Publications

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Adagio is a Lagrangian, three-dimensional, implicit code for the analysis of solids and structures. It uses a multi-level iterative solver, which enables it to solve problems with large deformations, nonlinear material behavior, and contact. It also has a versatile library of continuum and structural elements, and an extensive library of material models. Adagio is written for parallel computing environments, and its solvers allow for scalable solutions of very large problems. Adagio uses the SIERRA Framework, which allows for coupling with other SIERRA mechanics codes. This document describes the functionality and input structure for Adagio.

Presto is a Lagrangian, three-dimensional explicit, transient dynamics code that is used to analyze solids subjected to large, suddenly applied loads. The code is designed for a parallel computing environment and for problems with large deformations, nonlinear material behavior, and contact. Presto also has a versatile element library that incorporates both continuum elements and structural elements. This user's guide describes the input for Presto that gives users access to all the current functionality in the code. The environment in which Presto is built allows it to be coupled with other engineering analysis codes. Using a concept called scope, the input structure reflects the fact that Presto can be used in a coupled environment. The user's guide describes how scope is implemented from the outermost to the innermost scopes. Within a given scope, the descriptions of input commands are grouped based on functionality of the code. For example, all material input command lines are described in a chapter of the user's guide for all the material models that can be used in Presto.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The ability to generate a suitable finite element mesh in an automatic fashion is becoming the key to being able to automate the entire engineering analysis process. However, placing an all-hexahedron mesh in a general three-dimensional body continues to be an elusive goal. The approach investigated in this research is fundamentally different from any other that is known of by the authors. A physical analogy viewpoint is used to formulate the actual meshing problem which constructs a global mathematical description of the problem. The analogy used was that of minimizing the electrical potential of a system charged particles within a charged domain. The particles in the presented analogy represent duals to mesh elements (i.e., quads or hexes). Particle movement is governed by a mathematical functional which accounts for inter-particles repulsive, attractive and alignment forces. This functional is minimized to find the optimal location and orientation of each particle. After the particles are connected a mesh can be easily resolved. The mathematical description for this problem is as easy to formulate in three-dimensions as it is in two- or one-dimensions. The meshing algorithm was developed within CoMeT. It can solve the two-dimensional meshing problem for convex and concave geometries in a purely automated fashion. Investigation of the robustness of the technique has shown a success rate of approximately 99% for the two-dimensional geometries tested. Run times to mesh a 100 element complex geometry were typically in the 10 minute range. Efficiency of the technique is still an issue that needs to be addressed. Performance is an issue that is critical for most engineers generating meshes. It was not for this project. The primary focus of this work was to investigate and evaluate a meshing algorithm/philosophy with efficiency issues being secondary. The algorithm was also extended to mesh three-dimensional geometries. Unfortunately, only simple geometries were tested before this project ended. The primary complexity in the extension was in the connectivity problem formulation. Defining all of the interparticle interactions that occur in three-dimensions and expressing them in mathematical relationships is very difficult.