Dynamic analysis of a cantilever plate

Benjamin Zwick
26th and 28th April 2016
In the previous tutorial we preformed an eigenvalue analysis following
Example 1.4.6 Eigenvalue analysis of a cantilever plate from the Abaqus
Benchmarks Guide. In this tutorial we will perform a dynamic (transient)
analysis using explicit and implicit time integration methods. Below is an
outline of how to perform the analysis:
1. Setup the model geometry, material, section properties and boundary conditions as specified in Example 1.4.6 Eigenvalue analysis of a
cantilever plate from the Abaqus Benchmarks Guide. (Use SI units of
metres, kilograms, seconds).
2. Generate a mesh using S4R shell elements with a seed size of 0.005 m.
3. Apply a shell edge load in the transverse direction with a magnitude
of 100 N/m and instantaneous amplitude along the outer edge of the
plate. This is equivalent to a point load of 100 0.0254 = 2.54 N.
This load will excite the first mode and the plate should vibrate at
approximately 80 Hz as predicted by the modal analysis.
4. Create a set containing the edge on which the load was applied and
use it to request time history output for displacements, velocities and
accelerations. Try a frequency of output for every 100 increments.
Adjust this to obtain a sufficient number of data points for plotting.
5. Perform a dynamic, explicit analysis for a time period of 0.1 seconds
using the default solver parameters. Observe the computed stable time
increment size. The stable time increment size when using the material
properties and mesh specified above should be approximately 8e-7 s
resulting in approximately 120000 increments.
6. Use a fixed time increment size that is double the stable time increment
size calculated by Abaqus and observe that the solution is unstable
(solver error).
1

7. Apply mass scaling to double the time step (thereby reducing the number of increments and solution time by half) and compare the results
by plotting time history output of displacement at the outer edge of
the plate. The solution is stable but the frequency of vibration is much
lower (about half).
8. Plot the element mass scaling factor (EMSF) and observe that all elements were scaled uniformly. Is mass scaling appropriate for this
problem and mesh?
9. Repeat the explicit analysis with a finer mesh and observe the effect on
the stable time increment. Revert to the original mesh (element seed
size of 0.005 m) for the next step.
10. Repeat the analysis with the same model and loading using a dynamic,
implicit procedure with default solver parameters for a time period
of 1 second. Use linear analysis (NLGEOM=OFF). This will not be
as accurate but we will change it to nonlinear in subsequent steps.
Observe the time increment size in the job monitor and compare it to
the stable time increment of the explicit analysis.
11. Edit the step and in the incrementation tab suppress the half-step
residual calculation. Observe the time increment size in the job monitor.
12. Repeat the analysis using nonlinear analysis (NLGEOM=ON) and
compare the stable time increment. Compare the results with the
results of the explicit analysis by plotting the time history of the displacement of one of the nodes on the loaded edge.
13. Repeat the implicit solution using different values of numerical damping, , for the HilberHughesTaylor operator. Try = 0.05 (Abaqus
recommended value), = 0.333 (maximum numerical damping) and
= 0 (no damping). The damping affects the low frequency modes
when is too high. You may need to increase the time period to 1
second to notice significant effects.
14. (Optional) Try some different loads. For example, apply two point
loads of the equivalent magnitude (2.54 N) to the two outer corners
but in opposite directions to excite the second mode (torsion). The
plate then vibrates at roughly 400 Hz which is similar to the frequency
of the second mode.