Computational & Technology Resources
an online resource for computational,
engineering & technology publications |
|
Civil-Comp Proceedings
ISSN 1759-3433 CCP: 75
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGY Edited by: B.H.V. Topping and Z. Bittnar
Paper 23
Effects of Kinematic Inconsistency in Interface Elements A.L.G.A. Coutinho, M.A.D. Martins and R.M. Sydenstricker
Center of Parallel Computing, COPPE/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil A.L.G.A. Coutinho, M.A.D. Martins, R.M. Sydenstricker, "Effects of Kinematic Inconsistency in Interface Elements", in B.H.V. Topping, Z. Bittnar, (Editors), "Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Structures Technology", Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper 23, 2002. doi:10.4203/ccp.75.23
Keywords: interface elements, kinematic inconsistency, finite elements analysis.
Summary
Interface elements have been used in many engineering problems since late sixties.
The two-dimensional element proposed by Goodman et al. [1] in 1968 is often
referred to as the first application of an interface element. Its formulation was
derived by interpolating displacement fields in two faces separated by a null
thickness, and strains were obtained from relative movements of the faces. Since
then, several interface elements were proposed, many of which were based in the
same idea of the original approach. Membrane and solid elements with minor or no
modifications and a small thickness were also used [2,3]. A third approach was to
use linkage elements, in which opposite nodes were connected by discrete springs.
According to Kaliakin and Li [4], although the Goodman's element has a robust normal response, it possesses a deficiency of the tangential behavior, which was named kinematic inconsistency. In a recent work [5], it was proved that kinematic inconsistency also occurs in the triangular three-dimensional version of this element. It was also shown that this is a natural behavior of rectangular membrane elements with one side much smaller then the other. Ghaboussi et al. [6] and Beer [7] used an approach similar to the adopted by Goodman et al. [2], but the displacement field at the faces was taken from surrounding elements. For a two-dimension analysis, if the surrounding elements are bilinear quadrilateral solids, then this approach will be equivalent to the original model of Goodman. In a three-dimensional analysis, if the surrounding elements are linear tetrahedral, then the resulting interface element will be the triangular version of the Goodman's element. Thus, kinematic inconsistency may appear in many interface models, such as those based in thin membrane and solid elements and the many variations of the original approach of Goodman et al. In this paper, we study the quadrilateral version of the interface element of Goodman et al. This element was considered by Schellekens and De Borst [8], who considered different numerical integration schemes to avoid stress oscillations. Here, the stiffness matrix of this element is explicitly integrated, and it is shown that kinematic inconsistency is also present. We also show that kinematic inconsistency may be responsible for shear stress oscillation, and new kinematic consistent interface elements are presented. These new elements are very simple, and involve no additional costs to the analysis. References
purchase the full-text of this paper (price £20)
go to the previous paper |
|