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

Title: Contact Interface Verification for DYNA3D Scenario 1: Basic Contact

Abstract

A suite of test problems has been developed to examine contact behavior within the nonlinear, three-dimensional, explicit finite element analysis (FEA) code DYNA3D (Lin, 2005). The test problems address the basic functionality of the contact algorithms, including the behavior of various kinematic, penalty, and Lagrangian enforcement formulations. The results from the DYNA3D analyses are compared to closed form solutions to verify the contact behavior. This work was performed as part of the Verification and Validation efforts of LLNL W Program within the NNSA's Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program. DYNA3D models the transient dynamic response of solids and structures including the interactions between disjoint bodies (parts). A wide variety of contact surfaces are available to represent the diverse interactions possible during an analysis, including relative motion (sliding), separation and gap closure (voids), and fixed relative position (tied). The problem geometry may be defined using a combination of element formulations, including one-dimensional beam and truss elements, two-dimensional shell elements, and three-dimensional solid elements. Consequently, it is necessary to consider various element interactions for each contact algorithm being verified. Most of the contact algorithms currently available in DYNA3D are examined; the exceptions are the Type 4--Single Surface Contact and Type 11--SAND algorithms.more » It is likely that these algorithms will be removed since their functionality is embodied in other, more robust, contact algorithms. The automatic contact algorithm is evaluated using the Type 12 interface. Two other variations of automatic contact, Type 13 and Type 14, offer additional means to adapt the interface domain, but share the same search and restoration algorithms as Type 12. The contact algorithms are summarized in Table 1. This report and associated test problems examine the scenario where one contact surface exists between two disjoint bodies. These test problems focus on whether a particular contact algorithm properly represents the interactions along the interface. A companion report (McMichael, 2006) and test problems address the multi-contact scenario in which multiple bodies interact with each other via multiple interfaces. The multi-contact test problems examine whether any ordering issues exist in the contact logic. The test problems are analyzed using version 5.2 (compiled on 12/22/2005) of DYNA3D. The analytical results are used to form baseline solutions for subsequent regression testing.« less

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
898003
Report Number(s):
UCRL-TR-221283
TRN: US200705%%516
DOE Contract Number:
W-7405-ENG-48
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
42 ENGINEERING; ALGORITHMS; CLOSURES; ENFORCEMENT; GEOMETRY; LAGRANGIAN FUNCTION; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY; SIMULATION; TESTING; TRANSIENTS; VALIDATION; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

McMichael, L D. Contact Interface Verification for DYNA3D Scenario 1: Basic Contact. United States: N. p., 2006. Web. doi:10.2172/898003.
McMichael, L D. Contact Interface Verification for DYNA3D Scenario 1: Basic Contact. United States. doi:10.2172/898003.
McMichael, L D. Wed . "Contact Interface Verification for DYNA3D Scenario 1: Basic Contact". United States. doi:10.2172/898003. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/898003.
@article{osti_898003,
title = {Contact Interface Verification for DYNA3D Scenario 1: Basic Contact},
author = {McMichael, L D},
abstractNote = {A suite of test problems has been developed to examine contact behavior within the nonlinear, three-dimensional, explicit finite element analysis (FEA) code DYNA3D (Lin, 2005). The test problems address the basic functionality of the contact algorithms, including the behavior of various kinematic, penalty, and Lagrangian enforcement formulations. The results from the DYNA3D analyses are compared to closed form solutions to verify the contact behavior. This work was performed as part of the Verification and Validation efforts of LLNL W Program within the NNSA's Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program. DYNA3D models the transient dynamic response of solids and structures including the interactions between disjoint bodies (parts). A wide variety of contact surfaces are available to represent the diverse interactions possible during an analysis, including relative motion (sliding), separation and gap closure (voids), and fixed relative position (tied). The problem geometry may be defined using a combination of element formulations, including one-dimensional beam and truss elements, two-dimensional shell elements, and three-dimensional solid elements. Consequently, it is necessary to consider various element interactions for each contact algorithm being verified. Most of the contact algorithms currently available in DYNA3D are examined; the exceptions are the Type 4--Single Surface Contact and Type 11--SAND algorithms. It is likely that these algorithms will be removed since their functionality is embodied in other, more robust, contact algorithms. The automatic contact algorithm is evaluated using the Type 12 interface. Two other variations of automatic contact, Type 13 and Type 14, offer additional means to adapt the interface domain, but share the same search and restoration algorithms as Type 12. The contact algorithms are summarized in Table 1. This report and associated test problems examine the scenario where one contact surface exists between two disjoint bodies. These test problems focus on whether a particular contact algorithm properly represents the interactions along the interface. A companion report (McMichael, 2006) and test problems address the multi-contact scenario in which multiple bodies interact with each other via multiple interfaces. The multi-contact test problems examine whether any ordering issues exist in the contact logic. The test problems are analyzed using version 5.2 (compiled on 12/22/2005) of DYNA3D. The analytical results are used to form baseline solutions for subsequent regression testing.},
doi = {10.2172/898003},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed May 10 00:00:00 EDT 2006},
month = {Wed May 10 00:00:00 EDT 2006}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • A suite of test problems has been developed to examine contact behavior within the nonlinear, three-dimensional, explicit finite element analysis (FEA) code DYNA3D (Lin, 2005). The test problems use multiple interfaces and a combination of enforcement methods to assess the basic functionality of the contact algorithms. The results from the DYNA3D analyses are compared to closed form solutions to verify the contact behavior. This work was performed as part of the Verification and Validation efforts of LLNL W Program within the NNSA's Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program. DYNA3D models the transient dynamic response of solids and structures including themore » interactions between disjoint bodies (parts). A wide variety of contact surfaces are available to represent the diverse interactions possible during an analysis, including relative motion (sliding), separation and gap closure (voids), and fixed relative position (tied). The problem geometry may be defined using a combination of element formulations, including one-dimensional beam and truss elements, two-dimensional shell elements, and three-dimensional solid elements. Consequently, it is necessary to consider various element interactions during contact. This report and associated test problems examine the scenario where multiple bodies interact with each other via multiple interfaces. The test problems focus on whether any ordering issues exist in the contact logic by using a combination of interface types, contact enforcement options (i.e., penalty, Lagrange, and kinematic), and element interactions within each problem. The influence of rigid materials on interface behavior is also examined. The companion report (McMichael, 2006) and associated test problems address the basic contact scenario where one contact surface exists between two disjoint bodies. The test problems are analyzed using version 5.2 (compiled on 12/22/2005) of DYNA3D. The analytical results are used to form baseline solutions for subsequent regression testing. In section 2, the test problems are presented, and the static solution is developed for two idealized systems. Section 3 describes the finite element representation of the generic problem, including the interface combinations considered. The verification criteria and expected results are presented next in section 4. Section 5 discusses the numerical results obtained from each test problem. Finally, section 6 summarizes the observed interface behavior.« less
  • The explicit finite element (FE) software program DYNA3D has been developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to simulate the dynamic behavior of structures, systems, and components. This report focuses on verification of beam and truss element formulations in DYNA3D. An efficient protocol has been developed to verify the accuracy of these structural elements by generating a set of representative problems for which closed-form quasi-static steady-state analytical reference solutions exist. To provide as complete coverage as practically achievable, problem sets are developed for each beam and truss element formulation (and their variants) in all modes of loading and physical orientation.more » Analyses with loading in the elastic and elastic-plastic regimes are performed. For elastic loading, the FE results are within 1% of the reference solutions for all cases. For beam element bending and torsion loading in the plastic regime, the response is heavily dependent on the numerical integration rule chosen, with higher refinement yielding greater accuracy (agreement to within 1%). Axial loading in the plastic regime produces accurate results (agreement to within 0.01%) for all integration rules and element formulations. Truss elements are also verified to provide accurate results (within 0.01%) for elastic and elastic-plastic loading. A sample problem to verify beam element response in ParaDyn, the parallel version DYNA3D, is also presented.« less
  • A series of quasi-static regression/verification problems were developed for the triangular and quadrilateral shell element formulations contained in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's explicit finite element program DYNA3D. Each regression problem imposes both displacement- and force-type boundary conditions to probe the five independent nodal degrees of freedom employed in the targeted formulation. When applicable, the finite element results are compared with small-strain linear-elastic closed-form reference solutions to verify select aspects of the formulations implementation. Although all problems in the suite depict the same geometry, material behavior, and loading conditions, each problem represents a unique combination of shell formulation, stabilization method, andmore » integration rule. Collectively, the thirty-six new regression problems in the test suite cover nine different shell formulations, three hourglass stabilization methods, and three families of through-thickness integration rules.« less
  • We examined the influence of geologic features present at the reservoir/caprock interface on the transmission of supercritical CO 2 into and through caprock. We focused on the case of deformation-band faults in reservoir lithologies that intersect the interface and transition to opening-mode fractures in caprock lithologies. Deformation-band faults are exceeding common in potential CO 2 injection units and our fieldwork in Utah indicates that this sort of transition is common. To quantify the impact of these interface features on flow and transport we first described the sedimentology and permeability characteristics of selected sites along the Navajo Sandstone (reservoir lithology) andmore » Carmel Formation (caprock lithology) interface, and along the Slickrock Member (reservoir lithology) and Earthy Member (caprock lithology) of the Entrada Sandstone interface, and used this information to construct conceptual permeability models for numerical analysis. We then examined the impact of these structures on flow using single-phase and multiphase numerical flow models for these study sites. Key findings include: (1) Deformation-band faults strongly compartmentalize the reservoir and largely block cross-fault flow of supercritical CO 2. (2) Significant flow of CO 2 through the fractures is possible, however, the magnitude is dependent on the small-scale geometry of the contact between the opening-mode fracture and the deformation band fault. (3) Due to the presence of permeable units in the caprock, caprock units are capable of storing significant volumes of CO 2, particularly when the fracture network does not extend all the way through the caprock. The large-scale distribution of these deformation-bandfault-to-opening-mode-fractures is related to the curvature of the beds, with greater densities of fractures in high curvature regions. We also examined core and outcrops from the Mount Simon Sandstone and Eau Claire Formation reservoir/caprock interface in order to extend our work to a reservoir/caprock pair this is currently being assessed for long-term carbon storage. These analyses indicate that interface features similar to those observed at the Utah sites 3 were not observed. Although not directly related to our main study topic, one byproduct of our investigation is documentation of exceptionally high degrees of heterogeneity in the pore-size distribution of the Mount Simon Sandstone. This suggests that the unit has a greater-than-normal potential for residual trapping of supercritical CO 2.« less