use the subroutine EXCRK to define a specific softening law for the post-
failure response of brittle materials modeled using the crack softening option.
Erosion criteria

Although AUTODYN can calculate with both Lagrangian and Eulerian subgrids it may
sometimes be the case that materials have to be defined on Lagrangian subgrids even
though it is clear that these materials will be subjected to very large distortions arising from
gross motion of the Lagrange grid. For example a ballistic projectile re-entering the
atmosphere will suffer gross distortion of the outer layers because of re-entry heating and
the material there will become gaseous and be stripped off. An accurate calculation of this
scenario should allow for the ablation of these outer layers. Target and projectile material in
hypervelocity impact problems will be subject to gross distortion and again an accurate
calculation of this problem should follow the material as it splashes. In both examples
calculations on an Euler subgrid suffer unless an accurate interface tracking routine is used
and so the user defines the problem on a Lagrange subgrid.

During the subsequent calculation some of these Lagrangian cells can become grossly
distorted and, unless some remedial action is taken, can seriously impair the progress of the
calculation. Therefore procedures have been incorporated into AUTODYN (both 2-D and 3-
D) to remove such Lagrangian cells from the calculation if a pre-defined strain (either
instantaneous geometric strain, incremental geometric strain or effective plastic
strain ) exceeds a specified limit. When a cell is removed from the calculation process in this
way the mass within the cell can either be discarded or distributed to the corner nodes of the
cell. If the mass is retained, conservation of inertia and spatial continuity of inertia are
maintained. However the compressive strength and internal energy of the material within the
cell are lost whether or not the mass is retained.

If the retained inertia option is used and the four (2-D), or eight (3-D), cells around a
particular node are discarded the node becomes a free node. Free nodes are automatically
added to the arrays of slave nodes used in the impact-slide logic in AUTODYN and thus
interact with both sides of an impact-slide boundary.

This discard procedure is known as erosion. However it is important to note that, in general,
this is not true modeling of a physical phenomena (although it could be if calculating the
ablation occurring at the surface of a re-entry body) but a numerical palliative introduced to
overcome the problems associated with the mesh distortions caused by gross motions of a
Lagrangian grid. Because of the losses of internal energy, strength and (possibly) mass,
care must be taken in using this option and erosion strain limits chosen wisely so that cells
204


205
are not discarded (eroded) until they are severely deformed and their compressive strength
and/or mass are not likely to affect the overall results. In general users are recommended to
use limiting values as high as practicable in the absence of any experimental evidence to
check by, but inexperienced users are urged to perform calculations with different values of
the erosion strain limits to determine the effect of this algorithm on their particular problems.
Figure 11-21 below (taken from Hayhurst et al 1994) illustrates clearly the effect of the
values of the limiting erosion strains on the final crater dimensions in a hypervelocity impact
problem. In this problem maximum erosion strains of 300% or higher are appropriate but it
should be noted that these were geometric strains and different values might be more
appropriate if effective plastic strains were being tested.

Figure 11-21 Comparison of Experimental Crater Dimensions and
AUTODYN-2D Results for Different Erosion Strains (Figure 3 of
Hayhurst et al (1994))

User selection of an erosion model is made through a pop-up window offering four options:

None: No erosion is permitted
Effective plastic strain: Erosion is initiated by effective plastic strain limit

1.
2.
7.
Incremental Geometric strain: Erosion is initiated by an incremental geometric
strain limit
Instantaneous Geometric strain: Erosion is initiated by an instantaneous
geometric strain limit
The definition of these strain values is given in section 11.3.

The Global, Interact, Inertia option allows the user to specify whether or not nodes are
retained after erosion.

User Defined Erosion Criteria
The user may specify a specific erosion criteria through the EXEROD user subroutine. A
single parameter, erosion strain, can be stored with material. All other parameters can be
accessed through Fortran 90 modules as with other user subroutines.
Eroded Node Plotting
Using the F5/Nodes function in AUTODYN, eroded nodes may be plotted in the color of the
original material. Note that the plotting of eroded nodes may be activated or deactivated
through the same function.
High explosives

High explosives are chemical substances which, when subjected to suitable stimuli, react
chemically to give a very rapid (of order microseconds) release of energy. In the
hydrodynamic theory of detonation this very rapid time interval is shrunk to zero and a
detonation wave is assumed to be a discontinuity which propagates through the unreacted
material instantaneously liberating energy and transforming the explosive into detonating
products. The normal Rankine-Hugoniot relations, expressing the conservation of mass,
momentum and energy across the discontinuity may be used to relate the hydrodynamic
variables across the reaction zone. The only difference between the Rankine-Hugoniot
equations for a shock wave in a chemically inert material and those for a detonation wave is the
inclusion of a chemical energy term in the energy conservation equation.

Variable Detonation
products
Reaction
zone
Unreacted
explosive
Pressure p p
0

Specific volume v v
0
Specific internal energy e e
0
Specific chemical energy 0 Q
Particle velocity u
p
0
206


207
Detonation velocity D
Figure 11-22 Discontinuities Across a Detonation Wave

In the notation of Figure 11-22 above the Rankine-Hugoniot equations may be written as;
D = v
(p - p )
(v - v)
2
0
2 0
0
(11.141)
(11.142) u = (p - p ) (v - v)
2
0 0
( )( e - e
0
= + + Q p p v
1
2
0 0
) v (11.143)
For a given initial pressure p
0
, initial density
0
= 1/v
0
and detonation velocity D the first of
the above equations describes a straight line in the (p, v) plane, known as the Rayleigh line,
defining the locus of all (p, v) states consistent with the prescribed detonation velocity and
conservation of mass and momentum. The third equation is a purely thermodynamic
equation which defines in the (p, v) plane a concave downward curve, known as the
Hugoniot curve, which is the locus of all (p, v) states attainable from (p
0
, v
0
) by a
discontinuous transition with energy conservation. The Hugoniot curve for a shock wave in
inert material passes through the point (p
0
, v
0
) but for a detonation wave the exothermic
energy term Q in the energy conservation equation results in the Hugoniot curve being
displaced upwards in the (p, v) plane. The points of intersection of the Rayleigh line with the
Hugoniot curve define states consistent with all the conservation relations and the prescribed
propagation velocity (see Figure 11-23).


Figure 11-23 Hugoniot Diagram for a Detonation Wave
The Hugoniot curve as defined by equations (11. 141) - (143) divides into an upper branch
with p > p
0
, v < v
0
, a lower branch with p < p
0
, v > v
0
, and a region in between where p > p
0
, v
> v
0
, which has no physical meaning since it defines an imaginary propagation velocity. The
upper branch of the Hugoniot curve corresponding to higher velocities is appropriate to
detonations while the lower branch corresponds to deflagrations (which will not be
considered here). From Figure 11-23 it is seen that the intersection of the Rayleigh line and
the Hugoniot curve define the existence of any detonation velocity above a minimum value
and each value is consistent with two possible end values for the detonation products.
Therefore one further condition is required to reduce this double infinity of theoretically
permitted states to the single valued detonation velocity observed in an explosive of given
composition and loading density. Chapman and Jouget independently proposed that this
velocity is the minimum velocity consistent with the Rankine-Hugoniot relations and
this postulate is known as the Chapman-Jouget (CJ) hypothesis. Subsequent research
has supported the validity of this hypothesis and it is generally accepted as a fundamental
relation in the formulation of material models for detonation products.

From Figure 11-23 it is seen that the CJ hypothesis corresponds to tangency of the Rayleigh
line with the Hugoniot curve. If we denote conditions at the tangent point, known as the CJ
point, by suffix 1 this provides a fourth condition;
( )(
|
\
|
.
| =
dp
dv
p p v v
H
1
1
1 0 1 0
) (11.144)
where suffix H indicates differentiation along the Hugoniot curve. Differentiation of equation
(11.8.3) and use of the first law of thermodynamics show that the entropy S has a turning
208


209
point at (p
1
, v
1
) and a second differentiation shows it to be a minimum. Hence the Hugoniot
curve and the adiabat through (p
1
, v
1
) are also tangential so that at the CJ point

dp
dv
p
v
p
v
H S
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
\
|
.
| =
|
\
|
.
| =

(11.145)
where

=
|
\
|
.
|
ln
ln
p
v
S
1
1

is the adiabatic exponent evaluated at the CJ point (and does not necessarily retain the
same numerical value at any other state point). If p
0
is neglected in comparison with p
1
(there
is usually a factor of order 10
5
between them) then from manipulation of the above equations
we can obtain,

v
v
1
0
1
=
+
(11.146)
( ) p
D
u
1
0
2
0 1
2
1
1 =
+
= +
(11.147)
e Q
D
1
2
1
= +
+
|
\
|
.
|
(11.148)
where Q = Q + e
0
. Thus the CJ pressure can be related to the measured detonation velocity
through a single parameter.
1. Forms of Equations of State
Since the 1939-45 war, when there was naturally extensive study of the behavior of high
explosives, there has been a continuous attempt to understand the detonation process and the
performance of the detonation products, leading to considerable improvements in the equation
of state of the products (Skidmore 1967). Only the most comprehensive of the forms of
equation of state developed over this period (the JWL form, qv) is included in AUTODYN but it
will be shown that this is the most important and well based form and should suffice to cover
most scenarios of interest to the normal AUTODYN user.

Because the detonation wave is assumed to be infinitesimally thin and the detonation
process to be instantaneous we are concerned only with changes of state from the CJ point
in the (p, v) plane. The detonation products may either be subjected to increasing pressure

from shocks or compression waves or they may decrease in pressure through adiabatic
expansion. Following expansion they may suffer an increase in pressure from subsequent
compression waves or shocks. However because the detonation products are very hot it is
difficult to change their entropy significantly so both for pressures above and below the CJ
pressure the achievable states lie close to the adiabat passing through the CJ point ( known
usually as the CJ adiabat). Therefore an equation of state of a Gruneisen form and based on
the CJ adiabat as the reference curve promises to be a good representation of the behavior
of the detonation products. Attention has been therefore concentrated on developing good
analytic forms for the CJ adiabat.
CJ point
Av
-
ln v
ln p

Figure 11-24 Adiabat for Ideal Gas Form of Equation of State
2. Ideal Gas Form
One of the first forms used was that for a polytropic gas so that the form of the CJ adiabat is
(11.149) p Av =

from which we can derive the e (p, v) relation
(11.150) p Av =

with assumed to be constant. The adiabat is a straight line in the (ln p, ln v) plane as
shown in Figure 11-24. This relation was shown to be true at the CJ point (see equations
(11.146) to (11.148)) so the assumption of ideal gas behavior extends the region of
application into pressures neighboring the CJ state. It has been shown experimentally that
the ideal gas assumption gives a reasonable description of the true behavior for shock
compression up to about twice the CJ pressure and for adiabatic expansion from the CJ
state down to about half the CJ pressure for an explosive whose prescribed initial density is
close to its ultimate density. If it is known that the region of interest in the detonation
products remains near the CJ state then the simplicity of this form of equation of state has
210


211
Q
3.
)
much to recommend it, particularly for exploratory calculations. The values of at the CJ
point (
1
in our notation, or
CJ
as it is often written) for many explosives of interest lie in the
interval 2.7 <
1
< 2.8, so a value within this region is a reasonable value to use. The value
= 3 has been often used since this value leads to great simplicity in obtaining analytic
solutions to one-dimensional problems. A major failing of this form of equation of state is
that, from the above equations taking Q constant
(11.151) ( ) D
2
2 1 =
so that D has no dependency on the loading density, contrary to experimental evidence.

Constant Beta Form
Experiments on shocks transmitted from explosives into air at atmospheric pressure (Deal
1960) showed that a simple ideal gas equation was not valid down to pressures of order
1kbar and a more general form than the ideal gas form was developed by assuming that
there was one adiabat of the detonation products in the (p, v) plane of the form p =A v
-
but
that it was not the CJ adiabat. The family of adiabats were then of the form
(11.152)
(
p Av Bv = +
+ 1
where A, , and are constants and B is a function of entropy, differing for each adiabat.
The value of is no longer that at the CJ point (but will not differ greatly from it) but at low
pressures the second term is dominant and models the behavior of gases at large
expansions - see Figure 11-25. The e (p, v) relation corresponding to the above form of
adiabat is usually written as
( ) ( ) (
e e v v p p v
r r r r r
=
)
(11.153)


4.
Figure 11-25 Adiabat for Constant Beta Form of Equation of State
where = 1/ and the reference curve in this Gruneisen form of equation of state is the CJ
adiabat defined above (and (v) in this case is a constant = 1/). The parameter can be
chosen to take account of the experimentally measured D- relation and it is found that
typical values for condensed explosives are 2. Thus the adiabatic exponent at high
expansions (low pressures) approaches 1.5 which is appropriate to the expansion of perfect
gases. Thus this simple form of equation gives a reasonably realistic approximation to the
behavior of expanding detonation products to large expansions.

Wilkins Form
The comparison of hydro calculations with experiments on propelling metal plates by
normally incident detonation waves showed that the above equations of state were too
energetic by as much as 20%. Since it was required to keep the predicted slope of the CJ
adiabat near the CJ point and to continue to model the expansion of the detonation products
at large expansions in order to reduce the area under the adiabat an additional exponential
term was added (Wilkins 1964) to produce a dip in the CJ adiabat below about 150 kbar, see
Figure 11-26.

The resulting equation for the family of adiabats was therefore
(11.154)
( )
p Av Bv Ce
rv
= + +
+ 1
where C and r are constants chosen to fit the additional data. An equation containing a
similar exponential term, justified by solid state theory, was investigated by Jones during the
1939-45 War. The energy is still determined from the equation (11.153).

212


213
5.
Figure 11-26 Adiabat for Wilkins Form of Equation of State
Jones - Wilkins - Lee Form
The comparison of hydro calculations with experiments on another form of integrated
experiment that provides a stringent test of the low pressure behavior of detonation when
expanding along the CJ adiabat is the expansion of a hollow metal cylinder filled with
explosive and detonated across the explosive face at one end of the cylinder. The
detonation wave proceeds axially along the cylinder and the expansion of the metal can be
accurately measured. This experiment is called the cylinder test.

The Wilkins form of equation is capable of predicting the motion correctly until the pressure
in the products falls below about 5 kbar but then becomes insufficiently energetic. To fit this
data it was proposed (Lee 1968) that the reference adiabat should be further modified by
replacing the first term (the power law term) in the Wilkins equation by a second exponential
term to give

( )
p C e C e Bv
r v r v
= + +
+
1 2
1
1 2

(11.155)
giving an energy equation
p C
r v
e C
r v
e
e
v
r v r v
=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
| +

1
1
2
2
1 1
1

2

(11.156)
This form is known as the Jones - Wilkins - Lee (JWL) equation of state and is currently in
favor for hydrodynamic calculations of detonation product expansions to pressures down to
1 kbar. The values of the constants C
1
, r
1
, C
2
, r
2
, B and for many common explosives have
been determined from dynamic experiments and are available to AUTODYN users in a
provided material library. The values of these constants should be considered as a set of
interdependent parameters and one constant cannot be changed unilaterally without
considering the effect of this change on the other parameters. Care must be taken in using
this form if pressures go significantly above the CJ value since the exponential terms can
give an unrealistic behavior at high pressures. Some workers have modified the form of
equation to merge into a straight line adiabat above the CJ point, determining the constants
for the extrapolation by ensuring continuity in conditions at the CJ point.


Figure 11-27 Contribution of Various Terms in the JWL Equation to
the Total Adiabatic Pressure for Comp. B - Grade A (Lee, 1968)
6. Initiation of Detonation
An explosive may be initiated by various methods of delivering energy to it. However
whether an explosive is dropped, thermally irradiated or shocked, either mechanically or
from a shock from an initiator (of more sensitive explosive), initiation of an explosive always
goes through a stage in which a shock wave is an important feature. Simple models have
defined an initiation threshold in terms of impact pressure P and its duration (the P
2
model
(Walker & Wasley 1969)) or by values of an impacting projectiles velocity V and its diameter
d (the V
2
d model (Held 1984)).

These have been successful in providing satisfactory criteria in simple geometries but have
not been so successful for more complex problems. In these problems above the initiation
threshold and in normal studies of the detonation of high explosives it is assumed that the
shock wave is strong enough to give complete detonation of the explosive and an
instantaneous transition to the CJ state. The detonation wave is assumed to travel at the
prescribed detonation velocity D and its path from the predefined initiation point can be
214


215
7.
determined a priori. More complicated models of initiation and growth of detonation have
been developed in an attempt to explain the wealth of experimental results. An early model
was the Forest fire model (Mader & Forest 1976) while a later and more successful model
was the Lee-Tarver model (Lee & Tarver 1980). The latter model has been implemented in
AUTODYN.

Burn on Time
To model the process of detonating high explosive in AUTODYN it is usual to use the burn
on time option. In its ideal form this assumes that, on initiation, a detonation wave travels
away from the initiation point with constant detonation velocity, being refracted around any
inert obstacles in the explosive without moving the obstacle, maintaining a constant
detonation velocity in the refracted zone and detonating each particle of explosive on arrival
at that particle. Thus for a system such as that illustrated in Figure 11-28 where an inert
obstacle lies within a slab of explosive which is initiated at one end the detonation wave
travels radially away from the initiation point until it meets the obstacle, then travels around
the obstacle and travels on, being refracted within the shadow zone of the explosive which
lies behind the obstacle i.e. below the tangent OX in Figure 11-28.

Figure 11-28 Transit of Detonation Wave Around Inert Obstacle
For each cell in the initial AUTODYN mesh in the high explosive values for the arrival time of
the detonation wave at the cell and the transit time across the cell (based on the cell area
and diagonals to avoid directional variations) are required as inputs into the cell parameter
values. The true arrival time at a given cell is that along the shortest path from the initiation
point (or plane) to the nearest corner of the cell, taking full account of inert obstacles which
may be in the path of the detonation wave, and the wave is assumed to travel with constant
velocity equal to the predefined value of D. However, in Figure 11-28 while it is a simple
matter to determine the arrival time at a point such as A, being OA / D, to determine the

arrival time at a point such as B it is necessary to determine the distance OX, together with
the distance YB, the distance from B along its tangent to the obstacle and also the arc length
XY along the obstacle Values of YB and XY vary for all points in the shadow zone. Thus
determination of the arrival times of all points in the shadow zone would require very
extensive and time-consuming calculations and a simpler method is used in AUTODYN.

Figure 11-29 Initiation Points for Re-Entrant Region
If, in Figure 11-29, O
1
is the true initiation point, in order to account of the shadow zone
caused by the re-entrant corner at O
2
the point O
2
is defined as a secondary initiation point,
initiating at a time equal ti that at which the detonation wave from O
1
arrives at O
2
. The user
defines a separate region of influence for each true and pseudo-initiation point. See Figure
11-30, illustrating the regions of influence of the two initiation points O
1
and O
2
. In each
region of influence the detonation wave radiates away freely from the initiation point so that
the arrival time from that point is simply calculated. Then for the points X
1
, X
2
, X
3
and X
4
as
typical points within the explosive, if BT(X) is the burn time (i.e. the arrival time of the
detonation wave) at the point X, then

BT(X
1
) = O
1
X
1
/ D
BT(X
2
) = O
1
O
2
/ D + O
2
X
2
/ D
BT(X
3
) = Min [ O
1
X
3
; O
1
O
2
+ O
2
X
3
]/ D = O
1
X
3
/ D
(even though X
3
is within the region of influence of O
2
)

216


217

Figure 11-30 Regions of Influence of Initiation Points
Fractions of the chemical energy Q are fed in as energy inputs to the cell at appropriate
times so that by the time the detonation would have swept across the cell all the chemical
energy would have been input and the explosive within that cell would have been assumed
to have been completely detonated. The explosive would now be assumed to be detonation
products and its (p, v) state to lie on the CJ adiabat. However since the shock has not been
infinitely thin (since finite burn times and shock capturing techniques are used in AUTODYN)
it is not to be expected that the pressure will reach the theoretical CJ value during this
detonation process. The path followed by a typical cell in the (p, v) plane will be similar to
that shown in the adjoining Figure 11-31. The degree of closeness of the maximum pressure
during the burn to the CJ pressure will depend upon inter alia the run parameters (e.g. mesh
size, t, q, etc.) and the degree of confinement of the explosive. Cells on the outer surface of
unconfined explosive will be expanding as the energy is being input and may reach relatively
low peak pressures (see the section on constant volume burn below).

Figure 11-31 Path followed in (p, v) Plane by Burning Cell
With the introduction of version 4, the burn on time model for high explosives has several
new features:

8.
9.
Automatic initiation time of detonation points
Detonation points on a direct path from other detonation points / planes will have their
initiation times automatically determined from the initiation and transit times from these other
points / planes. This is the recommended method for modeling detonation around objects if
best accuracy is required.
Indirect burn paths
This option, if selected, will compute detonation paths as the shortest route through cells that
contain explosive. This is accomplished through the Global/Options/Explode/Path option. If
you select direct path, detonation paths are computed along a straight line from the
detonation point to the each cell center (as in version 3). If you select indirect path,
detonation paths are computed by finding the shortest path obtained by following straight
line segments connecting the centers of cells containing explosive. Using this option,
AUTODYN will automatically compute the correct detonation paths around wave-shapers,
218


219
10.
11.
12.
obstacles, corners, etc. Cell detonation times, which are indicated as negative numbers, can
be seen through contour plots of variable ALPHA.

In previous versions this had to be done with judicious use of multiple detonation points with
limited ranges of applications. The limiting of the range of application for a detonation point
is now no longer needed and has been removed from the options.

If you are using the direct path option, detonation nodes, lines and circles need not lie within
the grid for detonations to develop. For example, a detonation point can be specified at the
origin for a grid generated with a wedge predef (which has an inner radius greater than
zero). However, detonation points must lie within the grid if the indirect path option is used.
For the wedge predef, using the indirect path option, no detonation will occur unless the
detonation point is placed within the first radial cell of the grid.

One further limitation of the indirect path option is that paths cannot be computed through
multiple subgrids. If a detonation point is placed in one subgrid, the detonation from this
point cannot propagate to another subgrid. If this is required, you must place one or more
detonation points in the second subgrid with the appropriate initiation times required to
achieve the required detonation.
Detonation circles
In conjunction with the above changes, you can now, with the introduction of version 4,
define detonation points, lines (formerly referred to as planes) and circles (new).

Burn on Compression
An alternative option in AUTODYN for initiating detonation is that of burn on compression. In
this process the detonation wave is not predefined but the unburned explosive is initially treated
similarly to any other inert material. However, as an initiating shock travels through the
unburned explosive and traverses cells within the explosive the compression of all explosive
cells is monitored. If and when the compression in a cell reaches a predefined value the
chemical energy is allowed to be released at a controlled rate. The critical threshold
compression and the release rate are parameters that may be varied by the user and care must
be taken in their choice in order to obtain realistic results. This option may give unrealistic
results for unconfined regions of explosive since the material is free to expand at the time of
initial shock arrival and may not achieve sufficient compression to initiate energy release in a
realistic time scale. Typically, a burn logic based upon compression is more successful in a
Lagrangian frame rather than in an Eulerian frame.

Constant Volume Burn
A further option for modeling energy release in high explosives is that known as constant
volume burn. This model can give good results in problems which have relatively small
regions of explosive confined within larger regions and the times of interest follow the
expansion of the detonated explosive and the resultant diverging shocks for some

considerable time. In such cases the fine details of the detonation within the explosive
charge are of little significance. The chemical energy can be added to the initial values of the
cell values of the explosive material and the starting conditions evaluated with the material
still at rest and at its initial density. Since the Hugoniot and CJ adiabat are very close to one
another in the (p, v) plane the starting conditions are very close to the point P on the
adjoining figure (i.e. the point (p
P
,v
0
)). Hence the constant volume terminology.

Figure 11-32 Constant Volume Burn - Option
13. Initiation and Growth
Early experimental work on the initiation of detonation indicated that as a shock front
proceeded through a heterogeneous explosive it interacted with local density discontinuities,
producing numerous local hot spots that explode but do not propagate. However energy is
released which strengthens the shock so that when it interacts with further non-
homogeneities higher temperatures are produced at these hot spots and more of the
explosive is decomposed. The shock wave gets stronger and stronger, releasing more and
more energy at each local interaction, until it becomes strong enough to sustain propagating
detonation. There is thus a run distance for the build-up to detonation and it has been found
(Ramsay & Popolato 1965) that each explosive has a characteristic run to detonation versus
shock pressure - the so-called Pop plots. Making the further assumption that the explosive
would pass through the same pressure, distance and state of partial decomposition
regardless of the initial conditions, i.e. that it follows a unique path in distance, time and state
space Forest (1976) developed the Forest Fire model to be consistent with the Pop plots by
suitable choice of arbitrary coefficients. It was not however so successful in matching
pressure-time data obtained from gauges embedded in the explosive.
220


221
14.

Lee-Tarver Model
This model, as with Forest Fire, is based on the assumption that ignition starts at local hot spots
and grows outward from these sites. An early version (Lee & Tarver 1980) described a two-part
reaction rate model with a term for ignition of the explosive and a term describing the growth.
The reaction rate in this model was given by:
( ) ( )

F
t
I F G F F p
x
r
x
y z
= + 1 1 (11.157)
where the compression is, as usual,

=
0
1 (11.158)
F was the reaction ratio (ratio of the mass of the gaseous explosive to the total mass of the
explosive), p was the pressure in the explosive and I, x, r, G, y, and z were constants. In this
model r = 4, so the ignition term depended on the fourth power of the compression of the
explosive.

In a later model (Tarver, Hallquist & Erickson 1985) an additional term was added to overcome
the deficiencies of the earlier model in matching data for very short shock pulse initiation. In this
model, which is implemented in AUTODYN, there is a three fold process of ignition, growth and
completion and the reaction rate is given by:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

F
t
I F a G F F p G F F
b x e
d y
e
g z
= + + 1 1 1
1 2
p (11.159)
where F, and p are defined as above and I, b, a, x, G
1
, c, d, y, G
2
, e, g and z are
constants. For the explosive PBX-9404, x = 20, so the ignition term depends upon the 20th
power of the compression. The model described by the above equation gives a very rapid
pressure spike on ignition, followed by a slow growth of the reaction that accelerates when
the regions around the hot spots coalesce.

In AUTODYN the Lee-Tarver equation of state is used to model both the detonation and
expansion of high explosives. In version 3, the solid inert explosive is modeled using a shock
equation of state and the gaseous expansion products modeled with the JWL equation of
state with the reaction rate given by equation (11.159). With the introduction of version 4, the
Lee-Tarver ignition and growth model of explosive initiation in AUTODYN has been updated
to allow use of either a Shock EOS or a JWL EOS to model the unreacted explosive.
References

222

References

223

References

Amsden, A A & Hirt, C W. (1973) YAQUI: An Arbitrary Lagrangian -Eulerian Computer
Program for Fluid Flow at all SpeedsLos Alamos Report LA-5100 (March 1973)

Amsden, A A, Ruppel, H M, & Hirt, C W (1980). SALE: A Simplified ALE program for fluid
flow at all speeds, Los Alamos Report LA-8095, 1980

Amsden, A A, & Ruppel, H M, (1981). SALE-3D: A Simplified ALE program for calculating
three-dimensional fluid flow, Los Alamos Report LA-8905, 1981

Bakken, L H, & Anderson, P D (1969). An Equation of State Handbook (Conversion
Relations between the WONDY/TOODY and the PUFF/KO/HEMP Classes of Shock
Wave Propagation Computer Codes), Sandia Rep. SCI-DR-68-123, Sandia
Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, January 1969

Belytschko, T, et. al. (1984). Explicit algorithms for the nonlinear dynamics of shells,
Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 42, 225-251.

Belytschko, T, et. al. (1992). Advances in one-point quadrature shell elements, Comp.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 1992, 93-107.

Brodie & Hormuth (1966). The PUFF-66 Computer Program, AFWL-TR-66-48, Air Force
Weapons Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, May 1966

Butcher, B M, & Karnes, C H (1968). Sandia Labs. Res Rep. SC-RR-67-3040, Sandia
Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, April 1968

Butcher, B M (1970). Proc 17th Sagamore Conf., Sagamore, NY, 1970

Carroll, M M, & Holt, A C (1972). Static and Dynamic Pore Collapse Relations for Ductile
Porous Materials. J. Appl.Phys., 43, 4, pp1626 et seq., 1972

Case, J, & Chilvers, A H (1971). Strength of Materials and Structures, Arnold, 1971

Cochran, S G, & Guinan, M W (1976). Bauschinger Effect in Uranium, LLNL Rep. UCID-
17105, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1976

Cowler, M S (1973). The Numerical solution of the transient response of elastic-plastic
strain rate sensitive shells of revolution. UKAEA, TRG Report 6294(R/X), 1973
References

Cowler, M S & Hancock, S L (1979). Dynamic fluid-structure analysis of shells using the
PISCES 2DELK computer code. 5
th
Int. Conf. On Structural Dynamics in Reactor
Technology, 1979 Paper B1/6

Forest, C A (1978). Burning and Detonation, Los Alamos Rep. LA-7245, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, July 1978

Fowles, G R, & Curran, D G (1962). AFSWC -TDR- 62-22, Air Force Special Weapons
Center, 1962

Frank, R M,& Lazarus, R B (1964). Mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian Method. Methods in
Computational Physics Volume 3, Academic Press, pp47-68

Hancock, S (1976). Finite Difference Equations for PISCES-2DELK, TCAM-76-2, Physics
International, 1976

Hancock, S (1979). Soil and Rock Strength Models, PISCES-2DELK Application Note
78-14, Physics International, August 1979

Hallquist, J O, (1982) A theoretical manual for DYNA3D, LLNL Report UCID-19401, June
1982

Harlow, F H & Amsden, A A. (1971) A Numerical Fluid Dynamics Calculation Method for all
Flow Speeds. J. Comp. Phys. 8 pp197-213

Hayhurst, C J, Ranson, H J, Gardner, D J, & Birnbaum, N K (1994). Modeling of
Microparticle Hypervelocity Oblique Impacts on Thick Targets, Int. J. of Impact
Engineering, 17, 1994

Held, M (1984). Critical Area for the Initiation of High Explosive Charges, pp 555 et seq,
Shock Waves in Condensed Matter, Elsevier, 1984

Herrmann, W (1969). Constitutive Equation for the Dynamic Compaction of Ductile Porous
Materials, J. Appl. Phys., 40, 6, pp 2490-2499, May 1969

Hirt, C W, Amsden, A A & Cook, J L. (1974) An Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian Computing
Method for all Flow Speeds. J. Comp. Phys. 14 pp227-253.

224

References

225
Itoh, M & Cowler, M S (1987). An interactive Lagrangian approach to two dimensional
penetration analysis. 9
th
Int. Conf. On Structural Dynamics in Reactor Technology,
1987 Paper B2/5.

Itoh, M & Obata, H (1985). A two-dimensional simultaneous grid interaction algorithm in a
Lagrangian frame of reference. 8
th
Int. Conf. On Structural Dynamics in Reactor
Technology, 1985, Paper B2/5.

Johnson, G R, & Cook, W H (1983). A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals Subjected to
Large Strains, High Strain Rates and High Temperatures, Proc. Seventh Int. Nat.
Symposium on Ballistics, April 1983

Johnson G. R. & Holmquist T. J. (1993). An Improved Computational Constitutive Model for
Brittle Materials, Joint AIRA/APS Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, June
1993.

Kohn, B J (1969). Compilation of Hugoniot Equations of State AFWL-TR-69-38, Air Force
Weapons Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, April 1969

Lee, E L, Hornig, H C, & Kury, J W (1968). Adiabatic Expansion of High Explosive
Detonation Products. UCRL - 50422. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of
California, 1968

Lee, E L, & Tarver, C M (1980). Phenomenological Model of Shock Initiation in
Heterogeneous Explosives. Physics of Fluids, 23, 12, pp 2362-2372, 1980

McQueen, R G, & Marsh, S P (1960). Jour. Appl. Phys., 31,1253, 1960

Mader, C L, & Forrest, C (1976). Two-Dimensional Homogeneous and Heterogeneous
Detonation Wave Propagation, Los Alamos Rep. LA-6259, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, NM, June 1976

Morgan, K (1973). An Expansion Equation of State Subroutine, Comp. Phys. Comm., pp
64-68, 5, North-Holland, 1973

Noh, W F. (1964) CEL: A Time-dependent two-space-dimensional coupled Eulerian-
Lagrange code. . Methods in Computational Physics Volume 3, Academic Press,
pp117-179.

Persson, A (1990). CM1 - A simple Model for the Dynamic Deformation and Failure
Properties of Brittle Materials. Dynamic Research AB., Sweden, 1990

References

Ramsay, J B, & Popolato, A (1965). Analysis of Shock Wave and Initiation Data for Solid
Explosives, pp 233 et seq, Proc 4th Symposium on Detonation, October 1965

Rempel, J R, Schmidt, D N, Erkman, J L, & Isbell, W M (1966). Tech. Rep. WL-TR-64-119,
Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Feb. 1966

Rice, M H, McQueen, R G, & Walsh, J M, (1958). Solid State Physics, 6, 1958

Richtmyer, R. D. & Morton, K. W. (1967), Difference Methods for Initial Value Problems,
2nd edition, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1967

Salvadori, M G, Skalak, R, & Weidlinger P (1960). J. Eng. Mech. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc.
Civil Engrs., EM2, pp 2447 et seq, 1960

Skidmore, I C (1965). An Introduction to Shock Waves in Solids pp 131-147, Appl. Mat.
Res., July 1965

Skidmore, I C (1967). The Physics of Detonation, pp 239-257, Sci. Prog., 55, Oxford,
1967

Steinberg, D J, Cochran, S G, & Guinan, M W (1980). Constitutive Model for Metals
Applicable at High Strain Rate, J. Appl. Phys., 51, 3, March 1980

Tarver, C M, Hallquist, J O, & Erickson, L M (1985). Modeling Short Pulse Duration Shock
Initiation of Solid Explosives, pp 65 et seq, Proc. 8th Symposium on Detonation,
July 1985

Tillotson, J H (1962). Metallic Equations of State for Hypervelocity Impact,GA-3216,
General Atomic, San Diego, CA, July 1962

v d Hoek, M J (1978a). Modeling of Concrete by a Mohr-Coulomb Model, PISCES Tech.
Note TN-7802, Physics International, March, 1978

v d Hoek, M J (1978b). Modeling of Reinforced Concrete in PISCES-2DELK, PISCES
Tech. Note TN-7803, Physics International, December 1978

Van Leer, B (1977). Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme. IV. A new
Approach to Numerical Convection, J. Comp. Phys. 23, pp 276-299, 1977

Van Leer, B (1979). Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme. V. A Second
Order Sequel to Godunovs Method, J. Comp. Phys. 32, pp 101-136, 1979
226

References

227

van Thiel, (1967). General ed., Compendium of Shock Wave Data, UCRL 508, Vols. 1 &
2, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1968

von Mises, R (1928). Z. Angew Math. u. Mech., 8, [English Translation: UCRL Trans. 872]

von Neumann, J, Richtmeyer, R D (1950)., A Method for the Numerical Calculation of
Hydrodynamic Shocks, J. App. Phys., 21, pp 232-237, 1950

Walker, F E, & Wasley, R J (1969). Critical Energy for Shock Initiation of Heterogeneous
Explosives, pp 9 et seq, Explosivestoffe, 17, 9, 1969

Walsh, J M, Rice, M H, McQueen, R G, & Yarger, F L (1957) Phys. Rev., 108, 196, 1957

Wilkins, M L (1964). Calculation of Elastic-Plastic Flow, pp 211-263 in Methods of
Computational Physics, 3, eds. B Alder, S Fernback & M Rotenberg, Academic
Press, New York, 1964

Wilkins, M L (1973). Calculation of elastic-plastic flow. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Report UCRL-7322, revision 1, 1973

Wilkins, M L, Blum, R E, Cronshagen, E & Grantham, P (1974). A Method for Computer
Simulation of Problems in Solid Mechanics and Gas Dynamics in Three Dimensions
and Time. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Report UCRL-51574, 1974

Wilkins, M L, (1980). Use of Artificial Viscosity in Multidimensional Fluid Dynamic
Calculations, J. Comp. Phys., 36, pp 281-303, 1980

Youngs, D L (1982). Time-Dependent Multimaterial Flow with Large Fluid Distortion., in
Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, K W Morton & M J Baines (editors),
Academic Press, 1982

Zerilli, F J, & Armstrong, R W (1987). Dislocation-Mechanics based Constitutive Relations
for Material Dynamics Calculations, J. Appl. Phys., 61, 5, 1987

Zerilli, F J, & Armstrong, R W (1989). Dislocation-Mechanics Based Constitutive Relations
for Dynamic Straining to Tensile Instability, Amer. Phys. Soc. Topical Conf. on
Shock Waves in Condensed Matter, Albuquerque, NM, August 1989

Zukas, J A (1990). High Velocity Impact Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990

References

229
INDEX

A
ablation....................................................... 207
acceleration, nodal ....................................... 49
acoustic impedance................................ 52, 82
adiabatic exponent ..................................... 145
ALE advection ........................................ 94, 99
ALE computational cycle.............................. 90
ALE governing equations ............................. 86
ALE methodology ......................................... 90
ALE Processor in 2D and 3D ....................... 85
axial symmetry solution for shell nodal forces
............................................................... 124
B
B matrix, shell ..................................... 135, 137
Bauschinger effect...................................... 180
Belytschko-Tsay shell element ................... 129
blow-off ....................................................... 147
boundary conditions, 2D Lagrange ........ 5053
boundary conditions, 3D Lagrange .............. 80
boundary zones............................................ 32
brittle materials ........................................... 181
bulk failure models............. See failure models
bulk modulus .............................................. 145
burn on compression, detonation model .... 222
burn on time, detonation model ............ 21922
burn, constant volume detonation model ... 223
C
Cartesian coordinates, shell ....................... 132
cell coordinates, as programmed in
AUTODYN-3D.......................................... 64
cell surface in 3D space ............................... 62
cell volume.................................................... 64
centering of variables, shell ............. See shell,
centering of variables
ceramics, inelastic behavior of ................... 202
CFL condition ............................................. 103
Chapman-Jouget (CJ) hypothesis.............. 212
complex materials....................................... 147
concrete, inelastic behavior of .................... 202
Convention for zones and nodes.................. 66
Conventions
indexing.................................................... 89
coordinate system, Lagrange-2D................. 25
coordinate system, Lagrange-3D................. 57
coordinates, corotational (shell) ..................132
Courant condition........................................103
Courant condition for time step (lagrange)....53
Courant condition for time step (Lagrange) ..83
crack softening............................................205
crushing, progressive..................................203
cumulative damage model . See failure models
curvature terms, added to strain rates (shell)
................................................................137
D
damage factor .............................................203
damage function..........................................203
damage function, user subroutine for .........204
damping, static ..............................................49
deformation, Lagrange mesh ........................31
density...........................................................65
detonation....................................................148
detonation curve, Hugoniot diagram for......212
detonation velocity ......................................148
detonation wave, discontinuities across........210
detonation, burn on compression model .....222
detonation, burn on time model.............21922
detonation, constant volume burn...............223
detonation, initiation and growth .................223
detonation, initiation of ................................218
deviatoric, stress-strain relations...................27
distortion, excessive......................................47
distortional energy, change in .......................38
dumping, hourglass.................................44, 76
dumping, static ..............................................79
dynamic relaxation ..................................50, 79
E
effective geometric strain, incremental .......176
effective plastic strain..................................176
effective plastic strain rate...........................176
effective strains, calculation of ....................175
elastic flow region........................................166
elastic limit...................................................169
elastic-plastic material response.................173
energy conservation eq...........................28, 59
energy conservation, testing, errors........54, 84
energy equation, solution of ........................149
equation of state............................. 28, 59, 143
equation of state, hydrodynamic .................149
equation of state, solution of .......................149
Index

failure, post behavior .................................. 202 equations of motion, 3D Cartesian coordinates
.................................................................. 70 failure, post failure response ...................... 197
finite element formulation, shell ............ 13237 equations of motion, thin shell .................... 110
forces, anti-tangle......................................... 47 equations of state
forces, boundary..................................... 42, 74 expansion ............................................... 158
forces, internal .............................................. 39 ideal gas ................................................. 151
forces, pseudo viscous........................... 44, 75 linear....................................................... 152
forces, resistive, to inhibit tangling ............... 48 Mie-gruneisen......................................... 152
Forest fire model, for initiation of detonation
............................................................... 219
polynomial .............................................. 154
puff.......................................................... 162
fracture........................................................ 147 shock (Rankine-Hugoniot)...................... 155
Tillotson .................................................. 159
two-phase............................................... 164
G
equations of state for high explosives ........ 213
geometric strains, calculation of ................. 175
Equilibrium, thermodynamic ....................... 143
Gruneisen Gamma ..................... 145, 147, 153
Eroded node plotting................................... 210
Eroded nodes, retained inertia.................... 210
H
erosion .......................................................... 31
erosion criteria ...................................... 20710
high explosive equations of state
erosion model, effective geometric strain... 209
constant beta form ................................. 215
erosion model, effective plastic strain......... 209
Jones-Wilkins-Lee form.......................... 217
erosion model, instantaneous geometric strain
................................................................ 209
high explosive, adiabat for const. beta form of
EOS........................................................ 215
erosion model, selection of ......................... 209
high explosives............................. 148, 21025
Euler-Lagrange coupling............................... 21
high explosives equations of state
EXDAM, user sub. for damage function ..... 204
ideal gas form......................................... 214
EXEROD, user defined erosion criteria...... 210
Wilkins form........................................... 216
expansion equations of state See equations of
state
high explosives, equations of state ........... See
equations of state for high explosives
external forces ........................................ 42, 74
Hookes law........................................ 167, 168
EXYLD, sub. for user defined strength model
................................................................ 185
Hopkinson bar tensile test .......................... 179
hourglass dumping ................................. 44, 76
hourglass forces, shell................................ 139
F
hourglass instability ................................ 44, 76
Hugoniot curve, CJ point ............................ 212
failure models.............................................. 196
hydrodynamic tensile failure........... See failure
models
bulk (isotropic) ........................................ 198
bulk/ultimate/effective strain................... 198
hydrostatic pressure ..................................... 58
cumulative damage ................................ 202
directional ............................................... 199
I
hydrodynamic tensile (Pmin) .................. 198
Johnson-Holmquist................................. 181
ideal gas, equation of state .. See equations of
state
material strain......................................... 201
material stress ........................................ 200
impact/slide interfaces.................................. 21
material stress/strain .............................. 201
impedance, acoustic............................... 52, 82
principal strain ........................................ 199
Indexing conventions.................................... 89
principal stress........................................ 199
internal energy............................................ 144
principal stress/strain.............................. 199
interpolation functions, shell ....................... 134
processor(solver) dependence............... 198
user defined............................................ 207
J failure models, categories of................. 19798
failure, directional............... See failure models
Johnson-Cook model...... See strength models
failure, in orthotropic materials.................... 202
Johnson-Holmquist..................................... 205
230

References

231
Johnson-Holmquist brittle damage model .. 181
joined Euler grids.......................................... 21
joined Lagrange grids................................... 21
joined Lagrange nodes................................. 21
joined shell subgrids................................... 113
Jones-Wilkins-Lee form..... See high explosive
equations of state
L
Lagrange computation cycle .................. 29, 60
Lagrange subgrids...................... 2830, 5962
Lagrange, mesh tangling.............................. 47
Lam constants.......................................... 167
laminates .................................................... 147
Lee-Tarver model, for initiation of detonation
....................................................... 219, 224
linear equation of state See equations of state
logical coordinates........................................ 63
logical space................................................. 63
M
mass, initial ................................................... 65
mass, of shell segment............................... 114
material models, overview............................ 22
material strain failure ......... See failure models
material stress failure ........ See failure models
material stress/strain failure ........... See failure
models
membrane forces & moments, shell........... 138
membrane solution to shell equations........ 120
membrane, and shell .................................. 105
mesh tangling, Lagrange.............................. 47
Mie-Gruneisen equation of state ............... See
equations of state
Mindlin plate theory .............................. 12932
Mohr-Coulomb model ..... See strength models
momentum conservation eqs.
axial symmetry ......................................... 26
planar symmetry....................................... 26
momentum conservation, testing, errors 54, 84
momentum, conservation eqs. ............... 26, 57
Motion constraints
ALE........................................................... 91
N
nodal accelerations....................................... 49
nodal displacement, Lagrange ..................... 49
nodal forces.................................................. 70
nodal forces, calculation of ........................... 39
nodal forces, shell....................................... 139
nodes convention....................................29, 60
notation table.............................................915
O
octahedral plane..........................................170
orthotropic elastic model See strength models
orthotropic materials....................................193
P
P- (porous) model ........ See strength models
phase diagrams...........................................145
piecewise model............. See strength models
planar geometry solution for shell nodal forces
................................................................121
plastic flow...................................................169
plastic flow region........................................169
polynomial equation of state See equations of
state
porous (piecewise-linear) model . See strength
models
porous material, compaction of ...................192
porous materials..........................................185
pressure boundaries ...............................51, 81
pressure boundaries, shell ..........................127
principal axes ..............................................166
principal axis................................................194
principal strain failure ......... See failure models
principal stress failure ........ See failure models
principal stress/strain failure........... See failure
models
principal stresses ............................... 167, 169
processor coupling.. See processors, overview
processors, overview ..............................1822
Euler..........................................................19
Lagrange...................................................19
processor coupling....................................21
structural ...................................................21
Processors, overview
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrange Euler) ................20
puff equation of state.... See equations of state
P-V plane, regions in.............................16063
R
Rankine Hugoniot relations: ........................212
Rankine-Hugoniot equations for HE ...........211
Rayleigh line................................................211
reference curves, for p(v), e(v)....................154
references ...................................................227
Regrid phase, ALE........................................92
relaxation factor, ALE....................................90
Index

strain rates, expressions for ......................... 34 relaxation, dynamic................................. 49, 79
strain rates, for translational & axial
symmetries............................................... 35
remapping, and rezoning.............................. 54
Rezone Tutorial ............................................ 55
strain rates, shell ................................ 135, 137 rezoning .................................................. 25, 31
strain tensor............................................ 27, 58 rezoning, and remapping.............................. 54
strain, elastic............................................... 147 rezoning, conditions for................................. 54
strain, plastic............................................... 147 rezoning, fraction of the new cell covered .... 55
strain, rate................................................... 147 rezoning, Lagrange grid.......................... 2455
strain, tensile .............................................. 147 rezoning, the two stages of........................... 54
strength effects, modeling of ................ 16692
strength models.................................... 17796
S
Johnson-Cook ........................................ 178
saturation curve .................................. 164, 165
Johnson-Holmquist ................................ 181
saturation curve data, subroutine EXTAB .. 165
Mohr-Coulomb ....................................... 178
shape functions, shell ................................. 134
orthotropic ...................................... 193, 196
shear modulus ........................................ 37, 68
P- (porous) model ................................ 190
shear strength............................................. 147
piecewise................................................ 181
shell..................................... See also thin shell
piecewise-linear (porous) ....................... 187
shell end node, constant angle constraint .. 117
Steinberg-Guinan................................... 180
shell end node, curvature at ....................... 117
thermomechanical .................................. 183
shell internal forces..................................... 120
user defined............................................ 185
shell nodal forces........................................ 120
Zerilli-Armstrong..................................... 179
shell segment, mass of ............................... 114
stress deviators, calculation of ..................... 68
shell segment, volume of ............................ 114
stress increments ......................................... 37
shell subgrid, interaction with Euler ............ 112
stress rotation correction........................ 38, 69
shell subgrid, interaction with Lagrange ..... 112
stress tensor ................................................. 57
shell subgrid, overlapping with Lagrange ... 113
stress tensor, deviatoric.............................. 143
shell subgrids.............................................. 112
stress tensor, hydrostatic pressure ............ 143
shell velocity constraints............................. 127
stress tensor, updated............................ 39, 70
shell, 3D coordinate systems...................... 129
stress wave profiles.................................... 173
shell, B matrix ..................................... 135, 137
stress, non-linear, static equilibrium problems
................................................................. 49
shell, bending moments.............................. 119
shell, boundary conditions .......................... 126
stresses, shell ............................................. 118
shell, centering of variables ........................ 113
symmetry, axis of.......................................... 26
Shell, curvature........................................... 114
shell, elastic & plastic strain increments..... 118
T
shell, finite element formulation ............ 13237
shell, pressure boundaries.......................... 127 Tarver, Hallquist & Erickson, model for initiation
of detonation ........................................... 224 shell, strains................................................ 114
shell, stress resultants ................................ 119 temperature, calculation of ......................... 148
shell, time step............................................ 128 tensile failure .............................................. 198
shock equation of state See equations of state tensile limit .................................................. 150
shock Hugoniot ........................................... 147 thermomechanical model See strength models
single phase region..................................... 164 thin shell .................................... See also shell
specific distortional energy, change in.......... 69 Thin shell processor, 2D....................... 10528
static equilibrium non-linear stress, solving of
.................................................................. 49
thin shell, computational cycle.................... 105
thin shell, equations of motion.................... 110
static equilibrium non-linear stress, solving of
.................................................................. 79
thin shell, governing equations................... 106
thin shell, principal stresses ....................... 111
Steinberg-Guinan model . See strength models thin shell, stresses and bending moments . 111
strain displacement relations ...................... 108 thin shell, sublayer stresses ....................... 112
strain rates .............................................. 27, 34 Tillotson equation of state..... See equations of
state strain rates, calculation of ............................. 65
232

References

time step, Courant condition (Lagrange) 53, 83
time step, maximum............................... 53, 83
time step, safety factor ........................... 53, 83
time step, shell............................................ 128
time step, stability condition ................... 53, 84
time step, value for next time-step of
integration................................................. 84
time step, value for next time-step of
integration................................................. 54
Timestep
ALE......................................................... 102
transmitting boundaries .................... 5153, 81
Tresca condition, elastic limit ..................... 169
two-phase equation of state . See equations of
state
two-phase region........................................ 165
U
User defined erosion criteria ...................... 210
user defined strength model ........ See strength
models
V
variables notation table............................. 915
variables, centering.................................30, 61
variables, locations in cell .......................30, 61
velocity constraints..................................51, 80
velocity constraints, shell ............................127
velocity derivatives, integration of .................65
velocity of sound .........................................145
volume, change in.........................................37
volume, of shell segment ............................114
volume, rate of change..................................58
Von Mises yield criterion .................... 169, 176
W
Wilkins...........................................................89
Wilkins form. See high explosive equations of
state
Z
Zerilli-Armstrong model .. See strength models
zonal area, change of....................................34
zone areas, computation of...........................32
zone volumes ................................................32
zones convention ....................................29, 60

233
Table of Figures

Table of Figures
Figure 3-1 Lagrangian Mesh Distortion................................................................................. 25
Figure 3-2 Examples of Lagrangian Subgrids....................................................................... 28
Figure 3-3 (I, J) Convention for Zones and Nodes................................................................ 29
Figure 3-4 Lagrange Computation Cycle .............................................................................. 30
Figure 3-5 Location of Variables ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-6 Typical Rezone Procedure................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-7 Computation of Zonal Areas ................................................................................ 32
Figure 3-8 Determination of Internal Forces.......................................................................... 39
Figure 3-9 Determination of Boundary Forces ...................................................................... 42
Figure 3-10 Zone Distortion with No Change of Strain or Stress .......................................... 44
Figure 3-11 Region of Hourglass Distortion .......................................................................... 44
Figure 3-12 Typical Lagrangian Mesh Tangling.................................................................... 46
Figure 4-1 Oblique Impact of a Steel Projectile on an Aluminum Target .............................. 55
Figure 4-2 (I, J, K) Convention for Zones and Nodes............................................................ 59
Figure 4-3 Lagrange Computation Cycle .............................................................................. 60
Figure 4-4 Location of Variables ........................................................................................... 61
Figure 4-5 Surfaces Defined by Four Cell Nodes.................................................................. 61
Figure 4-6 Relationship between Computational Cell in the Physical (x,y,z) Space to the Unit
Cube in (, , ) Space.................................................................................................. 62
Figure 4-7 (I, J, K) Convention for Zones and Nodes............................................................ 64
Figure 4-8 Determination of Nodal Forces in Three Dimensions .......................................... 70
Figure 4-9 Surface of Integration for a Boundary Force........................................................ 72
Figure 4-10 2D Zone Distortion with No Change of Strain or Stress................................... 74
Figure 4-11 3D Hourglass Distortion.................................................................................... 74
Figure 5-1 Convention for Zones and Nodes in 2D and 3D Geometries............................... 86
Figure 5-2 ALE Computation Cycle....................................................................................... 87
Figure 5-3 Potential Lagrange and constrained grids ........................................................... 90
Figure 5-4 Face of a three-dimensional cell in potential Lagrange and constrained grids.... 95
Figure 6-1 Computational Cycle for Shells.......................................................................... 104
Figure 6-2 Nomenclature for a Thin Shell in Planar Symmetry........................................... 105
Figure 6-3 Nomenclature for a Thin Shell in Axial Symmetry.............................................. 105
Figure 6-4 Internal Forces on a Shell Element in Planar Symmetry ................................... 107
Figure 6-5 Internal Forces on a Shell Element in Axial Symmetry...................................... 108
Figure 6-6 Interaction of One or more Shell Subgrids......................................................... 111
Figure 6-7 Representation of Shell Elements and Centering of Dependent Variables ....... 111
Figure 6-8 Angle between Two Line Segments .................................................................. 113
Figure 6-9 Constant Angle Constraint at an End Node....................................................... 115
Figure 6-10 Nodal Force Calculation on Two Adjacent Segments...................................... 118
234

Table of Figures

Figure 11-1 Phase Diagram, Hugoniot and Adiabats.......................................................... 143
Figure 11-2 Bi-linear Fit to Shock Velocity-Particle Velocity Relationship........................... 153
Figure 11-3 Incorrect Minimum to Analytic Fit to Adiabats.................................................. 155
Figure 11-4 Regions of Interest in the (p, v) Plane.............................................................. 156
Figure 11-5 Regions of Interest in the (p, v) Plane.............................................................. 160
Figure 11-6 Von Mises Yield Criterion................................................................................. 167
Figure 11-7 One-Dimensional strain: Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Material .............................. 168
Figure 11-8 Stress-Strain Relationship Showing Elas.-Plas. Mat. Response ..................... 169
Figure 11-9 Stress Wave Profiles with and without Elastic Precursors............................... 170
Figure 11-10 Mohr-Coulomb Model: Yield Stress as a Piecewise Linear Function of Pressure
.................................................................................................................................... 174
Figure 11-11 Johnson-Holmquist Strength Model ............................................................... 178
Figure 11-12 Johnson-Holmquist Failure Model ................................................................. 178
Figure 11-13 Loading-Unloading Behavior for a Porous Solid............................................ 182
Figure 11-14 Pressure, Density, and Porosity Curves for Piecewise Linear Porous Equation
of State........................................................................................................................ 184
Figure 11-15 Compaction of a Ductile Porous Material....................................................... 187
Figure 11-16 Definition of the First Principal Axis ............................................................... 190
Figure 11-17 Cumulative Damage as a Function of Effective Plastic Strain....................... 197
Figure 11-18 Yield Stress as a Function of Cumulative Damage........................................ 198
Figure 11-19 Bulk and Shear Moduli as Functions of Cumulative Damage........................ 199
Figure 11-20 Crack Softening Basics.................................................................................. 203
Figure 11-21 Comparison of Experimental Crater Dimensions and AUTODYN-2D Results for
Different Erosion Strains (Figure 3 of Hayhurst et al (1994)) ...................................... 205
Figure 11-22 Discontinuities Across a Detonation Wave .................................................... 207
Figure 11-23 Hugoniot Diagram for a Detonation Wave ..................................................... 208
Figure 11-24 Adiabat for Ideal Gas Form of Equation of State ........................................... 210
Figure 11-25 Adiabat for Constant Beta Form of Equation of State.................................... 212
Figure 11-26 Adiabat for Wilkins Form of Equation of State .............................................. 213
Figure 11-27 Contribution of Various Terms in the JWL Equation to the Total Adiabatic
Pressure for Comp. B - Grade A (Lee, 1968) .............................................................. 214
Figure 11-28 Transit of Detonation Wave Around Inert Obstacle ....................................... 215
Figure 11-29 Initiation Points for Re-Entrant Region........................................................... 216
Figure 11-30 Regions of Influence of Initiation Points......................................................... 217
Figure 11-31 Path followed in (p, v) Plane by Burning Cell ................................................. 218
Figure 11-32 Constant Volume Burn - Option..................................................................... 220

235

Theory Manual

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Theory Manual

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AUTODYN

Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics

hoop bending moment

meridional bending moment

meridional shear stress resultant

meridional radius of curvature

hoop radius of curvature

stress deviator tensor

hoop curvature = 1/R

& & &

where and are curvatures, equal to the reciprocals of R

are the bending moments and Q

is the transverse shear force. In planar

. When the effect of rotational inertia is neglected (it involves factors of

, and bending moments M

) and the principal curvatures of the mid-surface are

), the angle (), the segment length (s)

) are centered at mid-segment positions. If nodal variables

are the principal stress

violate the yield condition (6.29) they must be

where the forces are estimated using equations (6.7)

where k is the safety factor (the default value is 2/3).

Substituting (11.19) into (11.18) gives

is greater than the plastic (or bulk) sound speed c

The effective plastic strain rate is given by

Chapter 11. Material Modeling

and dT in equations (11.108) and (11.110), compute

equals dQ, the heat added, we obtain from equations

where q is the artificial viscosity, and

The inverse of the above stiffness matrix for two-dimensional configurations is

Potrebbero piacerti anche