skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Summary compilation of shell element performance versus formulation.

Abstract

This document compares the finite element shell formulations in the Sierra Solid Mechanics code. These are finite elements either currently in the Sierra simulation codes Presto and Adagio, or expected to be added to them in time. The list of elements are divided into traditional two-dimensional, plane stress shell finite elements, and three-dimensional solid finite elements that contain either modifications or additional terms designed to represent the bending stiffness expected to be found in shell formulations. These particular finite elements are formulated for finite deformation and inelastic material response, and, as such, are not based on some of the elegant formulations that can be found in an elastic, infinitesimal finite element setting. Each shell element is subjected to a series of 12 verification and validation test problems. The underlying purpose of the tests here is to identify the quality of both the spatially discrete finite element gradient operator and the spatially discrete finite element divergence operator. If the derivation of the finite element is proper, the discrete divergence operator is the transpose of the discrete gradient operator. An overall summary is provided from which one can rank, at least in an average sense, how well the individual formulations can bemore » expected to perform in applications encountered year in and year out. A letter grade has been assigned albeit sometimes subjectively for each shell element and each test problem result. The number of A's, B's, C's, et cetera assigned have been totaled, and a grade point average (GPA) has been computed, based on a 4.0-system. These grades, combined with a comparison between the test problems and the application problem, can be used to guide an analyst to select the element with the best shell formulation.« less

Authors:
;  [1]; ;  [2]
  1. (Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID)
  2. (FMA Development, LLC, Great Falls, MT)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Laboratories
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1029819
Report Number(s):
SAND2011-7287
TRN: US201201%%228
DOE Contract Number:  
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS//MATHEMATICS, COMPUTING, AND INFORMATION SCIENCE; BENDING; DEFORMATION; FLEXIBILITY; MODIFICATIONS; PERFORMANCE; SIMULATION; VALIDATION; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Heinstein, Martin Wilhelm, Hales, Jason Dean, Breivik, Nicole L., and Key, Samuel W. Summary compilation of shell element performance versus formulation.. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.2172/1029819.
Heinstein, Martin Wilhelm, Hales, Jason Dean, Breivik, Nicole L., & Key, Samuel W. Summary compilation of shell element performance versus formulation.. United States. doi:10.2172/1029819.
Heinstein, Martin Wilhelm, Hales, Jason Dean, Breivik, Nicole L., and Key, Samuel W. Fri . "Summary compilation of shell element performance versus formulation.". United States. doi:10.2172/1029819. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1029819.
@article{osti_1029819,
title = {Summary compilation of shell element performance versus formulation.},
author = {Heinstein, Martin Wilhelm and Hales, Jason Dean and Breivik, Nicole L. and Key, Samuel W.},
abstractNote = {This document compares the finite element shell formulations in the Sierra Solid Mechanics code. These are finite elements either currently in the Sierra simulation codes Presto and Adagio, or expected to be added to them in time. The list of elements are divided into traditional two-dimensional, plane stress shell finite elements, and three-dimensional solid finite elements that contain either modifications or additional terms designed to represent the bending stiffness expected to be found in shell formulations. These particular finite elements are formulated for finite deformation and inelastic material response, and, as such, are not based on some of the elegant formulations that can be found in an elastic, infinitesimal finite element setting. Each shell element is subjected to a series of 12 verification and validation test problems. The underlying purpose of the tests here is to identify the quality of both the spatially discrete finite element gradient operator and the spatially discrete finite element divergence operator. If the derivation of the finite element is proper, the discrete divergence operator is the transpose of the discrete gradient operator. An overall summary is provided from which one can rank, at least in an average sense, how well the individual formulations can be expected to perform in applications encountered year in and year out. A letter grade has been assigned albeit sometimes subjectively for each shell element and each test problem result. The number of A's, B's, C's, et cetera assigned have been totaled, and a grade point average (GPA) has been computed, based on a 4.0-system. These grades, combined with a comparison between the test problems and the application problem, can be used to guide an analyst to select the element with the best shell formulation.},
doi = {10.2172/1029819},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2011},
month = {7}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: