2008
DOI: 10.1007/s11044-008-9105-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of finite elements for nonlinear beams: the absolute nodal coordinate and geometrically exact formulations

Abstract: Two of the most popular finite element formulations for solving nonlinear beams are the absolute nodal coordinate and the geometrically exact approaches. Both can be applied to problems with very large deformations and strains, but they differ substantially at the continuous and the discrete levels. In addition, implementation and run-time computational costs also vary significantly. In the current work, we summarize the main features of the two formulations, highlighting their differences and similarities, an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
50
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
50
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Within the FE method framework, comparisons of different geometrically nonlinear beam formulations in terms of locking are discussed in [64] and a locking-free hybrid formulation is presented in [65]. Both papers confirm that the standard geometrically exact two-node displacement-based finite element formulation leads to severe locking, unless a one-point Gaussian integration rule is used.…”
Section: Locking Studymentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Within the FE method framework, comparisons of different geometrically nonlinear beam formulations in terms of locking are discussed in [64] and a locking-free hybrid formulation is presented in [65]. Both papers confirm that the standard geometrically exact two-node displacement-based finite element formulation leads to severe locking, unless a one-point Gaussian integration rule is used.…”
Section: Locking Studymentioning
confidence: 88%
“…4.3). We refer othwise to the article of Romero (2008) for a comparison of the geometrically exact and ANCF approaches to nonlinear rods. Mata et al (2008) model the inelastic constitutive behaviour of composite beam structures under dynamic loading, using a Cosserat model as kinematical basis.…”
Section: Related Work On Viscoelastic Rodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main difference between this element and the classical nonlinear beam formulation is the use of gradients instead of rotational degrees of freedom. The element's performance was analyzed in [16,35] and compared with the classical formulation in [38]. The second element is a non-linear two-node bar.…”
Section: Finite Element Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%