I am doing an impact analysis in LS-Dyna . When I include failure strain data  I am not able to get the energy balance in GLSTAT . So I tracked it using MATSUM . But there is huge difference in the energy input and energy output. SO I ran the same without failurestrains. Here I got the energy balance. Can somebody let me know whether there is some issue in my postprocessing the results while using failure strain?

Within the



7th Research Framework Programme of the EU (FP7),

The project "Macro, Micro and Nano Aspects of Machining - MAMINA"

offers a three-year PhD project

named

"Finite Element Simulation of the Cutting Process"

at the Institut für Werkstoffe, Technische Universität Braunschweig.





Within the PhD-project Finite Element Simulation of the Cutting

Process (ESR 2) the cutting process will be simulated using finite

elements. Different models will be developed and the material

I have implemented a 2D co-rotational truss formulation in matlab.  I get identical results to OpenSEES.

Now I'm trying to implement a 2D co-rotational beam formulation.  I have followed the simple formulation in Crisfield's book volume 1.  It seems like this should be a fairly straight forward extension of the truss formulation.  I have rederived everything Crisfield has done and obtained the same results, yet something is still incorrect.

For a system in thermal contact with the rest of the world, we have described three quantities: entropy, energy, and temperature. We have also described the idea of a constraint internal to the system, and associated this constraint to an internal variable.

A recent paper on JMPS has seriously questioned the foundation of the SGP theory of Fleck and Hutchinson.  The matter is not simple, but is it a good bench test for imechanica to discuss?

doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2008.12.002