motivating problem
Post on 03-Feb-2016
41 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Jim Uschock
Naval Surface Warfare CenterDahlgren Division
(540) 653-4463jbu200@cims.nyu.edu
Quantitative Methods in Defense & National Security
“Understanding the Implications of Decoupling the Full Fluid Structure
Interaction When Modeling Blast Waves Interacting with Structure”
May 26, 2010
2
Motivating Problem
3
Time=0 sec Time=200 sec Time=400 sec
Top
Example of a Blast-Structure Calculation using CTH
• Eulerian code CTH well suited for detonation• Blast-structure interaction for this problem is 3D in its
behavior• Disparate length scales require Adaptive Mesh
Refinement (AMR)– Detonation, mm scale– Air shock, mm scale– Boat, 8 ft wide
• With half plane symmetry ~1000 cpu-hours
4
Calculating Damage in LS-DYNA with CTH Input
• CTH is an Eulerian code suited for shock physics
• LS-Dyna is a Lagrangian code suited for structural response
• Timescale for the explosive loading is small relative to the timescale for structural response– i.e. The boat hull does not deform during
blast loading
• This allows a combined code approach– CTH + LS-Dyna
• Use boat test data for validation
CTH calculates blast in 3D
Export correct pressure time histories from CTH
LS-Dyna calculates hull deformation
5
Issues with Approach
• Simulation is split up into 2 separate calculations which are run consecutively– This approach precludes mutual interaction (inaccurate)– This is inefficient from a parallelization standpoint– Requires loading histories on a rigid plate which is an engineering
approximation• What if the geometry was much more complicated?
– Not applicable for events involving long time behavior of structure (seconds)
• E.g. Sympathetic Detonation due to Kinetic Trauma
– Requires stand-alone routines to be written for specific application to allow CTH outputs to be read as LS-DYNA inputs time-consuming
• Simulation couples with commercial FEA solver– Scalability is limited by cost since licenses must be purchased for
each processor– Source code is not available to allow for seamless coupling
independent of specific application
6
Some Technical Background
7
The Finite Volume Method
0))(( xt uFu
8
An Aside: “The Small Cell Problem”
9
Approach
10
Our Approach (in the large)
• Couple freely-available, scalable solvers using finite volume for the fluid (gas) and finite element for the solid structure focusing on the ability to handle complex geometry– Write an interface that passes information between the two solvers
as part of a single simulation– Use embedded boundary techniques in conjunction with state-of-the-
art numerical routines capable of dealing with the associated, so-called, “small cell problem”
11
Approach
• Write 1D code to solve Euler equations with an ideal gas law
• Modify 1D code to allow for small cells (irregular grid) – Implement new theoretical algorithm to deal with
the small cell problem• Verify and validate standard code and newly
enhanced code through suite of linear and nonlinear test problems
• Apply code to fully coupled 1D fluid-structure interaction problem
12
1D Code for Studying Complex Geometry
– Written in C, ~1000 lines of code– Compatible with CLAWPACK 1D input decks– Allows for variable small-cell capability– Solves 1D inviscid Euler equations:
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
up
E
puEuE
puu
u
xt
xt
xt
13
1D Code for Studying Complex Geometry
• Fully second order accurate (space and time)– MUSCL-Hancock
• Use and in the Riemann solver
– TVD-preserving Runge-Kutta scheme
)(
)(****
*
QtLQQ
QtLQQ nn
)(
2
1 **1 QQQ nn
ini
Ri
ini
Li
iii
uu
uu
uu
2
12
1
)1(2
1)1(
2
12/12/1
)()(2
1
)()(2
1
Ri
Li
Ri
R
i
Ri
Li
Li
L
i
ufufx
tu
ufufx
tu
u
u
uR
i uL
i 1
14
1D Code for Studying Complex Geometry
• Slope reconstruction routine allows for irregular grids– Follows recent work of Berger– Uses least squares solution
– Van Leer slope limiter is used on primitive variables
iiii uRxxxuxu )()()()( 1
1
ii
iii uu
uuR
iiL uDhh
huD
hh
hD
i
22
2
22
2
ii xxh 1
h
uuuD iii
1
with
15
1D Code for Studying Complex Geometry
• HLLC Riemann Solver – Work of Toro, Spruce, and Speares– Modifies HLL (Harten, Lax, and Van Leer)
scheme by restoring missing contact and shear waves
– Approximation for the intercell numerical flux is obtained directly in this approach
• Shown to be effective in use with 1D inviscid Euler equations, for example
• Roe Solver
16
(Post Processing) Cell Merging
• Developed cell merging technique that occurs after the Riemann solve but still is conservative
• Formulated and developed in 1D– Take a normal time step
– After Riemann Solve, merge small cell with a non-ghost neighbor in a volume-weighted way
– Perform irregular grid slope reconstruction on merged cell
– Determine correct state values at centers of small cell and neighbor cell based on the new slope calculated
• Successfully demonstrated when small cells are present
17
Verification of 1D Code
•Constant input stays constant (regular and small cell)
•Linear input stays linear (small cell)
18
Verification of 1D Code
)sin(2 x•Sinusoidal advection preserved (regular and small cell)
1u2p• 200 cells on [-π,π]
• Fixed dt=.0005; tfinal=0.5
19
Verification of 1D Code
•Fully 2nd order accurate (regular grid)
20
Verification of 1D Code
• Sod shock tube problem verified (regular grid)
– 3000 cells
1;3 rrll pp
21
Verification (Courant Friedrichs)
oio
oioioro PP
PPPP
6
8
22
Piston Problem
• Simplest fluid-structure interaction problem (1D)• Subramaniam Paper (Intl J Impact Engineering, 2009)
– Blast wave interacting with an elastic structure is analyzed in 1D within ALE framework
– The effect of considering 2-way coupling in FSI is compared to 1-way coupling FSI
– Builds on work of Blom (Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engr., 1998)• Advocates monolithical FSI algorithm
23
Transient Dynamic Analysis of Elastic Structure
APtptfukum sssss 0
22.148m
kgms
3610397.1m
Nks
• Consider a plate 4.5m in length, 2.25m wide, and 2.5cm thick
• Assume fixed edges on the plate and pinned BCs
• Can find equivalent structural mass and stiffness of the fundamental mode of vibration per unit cross sectional area:
• Equation integrated with Newmark-Beta
24
Piston Problem
• Structural displacement predicted by ignoring FSI is larger than the corresponding displacement considering FSI. Pressure history is qualitatively different as well:
25
Example Piston Problem Plots
Pressure (1-way) Pressure (2-way)
26
Conclusions
• Through an entirely different approach, have qualitatively verified the work of Subramaniam, et al., in 1D:– Distinct differences in pressure and displacement
histories when comparing coupled and decoupled approaches
– 1D case clearly demonstrates that the decoupling approach may be ill-advised for this class of problems (thin-walled structures)
27
Questions?
top related