www.elsevier.com/locate/commatsci
a
National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
b
Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Received 28 February 2006; received in revised form 28 April 2006; accepted 1 August 2006
Abstract
The implicit finite element (FE) method can encounter numerical difficulties when solving non-linear quasi-static problems. The iter-
ative approach employed may have trouble achieving convergence in analyses with a highly non-linear material behaviour, such as a crys-
tal plasticity constitutive model. In the case of the explicit FE method the solver equations can be solved directly to determine the solution
without iteration, thus providing an alternative, more robust method. In this study, a rate-dependent crystal plasticity algorithm was
developed for use with the explicit FE package, ABAQUS/explicit. The subroutine and an equivalent implicit version were used in a series
of comparative boundary value problem analyses. The suitability of the implicit and explicit solvers to various loading conditions was
assessed and multiple processor speedup rates were also investigated. The results of the study showed that, for simpler loading conditions,
the implicit method had a shorter solution time. In the case of loading conditions involving contact, the explicit method proved to be the
preferable choice. The explicit method displayed constantly high levels of parallelisation efficiency compared to the implicit method for
analyses solved using multiple processors. In conclusion, although the implicit FE method is traditionally favoured when solving
quasi-static problems, it is important to recognise the advantages that the explicit method has in solving certain loading conditions.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Implicit finite element method; Explicit finite element method; Crystal plasticity theory; Multiple processor parallelisation
0927-0256/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2006.08.002
482 F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494
In solid mechanics, crystal plasticity has been used in plasticity algorithms. In the study ABAQUS/standard
two categories of analysis [19]. The first is the investigation and ABAQUS/explicit are considered. The rate-dependent
of the performance of single metallic crystals under defor- crystal plasticity formulation presented by Peirce et al.
mation. The size scales of these analyses are at the granular [26] is used. It is expressed in terms of a stress update algo-
microscale and each metallic grain is explicitly modelled. rithm and is implemented as a user-defined material subrou-
They are solved as boundary value problems. The analysis tine for both versions of the code.
of the macroscale behaviour of polycrystalline aggregates The implicit and explicit solution procedures are out-
forms the second category of analysis. Typically during lined in Sections 1.1 and 1.2. In Section 2 the crystal plas-
large-scale deformation, randomly oriented crystals experi- ticity formulation of Peirce et al. [26] is presented. For the
ence lattice distortion and rotation which leads to a poly- implicit analyses the UMAT, developed by Huang [10] for
crystalline texture or orientation pattern. This is achieved implementation in ABAQUS/standard, is used. A new
using polycrystalline aggregate constitutive models and subroutine (VUMAT) was developed by the authors for
results in material anisotropy (e.g. [4,7,23,27]). The present implementation in ABAQUS/explicit. The VUMAT is based
study focuses on the former category: the implementation on the Huang UMAT [10]. Both user-defined subroutines
of crystal plasticity to study individual grain behaviour. are described in Section 3. In Section 4 the methods are
Boundary value problems employing crystal plasticity compared in terms of finite deformation analyses in 2D
have been shown to yield accurate macroscopic predictions and 3D. The impact of parallel processing on the compar-
of large strain ductility and the point of mechanical failure ison between the methods is also given in Section 4.
in small-scale metallic devices [31]. In a constitutive model, Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
such as that presented in Peirce et al. [26], the stresses are
calculated based on a non-linear strain hardening response 1.1. Implicit solution method
function. Such problems necessitate large deformations of
the FE mesh and display a highly non-linear mechanical The word ‘implicit’ in this paper refers to the method by
response. For these two reasons, it is of considerable inter- which the state of a finite element model is updated from
est to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the explicit time t to t + Dt. A fully implicit procedure means that
solution method in solving such problems. the state at t + Dt is determined based on information at
Crystal plasticity has been used in many studies to model time t + Dt, while the explicit method solves for t + Dt
large deformations and strain localisations in metals and based on information at time t.
metallic based materials (e.g. [13,19,31–34,39]). Unfortu- There are a range of solution procedures used by impli-
nately a crystal plasticity constitutive theory is not provided cit FE solvers. A form of the Newton–Raphson method is
as standard in the commercially available FE software and, the most common and is presented here. Vectors and
as such, it is generally necessary to develop a stress update matrices are denoted as underlined. When solving a
algorithm and implement it in an external user-defined quasi-static boundary value problem, a set of non-linear
material module. Several researchers have developed stress equations is assembled:
update algorithms that define single crystal behaviour for Z Z
use with commercial finite element software such as ABA- GðuÞ ¼ B rðuÞ dV N T t dS ¼ 0
T
ð1:1Þ
QUS and ANSYS [1,3,5,7,8,10,12,17,21,22,28]. In addition v S
to the algorithm by Huang [10], a number of authors have where G is a set of non-linear equations in u, and u is the
developed rate-dependent implicit algorithms for use with vector of nodal displacements. B is the matrix relating
ABAQUS (e.g. [5,8,17,21]). the strain vector to displacement. The product of BT and
Although the majority of algorithms developed have the stress vector, r, is integrated over a volume, V. N
captured rate-dependent mechanical behaviour, there has is the matrix of element shape functions and is integrated
also been significant effort in developing rate-independent over a surface, S. The surface traction vector is denoted
crystal plasticity formulations. The essential difference by t. Eq. (1.1) is usually solved by incremental methods,
between these two types of formulations is the presence where loads/displacements are applied in time steps, Dt,
of the relationship between the rate of shear strain on each up to an ultimate time, t.
slip system and the shear stress, as presented by Asaro and The state of the analysis is updated incrementally from
Needleman [2]. Its absence is a source of numerical difficul- time t to time t + Dt. An estimation of the roots of Eq.
ties in boundary value problems using the rate-independent (1.1) is made, such that for the ith iteration:
constitutive formulation. Several researchers have imple-
mented rate-independent algorithms successfully to achieve 1
oGðutþDt Þ
meaningful results (e.g. [1,22]). duiþ1 ¼ utþDt
iþ1 u tþDt
i ¼ i
GðutþDt
i Þ ð1:2Þ
ou
In this paper a new crystal plasticity algorithm is pre-
sented. This formulation was developed for use with the where uitþDt is the vector of nodal displacements for the ith
FE solver ABAQUS/explicit. The objective of the present iteration at time t + Dt. The partial derivative on the right-
work is to compare the performance of the implicit and hand side of the equation is the Jacobian matrix of the
explicit solution methods using two equivalent crystal governing equations and can be referred to as the global
F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494 483
stiffness matrix, K. Eq. (1.2) is manipulated and inverted to where F is the vector of externally applied forces, I is the
produce a system of linear equations: vector of internal element forces and M is the lumped mass
matrix. As the lumped mass matrix is diagonalised it is a
KðutþDt
i Þduiþ1 ¼ GðutþDt
i Þ ð1:3Þ trivial process to invert it, unlike the global stiffness matrix
in the implicit solution method. Therefore each time incre-
Eq. (1.3) must be solved, for each iteration, for the change
ment is computationally inexpensive to solve.
in incremental displacements, dui+1. In order to solve for
A stability limit determines the size of the time increment:
dui+1 the global stiffness matrix, K, must be inverted.
Although, this is a computationally expensive operation, 2
Dt 6 ð1:7Þ
iteration ensures that a relatively large time increment xmax
can be used while maintaining accuracy of solution [9,19]. where xmax is the maximum element eigenvalue. A conser-
Following iteration i, dui+1 has been determined and a vative and practical method of implementing the above
better approximation of the solution has been made, inequality is:
tþDt
uiþ1 , through Eq. (1.2). This in turn is used as the current
e
approximation to the solution for the subsequent iteration L
(i + 1). Dt ¼ min d ð1:8Þ
c
The accuracy of the solution is dictated by the conver-
gence criterion where the updated value for G must be less where Le is the characteristic element length and cd is the
than a tolerance value. Complications can arise in an anal- dilatational wave speed:
ysis that has a highly non-linear stress–strain response or sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where there is contact and sliding between two surfaces. d k þ 2l
c ¼ ð1:9Þ
For a complex job it can be difficult to predict how long q
it will take to solve or even if convergence will occur. k and l are the Lamé elastic constants and q is the material
ABAQUS/standard uses a form of the N–R iterative density. A quasi-static problem that is solved using the ex-
solution method to solve for the incremental set of equa- plicit method would have much smaller time increments
tions. Formulating and solving the Jacobian matrix is the than an equivalent problem solved using the implicit meth-
most computationally expensive process. Several variations od. Although the incremental solution is easy to obtain
on the N–R method exist to improve the solution time. The using the explicit method, it is not unusual for an analysis
modified Newton method is the most commonly used alter- to take 100,000 increments to solve. In order to maintain
native and is suitable for non-linear problems. The Jaco- efficiency of the analyses it is important to ensure that
bian is only recalculated occasionally and in cases where the sizes of the elements are as regular as possible. This is
the Jacobian is unsymmetric it is not necessary to calculate so that one small element does not reduce the time incre-
an exact value for it. The modified Newton method ment for the whole model.
converges quite well using a symmetric estimate of the It is often impractical to run a quasi-static analysis using
Jacobian [9]. its true time scale as the runtime would be very large. A
number of methods can be used to artificially reduce the
1.2. Explicit solution method runtime of the simulation. The first involves simply speed-
ing up the applied deformation or loading rate and the
The explicit method was originally developed, and is pri- second involves scaling the density of the material in the
marily used, to solve dynamic problems involving deform- model. According to Eqs. (1.8) and (1.9), when the density
able bodies. Accelerations and velocities at a particular is scaled by a factor, f2, the runtime is reduced by a factor f.
point in time are assumed to be constant during a time The latter method is preferable as it does not affect the
increment and are used to solve for the next point in time. strain rate dependent response of viscoplastic/rate-depen-
ABAQUS/explicit uses a forward Euler integration scheme dent materials.
as follows [9]: It is important when performing a quasi-static simula-
1 tion that the inertial forces do not affect the mechanical
uðiþ1Þ ¼ uðiÞ þ Dtðiþ1Þ u_ ðiþ2Þ ð1:4Þ
response and provide unrealistic dynamic results. To
ðiþ1Þ ðiÞ
1 1 Dt þ Dt ðiÞ reduce the dynamic effects Kutt et al. [16] recommend that
u_ ðiþ2Þ ¼ u_ ði2Þ þ €
u ð1:5Þ
2 the ratio of the duration of the load and the fundamental
where u is the displacement and the superscripts refer to the natural period of the model be greater than five. It has been
time increment. The term ‘explicit’ refers to the fact that shown that by keeping the ratio of kinetic energy to the
the state of the analysis is advanced by assuming constant total internal strain energy at <5% dynamic effects in the
values for the velocities, u,
_ and the accelerations, €u, across model are negligible [6,14]. This is the criterion for quasi-
half time intervals. The accelerations are computed at the static behaviour that is employed in this paper.
start of the increment by During implicit analyses where the material gives a non-
linear stress–strain response many iterations are usually
uðiÞ ¼ M 1 ðF ðiÞ I ðiÞ Þ
€ ð1:6Þ needed to solve for an increment. This leads to progressively
484 F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494
smaller time steps being used and should the code encounter considered equal. Quantitatively, slip system strain harden-
large non-linearities convergence may be impossible to ing is specified by the following hardness function as defined
achieve in practical terms. As there is no iteration involved by Peirce et al. [26]:
in the explicit method, convergence problems are not an
h0 c a
issue.
gðca Þ ¼ g0 þ ðg1 g0 Þ tanh ð2:3Þ
g1 g 0
The solution time of the implicit solver is proportional
to the square of the wavefront size in the global stiffness From which one can determine the hardening moduli,
matrix. This has implications when increasing the size of through differentiation:
the model and when running 3D simulations. In the case
dgðca Þ h0 c a
of the explicit solver there is a linear relationship between haa ¼ hab ¼ hðca Þ ¼ ¼ h0 sech2 ð2:4Þ
dc a g g
1 0
the size of the model and the solution time, as dictated
by the characteristic element length and the number of In the above expressions the material hardening parame-
elements in the model [9,14,15,29,35–37]. ters g0, g1 and h0 are the initial hardness of a slip system,
the maximum slip system hardness when og/oc = 0 and the
2. Theory value of og/oc when c = 0, respectively. These material
constants can be derived from the strain hardening part
The finite element analyses performed in this study of an experimental tensile stress–strain (r–e) curve for a
incorporate elastic and plastic constitutive laws in the material. The values used in this study are taken from the
context of finite deformation kinematics. The elasticity is single crystal tensile test data for 316L stainless steel pre-
considered to be isotropic and linear in terms of finite sented by Okamoto et al. [25], and as calibrated in [31]
deformation quantities and can be described using the
g0 ¼ 50 MPa; g1 ¼ 330 MPa; h0 ¼ 225 MPa;
Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio, m. This is a rea-
1
sonable approach as the elastic strains in the model are a_ ¼ 0:001 s
very small in comparison to the plastic strains. Plasticity A rate sensitivity parameter, n = 20 is used for all of the
is described using rate-dependent crystal plasticity theory analyses except where stated.
[26]. A quantity of importance in the above equation is the
Crystal plasticity theory is a physically based plasticity accumulated slip, ca. This is a measure of the total crystal-
theory that represents the deformation of a metal at the lographic plastic strain at a point and is defined as follows:
microscale. The flow of dislocations in a metallic crystal
XN Z t
along slip systems is represented in a continuum frame-
ca ¼ j_cðaÞ jdt ð2:5Þ
work. Plastic strain is assumed to be solely due to crystallo- a¼1 0
graphic dislocation flow. The rate-dependent, viscoplastic
single crystal theory as presented in Peirce et al. [26] and where t is the time and the summation is over all the slip
Huang [10], and employed in several works such as systems at a point.
McHugh and Connolly [20], Savage et al. [31] and McGarry The material chosen, 316L stainless steel, has a face-cen-
et al. [18], is used. The rate-dependence is implemented in tred-cubic (FCC) crystalline structure. For this material the
the formulation through a power-law that relates the slip systems are defined by the following Miller indices:
resolved shear stress s(a) to the slipping rate c_ ðaÞ on each slip h1 1 1i{1 1 0}.
system a,
ðaÞ n 3. Development of explicit user material subroutine
ðaÞ s
c_ ðaÞ ¼ asgnðs
_ Þ ðaÞ ð2:1Þ
g The crystal plasticity constitutive theory is not provided
where a_ and n are a reference strain rate and rate sensitivity as standard in any of the commercially available finite
exponent, respectively, and g(a) is the slip system strain element analysis software. It is therefore necessary to
hardness. As n tends to infinity the material reaches the implement the theory in the form of a user-defined stress
rate-independent limit. update algorithm. This is implemented in the finite element
The slip system strain hardness, g(a), is determined by code ABAQUS/standard, an implicit solver, by means of a
integration of the following evolution equation UMAT, as coded in [10]. It was necessary to develop a VUMAT
for use with ABAQUS/explicit. Much of the coding
X
N
involved in the two algorithms is the same but there are
g_ ðaÞ ¼ hab j_cðbÞ j ð2:2Þ
b¼1
several key issues that must be addressed to maintain con-
sistency of results between the two solvers.
where hab is the strain hardening modulus; haa and hab These subroutines, written in Fortran, implement the
(a 5 b) are the self and latent hardening moduli, respec- theory in the form of a stress update algorithm that is
tively, and the summation ranges over the number of called at each integration point for every iteration during
slip systems, N. In this work, Taylor isotropic hardening a finite element simulation [9]. Recalling Eq. (1.1), the
is assumed where the self and latent hardening moduli are stress component must be updated during each iteration
F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494 485
and this operation is performed by the UMAT/VUMAT. The To determine the size of the initial time increment in
stress update is calculated thus: ABAQUS/explicit a bogus set of tiny strain increments
are passed in to the VUMAT at the start of the analysis. From
rðuitþDt Þ ¼ rðut þ Dui Þ ¼ rðut Þ þ Dri ð3:1Þ
the stress response of the material, a conservative value for
During every iteration of an analysis the finite element the stable time increment is calculated (Eqs. (1.8) and
solver provides the subroutine with quantities such as the (1.9)). The finite element solver requires that the material
strain and time increments, Dei and Dt, and the increment be elastic for this initial check. Due to the fact that the crys-
in stress, Dri, is calculated [9]. tal plasticity subroutine is computationally intensive, an
In this section the development of the crystal plasticity elastic stress–strain response must be defined that ensures
VUMAT for use with ABAQUS/explicit is described. Partic- a relatively small time increment. During this initial time
ular attention is paid to the differences between it and increment calculation stage a material response is defined
the crystal plasticity UMAT [10]. A schematic of the VUMAT with the same elastic properties as are used to describe
layout is presented in the Appendix. the elasticity in the body of the crystal plasticity subrou-
tine. This ensures that a relatively efficient time increment
3.1. System equations is employed. If a smaller increment is required a stiffer elas-
tic modulus may be used, although the solution time will be
The most important difference between the sets of equa- longer. This does not affect the response of the material
tions used in the two solvers is the lack of presence of a glo- during the analysis; it is purely for the purpose of time
bal stiffness matrix in the explicit solver. When writing a increment calculation.
UMAT it is vital that the Jacobian matrix be accurately
represented to get correct and efficient finite strain problem 3.4. Time integration scheme
solutions. It is not necessary to define any such matrix in the
VUMAT interface. Although this makes the writing of the
The forward gradient time integration scheme that
subroutine more straightforward, the choice of elements forms part of the stress update algorithm in [10] involves
available to the user is restricted to mainly first order. the solution of the following non-linear equation for the
incremental slip system shear strains using the Newton–
3.2. Vectorised interface Raphson method:
The explicit solution process involves a large number of
sa þ Dsa n
increments, each of which is easily solved for. Conse- Dc ðaÞ ðaÞ
¼ ð1 hÞDtc_ jt þ hasgnðs
_
aÞ
Dt
ga þ Dga tþDt
quently, the explicit finite element calculation procedure
is well suited to being split up and solved by a number of ð3:2Þ
processors. With this in mind the VUMAT is constructed with
a vectorised interface. At the beginning of each increment where h ranges from 0 to 1. This is a non-linear implicit
the stress and state variable data are passed in, in the form equation as the increments of resolved shear stress, Dsa,
of two-dimensional arrays. Each column in an array con- and current strength, Dga, are functions of Dc(a). Solving
tains the information relating to an integration point of Eq. (3.2) in this way ensures that the convergence rate dur-
the material. When a simulation is performed using multi- ing the analysis is high and allows for a relatively large time
ple processors the analysis data can be split up into blocks increment to achieve convergence.
and solved independently. Thus, vectorisation is preserved The explicit solver does not require the use of iteration.
in the writing of the subroutine in order that optimal Time rates of change are assumed to be constant through-
processor parallelisation can be achieved. out each time increment and a value of h = 0 is used in Eq.
(3.2) such that an incremental quantity is calculated, in a
3.3. Size of time increment simple Euler fashion, as the product of the rate quantity
and the time increment, for example:
The initial time increment used in ABAQUS/standard is
DcðaÞ ¼ c_ ðaÞ Dt ð3:3Þ
chosen by the user. Subsequent increments are controlled
by an automatic incrementation control. However, when
implementing the UMAT it was necessary to improve the con- 3.5. Material rotation
trol in order to improve time-stepping accuracy. The varia-
tion in the accumulated slip, ca, throughout each iteration is During elastic deformation of a crystal, the crystal lattice
measured. If the rate of increase is excessive then the itera- undergoes rotation and distortion. This effect is captured by
tion is aborted and a smaller time increment size is used. the vectors that define the slip directions, s*(a), and the nor-
This is found to be an efficient method of incrementation mals to the slip planes, m*(a), as the deformation continues.
ðaÞ ðaÞ
control and prevents premature termination of an analysis. These vectors have components si and mi in the refer-
The same procedure is not necessary using ABAQUS/expli- ence Cartesian coordinate system. The incremental value
cit as the time increments are sufficiently small. of s*(a) is calculated thus:
486 F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494
( )
ðaÞ
X ðbÞ
X ðbÞ ðaÞ
end of the previous increment and the start of the current
DS i ¼ Deij lij DcðbÞ þ xij Dt #ij DcðbÞ Sj one. It is treated thus:
b b
rtþDt ¼ dR rt dRT þ dr ð3:12Þ
ð3:4Þ
P ðbÞ ðbÞ P ðbÞ ðbÞ where rt+Dt is the current Cauchy stress and dr is the stress
where b lij Dc and b #ij Dc are the incremental
increment that has been calculated in the previous incre-
plastic strain and plastic lattice spin respectively. The quan-
ment. The value passed in at the start of each increment is
tities in the brackets equal the sum of the elastic strain and
the Cauchy stress in the model coordinate system. It is ‘ro-
the elastic spin increments. The increment of total crystal
tated’, as shown, at the end of each increment. The dR var-
rotation is denoted by xij Dt, where xij is the sum of the
iable is calculated using the Hughes–Winget algorithm [9]
rotation on each slip system, a, and is calculated by
1
ðaÞ ðaÞ ðaÞ dR ¼ ðI 12DxÞ ðI þ 12DxÞ ð3:13Þ
xij ¼ asymðS i mj Þ ð3:5Þ
where I is the identity matrix and Dx is the anti-symmetric
where asym(Aij) denotes the asymmetric part of a tensor
part of the incremental velocity gradient, i.e. the incremen-
Aij. The incremental value of the slip normal, Dm*(a), is
tal form of W (Eq. (3.9)).
calculated similarly to Eq. (3.4).
An important feature of crystal plasticity theory is that d Du
Dx ¼ asym ð3:14Þ
both the lattice stretch and rotation influence the amount dxtþDt=2
of plasticity:
This value is used in the calculations of s*(a) (Eq. (3.4)) and
X
N
m*(a) and is calculated from the variable dR according to
Lp ¼ c_ ðaÞ sðaÞ mðaÞ ð3:6Þ Eq. (3.13).
a¼1
In the case of the VUMAT the material is taken to lie on a
where Lp is plastic velocity gradient in the current state and corotational coordinate system, i.e. the coordinate system
the summation ranges over all the slip systems, a, in the rotates with the material. As each time increment is so
crystal. small, incrementally, it is assumed that all material rota-
The most important issue that the programmer must be tions are rigid body. Hence for each increment the problem
aware of is in regard to the way in which stress rates and, can be viewed as a small strain problem. The rotation used
consequently, rotations are dealt with. In the case of FE in ABAQUS/explicit is the Green–Naghdi spin rate. The
simulations using solid continuum elements and a user- Hughes–Winget algorithm is also used but takes a slightly
defined material ABAQUS/standard employs the Jaumann different form
stress rate, whereas ABAQUS/explicit employs the Green– 1
Naghdi stress rate [9,11]. The stress rates are defined, dR ¼ ðI 12DXÞ ðI þ 12DXÞ ð3:15Þ
respectively, as: where DX is found from
rJ
r ¼ r_ W r þ r W ð3:7Þ _ T
DX ¼ DRR ð3:16Þ
and The rotations used by each code are different. However,
rG these differences are only evident when kinematic hardening
r ¼ r_ X r þ r X ð3:8Þ is employed. Johnson and Bamann [11] showed that when a
where r_ is the time derivative of stress, W is a spin rate kinematic hardening model is used, employing the Jaumann
derived from the velocity gradient stress rate, a sinusoidal response is exhibited by the shear
stress beyond the yield point. This is not physically realistic.
ov When the Green–Naghdi stress rate is employed the shear
W ¼ asym ð3:9Þ
ox stress is shown to monotonically increase with the shear
and X is found from the right-hand polar decomposition of strain. As the crystal plasticity subroutine does not incorpo-
the total deformation gradient, F; rate kinematic hardening, both methods yield the same
results.
F ¼RU ð3:10Þ
Ultimately, during each time increment of the VUMAT,
and the increment of stress is calculated thus:
X ðaÞ
X ¼ R_ RT ð3:11Þ Drij ¼ Dglobal
ijkl Dekl ½vij DcðaÞ rij Dedil ð3:17Þ
a
In the stress update algorithms these quantities must be
calculated incrementally. where
In ABAQUS/standard the material is treated as being ðaÞ
vij ¼ Dglobal
ðaÞ ðaÞ ðaÞ
ijkl lkl þ xik rjk þ xjk rik ð3:18Þ
based in a fixed global coordinate system. Incremental
rotations are passed in to the UMAT at the start of each Dglobal
ijkl is the 4th order elastic constitutive tensor in the
increment. This array, dR, is the amount by which the global coordinate system and Dedil is the increment of dila-
stress and strain arrays have been rotated between the tational strain.
F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494 487
4. Comparative analyses
4.1.1. Tension
The left-hand edge of the model is constrained in the
horizontal direction and a horizontal displacement is
applied to the right-hand edge. Rigid body motion is pre-
vented by constraining the left-hand bottom corner of the
model in all degrees of freedom. The wire is tensed beyond
the failure strain, which is taken as the strain at the point of
ultimate tensile stress (UTS). The strain is defined as the
ratio of the increase in length to the original length,
(l1 l0)/l0, and the stress is the ratio of force applied to
Fig. 4. Comparison of macroscopic mechanical performance for 2D
the wire to the original cross-sectional area of the wire, tension analyses.
F/A0. This produces engineering stress–engineering strain
(reng–eeng) curves and is a convenient method for present-
Table 1
ing tensile data. Computation times for 2D analyses using implicit (UMAT) and explicit
The reng–eeng response of the two models shows good (VUMAT) solvers
agreement with the failure point particularly well compared Analysis Runtime Ratio, Size of time
(Fig. 4). The distribution of plastic shear strain during (h, min) explicit/ increment,
necking is also very similar for the two analyses (Fig. 5). standard min/max
The solution time of the implicit method is 56 min as Tension UMAT 2D 0, 56 2.34 1.86e4/0.01
compared to 2 h 11 min for the explicit method (Table 1). Tension VUMAT 2D 2, 11 1.37e5/6.36e5
The shorter implicit solution time can be explained by the Bending UMAT 2D 1, 53 2.39 1.85e4/6.0e3
fact that the size of the incremental global stiffness matrix Bending VUMAT 2D 4, 30 4.86e6/1.2e5
Contact 1 UMAT 2D 1, 50 1.41 9.25e5/1.2e2
is relatively small due to the size of the model. As the solu- Contact 1 VUMAT 2D 2, 35 1.86e5/3.8e5
tion time in implicit analyses is proportional to the square Contact 2 UMAT 2D 0, 40a 0.875 5.74e4/3.8e2
of the wavefront of the global stiffness matrix in the model, Contact 2 VUMAT 2D 0, 35a 2.57e5/3.81e5
this simulation is computationally easy to solve. a
The solution time at equivalent points in the two analyses.
4.1.2. Bending rotation, about the z-axis (normal to the page), is applied
The left-hand boundary of the model is constrained in to this node. A bending moment is produced that is con-
all degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom of the nodes stant along the length of the wire. The average curvature
along the right-hand edge are tied to a reference node and a along the length of the wire is used as a deformation
Fig. 5. Accumulated shear strain, c, in the 25 lm wire under tension solved using (a) the implicit solver and (b) the explicit solver.
F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494 489
loading has a far greater effect on the explicit analyses than It is interesting to note the increase in solution times
the implicit analyses. A similar trend is clear in the 3D when a more rate-independent material is used in the 2D
analyses from Table 2. The opposite is true of the contact tension analyses. The small time increments used in the
analyses; the introduction of contact has little effect on the explicit solver ensure that the highly non-linear material
size of the explicit time increments but significantly reduces behaviour is dealt with, with a minimal increase in time.
the size of the implicit increments. This is not the case with the implicit solver where smaller
As regards the implicit solution iteration process, for time increments must be employed to achieve convergence.
each increment, ABAQUS chooses an initial guess, u0tþDt , When one considers the high multiple processor effi-
assuming an incrementally linear response for the material, ciency that is achieved by the explicit solver compared to
based on the tangent stiffness calculated at the end of the the implicit solver for every situation considered in this
previous increment ðKðutfinal ÞÞ. In the case of a linear elastic study, the former option would prove to be the more
material this would provide the correct solution directly. favourable when the user has a multiple processor com-
For non-linear problems this should yield a good initial puter at his/her disposal. Given the ongoing technological
guess for small increments, Dt. Increasingly non-linear advances, multiple processor computers are becoming
problems require increasingly small time increments to more commonly used. Therefore it is important to recog-
maintain solution accuracy. Within the constraints of nise the link between the speedup efficiency, the number
ABAQUS, in the context of the scope of this paper, few of processors assigned to solve an analysis, and the size
options are provided for improving the process. In the of the model. The optimal number of processors should
problems of interest here the non-linearities due to contact be determined for each analysis so that a high parallelisa-
and material response are of such a severity as to require tion efficiency can be maintained.
time step sizes far smaller than are practically usable to
generate solutions with the implicit method.
The explicit solver is better suited to deal with complex Acknowledgements
contact and sliding conditions, particularly in cases of large
element deformation. In the contact analyses that include a The authors wish to acknowledge funding from
rigid body the runtimes using the implicit code are shorter Embark, Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering
than the explicit code. This disguises the fact that the explicit and Technology: Funded by the National Development
code actually solves the contact condition more quickly. The Plan. The simulations in this work were performed on
second 2D contact analysis involving more complex contact the SGI 3800 high performance computer at NUI, Galway.
conditions and greater element deformation provides a
clearer indication of the benefits of the explicit solver. Appendix
F.J. Harewood, P.E. McHugh / Computational Materials Science 39 (2007) 481–494 493
[11] G.C. Johnson, D.J. Bammann, International Journal of Solids and [26] D. Peirce, R. Asaro, A. Needleman, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia
Structures 20 (8) (1984) 725–737. 31 (12) (1983) 1951–1976.
[12] J. Kaczmarek, International Journal of Plasticity 19 (10) (2003) 1585– [27] D. Raabe, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 43 (3) (1995) 1023–1028.
1603. [28] J.L. Raphanel, C. Teodusiu, L. Tabourot, in: C. Teodusiu, J.L.
[13] H.-K. Kim, S.-I. Oh, International Journal of Plasticity 19 (8) (2003) Raphanel, F. Sidoroff (Eds.), Large Plastic Deformations: Funda-
1245–1270. mental Aspects and Applications to Metal Forming, A.A. Balkema,
[14] J. Kim, Y.H. Kang, H.-H. Choi, S.-M. Hwang, B.S. Kang, The Rotterdam, 1993, pp. 153–168.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 20 (6) [29] N. Rebelo, J.C. Nagtegaal, L.M. Taylor, Numerical Methods in
(2002) 407–413. Industrial Forming Processes (1992) 99–108.
[15] S. Kugener, AMP Journal of Technology 4 (1995) 8–15. [30] W. Rust, K. Schweizerhof, Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2–3) (2003)
[16] L.M. Kutt, A.B. Pifko, J.A. Nardiello, J.M. Papazian, Computers & 227–244.
Structures 66 (1) (1998) 1–17. [31] P. Savage, B.P. O’Donnell, P.E. McHugh, B.P. Murphy, D.F. Quinn,
[17] J.W. Kysar, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 49 (5) Annals of Biomedical Engineering 32 (2) (2004) 202–211.
(2001) 1099–1128. [32] B.M. Schroeter, D.L. McDowell, International Journal of Plasticity
[18] J.P. McGarry, B.P. O’Donnell, P.E. McHugh, J.G. McGarry, 19 (9) (2003) 1355–1376.
Computational Materials Science 31 (3–4) (2004) 421–438. [33] N.J. Sorensen, B.S. Andersen, Computer Methods in Applied
[19] P.E. McHugh, in: IUTAM Summer School on Mechanics of Mechanics and Engineering 132 (3–4) (1996) 345–357.
Microstructured Materials, Udine, Italy, 2003. [34] A. Staroselsky, L. Anand, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
[20] P.E. McHugh, P.J. Connolly, Computational Materials Science 27 (4) Solids 46 (4) (1998) 671–696.
(2003) 423–436. [35] J.S. Sun, K.H. Lee, H.P. Lee, Journal of Materials Processing
[21] F.T. Meissonnier, E.P. Busso, N.P. O’Dowd, International Journal of Technology 105 (1–2) (2000) 110–118.
Plasticity 17 (4) (2001) 601–640. [36] L. Taylor, J. Cao, A.P. Karafillis, M.C. Boyce, Journal of Materials
[22] C. Miehe, J. Schroder, International Journal for Numerical Methods Processing Technology 50 (1–4) (1995) 168–179.
in Engineering 50 (2001) 273–298. [37] S.P. Wang, S. Choudhry, T.B. Wertheimer, White Papers in MARC
[23] K.W. Neale, K. Inal, P.D. Wu, International Journal of Mechanical Corp., 1997.
Sciences 45 (10) (2003) 1671–1686. [38] G.G. Weber, A.M. Lush, A. Zavaliangos, L. Anand, International
[24] A. Needleman, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Journal of Plasticity 6 (6) (1990) 701–744.
Engineering 67 (1) (1988) 69–85. [39] A.G. Youtsos, E. Gutierrez, G. Verzeletti, Acta Mechanica 84 (1990)
[25] K. Okamoto, A. Yoshinari, J. Kaneda, Y. Aono, T. Kato, Materials 109–125.
Transactions 41 (7) (2000) 806–814.