Meccanica

pp 1–22 | Cite as

Comparison of reduced order homogenization techniques: pRBMOR, NUTFA and MxTFA

  • F. Covezzi
  • S. de Miranda
  • F. Fritzen
  • S. Marfia
  • E. Sacco
Novel Computational Approaches to Old and New Problems in Mechanics
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

The introduction of composites in engineering applications led to a need for tools that can predict the mechanical response with account for the heterogeneities in the materials in order to safely design complex structures. These predictions are required to be sufficiently accurate yet computationally inexpensive, especially when dealing with nonlinear materials: for these the amount of internal variables and the computing times can both become prohibitively high. Here, three model order reduction homogenization methods are compared in detail: the potential-based Reduced Basis Model Order Reduction (pRBMOR), the NonUniform Transformation Field Analysis and the Mixed Transformation Field Analysis (MxTFA). All methods are developed in the framework of the Nonuniform TFA, initially introduced by Michel and Suquet. Two of the illustrated methods, the pRBMOR and the MxTFA, deviate from the TFA of Michel and Suquet in that they are based on mixed variational formulations. The comparison will investigate differences and similarities of the techniques in terms of the reduced degrees of freedom and their evolution law, the storage requirements and the accuracy of the effective constitutive behavior. Numerical tests on three-dimensional periodic composites under complex normal and shear loading paths will show the performances of the techniques.

Keywords

Homogenization Viscoplastic composites Mixed formulation Transformation Field Analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial supports by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research—MIUR are gratefully acknowledged: PRIN2015 Advanced mechanical modeling of new materials and structures for the solution of 2020 Horizon challenges   prot. 2015JW9NJT_018, PRIN2015 Multi-scale mechanical models for the design and optimization of micro-structured smart materials and metamaterials   prot. 2015LYYXA8_002. Parts of this work were effected by the Emmy-Noether-Group EMMA supported through Grant DFG-FR2702/6 within the Emmy-Noether program of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and within the scope of the scientific network CoSiMOR (DFG Grant FR2702/7). The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial and personal support of the DFG.

References

  1. 1.
    Benner P, Gugercin S, Willcox K (2015) A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM 57:483–531MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaboche J, Kruch L, Maire J, Pottier T (2001) Towards a micromechanics based inelastic and damage modeling of composites. Int J Plast 17:411–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-6419(00)00056-5CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Covezzi F, de Miranda S, Marfia S, Sacco E (2016) Complementary formulation of the TFA for the elasto-plastic analysis of composites. Compos Struct.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.094Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Covezzi F, de Miranda S, Marfia S, Sacco E (2017) Homogenization of elastic-viscoplastic composites by the mixed tfa. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2017.02.009MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig RR, Bampton MC (1968) Coupling of substrcutures for dynamic analysis. AIAA J 6(7):1313–1319ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dvorak G (1992) Transformation field analysis of inelastic composite materials. Proc R Soc Lond A 437:311–327ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dvorak G, Bahei-El-Din A (1997) Inelastic composite materials: transformation field analysis and experiments. In: Suquet P (ed) Continuum micromechanics, CISM course and lecture, vol 377. Springer, Vienna, pp 1–59Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feyel F, Chaboche J (2000) \(\text{ Fe }^2\) multiscale approach for modelling the elastoviscoplastic behaviour of long fiber sic/ti composite materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 183:309–330ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franciosi P, Berbenni S (2007) Heterogeneous crystal and poly-crystal plasticity modeling from transformation field analysis within a regularized schimd law. J Mech Phys Solids 55:2265–2299ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franciosi P, Berbenni S (2008) Multi-laminate plastic-strain organization for nonuniform tfa modeling of poly-crystal regularized plastic flow. Int J Plast 24:1549–1580CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritzen F, Hodapp M (2016) The finite element square reduced (\(\text{ FE }^{{\rm 2R}}\)) method with GPU acceleration: towards three-dimensional two-scale simulations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 107(10):853–881.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5188CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fritzen F, Leuschner M (2013) Reduced basis hybrid computational homogenization based on a mixed incremental formulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 260:143–154ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fritzen F, Hodapp M, Leuschner M (2014) GPU accelerated computational homogenization based on a variational approach in a reduced basis framework. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 278:186–217ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fritzen F, Marfia S, Sepe V (2015) Reduced order modeling in nonlinear homogenization: a comparative study. Comput Struct 157:114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guyan RJ (1965) Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices. AIAA J 3(2):380ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jiang T, Shao J, Xu W (2011) A micromechanical analysis of elastoplastic behavior of porous materials. Mech Res Commun 38:437–442CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michel J, Suquet P (2003) Nonuniform transformation field analysis. Int J Solids Struct 40:6937–6955MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michel J, Suquet P (2004) Computational analysis of nonlinear composite structures using the nonuniform transformation field analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:5477–5502ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oskay C, Fish J (2007) Eigendeformation-based reduced order homogenization for failure analysis of heterogeneous materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(7):1216–1243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2006.08.015ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perzyna P (1968) Fundamental problems in viscoplasticity. Adv Appl Mech 9(1):243–377Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quarteroni A, Manzoni A, Negri F (2016) Reduced basis methods for partial differential equations: an introduction. La matematica per il 3 + 2, vol 92. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15431-2MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roussette S, Michel J, Suquet P (2009) Nonuniform transformation field analysis of elastic-viscoplastic composites. Compos Sci Technol 69:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sepe V, Marfia S, Sacco E (2013) A nonuniform TFA homogenization technique based on piecewise interpolation functions of the inelastic field. Int J Solids Struct 50:725–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simo J, Hughes TJR (2000) Computational inelasticity, corr. 2. print. edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simo J, Kennedy J, Taylor RL (1989) Complementary mixed finite element formulations for elastoplasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 74:177–206ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Covezzi
    • 1
  • S. de Miranda
    • 1
  • F. Fritzen
    • 2
  • S. Marfia
    • 3
  • E. Sacco
    • 4
  1. 1.DICAMUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Mechanics (CE)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.DICeMUniversity of Cassino and of Southern LazioCassinoItaly
  4. 4.DiStUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations