Skip to main content
Log in

Finite element analysis of functionally graded hyperelastic beams under plane stress

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An alternative finite element formulation to analyze highly deformable beams composed of functionally graded (FG) hyperelastic material is presented. The 2D beam element adopted has a general order and seven degrees of freedom per node, allowing both axial and shear effects, as well as cubic variation of transverse strains. The constitutive law employed is the hyperelastic compressible neo-Hookean model for plane stress conditions. The material coefficients vary along the beam thickness according to the power law. The nonlinear system of equilibrium equations is solved numerically by the Newton–Raphson iterative technique. Full integration scheme and division in load steps are employed to obtain accuracy and stability, respectively. Four illustrative examples involving highly deformable elastic beams under plane stress and static conditions are analyzed: cantilever beam under free-end shear force, semicircular cantilever beam, column under buckling and shallow thin arch. The effects of the mesh refinement, the FG power coefficient and the transverse enrichment scheme on the beam behavior are investigated. In general, mesh refinement provides more accurate results, the power coefficient has a more significant effect on displacements and the second enrichment rate is needed to correctly predict the nonlinear variation of transverse strains across the thickness. This nonlinear variation, together with the moderate values of strains and stresses achieved, reinforces the need of adopting a nonlinear hyperelastic model. Finally, the determination of the out-of-plane strain from the plane components is solved numerically by a proposed Newton’s method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pai PF, Nayfeh AH (1994) A fully nonlinear theory of curved and twisted composite rotor blades accounting for warpings and three-dimensional stress effects. Int J Solids Struct 31:1309–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pai PF, Palazotto AN (1996) Large-deformation analysis of flexible beams. Int J Solids Struct 33:1335–1353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pascon JP (2016) Finite element analysis of flexible functionally graded beams with variable Poisson’s ratio. Eng Comput 33:2421–2447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Holzapfel GA (2000) Nonlinear solid mechanics—a continuum approach for engineering. Wiley, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Rivlin RS (1948) Large elastic deformation of isotropic materials: I. Fundamental concepts, II. Some uniqueness theories for pure homogeneous deformations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 240:459–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Woo J, Meguid SA (2001) Nonlinear analysis of functionally graded plates and shallow shells. Int J Solids Struct 38:7409–7421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghannadpour SAM, Alinia MM (2006) Large deflection behavior of functionally graded plates under pressure loads. Compos Struct 75:67–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oyekoya OO, Mba DU, El-Zafrany AM (2009) Buckling and vibration analysis of functionally graded composite structures using the finite element method. Compos Struct 89:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arciniega RA, Reddy JN (2007) Large deformation analysis of functionally graded shells. Int J Solids Struct 44:2036–2052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chi SH, Chung YL (2006) Mechanical behavior of functionally graded material plates under transverse load—part I: analysis. Int J Solids Struct 43:3657–3674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vo TP, Lee J (2011) Geometrical nonlinear analysis of thin-walled composite beams using finite element method based on first order shear deformation theory. Arch Appl Mech 81:419–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Perel VY (2005) Finite element analysis of vibration of delaminated composite beam with an account of contact of the delamination crack faces, based on the first-order shear deformation theory. J Compos Mater 39:1843–1876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang B, He Y, Liu D, Gan Z, Shen L (2014) Size-dependent functionally graded beam model based on an improved third-order shear deformation theory. Eur J Mech A Solids 47:211–230

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou Y, Zhu J (2016) Vibration and bending analysis of multiferroic rectangular plates using third-order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 153:712–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li J, Hu X, Li X (2016) Free vibration analyses of axially loaded laminated composite beams using a unified higher-order shear deformation theory and dynamic stiffness method. Compos Struct 158:308–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen TK, Nguyen BD (2015) A new higher-order shear deformation theory for static, buckling and free vibration analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams. J Sandw Struct Mater 17:613–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lei J, He Y, Zhang B, Gan Z, Zeng P (2013) Bending and vibration of functionally graded sinusoidal microbeams based on the strain gradient elasticity theory. Int J Eng Sci 72:36–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lei J, He Y, Li Z, Guo S, Liu D (2019) Postbuckling analysis of bi-directional functionally graded imperfect beams based on a novel third-order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 209:811–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Attard MM, Hunt GW (2008) Column buckling with shear deformations—a hyperelastic formulation. Int J Solids Struct 45:4322–4339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Irschik H, Gerstmayr J (2009) A hyperelastic Reissner-type model for non-linear shear deformable beams. In: Troch I, Breitenecker F (eds) Proceedings of the Mathmod 09 Vienna. Springer, Wien, pp 1–7

  21. Maqueda LG, Shabana AA (2007) Poisson modes and general nonlinear constitutive models in the large displacement analysis of beams. Multibody Syst Dyn 18:375–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Coda HB, Paccola RR (2007) An alternative positional FEM formulation for geometrically non-linear analysis of shells: curved triangular isoparametric elements. Comput Mech 40:185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Coda HB, Paccola RR (2008) A positional FEM Formulation for geometrical non-linear analysis of shells. Lat Am J Solids Struct 5:205–223

    Google Scholar 

  24. Coda HB, Paccola RR (2009) Unconstrained finite element for geometrical nonlinear dynamics of shells. Math Probl Eng 2009:575–606

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Coda HB, Greco M (2004) A simple FEM formulation for large deflection 2D frame analysis based on position description. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 193:3541–3557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Simo JC, Hughes TJR (1998) Computational inelasticity. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Pascon JP, Coda HB (2013) High-order tetrahedral finite elements applied to large deformation analysis of functionally graded rubber-like materials. Appl Math Model 37:8757–8775

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Pascon JP (2012) On nonlinear constitutive models for functionally graded materials exhibiting large strains: numerical implementation in geometrically nonlinear formulation. PhD Thesis (in Portuguese), Structural Engineering Department, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo

  29. Bathe KJ, Ozdemir H (1976) Elastic-plastic large deformation static and dynamic analysis. Comput Struct 6:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author appreciates the essential support of the Materials Engineering Department of the Lorena School of Engineering (DEMAR/EEL/USP), and also of the Structural Engineering Department of the São Carlos School of Engineering (SET/EESC/USP), both from the University of São Paulo.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Paulo Pascon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Out-of-plane normal strain

The numerical calculation of the out-of-plane strain C33 is described in the present section.

From expression (29), another nonlinear relationship involving strains can be obtained:

$$\begin{aligned} K{ \ln }\left[ {\sqrt {\left( {C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12}^{2} } \right)C_{33} } } \right] = \mu \left( {1 - C_{33} } \right) \hfill \\ \quad \Rightarrow \left( {C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12}^{2} } \right)C_{33} = \left\{ {{ \exp }\left[ {\frac{\mu }{K}\left( {1 - C_{33} } \right)} \right]} \right\}^{2} . \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$
(42)

Applying the Newton’s method to the above expression:

$$r = C_{33} \left( {C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12}^{2} } \right) - \left\{ {{ \exp }\left[ {\frac{\mu }{K}\left( {1 - C_{33} } \right)} \right]} \right\}^{2} \text{,}$$
(43)
$$\frac{{{\text{d}}r}}{{{\text{d}}C_{33} }} = \left( {C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12}^{2} } \right) + 2\frac{\mu }{K}\left\{ {{ \exp }\left[ {\frac{\mu }{K}\left( {1 - C_{33} } \right)} \right]} \right\}^{2} \text{,}$$
(44)
$$r + \frac{{{\text{d}}r}}{{{\text{d}}C_{33} }}\Delta C_{33} = 0 \Rightarrow \Delta C_{33} = - \left( {\frac{{{\text{d}}r}}{{{\text{d}}C_{33} }}} \right)^{ - 1} r\text{,}$$
(45)

The value of C33 is updated until the residual r is sufficiently small. The first trial for this strain may be the unit value (i.e., the undeformed situation) or the incompressible value:

$$C_{33} = \frac{1}{{C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12}^{2} }} \Rightarrow J = 1\text{,}$$
(46)

Appendix B: Consistent tangent operator

Once all the strains are determined, the consistent tangent operator \(\wp = {{\partial {\mathbf{S}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\partial {\mathbf{S}}} {\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}\) can be analytically obtained as follows.

According to expression (30), differentiation of the stress tensor S regarding the stretch tensor C results in:

$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{S}}}}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = - \mu \left( {{\mathbf{C}}^{ - 1} \otimes \frac{{\partial C_{33} }}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} + C_{33} \frac{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}^{ - 1} }}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}} \right)\text{,}$$
(47)

where the symbol \(\otimes\) denotes the tensor product. One should remember that the partial derivatives in (47) are performed in respect to the plane strains C11, C12 and C22.

From equation (42), the following scalar function can be defined:

$$fC_{33} = \left\{ {{ \exp }\left[ {\frac{\mu }{K}\left( {1 - C_{33} } \right)} \right]} \right\}^{2} \Rightarrow f = C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12}^{2} .$$
(48)

A variation in any one of the plane strains causes a variation in the function f, which in turn causes a variation in the out-of-plane strain C33. Thus, the derivatives of C33 regarding the plane strains can be determined as follows:

$$\frac{{\partial C_{33} }}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = \frac{{\partial C_{33} }}{\partial f}\frac{\partial f}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = \left[ {\frac{\partial f}{{\partial C_{33} }}} \right]^{ - 1} \frac{\partial f}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = {{\frac{\partial f}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\frac{\partial f}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}} {\frac{\partial f}{{\partial C_{33} }}}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\frac{\partial f}{{\partial C_{33} }}}}\text{,}$$
(49)
$$\frac{\partial f}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {C_{22} } & { - 2C_{12} } \\ { - 2C_{12} } & {C_{11} } \\ \end{array} } \right].$$
(50)

Considering only the plane strains and, thus, a stretch tensor C represented by a square matrix 2 × 2, the inverse of C is:

$${\mathbf{C}}^{ - 1} = \frac{1}{{J^{2} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {C_{22} } & { - 2C_{12} } \\ { - 2C_{12} } & {C_{11} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \frac{1}{{J^{2} }}{\mathbf{C}}_{\text{aux}} \text{,}$$
(51)

where \({\mathbf{C}}_{\text{aux}}\) is an auxiliary 2 × 2 matrix. Consequently, the derivative of \({\mathbf{C}}^{ - 1}\) in respect to C is:

$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}^{ - 1} }}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}\left( {\frac{1}{{J^{2} }}{\mathbf{C}}_{\text{aux}} } \right) = {\mathbf{C}}_{\text{aux}} \otimes \frac{{\partial \left( {J^{ - 2} } \right)}}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} + \frac{1}{{J^{2} }}\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}_{\text{aux}} }}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}\text{,}$$
(52)
$$\frac{{\partial \left( {J^{ - 2} } \right)}}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = - \frac{1}{{\left( {J^{2} } \right)^{2} }}\frac{{\partial \left( {J^{2} } \right)}}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}} = - \frac{1}{{\left( {J^{2} } \right)^{2} }}\left[ {\frac{\partial f}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}C_{33} + f\frac{{\partial C_{33} }}{{\partial {\mathbf{C}}}}} \right]\text{,}$$
(53)
$$\frac{{\partial \left( {C_{\text{aux}} } \right)_{11} }}{{\partial C_{22} }} = \frac{{\partial \left( {C_{\text{aux}} } \right)_{22} }}{{\partial C_{11} }} = 1,\frac{{\partial \left( {C_{\text{aux}} } \right)_{12} }}{{\partial C_{12} }} = \frac{{\partial \left( {C_{\text{aux}} } \right)_{21} }}{{\partial C_{12} }} = - 1.$$
(54)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pascon, J.P. Finite element analysis of functionally graded hyperelastic beams under plane stress. Engineering with Computers 36, 1265–1288 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00761-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00761-w

Keywords

Navigation