what is hourglassing in 1st order solid elements

1st order reduced-integration elements actually shear too much called 'hourglassing', so this can be a problem. Hourglassing can be a problem with first-order, reduced-integration elements (CPS4R, CAX4R, C3D8R, etc.) in stress/displacement analyses. Since the elements have only one integration point, it is possible for them to distort in such a way that the strains calculated at the integration point are all zero, which, in turn, leads to uncontrolled distortion of the mesh. First-order, reduced-integration elements in Abaqus include hourglass control, but they should be used with reasonably fine meshes. Hourglassing can also be minimized by distributing point loads and boundary conditions over a number of adjacent nodes.

What is Hourglass energy? IQ3

1st order reduced-integration elements (which happen to be the very type of elements generally used in explicit solvers) suffer from hourglassing. These elements only have one integration point; because of this the elements can shear without introducing any energies. FEA codes which rely on 1st order reduced integration elements counter this by introducing hourglass energy. In situations where these elements would otherwise shear, this augmented energy keeps this from happening. This is reflected in your reported hourglass energy values. High hourglassing energy is often a sign that mesh issues may need to be addressed. what you mentioned is perfect.In simpler way we can say that "Hourglassing Energy" is the energy which generated due to non realistic behavior of elements and where no stresses and strains are generated in those elements. & such energy will never occur in real case so we need to keep this energy as minimum as we can.

ALE: it is a mixture of Lagrangian and Eulerian discretization. Lagrangian is when the mesh deforms with the matertial, and Eulerian is when you have a fixed mesh in the space, adn the material flows from one cell to another. Lagrangian is easier to handle (particularly the definition of boundary conditions) but in cases with large deformation the mesh could be highly distorted, and the calculation becomes inaccurate, or even fail. In Eulerian the material flows within the cells, hence the accuracy is better for large deformation, because there is no mesh disortion at all. However, the treatment of BC is not an easy task, and the flow of material requires convection algorithms. Traditionally Lagrangian is more suited for solid mechanics, and Eulerian for fluid mechanics, but recently Eulerian is more involved in large deformation solid mechanics. ALE

(Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian) is a mixture of both, where after a lagrangian deformation the boundaries of the elements (within an ALE-region) are moved - so there is material transport across the boundaries (eulerian) - and the distortion of the elements does not become extensive. This procedure is made in every 1-10 timestep, depending on the simulation. ALE combines the advantage of both methods: you can use the easy BC-definition on the outer edge of the ALEregion (which is lagrangian), and the moving element edges within the ALE-region helps to provide reasonable accuracy. Ideally suited for metal forming, where the large deformation could cause severe distortion. Hourglassing: the standard numerical integration (e.g. 2x2 Gaussian quadrature for a bilinear quad, 2x2x2 for a trilinear hexa) has some flaws when combined with incompressible material. The displacements in the mesh are orders of magnitude smaller than in the reality. This is called volumetric locking. Incompressibility is not as rare as one would think, since e.g. most plastic matrial models or many hyperelastic material models assume isochoric deformation. To cure this overstiffening we use reduced integration (for 4-node quads and 8-node hexas 1 integration point in the middle). Theory and tests show that reduced integration solves the volumetric lockin. But with this procedure we introduce another problem: consider a 4-node quad. Move the nodes on the lower edge towards each other, and on the upper edge in the other direction, on both side with the same amount. What you now have is a trapezoid, so your element is deformed. But your integration point (where your starins are measured) is in the middle of the element, and it did not feel anything of this deformation. Neither in the vertical nor in the horizontal direction changed the length and angle of your middle lines! So you have a deformation which produces no strains, hence no forces to resist. This pattern can grow unbounded, and easily destroy your whole simulation. This deformation pattern called hourglass mode, or zero energy mode, or kinematic mode etc. Bottom line is you have to stabilize your element against hourglassing, so you have to build in some artificial stiffness to prevent this kind of deformation - up to a certain level, because beam bending uses this deformation. There are several methods for this, you should check some textbooks. Both topics are thoroughly discussed in Belytschko's book (Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures), far better than I have described them. However I hope, I gave you some insight.

http://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/element/hourglass http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=9504 http://imechanica.org/files/l2-elements.pdf http://solidmechanics.org/text/Chapter8_6/Chapter8_6.htm,

The initiation and development of wrinkles are influenced by stress ratio, contact conditions, material properties, and many other factors. However, the essence of these many different parts is a stability problem introduced by local compressive stresses. Commercial finite element tools sometimes generate wrinkling during simulations. There are two reasons why wrinkles initiate in simulations. First, in the implicit method where stress equilibrium was examined at each equilibrium, wrinkles can be initiated using two methods. One is the examination of eigenvalues. If a particular eigenvalue of the stiffness matrix is zero, then the system will experience a nontrivial solution, i.e., buckling(the load p is equal to the eular critical load) . A potential buckling region has to be defined to perform this buckling analysis. It becomes unrealistic to carry out when the geometry of the part becomes complex. Second, in the explicit method, where stress equilibrium is not examined, the simulation is conducted using a minimum time step to keep the numerical error from blowing away the solution. In this case, numerical errors are served as imperfection at the onset of wrinkling such that a buckling pattern will appear in the simulation. In this case, for practitioners experience concluded that the appearance of wrinkling does not necessarily show the correct wrinkling pattern and the non-existence of buckling in a simulation does not exclude the possibility of buckling in practice.

I will try to explain you the differences between implicit & explicit formulations in Finite Element Analysis: the main criterion governing the selection of the implicit (NX NASTRAN Advanced Nonlinear Solution 601) or explicit (SOL701) formulations is the time scale of the solution:

The implicit method can use much larger time steps since it is unconditionally stable. However, it involves the assembly and solution of a system of equations, and it is iterative. Therefore, the computational time per load step is relatively high.

The explicit method uses much smaller time steps since it is conditionally stable, meaning that the time step for the solution has to be less than a certain critical time step, which depends on the smallest element size and the material properties. However, it involves no matrix solution and is non-iterative. Therefore, the computational time per load step is relatively low.

For slow-speed dynamic problems, the solution time spans a period of time considerably longer than the time it takes the wave to propagate through an element. The solution in this case is dominated by the lower frequencies of the structure. This class of problems covers most structural dynamics problems, certain

metal forming problems, crush analysis, earthquake response and biomedical problems. When the explicit method is used for such problems the resulting number of time steps will be excessive, unless mass-scaling is applied, or the loads are artificially applied over a shorter time frame. No such modifications are needed in the implicit method. Hence, the implicit method is the optimal choice.

For high-speed dynamic problems, the solution time is comparable to the time required for the wave to propagate through the structure. This class of problems covers most wave propagation problems, explosives problems, and high-speed impact problems. For these problems, the number of steps required with the explicit method is not excessive. If the implicit method uses a similar time step it will be much slower and if it uses a much larger time step it will introduce other solution errors since it will not be capturing the pertinent features of the solution (but it will remain stable). Hence, the explicit method is the optimal choice.

A large number of dynamics problems cannot be fully classified as either slowspeed or high-speed dynamic. This includes many crash problems, drop tests and metal forming problems. For these problems both solution methods are

comparable. However, whenever possible (when the time step is relatively large and there are no convergence difficulties) we recommend the use of the implicit solution method.

Since the explicit time step size depends on the length of the smallest element, one excessively small element will reduce the stable time step for the whole model. Mass-scaling can be applied to these small elements to increase their stable time step. The implicit method is not sensitive to such small elements.

Since the explicit time step size depends on the material properties, a nearly incompressible material will also significantly reduce the stable time step. The compressibility of the material can be increased in explicit analysis to achieve a more acceptable solution time. The implicit method is not as sensitive to highly incompressible materials (provided that a mixed formulation is used).

Well, the above are more or less the main differences between implicit/explicit formulations, I have more but are code-specific element types supported, etc.., then not of interest general, unless you are user of NX NASTRAN.

A static analysis, like a stress analysis in FEA, is done using the simple linear equation [A]{x}={B}. In such analysis time does not play any role. On the other hand a dynamic analysis (or transient or modal analysis also) follows a more complex governing equation which is like: [M]{x''}+[C]{x'}+[K]{x}={F} I hope i dont have to clarify the symbols, but the primes indicate a time differential. Such analysis are dependent on time.

Implicit solution is one in which the calculation of current quantities in one time step are based on the quantities calculated in the previous time step. This is called Euler Time Intergration Scheme. In this scheme even if large time steps are taken, the solution remains stable. This is also called an unconditionally stable scheme. But there is a disadvantage, and it is that this algorithm requires the calculation of inverse of stiffness matrix, since in this method we are directly solving for {x} vector. And calculation of an inverse is a computationally intensive step. This is especially so when non linearities are present, as the Stiffness matrix it self will become a function of x.

In an explicit analysis, instead of solving for {x}, we go for solving {x"}. Thus we bypass the inversion of the complex stiffness matrix, and we just have to invert the mass matrix [M]. In case lower order elements are used, which an explicit analysis always prefers, the mass matrix is also a lumped matrix, or a diagonal matrix, whose inversion is a single step process of just making the diagonal elements reciprocal. Hence this is very easily done. But disadvantage is that the Euler Time integration scheme is not used in this, and hence it is not unconditionally stable. So we need to use very small time steps.

Hence in a static loading situation (or quasi static), we would prefer to have big time steps, so that solution can be obtained in very less number of steps ( usually less than 10, and more often than not a single step), even though such

steps may be computationally intensive. Hence for all such situations, and implicit analysis is used.

On the other hand in a dynamic scenario, specially in impact loadings, crash tests, and such simulations, an explicit analysis would be preferred.

It is a matter of tradeoff between easier and computationally lighter analysis or a faster analysis. The implicit solution is in use in a condition of time and the explicit solution is applied in a change of time. http://mscnastrannovice.blogspot.de/2013/06/when-to-use-implicit-or-explicit.html

http://de.scribd.com/doc/91873939/Implicit-Analysis-Intro-02-2011

Implicit and Explicit are two types of approached that can be used to solve the finite element problem. The implicit approach is useful in problems in which time dependency of the solution is not an important factor [e.g. static structural, harmonic, modal analysis etc.] whereas Explicit Dynamics approach is most helpful in solving high deformation time dependent problems such as Crash, Blast, Impact etc. The prime difference between the implicit and explicit scheme lies in the consideration of velocity or acceleration. You must be aware of the equation relating mass (m), damping (c), stiffness (k) and force (F). In equation 1, x stands for displacement whereas and are resp. the first and second time derivatives of x. In other words they stand for velocity and acceleration resp. m + c + kx = F (1)

Implicit Scheme: In an implicit scheme, the displacement is not a function of time (i.e. x = constant). Hence the velocities and accelerations which are time derivatives of displacement turn out to be zero and the mass and damping factors can be neglected. The implicit method can be based based on Newarks method, Newton Raphson Method etc. In order to solve an FEM problem using implicit method, inversion of stiffness matrix (k) is required. Very Large deformation problems such as crash analysis can result in millions of degrees of freedom effectively increasing the size of stiffness matrix. Larger the stiffness matrix longer is the computational time required for its inversion. Hence there is a need for an explicit method which would prevent the inversion of stiffness matrix. Implicit methods are mainly used in softwares such as Ansys, Nastran, Abaqus etc. Explicit Scheme: As opposed to Implicit methods, explicit scheme is a function of time. Being a function of time, the velocity and acceleration as well as the mass and damping need to be considered in this scheme. In an explicit method, Central Difference time integration (CDTI) is used to calculate field variables at respective nodal points. Since only a numerical solution is possible for a non linear ordinary differential equation, this method is particularly suited for non linear problems. It requires the inversion of the lumped mass matrix as opposed to that of the global stiffness matrix in the implicit methods. In the CDTI, the equation of motion is evaluated at the previous time step (tn-1, where tn is the current timestep).

The explicit method or algorithm works in timestep increments i.e. the displacements are calculated as the time proceeds. Consider the simulation of a crash analysis. At timestep 1 (t=0 ms), there is no deformation since the impact is yet to occur. Gradually as time would progresses the deformation also would change. Assume that at timestep 2, t is 5 ms, now the explicit algorithm will calculate the values of field variables at time when t=5 ms. This is the way in which the solution proceeds. LS Dyna is one software which is based on explicit dynamics and is especially used for solving problems such as Crash, Impact, Penetration etc. Pam crash and Abaqus explicit are also based on the same. http://caeanalysis.wordpress.com/