Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit

Abaqus Users mailing list
Hi!,
 I am running a quasi-static analysis on a slender beam based on load control. I ran analyses with 1, 1.5, 2, and 10 secs. When the load rate is very less, that is 10 secs step time, the load displacement curve close to ultimate point is unacceptable. But, the load-displacement curve for all step times before ultimate point are all similar.
 Is there any particular load rate limit for Quasi-static analysis in Dynamic Implicit.
 

 Thank you.
 

 Best regards,
 Thananjayan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit

Abaqus Users mailing list
Hi,
In order to simulate the quasi static analysis using Implicit dynamic
procedure, you should monitor the Kinetic energy and internal energy. KE
should be less than 5% of IE. You can do that by selecting these check
boxes in History output.


On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:09 AM, [hidden email] [Abaqus] <
[hidden email]> wrote:


>
>
> Hi!,
>
> I am running a quasi-static analysis on a slender beam based on load
> control. I ran analyses with 1, 1.5, 2, and 10 secs. When the load rate is
> very less, that is 10 secs step time, the load displacement curve close to
> ultimate point is unacceptable. But, the load-displacement curve for all
> step times before ultimate point are all similar.
>
> Is there any particular load rate limit for Quasi-static analysis in
> Dynamic Implicit.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thananjayan
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis inABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit

Abaqus Users mailing list
In reply to this post by Abaqus Users mailing list
Are you running a quasi-static analysis (*VISCO) or a dynamic analysis (*DYNAMIC)? What is the source of the time-dependency (for example, are you using a viscoelastic material)? Dave Lindeman Lead Research Specialist SEMS Research Laboratory 3M Center 235-3G-08 St. Paul, MN 55144 651-733-6383 From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:10 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Abaqus] Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit Hi!, I am running a quasi-static analysis on a slender beam based on load control. I ran analyses with 1, 1.5, 2, and 10 secs. When the load rate is very less, that is 10 secs step time, the load displacement curve close to ultimate point is unacceptable. But, the load-displacement curve for all step times before ultimate point are all similar. Is there any particular load rate limit for Quasi-static analysis in Dynamic Implicit. Thank you. Best regards, Thananjayan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit

febypa91
Dear Dave,

I am implementing a custom viscoelastic material using the UMAT subroutine in Abaqus/Standard. My question is that since I am using a UMAT does the Step type i.e., *VISCO vs *DYNAMIC IMPLICIT really cause an effect. If so, can you explain how; a pointer to some good resource will also do. I know that the *VISCO step wouldn't consider inertial effects. Apart from that is there any difference in the solution technique?

Thank You

 Feby Abraham
 Research Student
IIT Madras, Chennai
IN - 600036
 

---In [hidden email], <ddlindeman1@...> wrote :

 Are you running a quasi-static analysis (*VISCO) or a dynamic analysis (*DYNAMIC)? What is the source of the time-dependency (for example, are you using a viscoelastic material)? Dave Lindeman Lead Research Specialist SEMS Research Laboratory 3M Center 235-3G-08 St. Paul, MN 55144 651-733-6383 From: [hidden email] mailto:[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email] mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:10 PM To: [hidden email] mailto:[hidden email] Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Abaqus] Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit Hi!, I am running a quasi-static analysis on a slender beam based on load control. I ran analyses with 1, 1.5, 2, and 10 secs. When the load rate is very less, that is 10 secs step time, the load displacement curve close to ultimate point is unacceptable. But, the load-displacement curve for all step times before ultimate point are all similar. Is there any particular load rate limit for Quasi-static analysis in Dynamic Implicit. Thank you. Best regards, Thananjayan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit

David Lindeman
If you’re using a UMAT, then you shouldn’t see any differences between *Static and *Visco (unless you have other, standard viscoelastic materials).  Abaqus doesn’t know what’s going on inside the UMAT, so it has no way of enforcing a creep integration tolerance (CETOL).

Regards,

Dave Lindeman
Staff Scientist
Corporate Research Systems Laboratory
3M Center 235-3G-08
St. Paul, MN 55144
651-733-6383

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 2:49 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Abaqus] Re: Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit



Dear Dave,

I am implementing a custom viscoelastic material using the UMAT subroutine in Abaqus/Standard. My question is that since I am using a UMAT does the Step type i.e., *VISCO vs *DYNAMIC IMPLICIT really cause an effect. If so, can you explain how; a pointer to some good resource will also do. I know that the *VISCO step wouldn't consider inertial effects. Apart from that is there any difference in the solution technique?

Thank You

Feby Abraham
Research Student
IIT Madras, Chennai
IN - 600036


---In [hidden email], <ddlindeman1@...> wrote :
Are you running a quasi-static analysis (*VISCO) or a dynamic analysis (*DYNAMIC)? What is the source of the time-dependency (for example, are you using a viscoelastic material)? Dave Lindeman Lead Research Specialist SEMS Research Laboratory 3M Center 235-3G-08 St. Paul, MN 55144 ! 651-733-6383 From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:10 PM To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Abaqus] Load controlled Quasi-Static analysis in ABAQUS/Standard using dynamic implicit Hi!, I am running a quasi-static analysis on a slender beam based on load control. I ran analyses with 1, 1.5, 2, and 10 secs. When the load rate is very less, that is 10 secs step time, the load displacement curve close to ultimate point is unacceptable. But, the load-displacement curve for all step times before ultimate point are all similar. Is there any particular load rate limit for Quasi-static analysis in Dynamic Implicit. Thank you. Best regards, Thananjayan





________________________________



3M Notice: This communication is from an [EXTERNAL] sender.
If this email looks suspicious, do NOT click or open any links or attachments in the email. To report a suspicious email, click on the Report Phishing – PhishMe icon in the Outlook ribbon or forward this email using the report email as spam link in the text below.

Click here<https://spam.mmm.com/pem/pages/digestProcess/digestProcess.jsf?content=aedaaa864ecbae94d59b9a2bf7132609f4c48bb94d457cfba2a90a9eb5b567eac6c4ff5fb22097b592aab29dac82584f30f60c161a797f8d8d8a621478a2f25250f75f3a4b570e12125b08ef0dd8e5d1dbc7a045714a146255659761471276b9c37b570f20a98a734732948327931bff93d08ba9b6d561fece99c327acde977017d051a1b719785d> to report this email as spam





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]