1 / 14

Comparison of EFG and Standard Elements for the Rubber Membrane in a Biomedical Valve in LS-DYNA 970.5434

Comparison of EFG and Standard Elements for the Rubber Membrane in a Biomedical Valve in LS-DYNA 970.5434. Rudolf Bötticher www.rudolf-boetticher.de . Motivation. Assess whether EFG with FSI and MMALE is possible. Compare the results with standard elements.

redell
Télécharger la présentation

Comparison of EFG and Standard Elements for the Rubber Membrane in a Biomedical Valve in LS-DYNA 970.5434

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of EFG and Standard Elementsfor the Rubber Membrane in a Biomedical Valve in LS-DYNA 970.5434 Rudolf Bötticher www.rudolf-boetticher.de 

  2. Motivation • Assess whether EFG with FSI and MMALE is possible. • Compare the results with standard elements. • Assess whether EFG is more robust. www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  3. EFG is easy! *CONTROL_EFG $ in 970 EFG and (dormant) IMPLICIT cards are not tolerated $ in the same deck $ implicit and axisymmetric EFG not implemented! *SECTION_SOLID_EFG 5,41 $ the non-default bigger support helps to have consistent $ EFG simulations for *MAT_MOONEY-RIVLIN_RUBBER 1.5,1.5,1.5 www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  4. MM-ALE is easy, if you got a working deck to refine! *ALE_MULTI-MATERIAL_GROUP Proceedings www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  5. FSI: Tweaking of *CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID 3854, 5434 and newer beta versions deliver different results for identical decks! TSSFAC NADV METH CTYPE DIREC PFAC ILEAK www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  6. AET=4 *EOS_GRUENEISEN ELFORM=11 *MAT_NULL *MAT_MOONEY-RIVLIN_RUBBER *EOS_IDEAL_GAS www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  7. Why LS-DYNA for this problem? • Curiosity • Code is at your disposal • Expect the same efficiency as for parallel crash simulation • Rely on the advanced material modeling CFX may be better www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  8. Membrane covered with null shells Filling with *MAT_VACUUM www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  9. CTYPE=4 CTYPE=5 DIREC=3 PFAC=0.1 www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  10. near incompressibility and mm dimensions require tiny time step A=500MPa no implicit, no time step split between rubber/ALE domain, no mass scaling! A=100MPa PR=0.49 www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  11. 5831 beta version delivers different results. However, problem not solved. FSI not robust against artificial shortening of time step. No difference between EFG and standard elements. www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  12. Robustness • It proves difficult generating an extreme situation where EFG works but standard elements do not! • EFG may be superior preventing hourglass modes. www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  13. EFG performance lack: 10% elements switched, CPU time +20% ELFORM=1 *HOURGLASS,6 EFG www.rudolf-boetticher.de

  14. Conclusions • FSI simulations with MMALE and structural EFG solids are possible in LS-DYNA. • Here no real advantage of EFG over standard elements. • EFG may be better in hourglass prevention. • Time step dependence of FSI needs further investigation! www.rudolf-boetticher.de

More Related