Application to plate components of a kinematic global‐local approach for non‐matching finite element meshes

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and to assess the capabilities of the most common finite element (FE)‐based tools to deal with global‐local analysis. Two kinds of coupling were investigated: shell to shell and shell to solid.

Design/methodology/approach

The issue of connecting non‐matching FE global and local models, characterized by different mesh refinements and/or different element types, was addressed by introducing appropriate kinematic constraints on the nodes at the interfaces. The coupling techniques available in the three FE‐based codes (ABAQUS^®, NASTRAN^® and ANSYS^®), were assessed by applying them on a common numerical test case (non‐linear buckling analysis of a square plate). Results of the global‐local simulations were compared to the results obtained for relevant reference solutions.

Findings

The continuity of displacements and stresses across the interface between global and local models and the influence of the presence of the local model on the global model solution were used as parameters to test the quality of the results. It was observed that the tools implemented in the different codes provide different results. The results characterized by a higher quality were found by using the Multi Point Constraint available in ABAQUS^®.

Originality/value

When dealing with complex structures, multi‐scale (global‐local) approaches are commonly adopted to optimize the computational cost by increasing mesh refinements and/or introducing elements with different formulations in specific region of the structures identified as “local model”. In this paper an overview of the coupling tools available in the main commercial FE code is given.

Citation

Sellitto, A., Borrelli, R., Caputo, F., Riccio, A. and Scaramuzzino, F. (2012), "Application to plate components of a kinematic global‐local approach for non‐matching finite element meshes", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/17579861211264370