This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

com/locate/apm

**A Galerkin/least-square ﬁnite element formulation for nearly incompressible elasticity/stokes ﬂow
**

Kaiming Xia

a b

a,*

, Haishen Yao

b

Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, QCC, The City University of New York, NY 11364, USA Received 1 May 2005; received in revised form 1 August 2005; accepted 1 November 2005 Available online 27 December 2005

Abstract A Galerkin/least-square ﬁnite element formulation (GLS) is used to study mixed displacement-pressure formulation of nearly incompressible elasticity. In order to fully incorporate the eﬀect of the residual-based stabilized term to the weak form, the second derivatives of shape functions were also derived and accounted, which can accurately discretize the residual term and improve the GLS method as well as the Petrov–Galerkin method. The numerical studies show that improved stabilized method can eﬀectively remove volumetric locking problem for incompressible elasticity and stabilize the pressure ﬁeld for stokes ﬂow. When apply GLS to study material nonlinearity, the derivative of tangent modulus at the integration point will be required. Both advantage and disadvantage of using GLS method for nearly incompressible elasticity/stokes ﬂow were demonstrated. Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Galerkin/least-square; Second derivatives of shape functions; Stabilized term; Incompressible elasticity/stokes ﬂow

1. Introduction It has been a few decades for scientiﬁc researchers to try to develop successful ﬁnite element formulations for incompressible and nearly incompressible material, which can eﬀectively alleviate or remove the volumetric locking problem. Mixed displacement-pressure formulations are a suitable alternative because the internal constraint can be satisﬁed point-wise. However, not every combination of interpolation functions for pressure and displacements is allowed since they have to satisfy Babuska–Brezzi conditions [1,2] or patch test proposed by Ozienkiewicz and Taylor [3]. While using low-order ﬁnite elements, the pressure ﬁeld might highly oscillate unless the some special stabilization is applied [3], which makes it diﬃcult to use in practical engineering situations. Thus, a lot of eﬀorts have been focused on the development of stabilized ﬁnite elements in which the

* Corresponding author. Present address: Machine Research, TC-E 852, P.O. Box 1875, Peoria, IL 61656-1875, USA. Tel.: +1 309 578 4145; fax: +1 309 578 4277. E-mail address: Xia_Kaiming@Cat.com (K. Xia).

0307-904X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2005.11.009

rn ¼ t ðNeumann boundary condition on oXt Þ. Strong form Consider a body X denoted by the open set X & Rndim consisting of material point x 2 Rndim . Additionally. are required to discretize the residual-based term. and 3 T Dup ¼ 1 ¼ ½ 1 1 1 0 0 0 . particularly for advective-diﬀusive model. Mixed displacement-pressure formulation 2. Weak form The weak form of the mixed problem can be obtained by using standard weighted residual method. Stress decomposition The stress tensor is also decomposed into two parts: deviatoric stress s and pressure p. In Section 4 numerical simulations are given. For both GLS and Petrov–Galerkin method.3. which was for ﬂuid mechanics [4]. In Section 3 we present the Galerkin/least-square method for mixed displacement-pressure formulation and the second derivatives of shape functions. ð 5Þ ð 1Þ ð 2Þ ð 3Þ ð 4Þ where G is shear modulus. the governing equations are given by r Á r þ b ¼ 0 ðEquilibrium equation in bodyÞ. 2. the second derivatives of shape functions. and expressed as follows: r ¼ s þ p1 ¼ 2GIdev þ p1 ¼ Duu e þ Dup p. p r Á u À ¼ 0 ðVolumetric constitutive equationÞ.2. both GLS and the Petrov–Galerkin method have been used to alleviate volumetric locking problem in solid mechanics [8–10]. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Xia. The advantage of stabilization methods is to overcome diﬃculties associated with mixed formulations (such as inappropriate combination of interpolation ﬁelds). It is mainly applied to incompressible Stokes ﬂow problems that coincide with those for incompressible linear elasticity. with respect to global Cartesian coordinate system. In this paper. One of these methods is to introduce nonzero diagonal terms by adding a least-square form to the Galerkin formulation. the second derivatives of shape functions are presented so that the residual terms can be accurately accounted. K u ¼ g ðDirichlet boundary condition on oXu Þ. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 violation of the mixed patch test (or Babuska–Brezzi conditions) can be artiﬁcially compensated. which has not been used in previous studies. the displacement uðxÞ 2 Rndim and pressure p(x) is a scalar.4–7]. At any point x. A Galerkin mixed form of elasticity is presented in Section 2. H. 2. deviatoric modulus Duu is the deviatoric projection of elastic matrix D and deﬁned as Duu = 2GIdev. Stabilization methods have been introduced for ﬂuid mechanics as tools of stabilizing the ﬂuid ﬂow equations [2. Idev is given by Idev ¼ I À 1 1 1. The Galerkin/least-square (GLS) approach presents itself as a modiﬁcation to constructing a weak form for the Galerkin form and acted as a means of stabilizing the ﬂuid ﬂow equations. For mixed u À p formulation. Its boundary is denoted by C = oX = oXu [ oXt and B = oXu \ oXt.1.514 K. 2. where K is the bulk modulus and deﬁned as K = E/3(1 À 2m). The corresponding spaces for trial functions and weighting functions are deﬁned as follows: . 1 is the second-order unit tensor. Concluding remarks are presented in Section 5. which makes it possible to use low-order ﬁnite elements.

X where Dpu ¼ 1 ¼ ½ 1 1 1 0 0 0 T . . Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 515 È É S ¼ u j u 2 H1 0 ðXÞ j u ¼ g.K. e ¼ symðruÞ ¼ rs Nu u ¼ Bu. ð17Þ p p p T p T T T ð12Þ ð13Þ ð14Þ ð15Þ ð16Þ By applying the weighted residual method (Galerkin procedure and substitution of weighting functions Eqs. Matrix form The spatial approximation of the displacement. H. K X ð11Þ where wuand wp are weighting functions corresponding to displacement u and pressure p. on oXu . p ¼ N P. (10) and (11). pressure and strain are written by u ¼ N u u. X C Z p T pu Kpu ¼ ðN Þ D B dX. on oXu g. X X C ð10Þ For volumetric constitutive equation. where matrix B is given by B ¼ rs Nu ¼ ½ B1 ÁÁÁ Bnel . Dpu = 1T = (Dup)T. respectively and can be chosen as follows: wu ¼ ðddu Þ ðNu Þ . p ¼ fp j p 2 L2 ðXÞg. (12) and (13)) and appropriately approximating the spatial unknowns into Eqs. and Dpp = 1/K. 2. the results will be as follows: " #& ' & ' Kuu Kup u Ru ¼ . one can further obtain Z Z Z uu up u u rw : ðD e þ D pÞ dX ¼ w Á b dX þ wu Á t dC. v ¼ fw j w 2 H ðXÞ j w ¼ 0. ð18Þ KT K P 0 pp pu where Kuu ¼ Z X BT Duu Bu dX. w ¼ ð dP Þ ð N Þ . Thus the discretized weighted residual form of the problem can be given as follows: Z Z Z u u rw : r dX ¼ w Á b dX þ wu Á t dC. X Z Z T u T Ru ¼ ðN Þ Á b dX þ ðNu Þ Á t dC. the weak form is given by Z p wp r Á u À dX ¼ 0 . X Z Kpp ¼ À ðNp ÞT Dpp Np dX. Xia. ð19Þ ð20Þ ð21Þ ð22Þ ð23Þ Z Kup ¼ BT Dup Np dX. X X C 1 ð 6Þ ð 7Þ ð 8Þ ð 9Þ By substituting Eq.4. (5).

General GLS form The Galerkin/least-square (GLS) approach presents a modiﬁcation for constructing a weak form for Galerkin form. A(u) represents the residual part of the strong form corresponding to the high-order equation.2. the use of low-order interpolation functions for both displacement and pressure will give highly oscillated pressure solution. wp ÞÞ sðr Á rðu. some diﬃcult points should be mentioned. dA(u)T is the corresponding weighting part regarded in GLS method. Thus. H. 3. the residual of the strong form can be rewritten as r Á rðu. Detailed derivations are provided below. The derivation of matrix Luu and Lup seems very complicated. where ~ e ¼ ðddu ÞT ðrs Nu ÞT . wp ÞÞ ¼ ðddu Þ ðr Á ðDuu rs Nu ÞÞ þ ðdPp Þ ðr Á ð1Np ÞÞ ¼ ðddu Þ LT uu þ ðdP Þ Lup . up p ð31Þ ð32Þ ð33Þ When using the GLS scheme. pÞ þ bÞ dX. For low-order elements. In order to avoid this oscillation. T T T T T T T p T p T T T ð27Þ ð28Þ ð29Þ ð30Þ Also. ð24Þ X X 2 3 1 0 0 a0 h2 6 7 ð25Þ s¼À 4 0 1 0 5. wp ÞÞ ¼ ðr Á ðDuu~ e þ 1~ pÞÞ . (18) is the general mixed displacement-pressure formulation without consideration any stabilizing techniques. ð26Þ X X From Eqs.4]: Z Z T duT AðuÞ dX þ dAðuÞ sAðuÞ dX ¼ 0. which is an element-dependent parameter and has to be selected for good performance. l 0 0 1 where the ﬁrst term represents the general Galerkin form and the appended term represents the residual-based term including an element-dependent stabilized matrix s [4]. (5). the corresponding least-square part can be modiﬁed as follows: Z Z T T dAðuÞ sAðuÞ dX ¼ ðr Á rðwu .1. where Luu ¼ LðDuu rs Nu Þ. Eq. and is as follows [3.516 K. some stabilized techniques are used here as described below. ~ p ¼ ðdP Þ ðN Þ . Lup ¼ LðD N Þ. Decomposition of least-square part As required for our current mixed displacement-pressure formulation. (27) can be rewritten as follows: p T ðr Á rðwu . For isotropic elasticity. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 Eq. (12) and (13). deviatoric modulus is a symmetric matrix and can be given as follows: . Xia. 3. Galerkin/least-square formulations 3. pÞ þ b ¼ r Á ðDuu rs Nu uÞ þ r Á ð1Np PÞ þ b ¼ Luu u þ Lup P þ b. we can obtain that weighting term ðr Á rðwu .

3. ox oz o2 N i o2 N i o2 N i ¼ c44 2 þ c22 2 þ c55 2 .3iþ2 ¼ ðc23 þ c55 Þ l3. 6 ox ox 7 7 6 6 o N o N 1 nel 7 up p 6 ÁÁÁ . oy oz l2.3iþ2 7 ÁÁÁ5 3Â3nel ð35Þ ð36Þ ð37Þ ð38Þ ð39Þ ð40Þ ð41Þ l1. ox oy l3.3iþ3 l2. H.K. ox oy oz o2 N i . This might be the intrinsic diﬃculty of GLS method. Mixed displacement-pressure formulations for GLS Then Eq. 0 7 7 7 0 5 c66 ð34Þ Then we can obtain matrix Luu as follows: 2 Á Á Á l1. (26) can be further decomposed into two parts as follows: Z Z T T p T T d Að u Þ s A ð u Þ d X ¼ ð ddu Þ L T uu þ ðdP Þ Lup sðLuu u þ Lup P þ bÞ dX X X Z Z ¼ ðddu ÞT LT s ð L u þ L P þ b Þ d X þ ðdPp ÞT LT uu up uu up sðLuu u þ Lup P þ bÞ dX.3iþ1 l3. The gradients of components of the consistent tangent modulus will be required to accurately compute Lup. consistent tangent modulus will vary from point to point and be updated for each incremental step.3iþ2 o2 N i . X X ð43Þ By substituting Eq.3iþ3 0 ÁÁÁ ÁÁÁ 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 7.3iþ3 ¼ l3. 55 33 ox 2 oy 2 oz 2 For elastoplasticity. (10).3iþ1 l2.3iþ2 ÁÁÁ where l1.3iþ3 l3. 2 ox oy oz o2 N i . Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 517 2 2 À1 À1 2 À1 0 0 0 À1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 c11 c12 c22 c23 0 0 0 3 .3iþ3 ¼ c66 o2 N i o2 N i o2 N i þ c þ c .3iþ1 l1. Xia.3iþ2 6 uu u Luu ¼ LðD rs N Þ ¼ 4 Á Á Á l2. c13 c23 c33 0 0 0 0 0 0 c44 0 0 0 0 0 0 c55 0 0 3 Duu ¼ 2lIdev 6 6 À1 6 2l 6 6 À1 ¼ 6 3 6 0 6 6 4 0 0 7 6 0 0 7 6 c12 7 6 6 0 07 7 6 c13 7¼6 6 0 07 7 6 0 7 6 3 05 4 0 0 3 l1.7 . This will bring additional diﬃculty to the nonlinear computational solid mechanics.3iþ3 ¼ l3.3iþ1 ¼ ðc13 þ c66 Þ l2. (12) into Eq.3iþ2 ¼ l23iþ1 ¼ ðc12 þ c44 Þ l1. we can obtain the general weak form (Galerkin form) for the equilibrium equation as follows: .3iþ1 ¼ c11 o2 N i o2 N i o2 N i þ c44 2 þ c66 2 . Lup ¼ LðD N Þ ¼ 6 ð42Þ oy 7 7 6 oy 5 4 oN oN nel 1 ÁÁÁ oz oz 3Ânel 3. 3 2 oN 1 oN nel Á Á Á .

X X By taking the same procedure and substitute Eq. Z RG LT u ¼ À uu sb dX. H. (15). Xia. K X X Removing dPp on both sides of Eq. and insert Eq. T T ð44Þ Then. (43) to Eq. we can obtain the Galerkin/least-square form for our mixed displacement-pressure formulation Z Z Z Z BT Duu B dXu þ BT Dup Np dXP þ LT s L d X u þ LT uu uu uu sLup dXP X X X X Z Z Z ¼ ðNu ÞT Á b dX þ ðNu ÞT Á t dC À LT ð45Þ uu sb dX. we rewrite the mixed displacement-pressure formulation in matrix form as follows: 2 3 ) & ' ( Kup þ KG Kuu þ KG uu up Ru þ RG u u 4 5 T . (51). X Z ¼ LT KG up up sLup dX. (44). one will get Z p ðdPp ÞT ðNp ÞT r Á u À dX ¼ 0. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 Z X u uu up p ð ddu Þ r T s N : ðD rs Nu þ D N PÞ dX ¼ T Z X ðddu Þ ðNu Þ Á b dX þ T T Z C ðddu Þ ðNu Þ Á t dC. ð56Þ ¼ RG P Kup þ KG Kpp þ KG p up pp The above Eq. (52) together. thus we obtain G G Kup þ KG up u þ Kpp þ Kpp P ¼ Rp . K X ð50Þ Next. (11). Z ¼ LT KG pu up sLuu dX. (50). by appending the ﬁrst part of Eq. X C X Eq. (45) can be rewritten as follows: À Á G G Kuu þ KG uu u þ Kup þ Kup P ¼ Ru þ R . (56) is the Galerkin/least-square formulation for the mixed form of nearly incompressible elasticity/stokes ﬂow. X ð52Þ ð53Þ ð54Þ ð55Þ Combining Eq. (43) to Eq. . (13) into Eq. append the second part of Eq. (46) and Eq. X Z ¼ À LT RG p up sb dX. ð47Þ ð48Þ ð49Þ LT uu sLup dX.518 K. and we can obtain the weak form for the volumetric governing equation corresponding to Galerkin/least-square approach Z Z p ðdPp ÞT ðNp ÞT r Á u À ð51Þ dX þ ðdPp ÞT LT up sðLuu u þ Lup P þ bÞ dX ¼ 0. where KG uu ¼ KG up ¼ Z Z X ð46Þ LT uu sLuu dX.

7 5 j11 j33 þ j13 j31 2j23 j21 . ð57Þ ¼ À½M 2 ½M 1 J þ ½M 2 > > > > og > 2 > > > > > > o2 N I > o N > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oxoy > > > > > > > oN I > o n o g > > > > > > > > . 7 P o2 N I 7 zI 7 onog 7 7 7 2 P o NI 7 7 zI 7 ogof 7 7 7 P o2 N I 5 zI of on on2 P o2 N I 3 are given by j2 13 j2 23 j2 33 j13 j23 j23 j33 j33 j33 2j11 j12 2j21 j22 2j31 j32 j11 j22 þ j13 j22 j21 j32 þ j22 j31 j11 j32 þ j12 j31 2j12 j13 2j22 j23 2j32 j33 j12 j23 þ j13 j22 j22 j33 þ j23 j32 j12 j33 þ j13 j32 7 7 7 7 7 2j33 j31 . Second derivatives of shape functions As we described earlier.K. H. the important part to completely implementing the Galerkin/least-square approach is to use the second derivatives of shape functions.4. 7 7 7 j21 j33 þ j23 j31 . > : . 7 7 7 j11 j23 þ j13 j21 . 2j13 j11 . Xia. > > : > > > > > > > > o f 2 > > > > 2 > > > > o N I > o N > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oy oz > o g o f > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 > > o2 N > > > > > > > I o N I > > . : oz ox of on where matrix [M2] and [M1] 2 2 j2 j11 12 6 6 j2 j2 6 21 22 6 6 2 j2 6 j31 32 ½M 2 ¼ 6 6 6 j11 j21 j12 j22 6 6 6 j21 j31 j22 j32 4 j31 j31 j32 j32 and 2 xI 6 6 on2 6 6 6 P o2 N I 6 xI 6 og2 6 6 6 P o2 N I 6 xI 6 2 6 o f ½M 1 ¼ 6 6 6 P o2 N I 6 6 onog x I 6 6 6P 2 6 o NI 6 x 6 ogof I 6 6 4 P o2 N I xI of on P o2 N I P o2 N I on2 yI zI 7 7 7 7 2 P o NI 7 7 z I og2 7 7 7 P o2 N I 7 7 zI 7 of 2 7 7. The key formulations for calculation of second derivatives of shape functions are given as follows: 8 2 9 8 2 9 o NI > > o N > > > > I > > > > > 2 > > 2 > > > > > o n > > > > o x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 2 > > > > > > > o NI > o N I > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 9 8 > > > > 2 o g > > > > o y > > > > oN I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > 2 o n > > > > > > o N o N I > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > = = = < of 2 > < oz 2 > < oN > I À1 . Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 519 3. 3 ð58Þ P o2 N I y og2 I P o2 N I of 2 yI P o2 N I y onog I P o2 N I y ogof I P o2 N I y of on I ð59Þ .

Figs. The material properties for Fig.4999. 1. k=1. which was performed using uniform meshes of 10 · 2. k=1. . 2–4 shows the results of the convergence rate study for the 3 node triangle and the 4 node quadrilateral. 20 · 4. height 2m. The beam is of length 10 m. and thickness 1 m and subjected to a parabolic shear traction at the free end as shown in Fig.6 0. Numerical examples 4. and 80 · 8.5E+07 N/m2 and Poisson’s ratio m = 0. 1. H.8 1. Convergence rate for the L2 norm of the displacement. J 33 ð60Þ ð61Þ 4.0 Log (1/h) Fig. The load is P = 2560 N. -1 Log (error norm of displacement) -2 -3 -4 -5 GLS. Diagram of parabolic shear-loaded beam. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 ox 6 on 6 6 ox 6 J ¼6 6 og 6 4 ox of J À1 3 2 3 P oN I P oN i P oN i oz xI y zI 6 2 on 7 on on I on 7 7 6 7 J 11 7 7 6 P oN i P oN i 7 6 oz 7 6 P oN i xI y zI 7 ¼ 4 J 21 7¼6 og 7 6 og og I og 7 7 6 7 J 31 P oN i P oN i 5 oz 5 4 P oN i xI yI zI of of of of 3 J 22 J 33 À J 32 J 23 J 13 J 32 À J 12 J 33 J 12 J 23 À J 13 J 22 1 6 7 ¼ 4 J 31 J 23 À J 21 J 33 J 11 J 33 À J 13 J 31 J 21 J 13 À J 23 J 11 5 det½J J 21 J 32 À J 31 J 22 J 12 J 31 À J 32 J 11 J 11 J 22 À J 12 J 21 2 3 j11 j12 j13 6 7 ¼ 4 j21 j22 j23 5. Totally four diﬀerent Fig.2 0.2 0. 2 oy on oy og oy of 2 j31 j32 j33 J 12 J 22 J 32 3 J 13 7 J 23 5. the developed method is applied to study a widely used cantilever beam with analytical solutions [11].4 0. Convergence rate study For convergence study.520 K. Xia.1. 40 · 8.80 for Q4 -6 -0. 2. 1 are Young’s modulus E = 7.78 for T3 GLS.0 0.

k=0.0 0. k=1. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 1.0 for Q4 -1.0 0.0 Log (1/h) Fig.0 521 Log (error norm of energy) 0.81 for T3 GLS.6 0.7 GLS for T3 GLS for Q4 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.8 1.8 1. 1. Convergence rate for the energy norm.6 0.2 0. 5. 4.4 0.5 10 100 1000 10000 Number of nodes Fig.8 0.2 0. k=1.0 Log (1/h) Fig.0 -0. 3.5 0. 5 Log (error norm of pressure) 4 3 2 1 GLS. .0 -0. Convergence rate for the L2 norm of the pressure ﬁeld.1 Normalized displacement 1. k=1. Tip deﬂection convergence for plane stress. Xia.K.5 GLS.6 0.98 for T3 GLS. H.2 0.0 0.44 for Q4 0 -0.

H.9 0. Xia.1 1.7 GLS for T3 GLS for Q4 0. 1.5 10 100 1000 10000 Number of nodes Fig. Tip deﬂection convergence for plane strain.6 0.5 10 100 1000 10000 Number of nodes Fig.9 0.0 Normalized stress 0. 7.0 Normalized stress 0.9 0.1 1. 1.6 10 100 1000 10000 Number of nodes Fig.0 0. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 1.7 0. 8.8 GLS for T3 GLS for Q4 0.8 0.7 GLS for T3 GLS for Q4 0.1 Normalized displacement 1.6 0. . 6. Stress convergence for plane strain.8 0. Stress convergence for plane stress.522 K.

(25) a0 = 0.2. Xia. 0) while normalized stress convergence is selected at point (0. Here it was used to demonstrate the performance of the stabilized Fig. The engineering convergence studies can be seen in Figs. In this paper. we provide all the results corresponding to the parameter a0 in Eq.05 for 4-node quadrilateral element. 10. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 523 mesh sizes h were used here. 2–4. the normalized tip deﬂection convergence study is given at point (10. À10). . H. 4. As described above. The results of the convergence rate study were carried out for the plane stress problem and shown in Figs. GLS method requires numeric tests to obtain the optimal stabilized parameter. 5–8. The engineering convergence study was presented for both plane stress and plane strain problems. This paper presents the mathematical rate of convergence study for displacements and pressure in the L2(X) norm and the energy norm. For the linear elements of the 3-node triangle and 4-node quadrilateral. which show the numerical solutions will converge to exact solutions with reﬁned meshes and convergent elements were obtained. Plane strain Cook’s membrane problem. the theoretical rate of convergence for the displacement and pressure in the L2(X) norm is 2 and the energy norm is 1. Plane strain Cook’s membrane problem The Cook’s membrane beam problem has been widely used as a benchmarking test to check the performance of developed ﬁnite element formulations.K. Plane strain Cook’s membrane problem: convergence for incompressible elasticity. 20 Top corner displacement 16 12 GLS method Displacement-based 8 4 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 Elements/side Fig. 9.

3 0.4999) while element size decreases. Fig. 14 shows the pressure ﬁeld can be stabilized 10 Top corner vertical displacement 8 6 Displacement-based method GLS method 4 2 0 0 0.5 0. The plane strain problem can be considered as a three-dimensional problem with the ﬁxed displacement boundary conditions on the front and back surfaces. which provides the most highly constrained problem and has volumetric locking issue in solid mechanics.6 Poisson ratio Fig. Fig. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 ﬁnite element formulation on the alleviation of volumetric locking issue. Plane strain Cook’s membrane problem: displacement versus Poisson ratio. Fig. the problem has been discretized into 2 · 2. 10 shows that the displacement will converge quickly to the exact solution for nearly incompressible elasticity (Young modulus E = 250. In order to test the convergence behavior of the GLS formulation. 11 shows that the GLS formulations can eﬀectively remove locking phenomena while the standard displacement-based formulation will exhibit locking eﬀect. Poisson ratio m = 0. 16 · 16 ﬁnite element meshes. Fig.2 0.524 K. Xia. We consider a tapered panel. 12. 9. Unstabilized pressure ﬁeld with 4-node Q4 for Galerkin method. Fig. 11. Also. 13 shows the pressure ﬁeld can be stabilized if Galerkin/ least-square formulation was used with distorted mesh. 4 · 4. 12 shows that spurious unstablized pressure ﬁeld will be obtained if Galerkin method was used. The geometry of plane strain Cook’s membrane beam problem is shown in Fig. clamped on one end and subjected to a shearing load at the free end.4 0. H.1 0. Fig. . 8 · 8.

13. 14. Xia. Simulations of the incompressible Stokes ﬂow with the classical Galerkin method may suﬀer from spurious oscillations arising from the source. 4. Stabilized pressure ﬁeld with composite mesh for GLS method. Stokes ﬂow governs highly viscous phenomena.3. H. For Stokes ﬂow. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 525 Fig. Stabilized pressure feld with 4-node Q4 for GLS method. Fig. The only diﬀerence is in the interpretation of the variables. Therefore this example demonstrates the stabilization method is very eﬀective in suppressing the oscillation of pressure ﬁeld. Stokes ﬂow analogy Since the equations of Stokes ﬂow are similar to the equations of isotropic nearly incompressible elasticity. with distorted composite mesh (3-node triangle and 4-node quadrilateral). which has .K. u will be regarded as the velocity of the ﬂuid.

Oscillated pressure ﬁeld by GLS (a = 0.01). Fig. 17. Xia. H. 16. Oscillated pressure ﬁeld by Galerkin method. Lid-driven cavity ﬂow analogy: geometry and boundary conditions. to do with the mixed formulation character of the equations and is limited by the choice of equal linear order ﬁnite element interpolations used to approximate the velocity and pressure ﬁelds. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 Fig. 15. Fig.526 K. A two-dimensional case is .

Driven cavity ﬂow problem: pressure distribution at y = 0.5). Stabilized pressure ﬁeld by GLS (a = 0. H.01 α=0. 18.5 0. 19. 15 10 5 Pressure 0 -5 -10 -15 0. 20 · 20 mesh. Xia.0 α=0.1 α=0.0 1.1).35.8 X-coordinate 1. Stabilized pressure ﬁeld by GLS (a = 0. 20. Fig.4 0. .6 0.2 Fig.2 0. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 527 Fig.K.

Dpu and Dpp based on the formulations shown above. The convergence studies show that GLS method promises convergent elements and allows the use of equal low-order interpolations for both displacement and pressure ﬁelds. one can directly calculate the four modulus Duu. ð63Þ K 1 À 2m A. if a is too large. 17–19 shows the pressure ﬁeld can be gradually stabilized by using an appropriate stabilization parameter a. 6 0 7 1 À m2 6 3 3 7 6 4 1 À m5 0 0 2 1 1 À m Dpp ¼ . 16 shows that the pressure ﬁeld by the Galerkin method will be highly oscillated. Plane stress For plane stress problems. GLS method still has an intrinsic diﬃculty to study material nonlinearity. based on the assumption that the stresses in third direction are zero and uniform strain along the thickness. If a is too small.1. Hopefully this paper with the second derivatives of shape functions can provide some further insight for the applications of GLS and Petrov–Galerkin method in solid mechanics. For plane stress and plane strain problems. Therefore an optimum stabilization parameter has to be obtained when using Galerkin/least-square method as well as Petrov–Galerkin method [8. However. The second derivatives of shape functions were used to revisit the GLS method.528 K. For the inelastic problem. H. In the other extreme. the calculation should be modiﬁed based on the assumptions of plane stress and plane strain. 15. A. The boundary conditions are as speciﬁed in Fig. thus we have the corresponding tangent modulus as follows: . the tangent modulus is as follows: 3 2 2Àm 2Àm 0 7 6 3 3 7 6 7 6 E 62 À m 2 À m 7 uu ð62Þ D ¼ 7. In the past. the residual-based terms involved with second derivatives were always neglected without using the second derivatives of shape functions. the strains in the third direction are zero. The numerical results conﬁrm that the Galerkin/least-square method can eﬀectively stabilize the pressure ﬁeld and the volumetric locking can automatically removed.9]. Concluding remarks In this paper. Plane strain For plane strain problems. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 considered for a square domain with unit side lengths. we have derived the second derivatives of shape functions for the stabilized formulation. The corresponding tangent modulus are derived and provided below. which might pose a diﬃculty even though GLS and Petrov–Galerkin method have been used in solid mechanics. which is included in the stabilization matrix s .25). 5. oscillations remain in the pressure ﬁeld. Dup. Figs.2. Xia. Fig. 20 shows the pressure distribution along the horizontal line (y = 0. the stabilization will be too strong and the pressure ﬁeld will turn out to be too smooth and might fail to capture the correct solution in the corners. accurately accounting for the residual-based term will require the calculations of the derivatives of the tangent modulus at each integral point. The material properties are the same as those of incompressible elasticity used for the convergence study. Appendix A For a three-dimensional problem. which is important for the stabilized Galerkin/least-square method and Petrov–Galerkin method. Fig. which has not been veriﬁed before.

Y. 96 (1992) 117–129. Balestra. F. [11] T. McGraw Hill. . Eng. Eng. Formulation for linear displacement and pressure interpolation. Franca. Mech. Mech. Stabilized ﬁnite elements applied to elastoplasticity: I. Eng. Mech. Liu. 59 (1986) 85–99. Babuska. vol. Appl. Comput. Commend. Bristeau. M. Meth. Meth. Mech.R.K. Virtual bubbles and Galerkin-least-squares type methods (Ga. M. A new ﬁnite element formulation for computational ﬂuid dynamics: V. The Finite Element Method. Xia. Comput. Eng.A.S). A new ﬁnite element formulation for computational ﬂuid dynamics: VIII. Prentice-Hall. 73 (1989) 173–189. The ﬁnite element method with lagrange multipliers. L. Hughes. Taylor. Appl. Franca. M. 180 (1999) 65–79. New York.J. M. Meth. Klass. Mech. Eng. 1. Hughes. A relationship between stabilized ﬁnite element methods and the Galerkin method with bubble functions.S.L. 191 (2002) 1491–1503.J. Yao / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 513–529 529 2 À 4m 6 3 6 6 2m À 1 E 6 Duu ¼ ð 1 þ m Þ ð 1 À 2m Þ 6 6 3 4 0 1 D ¼ . G. Brezzi. 7 1 À 2m 5 2 ð65Þ 0 ð64Þ References [1] I. Eng. Comput. The Galerkin/ least square methods for advective-diﬀusive equations. Klaas. Ozienkiewicz. K pp 2 2m À 1 3 2 À 4m 3 0 3 7 7 7 0 7 7. L. 1987. A. A. Comput. Mech. Numer. 151 (1998) 233–265. 105 (1993) 125–141. Higher order stabilized ﬁnite element method for hyperelastic ﬁnite deformation. Appl. Meth.. Meth. The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis.P. Franca.R. Meth. M. Shephard. Appl. 20 (1973) 179–192. Meth. Math. Brezzi. [10] S. Meth.R. Mallet. Hughes. M. Englewoods Cliﬀs. O. L. Comput.O. Truty.P. [9] A. Eng. H. [2] T. R.C. Appl. [4] T. Appl. [8] O. Baiocchi. Comput. Zimmermann. L. Maniatty. Shephard. 193 (2003) 3559–3586. T. Balestra. Onate.A. Maniatty. [6] C. Mixed displacement-pressure formulation. [3] O. Appl. Mech. A stabilized mixed ﬁnite element method for ﬁnite elasticity. Appl. fourth ed. 1994. Circumventing the Babuska–Brezzi condition: a stable Petrov–Galerkin formulation of the stokes problem accommodating equal-order interpolations. Eng.L. NJ. [7] E. Roge. Franca.J. Comput. Comput. Mech. [5] F. Derivation of stabilized equations for numerical solution of advective diﬀusive transport and ﬂuid ﬂow problems.

- neuralnetworkfor navierstokes6.pdf
- Neural Network Navier 3
- Neural Networks Windfarm
- Neuralnetworks for Navierstokesequation
- Void Fraction2
- LorenzNavierstokes.pdf
- Lorenz Navier
- Prof. Richardson Neuralnetworks
- Thermo2.pdf
- Neural Network33
- Neural Networks Back Propagation 1
- Neural Network 22
- neuralnetworks-344
- STATS 2
- Ch-7-2nd-Edition by Parts Integration Techniques
- fem30
- fem6
- Fem21
- nav1
- Fem Wave
- fem25
- fem30
- fem31
- Fem Power
- Fem Nonlinear

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- 62057067 Modelling of Dynamic Ductile Fracture and Application to The
- A Finite Element Formulation for Nonlinear Incompressible Elastic and Inelastic Analysis
- High Strain rate Testing; Tension and Compression.pdf
- muh-29-6-4-0506-7 (1)
- Cavity Expansion in Sands
- 1-s2.0-S1365160997800731-main
- shell equations
- ME621handout1
- HW_05 2
- Weber Anand 1988.pdf
- Elastisitas
- Analysis of Hyper Elastic Materials With MECHANICA
- M. Arami, T. Kakinouchi and T. Shibue- Structural Response of a Thin Plate by Underwater Explosion Loading
- 1604035
- Lecture 7
- Modelling of SMA Materials Training and Two Way Memory Effects
- [Professor Dr.-ing. Otto T. Bruhns (Auth.)] Advan(BookZZ.org)
- Strain
- Stress Nd Strain
- CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL
- Chapter 9
- 10.1.1.103.7728
- Lab 5- Pressure Vessel
- Lecture 7
- 10.1.1.163
- A Hyperelastic-Based Large Strain Elasto-Plastic Constitutive Formulation With Combined Isotropic-Kinematic Hardening Using the Logarithmic Stress and Strain Measures
- Lecture 7
- CHABOCHE
- True Curve
- 2004_hiperelasticity_techReport
- fem15

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd