PSI - Issue 33

I.J. Sánchez-Arce et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 33 (2021) 149–158 Sánchez-Arce et al. / Structural Integrity P o edi 00 (2019) 000–000

154 6

b)

a)

Figure 1. a) geometry and dimensions of the testing plate; b) nodal distribution used for discretising the domain.

5. Results The force-displacement curve allows visualising the material’s non-linear behaviour, and it is presented in Figure 2. In comparison with the solution provided with ABAQUS, minor differences exist. The difference at u=0.2 m is 2.1%, being the NNRPIM prediction higher. The difference is attributed to the small strain solution used in the NNRPIM, while ABAQUS uses large deformations by default. The non-linear behaviour of the material is not easily visible in Figure 2; thus, the vertical displacement of the upper-right corner was obtained. The displacement curve for both solutions superimposes each other, and the difference between the NNRPIM and the ABAQUS’ solutions was 0.66% at u=0.2 m, and so the results are comparable. In addition, a dotted line between the origin and the final point was placed, making more noticeable the material’s non-linear behaviour (Figure 3). The normal stress in the loading direction (  xx ) was also compared between both solutions. The higher difference was found at y=1.0 m, being 0.98%, as shown in Figure 4. The implementation is providing similar results to the ones obtained using commercial software.

100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

Force (N)

0 50000

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

Displacement (m)

ABAQUS

NNRPIM

Figure 2. Force-displacement curves. Comparison between the Abaqus' solution and the NNRPIM solution.