This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
FEM/BEM NOTES
Professor Peter Hunter
p.hunter@auckland.ac.nz
Associate Professor Andrew Pullan
a.pullan@auckland.ac.nz
Department of Engineering Science The University of Auckland New Zealand June 17, 2003
c Copyright 19972003 Department of Engineering Science The University of Auckland
Contents
1 Finite Element Basis Functions 1.1 Representing a OneDimensional Field . 1.2 Linear Basis Functions . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Basis Functions as Weighting Functions 1.4 Quadratic Basis Functions . . . . . . . 1.5 Two and ThreeDimensional Elements 1.6 Higher Order Continuity . . . . . . . . 1.7 Triangular Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Curvilinear Coordinate Systems . . . . 1.9 CMISS Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 4 7 7 10 14 16 20 23 23 24 24 25 26 27 29 29 29 30 31 32 34 36 37 39 42 43 43 43 43 45
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
2 SteadyState Heat Conduction 2.1 OneDimensional SteadyState Heat Conduction . . . . . 2.1.1 Integral equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Integration by parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Finite element approximation . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Element integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.7 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.8 Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 An Dependent Source Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Galerkin Weight Function Revisited . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Two and ThreeDimensional SteadyState Heat Conduction 2.5 Basis Functions  Element Discretisation . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Assemble Global Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Gaussian Quadrature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 CMISS Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Boundary Element Method 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The DiracDelta Function and Fundamental Solutions 3.2.1 DiracDelta function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Fundamental solutions . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
¡
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
ii
CONTENTS
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8
3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12
3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16
3.17 4
The TwoDimensional Boundary Element Method . . . . . . . . . Numerical Solution Procedures for the Boundary Integral Equation Numerical Evaluation of Coefﬁcient Integrals . . . . . . . . . . . The ThreeDimensional Boundary Element Method . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the FE and BE Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . More on Numerical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1 Logarithmic quadrature and other special schemes . . . . 3.8.2 Special solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Boundary Element Method Applied to other Elliptic PDEs . . Solution of Matrix Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coupling the FE and BE techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other BEM techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12.1 Trefftz method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12.2 Regular BEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axisymmetric Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inﬁnite Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix: Common Fundamental Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16.1 TwoDimensional equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16.2 ThreeDimensional equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16.3 Axisymmetric problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CMISS Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48 53 55 57 58 60 60 61 61 61 62 64 64 64 65 67 69 72 72 72 73 73 75 75 76 79 81 83 84 85 86 87 89 91 93 96 98 99 99 99 99 101 102
Linear Elasticity 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Truss Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Beam Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Plane Stress Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Notes on calculating nodal loads . . . . 4.5 ThreeDimensional Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Weighted Residual Integral Equation . 4.5.2 The Principle of Virtual Work . . . . . 4.5.3 The Finite Element Approximation . . 4.6 Linear Elasticity with Boundary Elements . . . 4.7 Fundamental Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Boundary Integral Equation . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Body Forces (and Domain Integrals in General) 4.10 CMISS Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transient Heat Conduction 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Finite Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Explicit Transient Finite Differences 5.2.2 Von Neumann Stability Analysis . . 5.2.3 Higher Order Approximations . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
C ONTENTS
iii
6 Modal Analysis 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . 6.2 Free Vibration Modes . 6.3 An Analytic Example . 6.4 Proportional Damping 6.5 CMISS Examples . . .
7 Domain Integrals in the BEM 7.1 Achieving a Boundary Integral Formulation . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Removing Domain Integrals due to Inhomogeneous Terms . 7.2.1 The Galerkin Vector technique . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 The Monte Carlo method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Complementary FunctionParticular Integral method 7.3 Domain Integrals Involving the Dependent Variable . . . . . 7.3.1 The Perturbation Boundary Element Method . . . . 7.3.2 The Multiple Reciprocity Method . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 The Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method . .
8 The BEM for Parabolic PDES 8.1 TimeStepping Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 Coupled Finite Difference  Boundary Element Method 8.1.2 Direct TimeIntegration Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Laplace Transform Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 The DRBEM For Transient Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 The MRM for Transient Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography Index
¢
5.3 5.4 5.5
The Transient AdvectionDiffusion Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Mass lumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 CMISS Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 111 111 111 113 114 115 117 117 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 135 135 135 137 138 139 140 143 147
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Chapter 1 Finite Element Basis Functions
1.1 Representing a OneDimensional Field
to represent a onedimensional Consider the problem of ﬁnding a mathematical expression ﬁeld e.g., measurements of temperature against distance along a bar, as shown in Figure 1.1a.
+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + +
(a)
(b)
along a bar. The points are the measured F IGURE 1.1: (a) Temperature distribution temperatures. (b) A leastsquares polynomial ﬁt to the data, showing the unacceptable oscillation between data points.
One approach would be to use a polynomial expression and to estimate the values of the parameters , , and from a leastsquares ﬁt to the data. As the degree of the polynomial is increased the data points are ﬁtted with increasing accuracy and polynomials provide a very convenient form of expression because they can be differentiated and integrated readily. For low degree polynomials this is a satisfactory approach, but if the polynomial order is increased further to improve the accuracy of ﬁt a problem arises: the polynomial can be made to ﬁt the data accurately, but it oscillates unacceptably between the data points, as shown in Figure 1.1b. To circumvent this, while retaining the advantages of low degree polynomials, we divide the bar into three subregions and use low order polynomials over each subregion  called elements. For later generality we also introduce a parameter which is a measure of distance along the bar. is plotted as a function of this arclength in Figure 1.2a. Figure 1.2b shows three linear polynomials in ﬁtted by leastsquares separately to the data in each element.
555 4 ¡2 ) ¡& ¡" § ¤ 776103'10('%$#!¨¦¡¥£
£
¡
§ ¤ ¨¦¡¥£
¡
2
£ © & " 8 ¡
£
£ 8
2
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
(a)
(b)
F IGURE 1.2: (a) Temperature measurements replotted against arclength parameter . (b) The domain is divided into three subdomains, elements, and linear polynomials are independently ﬁtted to the data in each subdomain.
1.2
Linear Basis Functions
A new problem has now arisen in Figure 1.2b: the piecewise linear polynomials are not continuous in across the boundaries between elements. One solution would be to constrain the parameters , , etc. to ensure continuity of across the element boundaries, but a better solution is to replace the parameters and in the ﬁrst element with parameters and , which are the values of at the two ends of that element. We then deﬁne a linear variation between these two values by
such that
and refer to these expressions as the basis functions associated with the nodal parameters and . The basis functions and are straight lines varying between and as shown in Figure 1.3. with element node and to map the It is convenient always to associate the nodal quantity temperature deﬁned at global node onto local node of element by using a connectivity matrix i.e.,
v
§vx ¤ t¦qwu
where
= global node number of local node
of element . This has the advantage that the
@ A£
G
q
U
v
) gDfB¤ ) AbgDfBA@ EDCB!£ £§ a @£§ ¤ a § ¤
q i p£
B § eED¦B¤ ) a B I G § ¤ QdcED¦Bb@ a
q r i iys w0£
§ hfB¤ ) a
u
§ ¤ D¦Bb@ a
§G W B W ¤ `YXVU0B
where We deﬁne
is a normalized measure of distance along the curve.
£
8
9
9
)£
@ A£
) TSAARDQPHFEDCB!£ £ B @ £ § B I G¤ § ¤
£
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
8
£
"
§vx ¤ $yVqwu s tr
£ £ & " )£
1.2 L INEAR BASIS F UNCTIONS
3
1
interpolation
holds for any element provided that and are correctly identiﬁed with their global counterparts, as shown in Figure 1.4. Thus, in the ﬁrst element
0
1
0
1
0
1
F IGURE 1.4: The relationship between global nodes and element nodes.
with and . In the second element is interpolated by
4 Y ) £ r
) wkA£ r @
with
and
, since the parameter
is shared between the ﬁrst and second elements
i
) RhfB¤ ) AARhfBA@ Eh¦B¥£ £§ a @£§ ¤ a § ¤
)r ) RhfB¤ ) AARhfBA@ Eh¦B¥£ £§ a @£§ ¤ a § ¤
j
G
element
element
element
(1.1)
(1.2)
B
de de ) £ de de de de de A£ @
B
fg fg ) £ fg fg fg fg fg b£ f @
B
) £ A£ @
element nodes:
¡
global nodes:
h
l yr
i
4r
j
)r
G
node
node
node
b C )
F IGURE 1.3: Linear basis functions
and
.
node
B
G
EX @ U
) £ b£ @ ) RhfB¤ ) AARhfBA@ Eh¦B¥£ £§ a @£§ ¤ a § ¤
§ DfB¤ ) a
G
B
G
@ kr
£)
r Y ) £
@ r @ kcmA£
§ ¤ DfBA@ a U G
4
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
with and , with the parameter being shared between the second and third elements. Figure 1.6 shows the temperature ﬁeld deﬁned by the three interpolations (1.1)–(1.3).
+
+
+
+
+ +
F IGURE 1.5: Temperature measurements ﬁtted with nodal parameters and linear basis functions. The ﬁtted temperature ﬁeld is now continuous across element boundaries.
1.3
Basis Functions as Weighting Functions
It is useful to think of the basis functions as weighting functions on the nodal parameters. Thus, in element 1
which depends on
and
, but is weighted more towards
at
x x Ah ) £ h @ h ) h @ bh I i bA£ G £ i AA£ i PG w i £
)w £
which depends equally on
and
£
at
w
£
at
than
)£
x x ¨j ) £ j @ j ) j @ yj I G bA£ G £ G AA£ G PG w G )£ @ A£ x x Ah ) £ h @ h ) h @ bh I G bA£ i £ G AA£ G PG w G
w
h i B @A£ j G B ) £ b£ @ h G B
£
which is the value of
at the left hand end of the element and has no dependence on
@ £ £ U @ £ § U I G¤ § U¤ Av ) utAARhSPsrq3V¥£
U #B
at
8
i
j
G
element
element
element
h
+
+
+
j
+
node
+
+
+
+
+
i
+
G
node
node
£
4r ) gDfB¤ ) AbgDfBA@ EDCB!£ £§ a @£§ ¤ a § ¤
lr p ) £
£
the temperature ﬁeld
is implicitly continuous. Similarly, in the third element
is interpolated by (1.3)
4 onA£ r @ £
node
1.3 BASIS F UNCTIONS
AS
W EIGHTING F UNCTIONS
5
which is the value of at the right hand end of the region and has no dependence on . Moreover, these weighting functions can be considered as global functions, as shown in Figure 1.6, where the weighting function associated with global node is constructed from the basis functions in the elements adjacent to that node.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
F IGURE 1.6: (a) (d) The weighting functions associated with the global nodes , respectively. Notice the linear fall off in the elements adjacent to a node. Outside the immediately adjacent elements, the weighting functions are deﬁned to be zero.
For example, weights the global parameter and the inﬂuence of falls off linearly in the elements on either side of node 2. We now have a continuous piecewise parametric description of the temperature ﬁeld but in order to deﬁne we need to deﬁne the relationship between and for each element. A convenient way to do this is to deﬁne as an interpolation of the nodal values of . For example, in element 1
§ ¤ ¨C¡!£ ¡
and similarly for the other two elements. The dependence of temperature on ,
, is therefore
§ ¤ DCB!£
~ ~$$~AX 8
@ A£
8
8
8
¡
) r
B
q
4 
¡
l 1
) ghfB¤ ) bAghfBy@ EhfB¥¡ ¡§ a @¡§ ¤ a § ¤
)r
) 
i
i 1
¡
@ }
G 6B
at
) £{ ) 7{bAR`edHFkz!£ £G @ £ §G I G¤ § G¤ )£ @ A£
)£
§ ¤ ¨C¡!£
~~ $$~
£
@ A£
which depends on
and
but is weighted more towards
than
) 
(1.4)
6
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
deﬁned by the parametric expressions
where summation is taken over all element nodes (in this case only ) and the parameter (the “element coordinate”) links temperature to physical position . provides the mapping between the mathematical space and the physical space , as illustrated in Figure 1.7.
F IGURE 1.7: Illustrating how and are related through the normalized element coordinate . The values of and are obtained from a linear interpolation of the nodal variables and then plotted as . The points at are emphasized.
¡
j'B ¨C¡!£ 5U § ¤
at
B
) ¡wWQ¡w}A¡ W @ § ¤ D¦B!¡ ¡ j )¡ B
@ A¡
3Qd ~
£
i£§ ¤ pRhfBPi a i¡§ ¤ pghfBPi a U @ A£ )£ i i
§ ¤ #kDCB!£ § ¤ #kDfBy¡ G %wU W B W £ B B G G C© ¦}© © j'B 5U j'B 5U U U £ ¡ @ A¡ )¡ @ A£ )£
1.4 Q UADRATIC BASIS F UNCTIONS
7
1.4 Quadratic Basis Functions
The essential property of the basis functions deﬁned above is that the basis function associated with a particular node takes the value of when evaluated at that node and is zero at every other node in the element (only one other in the case of linear basis functions). This ensures the linear independence of the basis functions. It is also the key to establishing the form of the basis functions for higher order interpolation. For example, a quadratic variation of over an element requires three nodal parameters , and
The quadratic basis functions are shown, with their mathematical expressions, in Figure 1.8. Notice that since must be zero at (node ), must have a factor and since it is also zero at (node ), another factor is . Finally, since is at (node ) we have . Similarly for the other two basis functions.
(a)
(b)
(c)
F IGURE 1.8: Onedimensional quadratic basis functions.
1.5 Two and ThreeDimensional Elements
Twodimensional bilinear basis functions are constructed from the products of the above onedimensional linear functions as follows
G
U'B G hfBA@ a § ¤ § 5U I 3S¦B¤
¢¡¨ 0
£
4 RD¦B¤ 4 £§ a
£
) RD¦B¤ ) AARD¦Bb@ EDCB!£ £§ a @£§ ¤ a § ¤
§G I efB¤ § ¤ DfBA@ a j
m (0
0 m t 0 00
G
w¥B 5U
§35USIfB¤A`GeI¦B¤PwEhfBA@ § j § ¤ i G6B a § ¤ hfBA@ a
4£
) £ A£ @
(1.5)
8
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
Let
where
= where and are the onedimensional linear Note that basis functions. Similarly, = etc. These four bilinear basis functions are illustrated in Figure 1.9.
F IGURE 1.9: Twodimensional bilinear basis functions.
Notice that is at node and zero at the other three nodes. This ensures that the temperature receives a contribution from each nodal parameter weighted by and that when is evaluated at node it takes on the value . As before the geometry of the element is deﬁned in terms of the node positions ,
§ ) B¤$@uBfPi a x ¤
§i¦x i q Tu¤p¦¡¤
)B
@ B
i p£
G
i 0£
la
U
q
q
)B
@ B
@ uB
G
j
node
@ B
G
h
§ ) (uCB!£ B x) @ ¤ § ¤( ¦B¥£ Bx@ ¤ § ) (u¦BPi a Bx@ ¤
G
)
G
node
node
)B
U
)B
i
node
l £ Bx@ ¤ p§ ) (u¦Bml a
(1.6)
4 § ) ¤$ufB¤ 4 £ Bx@ a 4 a
555 ¤ §@ 7¥q§ ) fBA@ sufB¤ ) § ) ¤$ufB¤ ) Bx@ § ) BfA@ a fBA@ a a ¤ §@ ¤ §a ) fBA@ a uCBA@ a a § ) ¤( fBA@ a ¤ §@ ¤ Bx@ ¤ ) zueq§ ) ¤( fBtl B@ B Bx@ ¤ ) gsuQPsrq§ ) ¤( fB¤ 4 a B §@B I G¤ Bx@ a § ) PsAueq§ ) ¤( fB¤ ) a B I G¤ @B Bx@ § ) QPsAsuQPsrq§ ) ¤( fBA@ a B I G¤ §@B I G¤ Bx@ ¤
) g§ ) ¤$ufB¤ ) Abg§ ) ¤$ufBA@ E§ ) ¤$uCB!£ £ Bx@ a @ £ Bx@ ¤ a Bx@ ¤ @ a a U
@ ¨`i i £ Bx@ ¤ pR§ ) (u¦BPi a ¬ «£ )B
which provide the mapping between the mathematical space (where ) and the physical space . Higher order 2D basis functions can be similarly constructed from products of the appropriate 1D basis functions. For example, a sixnoded (see Figure 1.10) quadraticlinear element (quadratic in and linear in ) would have
G ©W ) ¤( ¨§U Bx@B W
§ ) (u¦B¤ Bx@
§ ¦x ¤ªf¡¤
i¦ Bx@ ¤ R§ ) (u¦BPi a i
i
w¥¦ w¡ hx 555x A¥773G
by
i ¡ Bx@ ¤ pg§ ) (u¦BPi a
where
Threedimensional basis functions are formed similarly, e.g., a trilinear element basis has eight nodes (see Figure 1.11) with basis functions
¬ ) R3R°yufBA 'k§ ) ¤(u¦B¤ B § 5 U I @ ¤ @Bj Bx@ ) BR3°y fBbXy fBP'k§ ) ¤(u¦Btl a § 5 U I @ ¤ §G I @ ¤ j Bx@ ¤ a § ) PsbsuPsA Tvk§ ) ¤(u¦B¤ ) a B I G¤ §@B I G¤ @B h Bx@
1.5 T WO 
AND
F IGURE 1.10: A node quadraticlinear element (node numbers circled).
T HREE D IMENSIONAL E LEMENTS
(1.10) (1.11) (1.12) (1.13) (1.7) (1.8) (1.9) 9
4 B ) zu{E§ 4 ¤x ) ¤( fB¤ ¬ B@ B B Bx@ µ 4 g§ ) QPsyu{E§ 4 ¤x ) ¤( fB¤ ya B B I G¤ @B B Bx@ a § 4 QPs¤ ) zu{E§ 4 ¤x ) ¤( fBtl a B I G B@ B B Bx@ ¤ § 4 QPsA§ ) QPsyu{E§ 4 ¤x ) ¤( fB¤ ) a B I G¤ B I G¤ @B B Bx@
4 B ) guQPHFk§ 4 x ) (u¦B¤ B §@ B I G¤ B Bx@ ´ 4 R§ ) QPHAuQPHFk§ 4 x ) (u¦B¤ ya B B I G ¤ § @ B I G ¤ B B x @ a ± § 4 QPs¤ ) guQPHFk§ 4 x ) (u¦B¤ 4 a B I G B §@ B I G¤ B Bx@ § 4 QPzb§ ) QPHAuQPHFk§ 4 x ) (u¦Bb@ a B I G¤ B I G¤ §@ B I G¤ B Bx@ ¤ ³
@ B
G
i
5U j
G
U
U
²
h )B G
) RuPHb Tvk§ ) ¤( fB¤ B § @ B I G ¤ @ B h B x @ ya ± § ) ¯dHA3Syu¦Bb 'k§ ) ¤( fB¤ 4 a B I G¤ § 5 U I @ ¤ @ B j Bx@ § ) Psy3RSt fBb®t fBP'k§ ) ¤( fBy@ a B I G¤ § 5 U I @ ¤ §G I @ ¤ j Bx@ ¤
@ B
10
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
F IGURE 1.11: An node trilinear element.
1.6
Higher Order Continuity
All the basis functions mentioned so far are Lagrange1 basis functions and provide continuity of across element boundaries but not higher order continuity. Sometimes it is desirable to use basis functions which also preserve continuity of the derivative of with respect to across element boundaries. A convenient way to achieve this is by deﬁning two additional nodal parameters . The basis functions are chosen to ensure that
and
and since is shared between adjacent elements derivative continuity is ensured. Since the number of element parameters is 4 the basis functions must be cubic in . To derive these cubic Hermite2 basis functions let
1 2
JosephLouis Lagrange (17361813). Charles Hermite (18221901).
£
B
¶ h B º¹¹ ) @ ¹ B ¨ ¹¾32 ½) p£# xyB32 £ h2 w £ h2 £ @ uB )B i ¸ j ²
x ) 33¿d$T®E# 322 B 2 i B & j " Bh £ x 4 3¿ ) (¿¾t#EDCB!£ B2 B& B" § ¤
·
»º¹¹ ¼ ¹¹ B }32 @½p£# @ xyB32 £ h2 w £ D2
4B G i p£ i x B32 £ h2 w
1.6 H IGHER O RDER C ONTINUITY
11
and impose the constraints
These four equations in the four unknowns , , and
are solved to give
or, rearranging,
where the four cubic Hermite basis functions are drawn in Figure 1.12. One further step is required to make cubic Hermite basis functions useful in practice. The
arclength and then use
(1.15)
where
is an element scale factor which scales the arclength derivative of global node
to the coordinate derivative of element node . Thus
is constrained to be continuous
across element boundaries rather than derivatives per node
. A two dimensional bicubic Hermite basis requires four
and
8
jacent elements. It is much more useful to deﬁne a global node derivative
i x 8g2 £ h2 w
B
i xA32 0 iys Ag2 i t32 B Ä x8 xB 8 g2 w £ h2 w D2 w £
8g2 £ h2
) B Å uB Å @ £) Å
q
) @ B Å Å uB Å Å x £ yx £ yª£
Bh2 £ h2
q
derivative
B £ £ £ £ £ i £ § ¤ 4 R§ ) £uj¿Iy@b j® )½p¿ @½pV¤' ) BR§ )½pQI @½0 j¿It@A£TiQI ) £TV¤'¾B @½p£Sb@A{EDCB!£ & "
deﬁned at node
)½ £ § Ã £ § Ã ½ £ § Ã @ £ § Ã § ¤ pRD¦B¤ @) t ) gDfB¤ ¼) ® @pRhfB¤ @@ XAARDCB¤ @¼ 'EDCB!£
2
Substituting , , and
back into the original cubic then gives
is dependent upon the element coordinate in the two adwhere is
@0{ Á£ ) { £ @£ b{
(1.14)
) jSyb ® )p¿ @p#¥2 £ I @£j ½£ ½£ )p£°I @½pu¿ybuSI ) u'P& ½ £j I @£i £i @½ #Â" £ @£ A#! 2 & " Á) £{ 2 & j " § G BD TitETtm'E`s¤ 322 £ " § U BD 'E3À¤ 322 £ 2¿E®m"¿'E`H¥£ & §G¤ § U¤ 'E3V¥£
i xyB32 £ h2 w
B i xA32 B 8 g2 w
u
12
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
F IGURE 1.12: Cubic Hermite basis functions.
the four nodal parameters
,
,
and
. But since
(the normal derivative) is
parameters are required to specify this cubic. Two of these are speciﬁed by and the remaining two by and
and
.
4 xu@uB Å £Å w
@ xu@ B Å £Å w
4 x ) B Å uB Å @ £) Å w
@ x ) B Å B Å @ £) Å w
)B
also cubic in
along that side and is entirely independent of these four parameters, four additional ,
£
@uB Å £Å
4 x)BÅ £Å w
Å 4£ @ x)B @ £ Å w A£
)B
in
. Now consider the side 1–3 in Figure 1.13. The cubic variation of
with
)B @ uB
)B
@ B
)B
and cubic in
, then
is quadratic in
and cubic in
, and
is cubic in
and quadratic is speciﬁed by
@ B
£
The need for the secondorder crossderivative term can be explained as follows; If
is cubic in
G 6
slope
B
B
§ § ) GeI¦B¤0BvEhfB¤ @@ Ã G r G G
§G I ¤)B § e¦B3eED¦B¤ @) Ã
)BÅ £Å
U
U
B
B
4Bj )Bi I G § 3 ty3u°PrEhfB¤ @¼ Ã G G § B j I i¤ ) B § D SV3vEhfB¤ ¼) Ã @uB Å £Å G G
slope
U U
Ã §@ Ã p fB¤ @@ ® Ã §@ Ã p fB¤ @@ ® Ã §@ Ã p fB¤ @¼ ®
@ uB
1.6 H IGHER O RDER C ONTINUITY
node
node
h
i
node
node
j
The bicubic interpolation of these nodal parameters is given by
@Æ ©Æ
F IGURE 1.13: Interpolation of nodal derivative
along side 1–3.
(1.16) 13
4 ) Å@ Å l x )B Åu Å @ Ã §@ Ã Å B § ) ¦B¤ @) sufB¤ @) ® x B £ ) uÅ B § ) fB¤ @) ) £) x ) B Å @uB Å w ) Ã § @ ) Ã @ x ) B Å uB Å w ) @ £ () Å § B¦¤ @@ sufB¤ @ ® 4 () Å Å w § fB¤ @@ £ ) l x )wB Å Ã §@ Ã Å § ) ¦B¤ @) pu¦B¤ ¼) t x £ B Å § ) fB¤ @) ) £ x )B Å w ) Ã §@ ) Ã @ x )B Å w ) £ Å § ¦B¤ @@ pu¦B¤ ¼ t 4 £ Å Å w § fB¤ @@ l u@ B Å w x Å § ) ¦B¤ ¼) pu¦B¤ @) t uu£ B Å § ) fB¤ ¼) Ã §@ Ã x@ ) u £ B Å w x@ x@ Å w ) Ã § @ ) Ã @ uuB Å § ) fB¤ @ ¼ £ Å § ¦B¤ @¼ pu¦B¤ @ t w lp§ ) ¦B¤ ) Ã § @ ) Ã £ 4 w £ ) ) £ ¼ pu¦B¤ ¼ t § fB¤ ¼ )£ § ) fB¤ @¼ pu¦B¤ ¼) tAb§ ) CB¤ @¼ Ã §@ Ã @ £
Ã §@ p fB¤ Ã §@ p fB¤ Ã §@ p fB¤
Ã §@ Ã p fB¤ @¼ ® Ãp§ fB¤ @@ ® @ Ã Ã @@ ® Ã ¼@ ® @¼ 'k§ ) ¤(uCB!£ Ã Bx@ ¤
G
@ xu@uB Å £Å w
)B
4 xu@uB Å £Å w
14
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
where
are the onedimensional cubic Hermite basis functions (see Figure 1.12). As in the onedimensional case above, to preserve derivative continuity in physical xcoordinate space as well as in coordinate space the global node derivatives need to be speciﬁed with respect to physical arclength. There are now two arclengths to consider: , measuring arclength along the coordinate, and , measuring arclength along the coordinate. Thus
where
and
global node to the coordinate derivatives of element node . The bicubic Hermite basis is a powerful shape descriptor for curvilinear surfaces. Figure 1.14 shows a four element bicubic Hermite surface in 3D space where each node has the following twelve parameters and
1.7
Triangular Elements
Triangular elements cannot use the and coordinates deﬁned above for tensor product elements (i.e., two and three dimensional elements whose basis functions are formed as the product of onedimensional basis functions). The natural coordinates for triangles are based on area ratios and are called Area Coordinates . Consider the ratio of the area formed from the points , and in Figure 1.15 to the total area of the triangle
§nTV¤ Î z`¿z¥tbÀ¨Fu u j § ¦@ & ¡@ " @ ¤
Area Area
§ ¦x ¤ ª¦¡XÊ
i j
) 8 Å T8 Å @ É () Å
q B i x ) 32 B )8 R2 w i x ) 32 Ä i xuu32 Ä uÇiys x ) 8 Å u8 Å i ) Å@ Å B @B @ x B () uÅ B ) g2 £ 8 @ug2 8 £ $) Å w i x ) w B Å Ä È uÇiys x ) 8 Å w i x ) B Å w )8 Å £Å £Å i xTuB Å w ¨È uÇiys uu8 Å w i uuB Å w @ Ä x@ x@ @ u8 Å £Å w £Å w
are element scale factors which scale the arclength derivatives of
) 8 Å u8 Å ) Å @ Å ) Å @ Å ) Å @ Å ) Å @ Å @ x É 8 ¦ u8 8 T8 x ¦ 8 ¡ u8 8 T8 x É Å x É Å $x ) Å x ¦ Å x ¦ Å ¨x $) Å x ¡ Å x ¡ Å ª¡
@ u8
§G I eCB¤ ) B §Bj I D ¿fi¤ ) B §G I ¤ ) X¦BdB Bj Bi I 4 ® ) uSPG ) wB
¹¹ ¹¹ ¹¹ 4 ¦ 4 ¡ G ¹¹ Í ijG ¹¹ ) ) ¹¹ j Í !i Tj wÌ Ê Î ¦ ¦ ¡ ¡ GG G ¥ueÌ
)B
§hfB¤ §hfB¤ §hfB¤ § hfB¤
@¼ Ã ) @) Ã ¼ Ã @@ Ã @ uB )8 B E@ Ë u i xuu32 @B @8 ug2 w @ uB
(1.17)
(1.18)
1.7 T RIANGULAR E LEMENTS
15
F IGURE 1.14: A surface formed by four bicubic Hermite elements.
P( , )
F IGURE 1.15: Area coordinates for a triangular element.
U #k@ Ë § ) x ) ¦¡Ðj ¦ ¤
ij TÊ
¡
§ 4 x 4 ¦¡Ïi ¦ ¤
4 @ E@ Ë
)4 E@ Ë
@ uB
¦ ¡
)B
G rq@ Ë
¦
§@ ¦x@ DAf¡¤ G
É
12 parameters per node
Area
16
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
. Notice that is linear in and . Similarly, area coordinates for the other two triangles containing and two of the element vertices are
where and . Notice that . Area coordinate varies linearly from when lies at node or to when lies at node and can therefore be used directly as the basis function for node for a three node triangle. Thus, interpolation over the triangle is given by
where , and . Six node quadratic triangular elements are constructed as shown in Figure 1.16.
1.8
It is sometimes convenient to model the geometry of the region (over which a ﬁnite element solution is sought) using an orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system. A 2D circular annulus, for ex
G G Ê G Ö@ Ë i j Ê U 6Ö@ Ë @ G r 4 ) Ë b@ @ A¡I ) ¡e 4 $x ) ¦Õ7g¦{ 4 $x(D¦ ) ¡I ) sA{ 4 ¹ 4 `A{ ) $DÕI 4 v Ë ) $x 4 sË¦ A`g¦ 4 v ) & I@ " @ ¦@ ¡ ¡ I @ ¡ ¹ & x @ ¦ ¦ " @ ¡ I @Ë ¡ ¹ ¹ ¹¹ ) ¦ ) ¡ G ¹¹ Í j !i G § u nTjV¤ Î §¦ 4 ¿¡ 4 t 4 À¤¨Fu Î ¹¹ DÔA¡ G ¹¹ Gj `TnwÌ Ì & " 4 Ë @¦ @ Í jG e Ê ¦ ¡ G ¹¹ ¹¹ ¹¹ DÔA¡ G ¹¹ @¦ @ Í jG ¹¹ 4 4 ¹¹ j Í !i TGi wÌ ) Ë Ê Î ¦ ¦ ¡ ¡ GG G ¥7neÌ
Area Area
F IGURE 1.16: Basis functions for a six node quadratic triangular element.
Curvilinear Coordinate Systems
i
§nTV¤ Î ¦ ) ¿¡ ) t ) À¨Fu uj § & " ¤
Area Area
@" ¡ Ó¥$x ) ¦ 4 QI 4 ¦ ) #q ¡ @ ²
4 gª¦¡¤ 4 £ § ¦x a
G
ij uG
where
) t@ Â6 4 4 ) ) @ E@ Ë I Ë I G Ë a Ë a Ë a ) R¤ªf¡¤ ) AARªf¡A@ m¤ª¦¡¥£ £ § ¦x a @ £ § ¦x ¤ a § ¦x ¤
h
j
¦
¡
§eI 4 G §eI ) G §G I ey@
Ê @ ¹¹ ) I Ë 4 ¹¹ vE`x 4 QI ) ¦ ¡ ¡ @& ¦ ¹¹ 4 ¦ 4 ¡ G ¹¹ ¹¹ ) ¦ ) ¡ G ¹¹ ) Ñu @¦ @ gÒA¡ G @ @ Ë4 Ë 4 ) ) Ë@ Ë jË 4 Ë Ë jÀ¤ ) Ë jÀ¤¤ Ë Àª@ ¬ h v a h ± v ya h v1l a 4 Ë )a Ë a Ë E@ a
is the area of the triangle with vertices
, and
1.8 C URVILINEAR C OORDINATE S YSTEMS
17
(a)
(b)
(c)
F IGURE 1.17: Deﬁning a circular annulus with one cylindrical polar element. Notice that element space or space, as shown in (b) and (c), respectively, map onto the vertices and in single global node in space in (a). Similarly, element vertices and map onto global node .
where the basis functions are given by (1.6). Three orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems are deﬁned here for use in later sections.
å âá × ¾äã¤t{¥É å áàß Ø âá × £3¥mdäã¤t{¦ å áàß Ø áàß × ¨3¥y¨T¥t{%¡
§ åxØx× y(g$V¤
Spherical polar
:
É 'É Ø âá × ¾äã¤y#!¦ Øáàß × 03¥y#%¡
§Éx Øx 3$R$f×¤
Cylindrical polar
:
i¥Ø Ä i ¥×
§ ) ¤( fB¤ Bx@
Ä § ) ¤( fBÂi a Ø Bx@ ¤ § ) ¤( fBÂi a × Bx@ ¤
§ ) (u¦Bdi a Bx@ ¤
§ ) ¤( fB¤ Bx@
i ¥Ø i ¥× §Øx T$f×¤ §Øx 3$V×¤
in
Global nodes and , shown in space in Figure 1.17a, each map to two element vertices space, as shown in Figure 1.17b, and in space, as shown in Figure 1.17c. The coordinates at any point are given by a bilinear interpolation of the nodal coordinates and as
(1.19)
(1.20)
@ uB
i
h
@× uÑ«× §Øx× 3$V¤
ample, can be modelled geometrically using one element with cylindrical polar e.g., the annular plate in Figure 1.17a has two global nodes, the ﬁrst with with .
coordinates, and the second
G
j
)B Þ × )× i h G j @ u× Ø
U
Ù j ) zÛ @ § ¦x ªf¡¤ ¡ ÝÛ Dz£ ÜÛ uH¥Ú j j G G
¦
) v× ×
18
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
z
F IGURE 1.18: Prolate spheroidal coordinates.
The prolate spheroidal coordinates rae illustrated in Figure 1.18 and a single prolate spheroidal are all trilinear in . Only four element is shown in Figure 1.19. The coordinates global nodes are required provided the four global nodes map to eight element nodes as shown in Figure 1.19.
§ 4 ¤x ) ¤( fB¤ B Bx@
ØÂãÂã¤ddãÓ'É âá ç âá æ è âá 2 Ø à ç âá æ è âá 2 pá3¢ßÂã¤ddãÓ'¥¦ ç áàß æ èáàß 2 3¢¾¾¤3¢Ó'¡
y r x
Ø
æ
§Øx çx æ T$mbÈ¤
ç
2
§Øx çx æ T$mbÈ¤
Prolate spheroidal
:
(1.21)
1.8 C URVILINEAR C OORDINATE S YSTEMS
19
(a)
(b)
1 3
(c)
(d)
o
F IGURE 1.19: A single prolate spheroidal element, shown (a) in coordinates, (c) in coordinates and (d) in coordinates, (b) shows the orientation of the coordinates on the prolate spheroid.
4B
4B
i
h
@ B
@ h uB
)B i G j êÛ ÝÛ THRz¨C G )B j æ 4 zÛ ) zÛ @ C i h G j h i í $ ¡ j G U ç Ué É
¦
h j ÜÛ ìÛ uHbz0Vë Ù j Ø
20
F INITE E LEMENT BASIS F UNCTIONS
1.9
CMISS Examples
1. To deﬁne a 2D bilinear ﬁnite element mesh run the CMISS example number . The nodes should be positioned as shown in Figure 1.20. After deﬁning elements the mesh should appear like the one shown in Figure 1.21.
4 2
6 5 1
3
1
2
jj TG
7. To deﬁne a bilinear mesh in cylindrical polar coordinates run CMISS example
G 3G
6. To deﬁne a triangular element mesh run CMISS example
(see Figure 1.24). .
hG ¥3G
5. To deﬁne a 2D cubic Hermitelinear ﬁnite element mesh run example
²
Gj RG
4. To deﬁne a 3D trilinear element run CMISS example
.
G 3G
3. To deﬁne a quadraticlinear element run the cmiss example
iG 73G
2. To reﬁne a mesh run the CMISS example like the one shown in Figure 1.22.
. After the ﬁrst reﬁne the mesh should appear .
``
F IGURE 1.21: 2D bilinear ﬁnite element mesh for example
``
F IGURE 1.20: Node positions for example
.
.
.
GG 3TG
1.9 CMISS E XAMPLES
21
1
7 1 8 3 5
2 2
9 4
3
4
10 6
1 11
7 13 6 5
2 2
9 4
3
1 5 3 4 12 8 14
10 6
3 4
1
2
³ (`
F IGURE 1.24: Deﬁning a triangular mesh for example
Þ (`
F IGURE 1.23: Second reﬁned mesh for example
Þ (`
F IGURE 1.22: First reﬁned mesh for example
Chapter 2 SteadyState Heat Conduction
2.1 OneDimensional SteadyState Heat Conduction
Our ﬁrst example of solving a partial differential equation by ﬁnite elements is the onedimensional steadystate heat equation. The equation arises from a simple heat balance over a region of conducting material: Rate of change of heat ﬂux = heat source per unit volume or
or
subject to boundary conditions: and This equation (with ) has an exact solution
with which we can compare the approximate ﬁnite element solutions. To solve Equation (2.1) by the ﬁnite element method requires the following steps: 1. Write down the integral equation form of the heat equation. 2. Integrate by parts (in 1D) or use Green’s Theorem (in 2D or 3D) to reduce the order of derivatives.
G6EH¤!£ §G U § ¤ 'EhfU!£ ¡ ¡ G#Ì§¡tU v%¿ x £32 32 Ì U £ h2 î w 2 I
úøùv I ø ÷ G Du°¾¥v XI v ) v k¨f¡!£ § ¤
£ #ï § ¡x £¤ ¨¤ªVPï
where is temperature, Consider the case where
the heat sink and
the thermal conductivity (
.
öõÎ ó áòòñ $TôuÎ ¤ Qð
î ¡ ¡ U'E§¨¤xªV¤1ï¿ x £32 î 32 ¡ £ h2 I w 2
G cî
¡32 2 £
(heat ﬂux) + heat sink per unit volume = 0
).
(2.1)
(2.2)
24
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
3. Introduce the ﬁnite element approximation for the temperature ﬁeld with nodal parameters and element basis functions. 4. Integrate over the elements to calculate the element stiffness matrices and RHS vectors. 5. Assemble the global equations. 6. Apply the boundary conditions. 7. Solve the global equations. 8. Evaluate the ﬂuxes.
2.1.1
Integral equation
Rather than solving Equation (2.1) directly, we form the weighted residual
where
is the residual
for an approximate solution and is a weighting function to be chosen below. If were an exact solution over the whole domain, the residual would be zero everywhere. But, given that in real engineering problems this will not be the case, we try to obtain an approximate solution for which the residual or error (i.e., the amount by which the differential equation is not satisﬁed exactly at a point) is distributed evenly over the domain. Substituting Equation (2.4) into Equation (2.3) gives
This formulation of the governing equation can be thought of as forcing the residual or error to be zero in a spatially averaged sense. More precisely, is chosen such that the residual is kept orthogonal to the space of functions used in the approximation of (see step 3 below).
2.1.2
Integration by parts
A major advantage of the integral equation is that the order of the derivatives inside the integral can be reduced from two to one by integrating by parts (or, equivalently for 2D problems, by applying
%
Green’s theorem  see later). Thus, substituting
and
into the integration by parts
£
£
¡ 32 £ î I h2 }r¡
U ¡ '«32
£
ü ý ¡ ¡ £¿ x £32 32 I h2 î w 2 r ü ÿ Õý ý ý
U ¡ '«325
¡ ¡ þ ¼ £¿ x 32 32 I £ î ý h2 w 2 @û
ý ü ¾©û £ ü
(2.3)
(2.4)
(2.5)
2 .1 O NE D IMENSIONAL S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
¢
25
formula
gives
and Equation (2.5) becomes
2.1.3 Finite element approximation
into 3 equal length elements and replace the continuous ﬁeld We divide the domain variable within each element by the parametric ﬁnite element approximation
a ¡ ý £ B6P§D¦B¤ ) a B I § ¤ °G ÂDfBA@ a i¡§ ¤ pgD¦BPi ) ¡ § ) @ ¡ § ¤ § ¤ a ghfB¤ a bAghfBA@ a EhfB¥¡ i£§ ¤ pRD¦BPi a ) RhfB¤ ) a AARhfBA@ a Eh¦B¥£ £§ @£§ ¤ § ¤
(summation implied by repeated index) where and are the linear basis functions for both and . We also choose (called the Galerkin1 assumption). This forces the residual to be orthogonal to the space of functions used to represent the dependent variable , thereby ensuring that the residual, or error, is monotonically reduced as the ﬁnite element mesh is reﬁned (see later for a more complete justiﬁcation of this very important step) . The domain integral in Equation (2.6) can now be replaced by the sum of integrals taken separately over the three elements
Boris G. Galerkin (18711945). Galerkin was a Russian engineer who published his ﬁrst technical paper on the buckling of bars while imprisoned in 1906 by the Tzar in prerevolutionary Russia. In many Russian texts the Galerkin ﬁnite element method is known as the BubnovGalerkin method. He published a paper using this idea in 1915. The method was also attributed to I.G. Bubnov in 1913.
1
ü
¡ ¡ x ¡ £h î 32 dh22 D22 I
£
ý
¼ ¼ 32 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ x £ h2 h2 £ î %32 ¿ 2 D2 î w û £ @ ý h2 ý @ ý
¡ 32
w @û
¡ 32 ¡32 2 Ä @û ¼
I
¡
!32 ¡
@
¼ xq32 ¡ £ î h2 }I
@û
¼ I @¼ ¨©§¡5£¦ ¤¥%32 ¡322 ¡ Ä
û
¥h2 ¡
w ý
Ä ¼
û
¼ ¡ %32 xÓD22 I 32 ¡ £h î ¡ w 2 ý @û
¡ £
¡ «32
G #ÑU Ì ¡ Ì
Ä ¼
@û ¼ @û § ¤ ¨¦¡¥£
(2.6)
26
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
and each element integral is then taken over space
2.1.4
Element integrals
The element integrals arising from the LHS of Equation (2.6) have the form
and . Since and are both functions of the derivatives with respect where to need to be converted to derivatives with respect to . Thus Equation (2.7) becomes
evaluated by substituting the ﬁnite element approximation and the Jacobian is
#
. In this case
. The term multiplying the nodal parameters
the element stiffness matrix,
#
where the indices
and
are or . To evaluate
G B r ) 32 2 B § {EhfB¤ ) a G I B r @ 32 2 B I G § ¤ QP6EhfBA@ a i # j ¼ Bh2 h2 B B h2 i x B Õ32 x i Öa a G i aÖa ¾i i i î a 2 a 2 w @ û
we substitute the basis functions
or or
B
i 5 § ¤ n§"Ri a ÖD¦B!¡
i 4 32 B @ 32 ¡
a G q $ ¼ ¡ 32 B32 32 32 ¡ B i B h2 i B î a 2 32 a 2 w @ û
a
i p£
Notice that
has been taken outside the integral because it is not a function of . The term
i p£ Bi ¡ ¡ 32G B h2
B
B
B h2
¼ xi ¡ B ¡ B 32 32 32 32 i a1a B 32 i a 2 h2 !a 2 î w û 0£ B @ B i a a a ý ¼ ¡ ¡ B 32 x £S 32 32 2 h2 î w û £ @
¡
where
is the Jacobian of the transformation from
B h2
ý
Ä ¼
@û
¡ 32 ý Ä
B
øû ø ¹ ¹ ¹¹ ¹ ¹¾Bh2 ¹¹ ¡ 32 i£ pui a £ ¡ i Bh Y 322 ¡
coordinates to coordinates.
(2.7)
(2.8)
is or
is called
2 .1 O NE D IMENSIONAL S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
¢
27
x
Node 1 Node 1
2
3
4
Node 2
Node 3
Node 4
F IGURE 2.1: The rows of the global stiffness matrix are generated from the global weight functions. The bar is shown at the top divided into three elements.
Thus,
Notice that the element stiffness matrix is symmetric. Notice also that the stiffness matrix, in this particular case, is the same for all elements. For simplicity we put in the following steps.
2.1.5 Assembly
The three element stiffness matrices (with ) are assembled into one global stiffness matrix. This process is illustrated in Figure 2.1 where rows of the global stiffness matrix (shown here multiplied by the vector of global unknowns) are generalised from the weight function associated with nodes . Note how each element stiffness matrix (the smaller square brackets in Figure 2.1) overlaps
G rnî
4 ú¬ ú@@
¬ î ÷ 4 ú Õî I ÷ 4 Õî é ÷ @ 4 @ @4 é ÷ 4 @ i # é I @ ú Ai î é @ i x ) z) G î é G # x i w) # )@ G Õî é I w G E@ ( #
²
and, similarly,
¼ ¼ xAi i B 2 § B I G¤ §G I¤ x B i kz# 3¥ú ) DQPs# ) Hî é ÷ Gi h2 ') s@ a # h2 î B & § ¤ @@ G î é ) @ a2 w é û G w G @û % @
l
0
0
X
X
U
4
0
X
X
X
U
)
X
X
X
0
U
@
=
X
X
0
0
U
X X X X
h 5x x ä57TG
G î
h 5x 5x 73G
28
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
with its neighbour because they share a common global node. The assembly process gives
4 53 4
Notice that the ﬁrst row (generating heat ﬂux at node ) has zeros multiplying and since nodes and have no direct connection through the basis functions to node . Finite element matrices are always sparse matrices  containing many zeros  since the basis functions are local to elements. The RHS of Equation (2.6) is
To evaluate these expressions consider the weighting function corresponding to each global node (see Fig.1.6). For node is obtained from the basis function associated with the ﬁrst node of element and therefore . Also, since is identically zero outside element , . Thus Equation (2.9) for node reduces to = ﬂux entering node .
Similarly,
(nodes and )
and
= ﬂux entering node .
Note: has been left in these expressions to emphasise that they are heat ﬂuxes. Putting these global equations together we get
C D A B@ ¹¹ @¨ ø ¹¹ q32 x ¡ l £ h2 î 2) 6 4r µ U w 6 ) rr 6 µ4 @± U I ¹¹ U 4 01 4 ¼ ø¹ 0 ¡ @ 4 ¹ xq32 0 4 kr 01 4 U 4 £ h2 î w I )000 543 )0 543 43 4
(2.10)
or
G
l yr
4rG
¼ ø i j U # @ ¨ ø ¹¹ ¼ x ¡ ø ¹¹ q32 G £ h2 î w G @ G @ a ý ¹¹ ¹¹ ¼ ø ¹¹ x 32ý @ ¨ ø ¹¹ x 32 ¡ ¡ £ î I £ î ý h2 w ý h2 w
h
G @ l 4r 6 µ4 @ µ 2 ) I 2 ) µ4 ± 6) r r ±U µ µ4 @± @ kr 01 4 U U
)0 53 4
@ ¨ ø ¹¹
I U U U 2) µ4 @ I I µ 2 ) ± 2 ) µ4 @ I µ 4µ @ I µ ± 2 ) )001 µ ± ¹¹ ±U
¡ i £32 î ý h2
¼ ø h2 xq32 ¡ ¡ £ £ h2 î w ¨ ø l ý D2 î @
U U µ4 @ I U 4@ I 2) ± 2) µ µ4 @ I µ 2 ) µ ± 2 ) µ4 @ I µ µ4 @± I µ ±µ 2 ) )001
¼ ø ¡ Ir @ £32 î @ ¨ ø ý h2 ¼ 7 ø 8@ ý@ G ý ¼ ø ¡ £32 î @ ¨ ø ý h2
h
G
U @ 7 ' ¨ ø 9@
i
(2.9)
î
ý
2 .1 O NE D IMENSIONAL S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
A
nd
29
where is the global “stiffness” matrix, the vector of unknowns and the global “load” vector. Note that if the governing differential equation had included a distributed source term that was independent of , this term would appear  via its weighted integral  on the RHS of Equation (2.10) rather than on the LHS as here. Moreover, if the source term was a function of , the contribution from each element would be different  as shown in the next section.
2.1.6 Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions and are applied directly to the ﬁrst and last nodal values: i.e., and . These socalled essential boundary conditions then replace the ﬁrst and last rows in the global Equation (2.10), where the ﬂux terms on the RHS are at present unknown
Note that, if a ﬂux boundary condition had been applied, rather than an essential boundary condition, the known value of ﬂux would enter the appropriate RHS term and the value of at that node would remain an unknown in the system of equations. An applied boundary ﬂux of zero, corresponding to an insulated boundary, is termed a natural boundary condition, since effectively no additional constraint is applied to the global equation. At least one essential boundary condition must be applied.
Solving these equations gives: solutions at these points are in Figure 2.2.
and
and . From Equation (2.2) the exact , respectively. The ﬁnite element solution is shown
2.1.8 Fluxes
The ﬂuxes at nodes and are evaluated by substituting the nodal solutions and into Equation (2.10)
G
h
These ﬂuxes are shown in Figure 2.2 as heat entering node heat ﬂow down the temperature gradient.
and leaving node , consistent with
GiG 5 `Çi3G
G rnî
ﬂux entering node
(
G rnî
ﬂux entering node
(
; exact solution ; exact solution
T¶ jR' ) r #qkr U @ ¶ 5U
U 5 é T ¶ U
4 ¶ 5 3é U RU r
²
¹¹ @ ¨ ø ¹¹ x 32 ¡ G 5G · Çi36 ¹¹ £ h2 î h ¼ ¹¹ x ¡ ø ôÓ32 w 5U I I é h ¶ ¾6 £ h2 î w r¾G
j 5 hU`G U é) ¶ 5 3T¶ jRU ¶ 5U 3¶ jÔ r ²
2.1.7 Solution
,
) )
r
Gr r l ¬ U' r l µ4 @± I 44 r 2 ) r ¬µ4 @ I U ' r µ4 @± I ) r 2 ± okr µ4 @ I @ ± ± kr ± U ' @
st
equation equation rd equation th equation
¡
C
²
G § G¤ Õz!£
G ¥r l U ÕhfU!£ § ¤
h
Gr1yr l G
G
j
i
h
U @ Ñqr
£
4 ¶ 5U 3é U v r
²
@
¢
,
30
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
F IGURE 2.2: Finite element solution of onedimensional heat equation.
Equation (2.6) now becomes
where the dependent source term appears on the RHS because it is not dependent on . Replacing the domain integral for this source term by the sum of three element integrals
¡
and putting
in terms of gives (with
for all three elements)
£
¼ ¼ i i Ph2 i i d32 i ¼ i h2 ¡ ¼ B 32 B B ¡ j G ý §DBSPÀ¤ @ û G ý §DB°ÖH¤ @ û G ýB @û G ý @û i 32 B B G 32 ¡
¼ ¼ ¼ 32 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 32 ¡ ¡ x £ 32 32 £ î h2 ¿ 2 h2 î w û £ ý @ û @ ý h2 ý @ ý
¼ ¼ ¡ 32 ¡ ¥32 ¡ !32 ¡ h2 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ý @û ý û ý û ý @û
¡ ¡ GwÌ ¡®Ì!U U'%¡QIn£¿ xq£32 32 h2 î w 2 I
¡
Consider the addition of a source term dependent on
F
2.2
An Dependent Source Term
in Equation (2.1):
G 5 · Çi3G ¡ G ²
(2.11) (2.12)
¶ 5 Té U U
)4
3¶ jU ¶ 5
@
4
U
E
G ² 5 é h ¶ RU ¡
2 .3 T HE G ALERKIN W EIGHT F UNCTION R EVISITED
31
. Evaluating these expressions,
and
Thus, the contribution to the element RHS vector from the source term is Similarly, for element ,
and
gives
and for element ,
and
gives
Assembling these into the global RHS vector, Equation (2.10) becomes
4 53
2.3 The Galerkin Weight Function Revisited
A key idea in the Galerkin ﬁnite element method is the choice of weighting functions which are orthogonal to the equation residual (thought of here as the error or amount by which the equation fails to be exactly zero). This idea is illustrated in Figure 2.3. In Figure 2.3a an exact vector (lying in 3D space) is approximated by a vector where is a basis vector along the ﬁrst coordinate axis (representing one degree of freedom in the system). The difference between the exact vector and the approximate vector is the
G H G PIA A A Q RA A
l± ) ´ )±
4
l±± ´±
l
l± 6 l )± ± ´ ´)
l´ @@ ±
l@ ±
)
l )± ´ @±
)0
01
¼ hu B 2 B § B G hEgD°ÖH¤ Gé û @
¼ hu B 2 B § B j hEgD°dÀ¤ Gé û @
¹¹ @¨ ø ¹¹ qh2 x ¡ l £ D2 î 6 4r µ 2 ) U w 6 ) rr 6 µ4 @± U I ¹¹ U 4 01 4 ¼ ø¹ 0 ¡ @ 4 ¹ xq32 0 4 kr 01 4 U 4 £ h2 î w I )000 543 )0 543
43
4
¼ hu B 2 § B I G ¤ G 3ÂDPHdB Gé û @
¼ j B G· 32 ) B Gé û @
G
term on the RHS of (2.12) corresponding to element
is
, where
.
B I G {Ï@ a
¼ B32 a B Gé @û
where
h B 2 § B I G¤ § B j 31DQPsyDSPÀ¤ ¼ Gé û · @ i ¼ j B 2 § B I G¤ § B G j· 31DQPsyDSÓH¤ Gé û @
G
U µ4 @ I U ±¬ 2 4µ @ ¬ I U µ4 @ ± I ± 2 µ4 @ I µ4 @± ± I ±µ 2 ) )001
±U
j
G PH
ý
B { ) a
¢
is chosen to be the appropriate basis function within each element. For example, the ﬁrst and
32
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
F IGURE 2.3: Showing how the Galerkin method maintains orthogonality between the residual as is increased from (a) to (b) to (c) . vector and the set of basis vectors
error or residual (shown by the broken line in Figure 2.3a). The Galerkin technique minimises this residual by making it orthogonal to and hence to the approximating vector . If a second degree of freedom (in the form of another coordinate axis in Figure 2.3b) is added, the and the residual is now also made orthogonal to approximating vector is and hence to . Finally, in Figure 2.3c, a third degree of freedom (a third axis in Figure 2.3c) is permitted in the approximation with the result that the residual (now also orthogonal to ) is reduced to zero and . For a 3D vector space we only need three axes or basis vectors to represent the true vector , but in the inﬁnite dimensional vector space associated with a spatially continuous ﬁeld we need to impose the equivalent orthogonality condition for every basis function used in the approximate representation of
. The key point is that in this analogy the residual is made orthogonal to the current set of basis vectors  or, equivalently, in ﬁnite element analysis, to the set of basis functions used to represent the dependent variable. This ensures that the error or residual is minimal (in a leastsquares sense) for the current number of degrees of freedom and that as the number of degrees of freedom is increased (or the mesh reﬁned) the error decreases monotonically.
2.4
Two and ThreeDimensional SteadyState Heat Conduction
Extending Equation (2.1) to two or three spatial dimensions introduces some additional complexity which we examine here. Consider the threedimensional steadystate heat equation with no source terms:
Ä U # 4 a T775 S 5 5 4 4 S ) ) ¿b@ Av a £ a £ a@ £
)
a
A
Þ
£
A
Å x x Å m¦ ÅÅ d ¦ Å Ö¡ Å ø ¡ Å Å x Uv tÉ Å f É £ h£î w Å I £ Reî w Å I £ Å î w ÑI
4
(a)
(b)
a 4£ ü ) a @ a a
`
(c)
Ä U # ) a U`775 S 5 5 ) ) SA@ A# a £ a@ £
4 4 ) ) @ a £v A A a £{k@ a b£ Q a A ) { A A£ £ @
£ )£ § ¤ ¨C¡!£
X YW b cH A G PH A
@ a I
A Q aA
x #32 U ¡ a
ü U'E@ a @ a b{ @£ 4 a
V S
@ A£ Ä
A A S
ü ûw
0£ £ § ¤ ¨f¡!£
2 .4 T WO
¢
AND
T HREE D IMENSIONAL S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
33
where and are the thermal diffusivities along the , and axes respectively. If the material is assumed to be isotropic, , and the above equation can be written as
and, if is spatially constant (in the case of a homogeneous material), this reduces to Laplace’s equation . Here we consider the solution of Equation (2.13) over the region , subject to boundary conditions on (see Figure 2.4).
r
Solution region boundary:
The weighted integral equation, corresponding to Equation (2.13), is
The multidimensional equivalent of integration by parts is the GreenGauss theorem:
r v
(see p553 in Advanced Engineering Mathematics” by E. Kreysig, 7th edition, Wiley, 1993). This is used (with , and assuming that is constant) to reduce the derivative order from two to one as follows:
cf. Integration by parts is
Using Equation (2.16) in Equation (2.14) gives the twodimensional equivalent of Equation (2.6)
ø ø ø 32 ¡ ¡ ¡ x ¡ ¡ I ¡ 32 £32 ¡ q£h2 h2 ø £ î ô32 2 h2 î û %32 ý D2 î w 2 I û ý h2 ý Å q kî ¿©2 h Ä npî ®v2 ¨pÈ¤ Ä cI rv2 Å I q £ h q §£ hî h uû uû û ý £ ý ý
t
Å 2 q d Å
¡
U q §£ hî #®v2 ¨pÈ¤
î
û
q2 §¡ X©1yh
ý
s
F IGURE 2.4: The region
and the boundary .
q
Solution region:
.
q
É
¦ ¡
Ä U'E¨npÀ¤ iI §£ hî h î fî dî #Â£'P£' ø î Ä
h yh ¡
Ä
h c
I
£î R}I
u
û
Ä
h xw
¡
¤
ý
u
û
r
¯
f g
U ¨ £ ) pî h
î
d e
î (x ø î î
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(2.16)
34
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
(but with no source term):
where
and
, as before, and the geometric terms
inverse matrix
or, for a twodimensional element,
)01
2.5
Let
Basis Functions  Element Discretisation
example of this mapping.
) ¤$uB Bx@
í
q
and map each
to the
plane. Figure 2.5 shows an
í
q
, i.e., the solution region is the union of the individual elements. In each
4 53
6
Å@ Å ) B Å uB Å @ Å ÅÅ @ uB Å Å uB Å Å uB Å ) B ÒI ) B uB @ @ ¦ Å ¡ Å 6 ) ¦ ÅÅ ¦ ÅÅ ¦ ) XI ¦ ¡ ) B¡Å BÅ B @ G Å u¡ B Å ¡ Å I ¦ Å )01 @ ù 543 ¡
Å ¡ íBÅ
a ý Ä ¡ Å B Å Ä ¡ Å í B Å Å ¡ Å Ä ¡ Å £ B Å Å í B Å £ Ô Å £ Å ý h nh
ý
subject to being given on one part of the boundary and boundary. The integrand on the LHS of (2.17) is evaluated using
q ÅÅ î X©2 h Ä nî r©2 q £ h uû ý £ û ý qÅ £Å @ù
(2.17)
being given on another part of the
Å íBÅ ¡ ¡ Å íB Å
ý
£ a ¢57¥5® ) £ ) a 0@b£z@ a Õpui %£ 5 i£ @ ¨ í a í q ©q
¦Å ¡Å ) Å ) Å 6 ¦B Å ¡B Å @ uB Å uB Å @
4 53
i£ pTi a e£
)01
£
(2.18)
are found from the
let
@
Þ ³
)
s
@
@
s
Þ )
)
@
³ l
s
¸ )
@
¸
4
s
) Ý
2 .5 BASIS F UNCTIONS  E LEMENT D ISCRETISATION
F IGURE 2.5: Mapping each
to the
plane in a
nP
For each element, the basis functions and their derivatives are:
element plane.
(2.29) (2.28) (2.27) (2.26) (2.25) (2.24) (2.23) (2.22) (2.21) (2.20) (2.19) 35
) z vÂl B@ B a
) zuQÂH¨ 4 B§@ B I G¤ a
§ ) QÂs¢
v ) a B I G¤@B § ) Ps¢uQÂH¨k@ a B I G¤§@ B I G¤ ) zÛ @
s
) Å @B u{ B l a ÅÅ ) B @ { l uB Å a ) Å @B I G uQP6 4 B Å aÅ ) B I @ P6 4 uB Å a ) Å @B I uP6 B @ a ÅÅ ) B I G @ QP6 ) uB Å a ) Å §@B I G¤ I uQPs6 B @ a ÅÅ § ) QPs6 @ uB Å B I G¤ I @ a
)
s
@
s
³
l
s
4
s
¸
¢
36
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
2.6
Integration
The equation is
i.e.,
u has already been approximated by and is a weight function but what should this be chosen to be? For a Galerkin formulation choose i.e., weight function is one of the basis functions used to approximate the dependent variable. This gives
r© !
where the stiffness matrix is where and and is the (element) load vector. The names originated from earlier ﬁnite element applications and extension of spring systems, i.e., where is the stiffness of spring and is the force/load. This yields the system of equations . e.g., heat ﬂow in a unit square (see Figure 2.6).
F IGURE 2.6: Considering heat ﬂow in a unit square.
hx 555xG b777T6q ¢¥773r hx555xG Å Å Å 2 q q x ¦ ¦ a £ Å î X©2 a Å i a Å û
a ý ý q ÅÅ î X©2 x ¦ Å Å r©2 q ý £ û ý
§@ u¦B¤ ¡
Å q Eî X©2 h Ä nî r©2 Å q £ h uû û ý £ ý G p3i i£ ipTi a £ ¦ Å ¡ ÅÅ £Å
$ #
(2.30)
i # ¡ Å Å ¡ Å Å î p£ í i a i a w uû
§ ) fB¤ ¦
ý
¡Å £ Å w î uû U G
(2.31)
(2.32)
î
¡î g'w
2 .7 A SSEMBLE G LOBAL E QUATIONS
¢
37
and similarly for the other components of the matrix. Note that if the element was not the unit square we would need to transform from to coordinates. In this case we would have to include the Jacobian of the transformation and also use the chain rule to calculate . e.g., .
Note that the Galerkin formulation generates a symmetric stiffness matrix (this is true for self adjoint operators which are the most common). Given that boundary conditions can be applied and it is possible to solve for unknown nodal temperatures or ﬂuxes. However, typically there is more than one element and so the next step is required.
2.7 Assemble Global Equations
Each element stiffness matrix must be assembled into a global stiffness matrix. For example, consider elements (each of unit size) and nine nodes. Each element has the same element stiffness matrix as that given above. This is because each element is the same size, shape and interpolation.
¬ ¬ )4 I 2 £ )4 @¬ )4 6µ £ 6 @ I ¬ I ´¬ £ I ¬ @4 I ¬ 4 £ 01 4 44 £ 00 44 @4 I @ @4 I @ I 4 ±l 0 4 @ fgdeü 4 p£ 0 4 @ I 4 4 0 4 4 £0 4 4 ) 0 4 4 £0 4 @ A£ 000 444
43
4
4
)
3
¬ ¬ ¬ 4 ¬ @4 I @ I ¬4 @ I @ I @¬ 4 I @¬ I @ II )4 @ I ¬ )4 ¬ )4 ¬ @ ¬ 4 @¬ 4 I @¬ 4 I 4 ¬4 @ I @ ¬ I @ I ) ) I ) I ) @ )4 I @ )4 I @ I ¬@ 4 I@¬ @4 I @ ¬4 @ I @ 4I @ I @ I @ I @ I
¬ ¬ ¬4 ¬4 l 4p£ ¬ ) @ 4 I @4 I @¬ I 6 ) ££ 6 @ II ¬4 ) I @¬ )4 I @ II î fgdeü @ A£ 01 4 @@4 I @@ I @ I @ )4 01 )0 4 3 )0
43
4
i£ Õp3i
The system of
becomes
(Right Hand Side)
§ ¦x ªf¡¤
¡Å íBÅ ¡Å íBÅ i a Å )BÅ
)BÅ iaÅ
¦ 2 ¡ § ¡ I G¤ § ¦ I G h£32 ) ¨Ps' ) QPH¤ ¡ Å uB Å @ ¡Å @ uB Å i a Å i a Å
(2.33) (2.34)
@û@û ¼ ¼
Å v¡ íaÅ
î ji
î @@ #qz#
@@ z#
The ﬁrst component
is calculated as
¬ I ¬ 4 I¬ )@4 I @ @4 I @ I ¬ @ I ¬ )4 4 @¬ I 4 @ I ) ) @ I
#
h
§ ) ¤(
fB¤ Bx@ @ )4 ¬4 001 @ I 00 @¬ I 00 I 00
0 )0 0 0
38
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
F IGURE 2.7: Assembling unit sized elements into a global stiffness matrix.
This yields the system of equations
Note that the matrix is symmetric. It should also be clear that the matrix will be sparse if there is a larger number of elements. From this system of equations, boundary conditions can be applied and the equations solved. To solve, ﬁrstly boundary conditions are applied to reduce the size of the system. If at global node , is known, we can remove the th equation and replace it with the known value of . This is because the RHS at node is known but the RHS equation is uncoupled from other equations so the equation can be removed. Therefore the size of the system is reduced. The ﬁnal system to solve is only as big as the number of unknown values of u. As an example to illustrate this consider ﬁxing the temperature ( ) at the left and right sides of the plate in Figure 2.7 and insulating the top (node ) and the bottom (node ). This means that
¬ ¬ ¬ 2 £ I ¬ I 4 I )4 6µ £ I @ ¬ 4l I @4 I @4 I ´¬ £ 6 @ ¬ I @ )4 @ 4 @@44 I 4 ¬ £ 01 I @4 I I 4 0 4 44 £ 00 44 @4 I @4 ¬4 4 l @ 4 @4 I @ I @¬ I 4 µ I 4 £0 4 @ fhdeü 4 ±l 0 4 @ I @ I @4 4 p£ 0 4 4 4 0 4 @4 I @4 I 4 £0 4 4 ) 0 4 @ I @4 I 4 £0 4 4 @ @ I A£ )000 44 3
j
¡
4 53
4
²
i
£
é
global node numbering
j
h
i
¶
j
¶
i
¬4 @ II ¬ 4 @ 4 @4 I @4 I ¬4 001 @ 4 I @ I @¬4 II @ II 00 0 l ¬ )4 @@ 4 I @¬ 000 ¬4 ¬ @ I @ I l @ 4 I 00 @ I @ I ) )00
G
i
í£
G
· h
¦
i
element numbering
í£
2 .8 G AUSSIAN Q UADRATURE
¢
39
there are only unknown values of u at nodes (2,5 and 8), therefore there is a matrix to solve. The RHS is known at these three nodes (see below). We can then solve the matrix and then multiply out the original matrix to ﬁnd the unknown RHS values. The RHS is at nodes and because it is insulated. To ﬁnd out what the RHS is at node
at internal nodes. This can be explained in two ways.
n
n
F IGURE 2.8: “Cancelling” of ﬂux in internal nodes.
Other way:
is opposite in neighbouring elements so it cancels (see Figure 2.8).
2.8 Gaussian Quadrature
The element integrals arising from two or threedimensional problems can seldom be evaluated analytically. Numerical integration or quadrature is therefore required and the most efﬁcient scheme for integrating the expressions that arise in the ﬁnite element method is GaussLegendre quadrature. Consider ﬁrst the problem of integrating between the limits and by the sum of weighted samples of taken at points (see Figure 2.3):
Here are the weights associated with sample points  called Gauss points  and is the error in the approximation of the integral. We now choose the Gauss points and weights to exactly integrate a polynomial of degree (since a general polynomial of degree has arbitrary coefﬁcients and there are unknown Gauss points and weights). For example, with we can exactly integrate a polynomial of degree 3:
m n
j
#
G I m Fnj
G
U
# U
b í§ fB í ¤
íB
Bx 555 Bx@ ¤y777x ) ¤( B § ¤ hfB!
k l
@ ¨ í
31D¦Bn B2 § ¤
m nj G I m ¨nj
@û
¼
j w!m
§ ¤ hfB
r
Correct way: on
does not pass through node
and each basis function that is not zero at
we need to examine the RHS expression
at node . This is zero as ﬂux is always
is zero
i i j i j !i
Å U6 r©2 q Å ý £ û )
q
@ ¾q
¶
j
U
qÅ £Å
i
r
í
k
U
40
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
and choose
Since , , and exactly. Thus,
These four equations yield the solution for the two Gauss points and weights as follows:
2 & " ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ B 32 4 B 2¿d32 ) B &tdB3kB "t¾B32 #3ÂD¦B! B 2 B2 § ¤ @û @û @û @û @û 4TBh2¿y3$t¾t}'ED¦B! )B& B" § ¤ ¼
. Then
are arbitrary coefﬁcients, each integral on the RHS of 2.35 must be integrated
§ ) ¦B! ) ¤
) ) »B5 )
4 ) »B5 )
) »B5 )
k
5G )
k
k
k
bu¦B!s@ §@ ¤
k
Au»B@ @ 5
ÓG @ 5
5 )@ »B@
5 4@ »B@
k
k
k
k
k
¼ G h h2 4 B B @û ¼ Gi h2 ) B B @û ¼ Gj hEB B2
G B ch2
B2 § ¤ 3PhfB!
Let
~ H$$~ ) zÛ @ ~~
r
q
F IGURE 2.9: Gaussian quadrature.
is sampled at
B
....
Gauss points
B
p
)B
@û
@û ¼
@û
@ B
§ ¤ hfB
....
o
(2.35)
(2.36)
(2.37)
(2.38)
(2.39)
2 .8 G AUSSIAN Q UADRATURE
¢
41
From symmetry and Equation (2.36),
Then, from (2.37),
and, substituting in (2.38),
giving
Equation (2.39) is satisﬁed identically. Thus, the two Gauss points are given by
2 For two or threedimensional Gaussian quadrature the Gauss point positions are simply the values given above along each coordinate with the weights scaled to sum to e.g., for x Gauss quadrature the weights are all . The number of Gauss points chosen for each direction is governed by the complexity of the integrand in the element integral (2.8). In general two and threedimensional problems the integral is not polynomial (owing to the terms which come from the
j j
íB
G
Å v¡ íBÅ
éh ¶ G k@
¶G 4
)
k
k
k
x i
w x i lGj Gj 4 B x Gj ) B wxj j @ G I G k B
G
h
íB
A similar calculation for a
th
degree polynomial using three Gauss points gives
xU ' Gi A ¿I )@ j @Bj B
i §@B I G¤ j ) suQÂs# )@ B
j G i j x v G v x i G ©j
v 5 i G ©j
5 Gj )
k
@B I G
Qdc ) B ) q@ j ) G B I Gj k
B @
tuj @ G EuB
k
k@
k
(2.40)
k
(2.41)
h
42
S TEADYS TATE H EAT C ONDUCTION
inverse of the matrix
error must be balanced against the discretization error. For example, if the twodimensional basis is cubic in the direction and linear in the direction, three Gauss points would be used in the direction and two in the direction.
2.9
CMISS Examples
2. To solve for the steady state temperature distribution inside an annulus run CMISS example 3. To investigate the convergence of the steady state temperature distribution with mesh reﬁnement run CMISS examples , , and .
GG Ti
1. To solve for the steady state temperature distribution inside a plate run CMISS example
hhG T7i
ihG jhG GhG h7i D7i 7i
)B
)B
Å v'B í¡Å
) and no attempt is made to achieve exact integration. The quadrature
@ uB
jG i
@ uB
Chapter 3 The Boundary Element Method
3.1 Introduction
Having developed the basic ideas behind the ﬁnite element method, we now develop the basic ideas of the boundary element method. There are several key differences between these two methods, one of which involves the choice of weighting function (recall the Galerkin ﬁnite element method used as a weighting function one of the basis functions used to approximate the solution variable). Before launching into the boundary element method we must brieﬂy develop some ideas that are central to the weighting function used in the boundary element method.
3.2 The DiracDelta Function and Fundamental Solutions
Before one applies the boundary element method to a particular problem one must obtain a fundamental solution (which is similar to the idea of a particular solution in ordinary differential equations and is the weighting function). Fundamental solutions are tied to the Dirac1 Delta function and we deal with both here.
3.2.1 DiracDelta function
What we do here is very nonrigorous. To gain an intuitive feel for this unusual function, consider the following sequence of force distributions applied to a large plate as shown in Figure 3.1
Paul A.M. Dirac (19021994) was awarded the Nobel Prize (with Erwin Schrodinger) in 1933 for his work in quantum mechanics. Dirac introduced the idea of the “Dirac Delta” intuitively, as we will do here, around 192627. It was rigorously deﬁned as a socalled generalised function by Schwartz in 195051, and strictly speaking we should talk about the “Dirac Delta Distribution”.
1
þ Í7 @ i RY¡ 7 ) U k¨¦¡P1 § ¤ i Ì7 @ i RY¡ 7 i
44
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
Each has the property that
As gets larger we can easily see that the area of application of the force becomes smaller and smaller, the magnitude of the force increases but the total force applied remains unity. If we imagine letting we obtain an idealised “point” force of unit strength, given the symbol , acting at = 0. Thus, in a nonrigorous sense we have
the Dirac Delta“function”.
This is not a function that we are used to dealing with because we have if and “ ” i.e., the “function” is zero everywhere except at the origin, where it is inﬁnite.
The Dirac delta “function” is not a function in the usual sense, and it is more correctly referred to as the Dirac delta distribution. It also has the property that for any continuous function
§ ¤ ¨f¡
G ¡2 § ¤ i c%3d¨¦¡P1
§ U¤ ¡ 2 § ¤ § hÀ(hP¨C¡¨f¡¤
y
ù
y
y
û
ù
G ¡2 § 6%3Â¨f¡¤
However, we have
since each
.
U ¡
U !¨¦¡¤ §
i
F IGURE 3.1: Illustrations of unit force distributions
{
@
{
{
z {
z
@
)
y
û
§ ¤ i ¨f¡d1 y ó â i k¨f¡¤ §
~
y
y
û
 }
ù
q
¡
~
§ hVU¤
q
q
but as
increases the area of force application decreases and the force/unit area increases.
G ¡2 § ¤ i r«3d¨¦¡P1
y
y
û ù
(i.e., the total force applied is unity)
.
§ ¨f¡¤
(3.1)
3 .2 T HE D IRAC D ELTA F UNCTION
AND
F UNDAMENTAL S OLUTIONS
45
A rough proof of this is as follows
by the Mean Value Theorem, where

The above result (Equation (3.1)) is often used as the deﬁning property of the Dirac delta in more rigorous derivations. One does not usually talk about the values of the Dirac delta at a particular point, but rather its integral behaviour. Some properties of the Dirac delta are listed below
step function.)
(i.e., the two dimensional Dirac delta is just a product of two onedimensional Dirac deltas.)
3.2.2 Fundamental solutions
We develop here the fundamental solution (also called the freespace Green’s3 function) for Laplace’s Equation in two variables. The fundamental solution of a particular equation is the weighting function that is used in the boundary element formulation of that equation. It is therefore important to be able to ﬁnd the fundamental solution for a particular equation. Most of the common equations
Oliver Heaviside (18501925) was a British physicist, who pioneered the mathematical study of electrical circuits and helped develop vector analysis. 3 George Green (17931841) was a selfeducated miller’s son. Most widely known for his integral theorem (the GreenGauss theorem).
2
§¦ I §¡ I °¥¤ ¨QfB¤
§ ¦ I x ¡ I E°¥ª¦B¤
G
§ I fB¤
where
=
ÍB Ì B
if if
(i.e., the Dirac Delta function is the slope of the Heaviside2
U '¡
§ I fB¤ ½ B {%¡
d
§¡ I q¨¯fB¤
U
§¡ I ¨QCB¤
(Note:
is the Dirac delta distribution centred at
instead of
q
§ ¤ ¡2 § ¤ §¡ I h¦B%3Â¨f¡¨QfB¤
y
B
since
and as
) (3.3)
U A'~  B x xÖq q G x G I w yB
§ ¤ i ¨f¡Â1
by deﬁnition of
§ ¨f¡¤
(3.2) (3.4)
by deﬁnition of
x1q q Gx G Iw
§ U¤ hV( q § ¤ j y 8i j hfB q ó â ù ¡32d¨¦¡ j q y ó â8 i § ¤ û ù y y 8i 3d¨C¨¦¤ ¡32d§¨C¡§¨¦¡¤Pi1 ¤ â ¡ 2 § ¡ ¤ § ¡ û ó
y y
û
ù
y
d
y y
û ù
46
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
have wellknown fundamental solutions (see Appendix 3.16). We brieﬂy illustrate here how to ﬁnd a simple fundamental solution.
The fundamental solution for this equation (analogous to a particular solution in ODE work) is a solution of
in (i.e., we solve the above without reference to the original domain or original boundary conditions). The method is to try and ﬁnd solution to in which contains a singularity at the point . This is not as difﬁcult as it sounds. We expect the solution to be symmetric about the point since is symmetric about this point. So we adopt a local polar coordinate system about the singular point . Let
q
For
and owing to symmetry,
This can be solved by straight (onedimensional) integration. The solution is (3.7)
Note that this function is singular at as required. To ﬁnd and we make use of the integral property of the Delta function. From Equation (3.5) we must have
where is any domain containing . We choose a simple domain to allow us to evaluate the above integrals. If
G I Õr
) Ø Å )ý× )Å G
is zero. Thus Equation (3.6) becomes
ý
U #Õ× UPE£äg × à ý Å Å U # x × Å × × Å G× ý w )ØÅ )Å
©
2
xÓ× Å Å × × Å Å × G ý)
ý
Then, from Section 1.8 we have
) d}q
Consider solving the Laplace Equation
) P
U § ¦ I x ¡ I vE°ªfB¤
U w nh )
§¦ I ¤ §¡ I ) Q¥' ) ¨Q¦B¤
Å U £ # ) (¦) Å ý
§ x fB¤
û
I r
w
)¡Å £ () Å
in some domain
.
§ ¦ I x ¡ I °¥ª¦B¤
©
)¦Å )Å ý
ý
2 )
U #Õ×
Õ×
h
)¡Å )Å
h
ý
(3.5)
û
U § ¦ I x ¡ I x U Í 'm°¥ªQ¦B¤ Re¥×
§ x ¦B¤ § x ¦B¤
) P
(3.6)
(3.8)
is a small disk of
3 .2 T HE D IRAC D ELTA F UNCTION
AND
F UNDAMENTAL S OLUTIONS
47
F IGURE 3.2: Domain used to evaluate fundamental solution coefﬁcients.
Therefore, from Equation (3.8)
So we have
remains arbitrary but usually put equal to zero, so that the fundamental solution for the twodimensional Laplace Equation is
from Equation (3.7), and the fact that
is a disc of radius
×
q
xA× j Ù G £äà G w
U '×
UP×k£ à Ù j I G r ý
Ù 5 j 6# G I
×E£à Ù j I G r ý
since
is a disk centred at
Å
U vÕ×
f
f
Å 2 × Å ýÅ û 2 qÅ
ý
Ù j
Ùj #
û
U eÍ
radius
centred at
(Figure 3.2) then from the GreenGauss theorem is the surface of the disk
so
and are in the same direction
¡
§ x sfB¤
q
¦
v
2 )
h
ý
û
(3.9)
48
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
where (singular at the point ). The fundamental solution for the threedimensional Laplace Equation can be found by a similar technique. The result is
where is now a distance measured in threedimensions.
3.3
The TwoDimensional Boundary Element Method
q
We are now at a point where we can develop the boundary element method for the solution of in a twodimensional domain . The basic steps are in fact quite similar to those used for the ﬁnite element method (refer Section 2.1). We ﬁrstly must form an integral equation from the Laplace Equation by using a weighted integral equation and then use the GreenGauss theorem. From Section 2.4 we have seen that
q ©
This was the starting point for the ﬁnite element method. To derive the starting equation for the boundary element method we use the GreenGauss theorem again on the second integral. This gives
For the Galerkin FEM we chose , the weighting function, to be , one of the basis functions used to approximate . For the boundary element method we choose to be the fundamental solution of Laplace’s Equation derived in the previous section i.e.,
where (singular at the point ). Then from Equation (3.11), using the property of the Dirac delta
q gR
i.e., the domain integral has been replaced by a point value.
§ x ¦B¤
ý a Å Åý q©2 ) h¢£ «r©2 q ÅÓ£ I©2 q Å r uû ý ý £ uû ý uû Å q v2 h5 £ ¡ªnh I©2 q Å r U ý £ uû
2
§ x ¤ £ I q2 § ¦ I x ¡ I ¦B!d6X©1°¥ª¦B¤ £
ý
h ¡
5£ ªnh
q ga
§ x fB¤ § x fB¤ û
u
Å I©2 q Å r q 5 X©2 ª£ ) ý ý £ uû
×k£äà Ùj I G c ý
ý
×bTh Ù G ý û
u
u
û
§¦ I ¤ §¡ I ) °¥' ) ¨¦B¤ §¦ I ¤ §¡ I ) °¥' ) ¨¦B¤
h
I q 6X©2 ) ££ h
u
û
U
ý
£
û
u
× × ×
U £) #$nh
(3.10)
(3.11)
(3.12)
3 .3 T HE T WO D IMENSIONAL B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
49
Thus Equation (3.11) becomes
q gR q
This equation contains only boundary integrals (and no domain integrals as in Finite Elements) and is referred to as a boundary integral equation. It relates the value of at some point inside the solution domain to integral expressions involving and over the boundary of the solution domain. Rather than having an expression relating the value of at some point inside the domain to boundary integrals, a more useful expression would be one relating the value of at some point on the boundary to boundary integrals. We derive such an expression below. The previous equation (Equation (3.13)) holds if (i.e., the singularity of Dirac Delta function is inside the domain). If is outside then
since the integrand of the second integral is zero at every point except and this point is outside the region of integration. The case which needs special consideration is when the singular is on the boundary of the domain . This case also happens to be the most important point for numerical work as we shall see. The integral expression we will ultimately obtain is simply was inside the domain, we integrated around the entire singularity of the follows. When Dirac Delta to get in Equation (3.13). When is on the boundary we only have half of the singularity contained inside the domain, so we integrate around onehalf of the singularity to get . Rigorous details of where this coefﬁcient
q ¥¤
enlarge to include a disk of radius about (Figure 3.3). We call this enlarged region and let . Now, since is inside the enlarged region , Equation (3.13) holds for this enlarged domain i.e., (3.14)
h
We must now investigate this equation as each of these in turn.
. There are integrals to consider, and we look at
½
q ©
2 ) ¢£ h
q ÅÅ r©2 ý £
ª© ¨ © 9¬8e
û
¼ w¦ ó â Å ©2 q Å £ r
½
q
ý
Ê
ª© ¨ © 8«8e
û
AfÊ!£ § ¤
§ x fB¤
Let
denote the point
. In order to be able to evaluate
ý
u
û
j G § x fB¤
§ x ¤ sCB!£
Equation (3.13) with
replaced by
. We can see this in a nonrigorous way as
comes from are given below. in this case we
£
§ x ¦B¤
£
U q 2 § ¦ I x ¡ I 't©PQ¥sªQfB¤ £
§ x fB¤ £ qÅ £Å
q gR
q ÅÅ §©2 rv2 r ý £ uû § x fB¤ £ § x ¤ ¦B¥£ Gj
q q
û
u
I q r®v2 ) ¢£ h
q ÅÅ £
ý
§ x sCB¤
u
û
(3.13)
ý
A¦B¥£ § x ¤
u
û § x ¤ CB!£ § x fB¤
¦
Ê
r
§ ¦ !©
Ê § x ¤ CB!£ Gj
§ x ¦B¤ ù
r( q
½
r
U ' x
¦ ´ ° ¼ we«³²±¦ ó â
£
¼ w¦ ó â Å Ù Å w¦ ¼ w¦ à Ùg§À¤ q j ¼ r q Ê £ Å G I w ó äâ ©2 £ Å ý © û ó â
x j Ù j ¼ ¦ r q Å ¼ w¦ §V¤¥£ Ir Ù fÊ¤!£ G I â} ©2 Å £ ó â Ê § w ó ý © û
¦ r
¦ r
ý
q
Ê ù
r ¦ r
¦ ©
½
q
50
Firstly consider
F IGURE 3.3: Illustration of enlarged domain when singular point is on the boundary.
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
since
× ÅÅ
® ¯
qÅÅ
since
×
by the mean value theorem for a surface with a unique tangent at Thus
Ê
Ù § ¤ ÙG DfÊ!£ G j I

Ù
j I G 6 Ù
j I G 6 £ £
© ©
û û
Å ©2 q Å £ r ý
©
r 2 ©£ G © û × r ©2 £ © û Å x r ©2 × ÙG k£à j I × Å w Å x r©2 × G k£äà Ù j I q Å
w
û
since
By a similar process we obtain
as
.
by deﬁnition of
.
on
on
(3.16) (3.15)
3 .3 T HE T WO D IMENSIONAL B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
51
Combining Equations (3.14)–(3.18) we get
¸ ©· Ñ Î Ð Ï Î ½¼ ÙÚ » ¸ h©· ÐÎ Ñ Ï Î ½¼
or
¸ v· ÑRÎ Ð Ï
Î ½¼ » ¸ h©· ÐÎ Ñ Ï Î ½¼ ÙÚ
where (i.e., singular point is on the boundary of the region). Note: The above is true if the point is at a smooth point (i.e., a point with a unique tangent) on the boundary of . If happens to lie at some nonsmooth point e.g. a corner, then the coefﬁcient
Ö â ãâ äÚ
is replaced by
where
is the internal angle at
(Figure 3.4).
F IGURE 3.4: Illustration of internal angle .
¸
¿ ¾ ©¸
since as . Note: If the integrand is too badly behaved we cannot always replace one must deal with Cauchy Principal Values. (refer Section 4.8) Thus we have
ÈÇ¿ Ã ÉwÆÅ ÄÂ ¸ À ¿ ¾ Á©¸
¸ ©·
Ö
å
¸ v·
¸ ©·
Ð Î Ï Ñ
ÑRÎ Ð Ï Î
Î
â
Ø × ÖÕ £ÛuÏ
½¼
½¼
½ ( ©· ¼ » ¹º ¸
(nice integrand)
¦ ©
» ¹º ¸ Ò ©·
»
ù
r
It only remains to consider the integrand over integrals we are dealing with here) we have
© ¨ e
. For “nice” integrals (which includes the
¹º ¸ ©·
à
Ð Î Ï Ñ
ÑÁ Î Ð È ÄÊ Ä Ï Î Í Ì¼ B8e½ µ¶ Ë«Â¿ ÅÃ
µ È Å ÊÄ Ã Î Í Ì¼ Ôe½ ¶ ËÓÂ¿
Ö
Ø × ÖÕ ÆÏ
Ø × ÖÕ ÆÏ
û
µ¶
¼ ¦ Ö
à Î ß × ÞÝ Ü áhapÕ
ó äâ
à » Ö ÙÚ
(nice integrand)
by
in the limit and
(3.17)
(3.18)
52
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
Thus we get the boundary integral equation.
¸ ©· Ñ
Î Ð Ï Î Ï Ï ¸ ½¼ ¸ » ¸ g©· ï× à ß ýÖ ß üÖ ¸ à ß güÖ ¸ û Tç ß ¥Ö ¸ ß ¥Ö ¸ à ß g¥Ö ß üÖ Ð Î Ï Î Ð
Î Ñ Ï Î úÕ (Ø ï × ï «× ½¼ ò óç Ï ò ç æ
(3.19)
where
ê é è ãÙ ç l£ÄÂ äÚ »
internal angle
ãï 9Ú õ÷
if
and
not smooth at
Ö
For threedimensional problems, the boundary integral equation expression above is the same, with
Ùã ù »
inner solid angle
ãï ù õ÷
if
and
not smooth at and and the value of
Ï Ï Ö
point . Once the surface distributions of and are known, the value of at any point inside can be found since all surface integrals in Equation (3.19) are then known. The procedure and then (if required) is thus to use Equation (3.19) to ﬁnd the surface distributions of and use Equation (3.19) to ﬁnd the solution at any point . Thus we solve for the boundary data ﬁrst, and ﬁnd the volume data as a separate step. Since Equation (3.19) only involves surface integrals, as opposed to volume integrals in a ﬁnite element formulation, the overall size of the problem has been reduced by one dimension (from volumes to surfaces). This can result in huge savings for problems with large volume to surface ratios (i.e., problems with large domains). Also the effort required to produce a volume mesh of a complex threedimensional object is far greater than that required to produce a mesh of the surface. Thus the boundary element method offers some distinct advantages over the ﬁnite element method in certain situations. It also has some disadvantages when compared to the ﬁnite element method and these will be discussed in Section 3.6. We now turn our attention to solving the boundary integral equation given in Equation (3.19).
Ð Î Ï Î Ö à Ö
Ð Î Ï Î
Equation (3.19) involves only the surface distributions of
Ö
¸
if if
and
smooth at
Ö
¸
øÙ ÞÕ Ø ï (ñð×
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö £ÛuwÕ øÙ ÞÕ (Ø ï × î ç î ç
Ü íÕ Ü Õ ê ôõ ö
ë » ìPê ôõ ö » »
ë » ìPê
× Ö wÕ
Ñ × Ö Õ Ñ æ æ
if if
and
smooth at
at a
3 .4 N UMERICAL S OLUTION P ROCEDURES
þ
FOR THE
B OUNDARY I NTEGRAL E QUATION
53
3.4 Numerical Solution Procedures for the Boundary Integral Equation
¸
§ ¨¼ ½
The ﬁrst step is to discretise the surface elements).
into some set of elements (hence the name boundary
(a)
F IGURE 3.5: Schematic illustration of a boundary element mesh (a) and a ﬁnite element mesh (b).
Then Equation (3.19) becomes
¥ ¥
are values of and on element and are values of and at node on where element . These basis functions for and can be any of the standard onedimensional ﬁnite element basis functions (although we are dealing with a twodimensional problem, we only have to interpolate the functions over a onedimensional element). In general the basis functions used for and do not have to be the same (typically they are) and these basis functions can even be different to the basis functions used for the geometry, but are generally taken to be the same (this is termed an isoparametric formulation).
â Ï
Ï
¢
¢
»
Ý
ÐÎ Ï Î
¢
Ï
¢
and
¢
¥
¢
¸
¢
Ï
¥
Ï
»
Ï
¢
Ï
¢
¸
Over each element
we introduce standard (ﬁnite element) basis functions (3.22)
¸ v·
Ñ Î Ð Ï Î
§ ©¼ ½
ø
£¦¢
» ¸ g©·
¢
¸ ø
ÐÎ Ñ Ï
£¤¢ ¡
(3.20)
Î
» ÿ¸ ø
£¦¢
(b)
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö ÆÛÕ
æ
¢ ¢Ý¸ Ï ¢
(3.21)
54
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
This gives
§ ©¼ ½ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥ § ¨¼ ½ ¢ ( 4 53 ¥ ¥ ©æ ¥
This equation holds for any point on the surface . We now generate one equation per node by putting the point to be at each node in turn. If is at node , say, then we have
§¨¼ ½ ¢ ¥ ¥
, where where is the fundamental solution with the singularity at node (recall is is the distance from the singularity point). We can write Equation (3.24) in a more abbreviated form as
Ù ê é è ãÒ l£ÄÂ äÚ ç Ñ
¢ ! ¢ £¦¢ ¥
where
¸ ©·
§ ©¼ ½
(compare to the global ﬁnite element equations ) where the vectors and are the vectors th of nodal values of and . Note that the component of the matrix in general is not and similarly for . At each node, we must specify either a value of or (or some combination of these) to have a welldeﬁned problem. We therefore have equations (the number of nodes) and have unknowns to ﬁnd. We need to rearrange the above system of equations to get
¢ " & # ) 0» ) 0»
where is the vector of unknowns. This can be solved using standard linear equation solvers, although specialist solvers are required if the problem is large (refer [todo : Section ???]). The matrices and (and hence ) are fully populated and not symmetric (compare to the ﬁnite element formulation where the global stiffness matrix is sparse and symmetric). The size of the and matrices are dependent on the number of surface nodes, while the matrix is dependent on the number of ﬁnite element nodes (which include nodes in the domain). As
( 3 $ $ # # (
A
"
Equation (3.25) is for node and if we have nodes, then we can generate We can assemble these equations into the matrix system
& $ A '%»
Ñ
»
and
equations.
¸ ©· ¸ ©· Ñ
Ñ
ø
£¤¢
ø
ø
» ¸ hv·
£¤¢ ¢ !
» ¸ g©·
»
¸
Ï
Ð Î Ñ
¢ ¢
Î Ö
Ð Î Ñ
A
Î
Ï
"
¸ ©·
#
1 2
"
¥
Ð Î Ñ
ø
§ ©¼ ½ ¢
Ï Î
£¤¢ ¥
Ï
Ø
Ö
ø
§ ©¼ ½
£¦¢
Ï
»
ø
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö xÆwÕ
¢ £¤¢ ¥
Ø
Ï
©æ
Ï
Ö
æ
$ 4
(3.23)
(3.24)
Ñ
ê
(3.25)
(3.26)
(3.27)
(3.28)
3 .5 N UMERICAL E VALUATION
þ
OF
C OEFFICIENT I NTEGRALS
55
mentioned earlier, it depends on the surface to volume ratio as to which method will generate the smallest and quickest solution. The use of the fundamental solution as a weight function ensures that the and matrices are generally well conditioned (see Section 3.5 for more on this). In fact the matrix is diagonally dominant (at least for Laplace’s equation). The matrix is therefore also well conditioned and Equation (3.28) can be solved reasonably easily. The vector contains the unknown values of and on the boundary. Once this has been found, all boundary values of and are known. If a solution is then required at a point inside the domain, then we can use Equation (3.25) with the singular point located at the required solution point i.e.,
$ # # ¢ 6 7 ¢
The right hand side of Equation (3.29) contains no unknowns and only involves evaluating the surface integrals using the fundamental solution with the singular point located at .
3.5 Numerical Evaluation of Coefﬁcient Integrals
and integrals for twodimensional problems. We consider in detail here how one evaluates the These integrals typically must be evaluated numerically, and require far more work and effort than the analogous ﬁnite element integrals. Recall that
¸ v·
§ ¼½ ©(» ¢ ! ¢
and
where
In terms of a local coordinate we have
Ü
·
8 × Ü Õ @ DgC8
Ð
· ©Ü Õ × ê g·
distance measured from node
»
Ö
Ñ
Ö
êÑ
Ï
Î
Î
× Ü ©Õ
¥
&
ø
3
¢ !
£¤¢
¥
ø
ç
È
¼
A
¢
6
»
! ¢
Ü
·
ê é è ãÙ ç YeÄÂ äÚ »
Ü
8 × Ü Õ @ DgC8
¸ v·
·
8 × Ü Õ @8 × Ü B©íA9©Õ
¥
Ð Î Ñ
ø
Î
£¤¢
¥
× Ü ©íÕ
&
»
Ð Î
× ÖÕ ÆÏ
§ ¼½ ¨» ¢
Ñ
ê
Ñ
Î
Ñ
A
× Ü gÕ
× Ü gÕ
Ü
ø
§ ¨¼ ½
È
¼
»
»
¢
¢ !
4
(3.29)
(3.30)
(3.31)
56
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
The Jacobian
× ÜÕ ©@
can be found by
· ò ©·
G
interpolation expression for and The fundamental solution is
.
To ﬁnd
we note that
TV R US
where is a unit outward normal vector. To ﬁnd a unit normal vector, we simply rotate the tangent vector (given by ) by in the appropriate direction and then normalise. Thus every expression in the integrands of the and integrals can be found at any value of , and the integrals can therefore be evaluated numerically using some suitable quadrature schemes. If node is well removed from element then standard Gaussian quadrature can be used to evaluate these integrals. However, if node is in (or close to it) we see that approaches 0 and the fundamental solution tends to . The integral still exists, but the integrand becomes singular. In such cases special care must be taken  either by using special quadrature schemes, large numbers of Gauss points or other special treatment. The integrals for which node lies in element are in general the largest in magnitude and lead to the diagonally dominant matrix equation. It is therefore important to ensure that these integrals are calculated as accurately as possible since these terms will have most inﬂuence on the solution. This is one of the disadvantages of the BEM  the fact that singular integrands must be accurately integrated. A relatively straightforward way to evaluate all the integrals is simply to use Gaussian quadrature with varying number of quadrature points, depending on how close or far the singular point is from the current element. This is not very elegant or efﬁcient, but has the beneﬁt that it is relatively easy to implement. For the case when node is contained in the current element one can use special quadrature schemes which are designed to integrate logtype functions. These are to be preferred when one is dealing with Laplace’s equation. However, these special logtype schemes cannot be so readily used on other types of fundamental solution so for a general purpose implementation, Gaussian quadrature is still the norm. It is possible to incorporate adaptive integration schemes that keep adding more quadrature points until some error estimate is small enough, or also to subdivide the current element into two or more smaller elements and evaluate the integral over each
ê
¢ !
¢
¢
¢
¸
¸
ê
P Q»
¢
¸
Ð
· ê g·
Y
where
are the coordinates of node .
ï ×
ò ç
× Ü ©Õ
ò
Õ Ø ï x×
×× Ü É©Õ
î ç
Ü
ê
Õ
é è ãÙ ç £ÄÂ 9Ú »
× Ü gÕ
×©ÜíÕ Ü ò
î
Õ
ë
Ú
ã
»
× Ü gÕ
× Ü ©íÕ
Ñ
Ñ
×× Ü É©íÕ
ê
î
W Fò
Ý × Ü ¢©íÕ
W Xî
Õ
Ð
· ×êg· Ý Õ ò î
TV
E
where
represents the arclength and
and
can be found by straight differentiation of the
ï
H 9Ü
Ø
ï
H IÜ
· î £·
G
· ò g·
»
E F·
Ü
·
» · î g· Ü
· ¸ ©· »
(3.32)
× ÜÕ g@ Ü
(3.33)
3 .6 T HE T HREE D IMENSIONAL B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
þ
57
(a)
`
subelement. It is also possible to evaluate the “worst” integrals by using simple solutions to the governing equation, and this technique is the norm for elasticity problems (Section 4.8). Details on each of these methods is given in Section 3.8. It should be noted that research still continues in an attempt to ﬁnd more efﬁcient ways of evaluating the boundary element integrals.
3.6 The ThreeDimensional Boundary Element Method
The threedimensional boundary element method is very similar to the twodimensional boundary element method discussed above. As noted above, the threedimensional boundary integral equation is the same as the twodimensional equation (3.19), with and being deﬁned as in Section 3.3. The numerical solution procedure also parallels that given in Section 3.4, and the expressions given for and apply equally well to the threedimensional case. The only real difference between the two procedures is how to numerically evaluate the terms in each integrand of these coefﬁcient integrals. As in Section 3.5 we illustrate how to evaluate each of the terms in the integrand of and .
¢ ! ¢
¢ b
× Ö wÕ
æ
Ñ
a
F IGURE 3.6: Illustration of the decrease in
¢ !
¢
node
(b)
as node approaches element .
¸
ê
node
¢
¢
¸ ê
58
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
The relevant expressions are
¸ ©·
The fundamental solution is
ï ï ï × sÝ @ Ü ÜÕ p p ø q ø Ü i i i ï ø i ï ï ø H pÎ H pÎ Ü Ü Î Ü pÎ Ü ï Ý Ý ø Î Ý Î Î Î G » i û ò î û Ð TV · ê Pf» TV hRg ê ©· ï ï ï ï ï× × ÜsÝ ÜÕ ÕØxï× × sÝ ÜÕ ÕØï× Ü × ÜsÝ Õ Õ Ü × sÝ Õ Ü Ü ûóç û òóç ò îç î » ë ø ø ø ï ø × sÝ Õ Ü Ü ï Ü Ü ø Ù ê ã ù » × sÝ Õ ø
where are the coordinates of node . As before we use to ﬁnd . The unit outward normal is found by normalising the cross product of the two tangent vectors and (it relies on the user of any BEM code to
ï Ü Ð Ü Î Ü pÎ ø Î Ý ø Î ò î × û Ý ò Ý î Õ
G
ensure that the elements have been deﬁned with a consistent set of element coordinates and ). The Jacobian is given by (where and are the two tangent vectors). Note that this is different for the determinant in a twodimensional ﬁnite element code  in that case we are dealing with a twodimensional surface in twodimensional space, whereas here we have a (possibly curved) twodimensional surface in threedimensional space. The integrals are evaluated numerically using some suitable quadrature schemes (see Section 3.8) (typically a Gausstype scheme in both the and directions).
3.7
A Comparison of the FE and BE Methods
We comment here on some of the major differences between the two methods. Depending on the application some of these differences can either be considered as advantageous or disadvantageous to a particular scheme. 1. FEM: An entire domain mesh is required. BEM: A mesh of the boundary only is required. Comment: Because of the reduction in size of the mesh, one often hears of people saying that the problem size has been reduced by one dimension. This is one of the major pluses of
· ê g·
ï
Ü
ø
Ü
ê
where
ï
Ü Ü · ø ·
ï ï ï Ü Ü D× sÝ Ü ce× sÝ Õ 8 Ü Õ @8 Ü Ü · ø · ø ø
8 d×
ï
Ü ÜÕ @ sÝ c8
ø
Ð ï · × ðÝ íÕ Ü Ü ø ê g·
êÑ
Î ï × sÝ Õ Ü Ü ø
Î
Ñ ï × sÝ Õ Ü Ü ø
¸ ©·
Ð Î Ñ
Î Ñ
ø
ø È È ¼
¼
ø
ø
§ ¼½ ©(» ¢ !
§ ©¼ ½
È
È
¼
¼
» » »
¢
(3.34)
(3.35)
Ñ
» ø
i
3 .7 A C OMPARISON
þ
OF THE
FE
AND
BE M ETHODS
59
the BEM  construction of meshes for complicated objects, particularly in 3D, is a very time consuming exercise. 2. FEM: Entire domain solution is calculated as part of the solution. BEM: Solution on the boundary is calculated ﬁrst, and then the solution at domain points (if required) are found as a separate step. Comment: There are many problems where the details of interest occur on the boundary, or are localised to a particular part of the domain, and hence an entire domain solution is not required. 3. FEM: Reactions on the boundary typically less accurate than the dependent variables. BEM: Both and of the same accuracy. 4. FEM: Differential Equation is being approximated. BEM: Only boundary conditions are being approximated. Comment: The use of the GreenGauss theorem and a fundamental solution in the formulation means that the BEM involves no approximations of the differential Equation in the domain  only in its approximations of the boundary conditions. 5. FEM: Sparse symmetric matrix generated. BEM: Fully populated nonsymmetric matrices generated. Comment: The matrices are generally of different sizes due to the differences in size of the domain mesh compared to the surface mesh. There are problems where either method can give rise to the smaller system and quickest solution  it depends partly on the volume to surface ratio. For problems involving inﬁnite or semiinﬁnite domains, BEM is to be favoured. 6. FEM: Element integrals easy to evaluate. BEM: Integrals are more difﬁcult to evaluate, and some contain integrands that become singular. Comment: BEM integrals are far harder to evaluate. Also the integrals that are the most difﬁcult (those containing singular integrands) have a signiﬁcant effect on the accuracy of the solution, so these integrals need to be evaluated accurately. 7. FEM: Widely applicable. Handles nonlinear problems well. BEM: Cannot even handle all linear problems. Comment: A fundamental solution must be found (or at least an approximate one) before the BEM can be applied. There are many linear problems (e.g., virtually any nonhomogeneous equation) for which fundamental solutions are not known. There are certain areas in which the BEM is clearly superior, but it can be rather restrictive in its applicability. 8. FEM: Relatively easy to implement. BEM: Much more difﬁcult to implement. Comment: The need to evaluate integrals involving singular integrands makes the BEM at least an order of magnitude more difﬁcult to implement than a corresponding ﬁnite element procedure.
&
A
60
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
3.8
More on Numerical Integration
The BEM involves integrals whose integrands in generally become singular when the source point is contained in the element of integration. If one uses constant or linear interpolation for the geometry and dependent variable, then it is possible to obtain analytic expressions to most (if not all) of the integrals that will appear in the BEM (at least for twodimensional problems). The expressions can become quite lengthy to write down and evaluate, but beneﬁt from the fact that they will be exact. However, when one begins to use general curved elements and/or solve threedimensional problems then the integrals will not be available as analytic expressions. The basic tool for evaluation of these integrals is quadrature. As discussed in Section 2.8 a onedimensional integral is approximated by a sum in which the integrand is evaluated at certain discrete points or abscissa
¥ £ t xÜ
where are the weights and are the abscissa. The weights and abscissa for the Gaussian quadrature scheme of order are chosen so that the above expression will exactly integrate any polynomial of degree or less. For the numerical evaluation of two or threedimensional integrals, a Gaussian scheme can be used of each variable of integration if the region of integration is rectangular. This is generally not the optimal choice for the weights and abscissae but it allows easy extension to higher order integration.
3.8.1
ø
Logarithmic quadrature and other special schemes
Low order Gaussian schemes are generally sufﬁcient for all FEM integrals, but that is not the case for BEM. For a twodimensional BEM solution of Laplace’s equation, integrals of the form will be required. It is relatively common to use logarithmic schemes for this.
Ü · × Ü ©íÕ × Ü ©íÕ é è eÄÂ ¼
These are obtained by approximating the integral as
¥
i.e., the log function has been factored out. In the same way as Gaussian quadrature schemes were developed in Section 2.8, log quadrature schemes can be developed which will exactly integrate polynomial functions . Tables of these are given below It is possible to develop similar quadrature schemes for use in the BEM solution of other PDEs, which use different fundamental solutions to the log function. The problem with this approach is the lack of generality  each new equation to be used requires its own special quadrature scheme.
× Ü gÕ
r
w
Ù
ç w
Ú
v y×
Ü Õ
v F× r
Ü íÕ ø
r
£
ø
·
t uÜ
× Ü ©Õ
·
× Ü gÕ
r
× Ü ©Õ
r sÈ
é £è Â
ø ¼ ø È ¼
Ü
r
v
È
3 .9 T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD A PPLIED
þ
TO OTHER
E LLIPTIC PDE S
61
2
0.112009 0.718539 0.602277 0.281461
3
0.063891 0.513405 0.368997 0.391980 0.766880 0.094615
4
0.041448 0.245275 0.556165 0.848982
0.383464 0.386875 0.190435 0.039225
TABLE 3.1: Abscissas and weight factors for Gaussian integration for integrands with a logarithmic singularity.
3.8.2 Special solutions
Another approach, particularly useful if Cauchy principal values are to be found (see Section 4.8) is to use special solutions of the governing equation to ﬁnd one or more of the more difﬁcult integrals. For example is a solution to Laplaces’ equation (assuming the boundary conditions are set correctly). Thus if one sets both and in Equation (3.27) at every node according to the solution , one can then use this to solve for some entry in either the or matrix (typically the diagonal entry since this is the most important and difﬁcult to ﬁnd). Further solutions ) can be used to ﬁnd the other matrix entries (or just used to Laplaces equation (e.g., to check the accuracy of the matrices).
3.9 The Boundary Element Method Applied to other Elliptic PDEs
Helmholtz, modiﬁed Helmholtz (CMISS example) Poisson Equation (domain integral and MRM, DRM, Montecarlo integration.
3.10 Solution of Matrix Equations
The standard BEM approach results in a system of equations of the form (refer (3.28)). As mentioned above the matrix is generally well conditioned, fully populated and nonsymmetric. For small problems, direct solution methods, based on LU factorisations, can be used. As the problem size increases, the time taken for the matrix solution begins to dominate the matrix assembly stage. This usually occurs when there is between and degrees of freedom, although it is very dependent on the implementation of the BE method. The current technique of favour in the BE community for solution of large BEM matrix equations is a preconditioned Conjugate Gradient solver. Preconditioners are generally problem dependent  what works well for one problem may not be so good for another problem. The conjugate gradient technique is generally regarded as a solution technique for (sparse) symmetric matrix equations.
) » 77 4 3 3
$
v
ç
#
v
Ü
Ð
Ù
v
7
ç
Ü
Ï
ï
ò ç
Ð
ï
î
»
v
ê
Abscissas =
ç
Weight Factors =
Ï
î
»
î
Ï
Ü
»
Ï
Ð
62
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
F IGURE 3.7: Coupled ﬁnite element/boundary element solution domain.
3.11
Coupling the FE and BE techniques
There are undoubtably situations which favour FEM over BEM and vice versa. Often one problem can give rise to a model favouring one method in one region and the other method in another region, e.g., in a detailed analysis of stresses around a foundation one needs FEM close to the foundation to handle nonlinearities, but to handle the semiinﬁnite domain (well removed from the foundation), BEM is better. There has been a lot of research on coupling FE and BE procedures we will only talk about the basic ideas and use Laplace’s Equation to illustrate this. There are at least two possible methods. 1. Treat the BEM region as a ﬁnite element and combine with FEM 2. Treat the FEM region as an equivalent boundary element and combine with BEM Note that these are essentially equivalent  the use of one or the other depends on the problem, in the sense of which part is more dominant FEM or BEM) Consider the region shown in Figure 3.7, where FEM region BEM region FEM boundary BEM boundary interface boundary
A » »
à
The BEM matrices for
à
can be written as
#
Ð Î Ï Î
) »
&
where is a vector of the nodal values of and The FEM matrices for can be written as
A
(
is a vector of the nodal values of
¸
& $ '%»
à
Ï
»
»
»a¸
¸
à à
¸
¸
¸
à
(3.36)
A
(3.37)
3 .11 C OUPLING
þ
THE
FE
AND
BE
TECHNIQUES
63
where is the stiffness matrix and is the load vector. To apply method (i.e., treating BEM as an equivalent FEM region) we get (from Equation (3.36))
& »
If we recall what the elements of in Equation (3.37) contained, then we can convert in Equation (3.38) to an equivalent load vector by weighting the nodal values of by the appropriate basis functions, producing a matrix i.e., Therefore Equation (3.38) becomes
& &
) » & f» & f»
an equivalent stiffness matrix obtain from BEM. Therefore we can assemble this together with original FEM matrix to produce an FEMtype . system for the entire region Notes:
(
1.
is in general not symmetric and not sparse. This means that different matrix equation solvers must be used for solving the new combined FEMtype system (most solvers in FEM codes assume sparse and symmetric). Attempts have been made to “symmetricise” the
f ( geç
( d
( is continuous)
To apply method (i.e., to treat the FEM region as an equivalent BEM region) we ﬁrstly note that, as before, . Applying this to (3.37) yields an equivalent BEM system. This can be assembled into the existing BEM system (using compatability conditions) and use existing BEM matrix solvers. Notes: 1. This approach does not require any matrix inversion and is hence easier (cheaper) to implement 2. Existing BEM solvers will not assume symmetric or sparse matrices therefore no new matrix solvers to be implemented
& fh» ( & fh» )
¸ ç
»
¸
( is continuous, but
A
&
A
V
A
Î Î ç
A&
»
»
V
A
A
Î
Î
Ú
¸
2. On
nodal values of
and
are unknown. One must make use of the following
ÙÚ
(
matrix  of doubtful quality. (e.g., replace results).
A
by
 often yields inaccurate
)
(
(
where
#
ø ¾
$Q» ) »
A
i.e.,
(
A
A
#
ø ¾
#
)
ø ¾
$
$
)
)
à
Ù
(
(3.38)
64
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
3.12
Other BEM techniques
What we have mentioned to date is the socalled singular (direct) BEM. Given a BIE there are other ways of solving the Equation although these are not so widely used.
3.12.1
Trefftz method
Trefftz was the ﬁrst person to perform a BEM calculation (in 1917  calculated the value (numerical) of the contraction coefﬁcient of a round jet issuing from an inﬁnite tank  a nonlinear free surface problem). This method basically uses a “complete” set of solutions instead of a Fundamental Solution. e.g., Consider Laplaces Equation in a (bounded) domain
Q» P
The procedure is to express as a series of (complete) functions satisfying Laplace’s equation with coefﬁcients which need to be numerically determined through utilisation of the boundary conditions. Notes: 1. Doesn’t introduce singular functions so integrals are easy to evaluate
Ï Ï
2. Must ﬁnd a (complete) set of functions (If you just use usual approximations for system is not diagonally dominant so not so good)
3. Method is not so popular  Green’s functions more widely available that complete systems
3.12.2
Regular BEM
Consider the BIE for Laplace’s equation
¸ ©· Ð Ñ
Î Ï Î ¼ » ¸ g©· Î ¼ æ
The usual procedure is to put point at each solution variable node  creating an equation for each node. This leads to singular integrands. Another possibility is to put point outside of the domain  this yields
à ¸ ©· Ð Î Ï Î ¼ » ¸ h©· Î Ö ¼ Ö
ê é è ã l£ÄÂ äÚ ç Ù
m
»
with
Ñ
Ñ
ï
¸ ©·
ÐÎ Ñ Ï Î
k ©j
k ©j
Ð Î Ñ ¼ » ¸ Ï (ÿv·
Î
k ©j
Ð Î Ñ Ï
k lj
m nÑ
Ð Î
k ©j
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö £ÛuwÕ
¼
Ï
i
weighted residuals
if
à
matrix
k ©j
3 .13 S YMMETRY
þ
65
Following discretisation as before gives
m nÑ t 7Ú § ©¼ ½ ¢ ¥ ¥ § ©¼ ½ ¢ ¥ ¥
1. This method does not involve singular integrands, so that integrals are inexpensive to calculate. 2. There is considerable choice for the location of the point . Often the set of Equations generated are illconditioned unless chosen carefully. In practise is chosen along the unit outward normal of the surface at each solution variable node. The distance along each node is often found by experimentation  various research papers suggesting “ideal” distances (Patterson & Shiekh). 3. This method is not very popular. 4. The idea of placing the singularity point away from the solution variable node is often of use in other situations e.g., Exterior Acoustic Problems. For an acoustic problem (governed ) in an unbounded region the system of Equations proby Helmholtz Equation duced by the usual (singular) BEM approach is singular for certain “ﬁctitious” frequencies (i.e., certain values of ). To overcome this further equations are generated (by placing the singular point at various locations outside ). The system of equations are then overdetermined and are solved in a least squares sense.
Ö Ö Ö Ö
3.13 Symmetry
Consider the problem given in Figure 3.8 (the domain is outside the circle). Both the boundary conditions and the governing Equation exhibit symmetry about the vertical axis. i.e., putting to makes no difference to the problem formulation. Thus the solution has the property . This behaviour can be found in many problems and we can make that use of this as follows. The Boundary Element Equation is (with (i.e., is even) constant elements)
î × Ý Õ û î
w q
à
 an equation involving and at each surface node. By placing the point (the singular point) at other distinct points outside as many equations as there are unknowns (or more if required). Notes:
w
Ý u u u xvBBÝ Ù
¸ ©·
»
» w
¸ ©·
Ñ
ø
§ ©¼ ½ ¢
£¦¢
à
» ¸ g©· ø
£¤¢ ¥
m nÑ
» ¸ ÿ©·
%»
Ð Î
Î
Ï ï
ÐÎ Ñ
o Ø pÏ
Î
§ ©¼ ½ ¢
ï
Ï
P o
Ï ø
î
s F× £¦¢
ø
¥
Ö
û
£¤¢
Ï
one can generate
Ý
Ø
î ¤ç
Ö
Ï
Õ
ÙÚ
q r»
× Ý Õ û î
q
î ç
(3.39)
66
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
F IGURE 3.8: A problem exhibiting symmetry.
We have Equations and unknowns (allowing for the boundary conditions). From symmetry we know that (refer to Figure 3.9).
t
So we can write
then we can write Equation (3.41) as
t ¢ ¢ ! ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥
and solve as before. (This procedure has halved the number of unknowns.)
Ý u u u £BBBÝ Ù
w
Ý u u ut BBBÝ Ù Ø
¸ ©·
ÐÎ Ñ
¸ v·
Î
»
§ Ì 7¼ yd½
Ñ
§ Ì ¼ yd½
»
Ø
ø
£~ ¤¢
Ø
¸ ©·
¸ ©·
»
ÐÎ Ñ
Î
Ñ
Ï
§ ©¼ ½
§ ¼½ ©» ¢ !
t
ø
»
£~ ¤¢
¢
Ø
Ï
ÙÚ
t
Ý BvBÝ Ù u u u » ñ Ý u u u xBvBÝ Ù »
for nodes for nodes If we deﬁne
. (The Equations for nodes ). The above Equations have only
are the same as the Equations unknowns.
¸ õ ©·
õ
Ñ
§ Ì 7¼ yD½
q
ï
E » q
Ø
¸ ©·
î
Ñ
ï
P
§ ©¼ ½
Ý u u u xBvBÝ Ù
ôõ
õ÷
ö
z x {y¾
¢
ø
w %» t £~ ¤¢ ¥
» ñ
» õ ©· ¸
q
õ
û
¾ø
ÐÎ Ñ
}  DXÏ
Î
§ Ì 7¼ yd½
»
Ï
Ø
¸ ©·
w
ÐÎ Ñ
Î
t
§ ©¼ ½
ôõ
õ÷
ö
¢
Ï ø
£~ ¤¢
¥
w
(3.40)
Ø
(3.41)
Ï
ÙÚ
(3.42)
(3.43)
(3.44)
3 .14 A XISYMMETRIC P ROBLEMS
þ
67
F IGURE 3.9: Illustration of a symmetric mesh.
Note: Since this means that the integrals over the elements to will never contain a singularity arising from the fundamental solution, except possibly on the axis of symmetry if linear or higher order elements are used. An alternative approach to the method above arises from the implied no ﬂux across the axis. This approach ignores the negative axis and considers the half plane problem shown. However now the surface to be discretised extends to inﬁnity in the positive and negative directions and the resulting systems of equations produced is much larger. Further examples of how symmetry can be used (e.g., radial symmetry) are given in the next section.
3.14 Axisymmetric Problems
If a threedimensional problem exhibits radial or axial symmetry (i.e., ) it is possible to reduce the twodimensional integrals appearing in the standard boundary Equation to onedimensional line integrals and thus substantially reduce the amount of computer time that would otherwise be required to solve the fully threedimensional problem. The ﬁrst step in such a procedure is to write the standard boundary integral equation in terms of cylindrical polars i.e.,
× v¨Ý Õ Ý û ê × Ý û ï
Ý
(3.45)
¸
Ö
Q» × Ý Ý ' IB¨± Õ û ê
and where intersection of and integrated over.)
are the polar coordinates of and respectively, and is the semiplane (Refer Figure 3.10). (n.b. is a point on the surface being
û
û
ê
Õ uÏ
¸
»
¸ ·
× Ý Ý uÏ Õ û ø ê
ø
}
ê
~
¹º
¸
B
·
m nÑ
î
ï
È
¼
¸
½¼
ø ¸
» h¸ ·
ê
û ¹º
B
·
m nÑ
Ð Î
¸
Î
ï
È
¼
î
gÏ
¾ø
}
¸ ½¼ Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö xÆwÕ
t
Ý u u u BBBÝ Ù
×
m¸
æ
» R û Ý
m
¨Ý
m
ê
Õ
68
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
F IGURE 3.11: The distance from the source point ( ) to the point of interest ( ) in terms of cylindrical polar coordinates.
For threedimensional problems governed by Laplace’s equation
Ùã ù »
ï× É
û Tç
m
û
Õ Ø ( ×
ï ' ×
û Tç
B
× B
ç
m
û
Õ Ø × ( 'B
m
ç
Õ
m
è
Õ
7è
Õ ç 7è ! ç ë » m m ï Ø ï ê ê ç ê ê ë eê » Ú ï ï Ø ï ï ê ø ê më » ê m ï Ø ï ï X ê » ø ê
m
ê ê
Ú
ç
ê
Ö
m
ê
where
is the distance from
to
. From Figure 3.11
ê
ï
ê
ê
ê
ø ê
b
F IGURE 3.10: Illustration of surface
for an axisymmetric problem.
ê
¸
¸ ê à
m nÑ
û Ö
m
ê
û
(3.46)
3 .15 I NFINITE R EGIONS
þ
69
We deﬁne where
»
! !
is the complete elliptic integral of the ﬁrst kind. is called the axisymmetric fundamental solution and is the Green’s function for a ring source as opposed to a point source. i.e., is a solution of
%»
instead of
where is the dirac delta centered at the point and is the dirac delta centered on the ring . Unlike the two and threedimensional cases, the axisymmetric fundamental solution cannot be written as simply a function of the distance between two points and , but it also depends upon the distance of these points to the axis of revolution. We also deﬁne
For Laplace’s equation Equation (3.50) becomes
z ¤!
(3.51)
is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind. where Using Equation (3.47) and Equation (3.50) we can write Equation (3.45) as
¸ ·
(3.52)
and the solution procedure for this Equation follows the same lines as the solution procedure given previously for the twodimensional version of boundary element method.
3.15 Inﬁnite Regions
The boundary integral equations we have been using have been derived assuming the domain is bounded (although this was never stated). However all concepts presented thus far are also
à
¥ ×
Õ
Ð ×
Õ
ç û ç
m
û
Ø ×
Õ £ !nÐ
m 9Ñ
×
Ö
6
m IÑ
ê ç óiê
¡ ¢×
Ð Î
½¼
Î
Õ
» h¸ ·
Õ
»
×
B
m
ê ç óiê
·
ç
m Ñ
m
×
m nÑ
Ð Î
Ø
Ð Î
Î
Õ
Ö
Õ
Î
Ï
Ø
ï
Ñ
È
ï
¼ ãÙ ù
×
½¼
P
û óç
Ñ
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö ÆÛÕ
ï
P
»
m !
û
m
ç Õ Ø ï
m Ñ
ê ç
æ
ï
m
ê
ê
Ù Ú
!
Ø
×
Ù
m
×
Õ
ã
ê m » Pê
Õ
m 9Ñ
»
and
!
Ø
Ú
× Ø
Õ
ã
B
·
m nÑ
ï
(3.47)
È
¼ ãÙ ù
»
m Ñ m
(3.48)
(3.49)
(3.50)
70
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
F IGURE 3.12: Derivation of inﬁnite domain boundary integral equations.
valid for inﬁnite regular (i.e., nice) regions provided the solution and its normal derivative behave appropriately as . Consider the problem of solving outside some surface . is the centre of a circle (or sphere in three dimensions) of radius centred at some point on and surrounding (see Figure 3.12). The boundary integral equations for the bounded domain can be written as (3.53)
È
î ¸ ©·
6
If this is satisﬁed, the boundary integral Equation for
à
6
will be as expected i.e.,
¸ ©·
6
¸
» ¸ Qh©·
Ñ
½¼
» ¸ g©·
H
6
Ñ
ªç
Ð Î Ñ Ï
Î
6
ÐÎ Ñ Ï Î
½¼
G
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö xuwÕ
½¼
¨ ©Ê
Å ÄÂ Ã
¦
Y
æ
À
If we let the radius
Equation (3.53) will only be valid for the points on
Ñ
½¼
Ø
¸ v·
¸
6
Ñ
¸
½¼
§
» ¸ g©·
6
ÐÎ Ñ Ï Î
È î
%»
½¼
Ø
¦ à
Ï ï
¸ ©·
P
6
ÐÎ Ñ Ï Î
½¼
Ø × ÖÕ Ï × Ö ÆÕ
¸
§ Y
¸
À g¸
æ
¸
¦ à
¸
if (3.54)
(3.55)
3 .15 I NFINITE R EGIONS
þ
71
where is the Jacobian and represents the asymptotic behaviour of the function as . In this case Equation (3.53) will be satisﬁed if behaves at most as so that . These are the regularity conditions at inﬁnity and these ensure that each term in the (i.e., each term will as ) integral Equation (3.53) behaves at most as For twodimensional problems with we require to behave as so that . For almost all well posed inﬁnite domain problems the solution behaves appropriately at inﬁnity.
»U À ×
§
§
Õ
Y
é £è Â
×
À
ø ¾
§
§
Õ
À
Ï
ï
»
where
8 @ «A8
§
× ð×
Ï
§
Õ
×
é è £ÄÂ
ø ¾
ê
Ùã ù Õ
§
Õ
Q»
»
¬ F·
For threedimensional problems with
Ñ · » ¸ h©·
Ñ
ø ¾ ï
¾ Ñ
QQ» § «c8 8 @ § QQ»
× wÕ
ÐÎ Ñ
Î × ø ¾
8 @ «c8 §
× ï Õ
¾
»
§
Õ
Y
× Èï î
Ø ï î
ï
H ¢ w
×
Å ¢ Æê
Ð
ç
Å Æê ¢
ÐÕ ×
Á
Ú
ç
Ù (Ø Õ
Ç Å Å ¢ Æê Æê
» ¼¢
H Fo ´
¸¢ð¶o · × ´ G ¹
Õ Ù ã ù ç Î
o
ï ù ç ê
Q»
æ Ï
×
H
Ï Î ï
× ï
3.16
72
Here
î
Ø ï Õ ø î
3.16.1
Laplace
Appendix: Common Fundamental Solutions
TwoDimensional equations
Equation
» QaÈ
eØ
ê ãÙ ÙË¯£è Â äÚ » G é ï ï Î ï Ø î Ï ï Î
ø Ï ïî Î
Helmholtz Equation
» %ËÈ
eØ
Ïï
° Ø
°{Õ ï ³ ±È ²q Ù ù » ï ï Î ï
î Ï ï Î
Ø
ø Ï ïî Î
Î
Solution
ê
Solution
.
where
q
Wave
Equation
»
×´ ðµÕ È
Ø
ï´ï Õ × ï êóç ã × ´ æ Õ æ äÚ ç êóç æ q ï ï Î
H
ï XÎ ´ Ï ï ç Î
î Ï ï Î
Ø
ï æ Î ø î Ï ï Î
G
ï
Solution
»
Ï
Diffusion
Equation
´ Î o Ï Î Ù
ç
î Ï ï Î
where
where is the wave speed.
is the diffusivity.
ï ï
Ø
ï
ø Ï ïî Î
Î
Solution
î ±w
»
Ï
Navier’s
Equation
is the Hankel funtion.
for a point load in direction .
¿
%»
¹ ¢ w ¢ e» Î ¹ ½ ¾eØ ¢ î º XÎ
Solution
for a traction in direction
where is Poisson’s ratio.
Á
o Ä Ø ¢ × Á
ï ê
× ï
Á Âç
Ù ÚÕ
ç
ÃªÐÎ ÙÕ Î
ê
G
Ù
ã ç nÀ »
¢ ¹
® » rPê
Here
Ø ï Õ ø î
®
» Pê
3.16.2
ThreeDimensional equations
T HE B OUNDARY E LEMENT M ETHOD
.
3 .17 CMISS E XAMPLES
þ
73
where is the wave speed.
ã ù vÐ ´ Ï »
Solution Navier’s Equation Solution
Ï Ï
for a isotropic homogenenous Kelvin
¿
solution for a point load in direction .
ê ÎÁ Î î Î ø Î ê
» Á
3.16.3 Axisymmetric problems
Laplace
For
see Equation (3.47) and for
Ï
see Equation (3.51)
3.17 CMISS Examples
1. 2D steadystate heat conduction inside an annulus To determine the steadystate heat con. duction inside an annulus run the CMISS example 2. 3D steadystate heat conduction inside a sphere. To determine the steadystate heat conduction inside a sphere run the CMISS example . 3. CMISS comparison of 2D FEM and BEM calculations To determine the CMISS comparison of 2D FEM and BEM calculations run examples and . 4. CMISS biopotential problems C4 and C5.
Ú Ù
Ä
ï
for a displacement in direction where ratio and is the shear modulus.
o Õ
is Poisson’s
H
%»
î
Î ©Ø
ï XÎ ´ Ï ï Î
Ø
½ ¾
ù Ú
ù Ú
ç
Ä
ù
Ä
H
ê
ï È Î î Ï ï Î
ç
À Ú
Ä G
Ä
×
Ø
Á eç
ï ï
î Ï ï Î
Ñ Xæ
ÙÕ
Ó»
ê
Ù
Î
ê
ç
Õ 9ã
Ø
½
½ ¾ÒØ
w »
ï æ Î ø î Ï ï Î
Ô BÙ
½
Ï
» ¦¢
»
¢
»
G
Wave
Equation
×
ê
°
hç
Õ
Í Ì Ê y©Ëê
Ùã ù
»
Solution
æ Ï
» QaÈ
eØ
Ï ï
° ÉØ
ï
È
î Ï ï Î
Î
Ø
ï ï
î Ï ï Î
Î
Ø
ï
ø Ï ïî Î
Helmholtz Equation
Î
ê
Ùã ù
» î
» º XÎ » ½
Solution
Ï
»
È
Ø
ï
È
î Ï ï Î Î Ø
ï ï
î Ï ï Î Î Ø
ï
ø Ï ïî Î ï Î Î Ï
Laplace
Equation
Chapter 4 Linear Elasticity
4.1 Introduction
To analyse the stress in various elastic bodies we calculate the strain energy of the body in terms of nodal displacements and then minimize the strain energy with respect to these parameters  a technique known as the RayleighRitz. In fact, as we will show later, this leads to the same algebraic equations as would be obtained by the Galerkin method (now equivalent to virtual work) but the physical assumptions made (in neglecting certain strain energy terms) are exposed more clearly in the RayleighRitz method. We will ﬁrst consider onedimensional truss and beam elements, then twodimensional plane stress and plane strain elements, and ﬁnally threedimensional elasticity. In all cases the steps are: 1. Evaluate the components of strain in terms of nodal displacements, 2. Evaluate the components of stress from strain using the elastic material constants, 3. Evaluate the strain energy for each element by integrating the products of stress and strain components over the element volume, 4. Evaluate the potential energy from the sum of total strain energy for all elements together with the work done by applied boundary forces, 5. Apply the boundary conditions, e.g., by ﬁxing nodal displacements, 6. Minimize the potential energy with respect to the unconstrained nodal displacements, 7. Solve the resulting system of equations for the unconstrained nodal displacements, 8. Evaluate the stresses and strains using the nodal displacements and element basis functions, 9. Evaluate the boundary reaction forces (or moments) at the nodes where displacement is constrained.
76
L INEAR E LASTICITY
4.2
Truss Elements
ò × Ý Õ
Consider the onedimensional truss of undeformed length in Figure 3.1 with end points and and making an angle with the xaxis. Under the action of forces in the  and directions the right hand end of the truss displaces by in the direction and in the direction, relative to the left hand end.
î ò
Ö
F IGURE 4.1: A truss of initial length is stretched to a new length . Displacements of the right hand end relative to the left hand end are and in the  and  directions, respectively.
The new length is with axial strain
Ö
× ï Õ ã
Ø ¤ã
ÙÚ
Ø Ù
»
× ã £äØ Ù Õ
Ö
" y u
®
Neglecting second order terms in the binomial expansion for small displacements and is
áÃ 2ð
Ø
Ï
" y u
è
»w å
Ö
áÃ âsh»
Ï
"
Ù
7è
»
"
×
using
and
, where
is deﬁned to be positive in the anticlockwise direction. , the strain
×
Ù
Ö
ç ï
Ø ÙÝ Ï Ø × ÔT Õ
Ö
ï
Ù
Ø ï Ï
"
ç ï
Û
î
ß
Ö
Ø
Ö
î
Ñ
Ù
Ø ï U × Ï Ø
Ö
" y u
"
Þ
ç ï×
áÃ âs
Ï
Ö
Ø ÙÕ B(Ø ï ¢U µÕ × Ï Ø ×
Ø
Ý
ÙeØuÏgØÕ × ï ×Ú
ï
Ï
¿
Ï
" F u
"
Ù eØ
Ü
7è
× ÙÝ × uhØÕ
Ï
Ú
Ø ï
Ú
Ø Ù
"
"
ë
®
à Ó»
ò
»
»
Ù
ç
¿
"
¿
» cw
× Ý Õ ò î
(4.1)
is the stress in the truss (of crosssectional area ), linearly related to the strain where via Young’s modulus . We now substitute for from Equation (4.1) into Equation (4.2) and put and , where and are the nodal displacements of the two ends of the truss
ï
áÃ 2ð
The potential energy is the combined strain energy from all trusses in the structure minus the work done on the structure by external forces. The RayleighRitz approach is to minimize this potential energy with respect to the nodal displacements once all displacement boundary conditions have been applied. For example, consider the system of three trusses shown in Figure 4.2. A force of is applied in the direction at node . Node is a sliding joint and has zero displacement in the ydirection only. Node is a pivot and therefore has zero displacement in both  and  directions. The problem is to ﬁnd all nodal displacements and the stress in the three trusses.
í ì F¯7
node
í ì Fh7
node
Ä
node
Ä
F IGURE 4.2: A system of three trusses.
The strain in truss (joining nodes and ) is
ø
Ö
The strain in truss (joining nodes and ) is
ø
Ö
Ù
ò
î
H
"
"
ÙÚ
"
Ù
ï
u F
Ø
»
ø
ï áÃ 7ð2s
"
Ú
Ï
Ä
Ú
Ú
Ø
Ù
ø
"
»
Ö
Ï
"
Ø
Ä
ï
ï 7S7è
áÃ 2ð
î 7
î
Ú
Ï
Ä
u y
Ä
Ä
ø
Ù
"
7è
Ö
Ú
ï × Ï
Ø
Ù
G
Ù
Ä
"
ç ø
Ù
è
" è
Ï Õ
ø
ÙÚ
"
Ï
»
SE
(4.3)
w
ï
w
è " SÙ Ú
» £· î
ø
Ö äç
ï
è
w è
Ö
é ¼ êÙ Ú
×
È
ï
Ö
Ý
ï
ø
Ï Õ
» £ñw î ·
ç
w
º
×
ø
é
Ö
È
¼
Ý
ø
è nÙ Ú
Ï Õ
»
ç · Fw
ø
º
Ö eç
¼ ÙÚ
ï
Ä
Öë»
Ù
»
Ú
Ö
î
w
ø
Ï
»
ç
º
ï
Ï
»
Ï
æ
4 .2 T RUSS E LEMENTS
77
The strain energy associated with this uniaxial stretch is
SE
(4.2)
78
L INEAR E LASTICITY
The strain in truss (joining nodes and ) is
Ï
" Ä
Equation (4.4) gives
» ø
Ö Ä
Equation (4.5) gives for two dimensions
The tension in truss is (tensile), in truss is (compressive) and in truss is zero. The nodal reaction forces are shown in Figure 4.3.
í Fì Ô Ù D£Ù
»
Ä
ï
¾
Ù
q
Ú
Ä u
Ú
þ ü ì q F¡ Ù £Ù u Ëç
Ù ï
Å
È
Ä
¾
Ù
» q iw
Ä u
%» È
è
»
º
è
Ù
q
Ù
× Ùu Ù
í ì Fh
ÙÚ
u
¦ ¡Ëç
ç
Äu cyÄ
Ú
Ä
Ú
is
Õ Ù
, in truss is
and in truss is zero.
Å Å
Ùu Ù
ç
¥
» ø
Ö
Ú
Å Å
Äu cyÄ
¥ ¡Ú Ú Ï » ø
Solving these last two equations gives
¾ ù
and
£
Ù
Å í ì £ ÔFg¤
q
d
ø
¢
ï Ù
Ï
Ù
Ä
Q»
q
q
» ÿÅ
ç » ø
ù
ù
ï
Ï
Ö
Ø
ø
Ù
Ï eÄ
q
ï
Å
È
truss) then Equation (4.6) gives
Ù
q ÿ» "
.
. Thus the strain in truss
Å Å
q
Å Å
7
Ù
ø ¾ Ù
Å
» "
þ ü ú ýû
Ù¢
þIüyìI¡ ï
»
Å
È
Ù ¾
q
»
è
If we choose
è
,
and
Q»
Ä
Ú
õ
ï
Ï
Ä
Ú
ó
"
è
PE
» ï Ï
Î Î
(e.g.,
»
ù dø Ö
Ø
ÙÚ
õ ¼ø Ö
ÙÚ
Ø
ø
Ï
Ä
Ú
ó Xø
"
è
PE
» ø
Ö
»
7
Ù
ç
Ä
Ú
õ
ø
Ö
ÙÚ
Ø
ø
Ï
Ä
Ú
ó
"
è
PE
» ø Ï Î Î
(4.4)
(4.5)
(4.6) timber
ø
Ï
[Note that if the force was applied in the negative direction, the ﬁnal term would be Minimizing the potential energy with respect to the three unknowns , and gives
7
Ù Ø
ï
Ï
ø
Ö
ø
ï
trusses
]
ø
Ï
7
Ù
ç
ö÷ ¦ï
×
ø
Ö
Õ Ø
ï
õ
Ï
Ï
Ä
Ú
ó
Ø
ï
õ ¼ø Ö
ÙÚ
Ø
ø
î
Ï
Ä
Ú
ó ôñò
"
ÙÚ
» ø
Ï
¾
7
Î
Î
Ù
ç
ï
w
" è
ÙÚ
»
PE
î
Ù
è
í ì Fh7
Since a force of
Ù
¥
acts at node in the direction, the potential energy is
ï
Ú
» ×
Ä
ç Õ
7è
Ä
ï
"
Ï
Ú
Ä
F IGURE 4.3: Reaction forces for the truss system of Figure 4.2.
4.3 Beam Elements
Simple beam theory ignores all but axial strain and stress ( Young’s modulus) along the beam (assumed here to be in the xdirection). The axial strain is given by , where is the lateral distance from the neutral axis in the plane of the bending and is the radius
è è
crossectional area. Thus
û
Equation (4.7) becomes
û
t
Ù§
»
ï
v
î£· ï
·
»
î£· ·
»
»
î £·
v
The slope of the beam is
and the rate of change of slope is the curvature (4.10)
©
»
§
©
» i§
º
·
è
·
ï
û
¼
»
©
where
is the second moment of area of the beam crosssection. Thus,
t
· û l9§
º
© §
¼
»
of curvature in that plane. The bending moment is given by
, where
is the beam
(4.7)
(4.8)
and
(4.9)
û
§
» § ý¨w
§
»
í ì Fh
Ù
§ ¨w
í ì Fð¦
» §
u
»
º
¦ ¡
è
t
·
ï
§
û
¼
» § c¨w
§
§ ¨w
í ì Fð¦
»
u
è
¦ ¡
» e§
· û Á8§
º
º
¼
»
í ì Fð7
t
Ù
û
æ
4 .3 B EAM E LEMENTS
79
80
L INEAR E LASTICITY
Thus the bending moment is
WW ¹
and a force balance gives the shear force
t
and the normal force (per unit length of beam)
WW
This last equation is the equilibrium equation for the beam, balancing the loading forces with the axial stresses associated with beam ﬂexure
¹ e» v
The elastic strain energy stored in a bent beam is the sum of ﬂexural strain energy and shear strain energy, but this latter is ignored in the simple beam theory considered here. Thus, the (ﬂexural) strain energy is
where is taken along the beam and is the crosssectional area of the beam. The external work associated with forces acting normal to the beam and moving through a
î £·
¹ é
The ﬁnite element approximation for the transverse displacement must be able to represent the second derivative . A linear basis function has a zero second derivative and therefore cannot represent the ﬂexural strain. The natural choice of basis function for beam deﬂection is in fact cubic Hermite because the interelement slope continuity of this basis ensures transmission of bending moment as well as shear force across element boundaries. The boundary conditions associated with the th order equilibrium Equation (4.14) or the equav
u
î £·
v
¹
é
È
¼ ç £· î
ï×
WW
ù
v Õ
©
é
È
¼ ÙÚ
»
PE
v
È
¼
transverse displacement
v
is
. The potential energy is therefore
î £·
î g·
ï×
WW
è
È £ § vÕ © ÙÚ î ¼ Ò» £·
ï · §
w
¼
é
È § ¼ ÙÚ
é
£
» £· î
è
· ï
¹
è
Ñ
· § w ñ¨d§
û
§
Ï
º
è
¼
¼
È £ § é ¼ ÙÚ
È § ¼ ÙÚ
é
£
»
SE
×
WW
×
v
v
© Õ î£· ç » ·
v
© Õ
©
H
ï
ï
» ï ï
v
î£· © ï ·
î£· ç ·
î£· © ï · »
G
î £·
ï
î £·
·
ï
ç F·
îg· ç ·
» »
ç »
t ¹ ç
(4.11)
(4.12)
(4.13)
(4.14)
»
WW v
î
(4.15)
tions arising from minimum potential energy Equation (4.15) (which contain the square of nd derivative terms) are more complex than the simple temperature or ﬂux boundary conditions for the (second order) heat equation. Three possible combinations of boundary condition with their associated reactions are Boundary conditions Reactions
ç »
(i) (ii)
4.4 Plane Stress Elements
For twodimensional problems, we deﬁne the displacement vector and stress vector
ö÷
. The stressstrain relation for twodimensional plane stress:
ö÷
(4.16)
×
can be written in matrix form
gradients by
H
Ö
î
Î
Î
Î Ø ò Ï Î
G
î Ï Î
Ö
ò
ÙÚ
Î
Î
Î
»
»
»
§ ¨w
¨w
§ ¨w
ö÷
Á Âç
Ù
Ù
Á
ñò
ï
Á eç
Ù
»
where
. The strain components are given in terms of displacement
(4.17)
» }
, strain vector
Ï
¥ Ö
»
A
×
w ¨yÁ
§ w ¨yÁ
Ø
Ø
×
©
§ ¨w
¨w
§ ¨w
» Ô
Õ
Õ
Õ
ï
ï
»
zero moment
slope
v
Q»
×
WW
v
»
ç
(iii) Free end
zero shear force
t
displacement
×
W
ç
v
t
»
Õ p
QW W » © Õ î£· ç ·
» QW W
» v ©
Q» W v
v
Simply supported zero displacement zero moment Cantilever zero displacement zero slope
»
v t
shear force slope shear force moment
Ú
Á eç
Á eç
Á
Ø Ù
»
Ù
Ù
» e§
»
» §
º
º
º
§
§
º ñò
º
º
» B
Á
Ù
¨w § ¨w § ¨w
ñò
æ
4 .4 P LANE S TRESS E LEMENTS
81
è u
· &
f
A
¼ ç A
$
( f
ÙÚ » A
è
· & p'f A
f
¼ ç A ¼ (F· ç ç ×
ç · $ Fü f
¼
f
ÙÚ »
A
÷ 
A î Î
 
A ò Î Î ÙÚ
ò
$ Q»
¥
 Ö  XÏ
) ) ) ) ) 0ö

ò
A
H 
Ö 
î
Î Î
Ø  XÏ ò
Î
H

Î
G
A
where represents the external loads (forces) acting on the elastic body. Following the steps outlined in Section 4.1 we approximate the displacement ﬁeld ﬁnite element basis , and calculate the strains
A Ù (Ø Õ Ø ï Ú
º
ç F·
ï × # $§ w
Á Âç
w § w ¨d¨yÁ
ç y·
w
Ø ï §
ï
w
Ù ¼ ÙÚ » »
º ç · F f
"
Á eç
×
82
The strain energy is
SE
§ § ¨w
Ø
¨w
º
Ø §
§ ¨w
Õ
¼ ÙÚ
ç · f FË!
The potential energy is
PE
SE
external work
è
· & 'f
ç ç · f ¼ (F%F
From Equation (4.18) the potential energy is therefore
Î ÙÚ Î Î
( ( ( (
ñ(
î
Î Î Î î
Ö 
»
ö÷
ñò
¨w § ¨w § ¨w
ÙÚ »
Î
Ö   
Ø ò Î Î Î
Ö
Î
 XÏ
î
Î ò » § ÏÎ G Ù Ú ¨w Î ò »
¨w Î » Ö Î î Ï Î » § »
c¨w

» uÖ
 Ï Xe
»
Ï &
ÙÚ ¼ »
ç
»
¼ ÙÚ » ÙÚ ¼ Ò»
or
PE
»
è
· &
$
Õ
f
×
$
Õ
A ¼ ÙÚ »
L INEAR E LASTICITY
with a
(4.20) (4.19) (4.18)
4.4.1 Notes on calculating nodal loads
If a known stress acts normal to a given surface (e.g., a surface pressure), it may be applied by calculating equivalent nodal forces. For example, consider a uniform load applied to the edge of the plane stress element in Figure 4.4a. The nodal load vector in Equation (4.21) has components
ø ¾ Å í ì }Fx¹ ø
)
as shown in Figure 4.4b. If the element side has a quadratic basis, Equation (4.22) gives
Ú ø ø
as shown in Figure 4.4c. A node common to two elements will receive contributions from both elements, as shown in Figure 4.4d.
" S¹
Ù »
Ô
"
" S¹
" S¹
Ü
ÙÚ »
·
" S¹
Ù
Ô
× ©Ü
Ú
Ä
»
" X¹
Ü
ç
Ü
»
·
ÙÚ
·
ÙÕ
× gÜ
Ü
·
»
H
H
× gÜ
ÙÚ
Ü
ç
Ü
·
ÙÕ
ç
ç ÙÚ
Ü
ç
Ü
ø
ø
Ù Ü Õ
G
È
È
¼
¼
G
Ü
" ¹ Se»
" ¹ Se»
Ú
ù
ø
ø
È
È
È
¼
¼
¼
Ü
Ü
" ¹ Xe»
" ¹ Xe»
" ¹ Xe»
· ø
·
ï
Ü
Ü
Ü
ø
ø
· ø
·
·
È
È
¼
¼
È
ï
" ¹ SÂ»
" ¹ SÂ»
ø
ø
È
È
È
¼
¼
¼
ø
ï
" ¹ Se»
" ¹ Se»
" ¹ Se»
r
r
ø
ï
È
r
r
r
ø ¾
Å í ì BFp¹ Ü
where stress
is the normalized element coordinate along the side of length loaded by the constant . If the element side has a linear basis, Equation (4.22) gives
Ü
·

È
¼
" ¹ XÂ»
î £·

¹
§
¼
»

r
è
· &
¼
» )
where
is a vector of nodal forces.

Ö
We next minimize the potential energy with respect to the nodal parameters
 XÏ ) 0»
A
(
ç · $ y f
$
¼ »
(
æ
4 .4 P LANE S TRESS E LEMENTS
83
where
is the element stiffness matrix. and giving (4.21)
(4.22)
84
L INEAR E LASTICITY
(a)
2ø 2ø
(b)
(c)
2 ø1 2 2 ø1
(d)
F IGURE 4.4: A uniform boundary stress applied to the element side in (a) is equivalent to nodal and for the linear basis used in (b) and to , and for the quadratic loads of basis used in (c). Two adjacent quadratic elements both contribute to a common node in (d), where the element length is now .
4.5
ThreeDimensional Elasticity
à à ¸
Consider a surface enclosing a volume of material of mass density . Conservation of linear momentum over the domain results in the governing equilibrium equations
3
Ä Ý
(4.23)
where are the components of the stress tensor ( is the component of the traction or stress vector in the th direction which is acting on the face of a rectangle whose normal is in the th
¢
has been introduced to represent the derivative. Recall that the components of the linear (or small) strain tensor are
Ú » Û1
Å ¢
(4.24)
Ä ¨Ý
where is the displacement vector (i.e., is the difference between the ﬁnal and initial positions of a material point in question). Note: we are assuming here that the displacement gradients are small compared to unity, which is appropriate for many materials in solid mechanics. However, for soft materials, such as rubber or biological tissue, then we need to use the exact ﬁnite strain tensor. The object of solving an elasticity problem is to ﬁnd the distributions of stress and displacement in an elastic body, subject to a known set of body forces and prescribed stresses or displacements at the boundaries. In the general threedimensional case, this means ﬁnding stress components ( which arises from the conservation of angular momentum) and 3 displacements each as a function of position in the body. Currently we have unknowns ( stresses, strains and displacements), but only equations ( equilibrium equations and straindisplacement relations). To progress, we require an equation of state, i.e., a stressstrain relation or constitutive law. For a linear elastic material we may propose that the components of stress depend linearly on .
Ä ¢ w
î
º XÎ
Î
Ï
»
º
Ô
Ô
¢
Ô
º
Ô
Ý Ù
6 3 » 75u4
direction), and
is the body force/unit volume (e.g.,
). Note that the notation
ïé
ïé
¢
ïé
1
ïé ¹ ïé
¹
¯¹
ïÈ ø
Èï
È
¹ ¹
ø ø 1 1
¢Å ¢
Ú
" S¹
Èï
Ú
" S¹ " S¹
ïÈ
ø
ø 1 1
Ú
Ú
ïé
Ý Ù
Ù
Ý
» Û1
¢
Ý
º
×
" S¹ " S¹
» !
Ï UØ A Õ Ï ÙÚ ¢Å
ø ø ï ï Ø
Ä ¢Å ¢
»
º
¢ w
ø ¾
ï Ú
Å í ì BFp¹ ï
! Ú
ï
¢
¢
º
º
A
"
»
¢
º
where are the components of a th order tensor, although symmetry of the strain and stress tensors reduces the number of independent components to . If the material is assumed to be isotropic (i.e., the material response is independent of orientation of the material element), then we end up with the generalized Hooke’s Law.
Ù
¢ w
or inversely
8 ¤Ú ç
¢
Providing that the displacements are continuous functions of position, then Equation (4.23), Equation (4.24) and Equation (4.25) are sufﬁcient to determine the unknown quantities. This can often work with some smaller grouping or simpliﬁcation of these equations, e.g., if all boundary conditions are expressed in terms of displacements, substituting Equation (4.24) into Equation (4.25) then into Equation (4.23) yields Navier’s equation of motion.
Ä ¨Ý
These equations can be solved for the unknown displacements. Then Equation (4.24) can be used to determine the strains and Equation (4.25) to calculate the stresses.
4.5.1 Weighted Residual Integral Equation
Using weighted residuals as before we can write
»
where is a (vector) weighting ﬁeld. The are usually interpreted as a consistent set of virtual displacements (hence we use the notation instead of ).
v
Ú
Ù
Ý Ù
Á
where , are Lam´ s constants. e Note: , are related to Young’s modules
and Poisson’s ratio
× 8 9Ú Ø Æ° 8 Û7{Õ Ø ° Ä
¢
»
» »
o ©Ý
º
×
Ú
8 ¤Ú
8 9Ú
à
×
½ ½ » w ¦¢ ¨æ »
»
Ø ° Ä Æ7Õ
·
8
°
Ø
Ï
Ø Æ° Õ
Ï ×
°
!
¢
Ï
!
» » w
Ø
Ú
»
Å » »
Ø
8
¢
°
¢Å ¢
» Á
»
º
Ï ×
»
º Õ
º
¢
8
ù
8Ù ¤Ú
º
Ø Õ Û° (Ø
k
¼
»
¢ w
» » Å
Ï
8
Ù
À
× Õ Ï
8
½
»
°
8
» ¦¢ ¨æ
°
A
Ä
æ
4 .5 T HREE D IMENSIONAL E LASTICITY
85
i.e.,
(4.25)
by
(4.26)
86
L INEAR E LASTICITY
By the chainrule
¢Å
Therefore, the ﬁrst term in the integrand of Equation (4.26) can be rewritten
·
¢Å ¢
using the divergence theorem
¸ ©·
V R
where is the outward normal vector to the surface . Thus, combining Equation (4.26) and Equation (4.27) we have
¸ ©·
¢ ¢
where are the components of the internal stress vector ( ) and are related to the components of the stress tensor ( ) by Cauchy’s formula
To arrive at this point, we have used weighted residuals to tie in with Chapter 2, however Equation (4.28) is more usually derived using the principle of virtual work (below). Note that the weighted integral Equation (4.28) is independent of the constitutive law of the material.
4.5.2
C
The Principle of Virtual Work
A
The governing equations for elastostatics can also be derived from a physically appealing argument. Let be the external traction vector (i.e., force per unit surface area). For equilibrium, the work done by the external surface forces , in moving through a virtual displacement
A
Ï
»
¸ ©·
¢
Ð @
¢
k ©j
¼ (»
¸ ©·
Ï Ð
à
·
¢Å ¢
Ï
º
´
¸
@
i
k lj
k lj
¼
¼
¼
or
k
Ø ¥à
Ø ¥à
A ¢
·
·
Ð
¢
¢
Ï
Ï
î
Î
º
!
!
Î
»
A
»
i
¼ »
k
¼
k
E
»
P
where the domain integral involving “
” has been transformed into a surface integral
à
·
¢Å
à
à
Ï
·
¢
¢Å
º
Ï
Ï
¢
¼ ç
k
º
º
Ï
¢ k k
¼ ç
¼ Tç ©· ¸
à
º eØ
·
× Ï
à
·
Ï
¢Å
¢Å ¢ ¢ ¢ º Õ º
× Ï
Ð Ï
R
¢
¢
»
º Õ P º
¢Å R
× Ï
k ©j
¼
k
¼
k
¼ »
à
¢
» C
»
»
·
º Õ
6
¢Å
à
· Ï
k lj
¼ (»
¢
Ï
º
¢Å ¢
à
º k
¼
· 6
k
¼
R P ¢ º k
(4.27)
¼
¢ A B¢
Ð
»
´
V
(4.28)
(4.29)
is equal to the work done by the stress vector in moving through a compatible set of virtual displacements . In mathematical terms, the principle of virtual work can be written
¸ ©·
¢ ¢
using Cauchy’s formula (Equation (4.29)). The GreenGauss theorem (Equation (2.15)) is now used to replace the right hand surface integral in Equation (4.30) by a volume integral, giving
·
¢Å ¢ ¢Å ¢
Substituting the equilibrium relation (Equation (4.23)) into the ﬁrst integrand on the right hand side, yields the virtual work equation
¸ ©·
E
where the internal work done due to the stress ﬁeld is equated to the work due to internal body forces and external surface forces. Note that Equation (4.32) is equivalent to Equation (4.28) via Equation (4.30). In practice, Equation (4.32) is in a more useful form than Equation (4.28), because the right hand side integrals can be expressed in terms of the known body forces and the applied boundary conditions (surface traction forces or stresses).
4.5.3 The Finite Element Approximation
Substituting this into Equation (4.32) gives
Å
Ñ
³
E G±
S
Q
Ï
¹º ¸ !©·
G P
E
U k Ø V©j à
¼
·
G P
!
UVk ¼
E
¥
»
Ñ
³
E G±
Å
S
Q
Ï
¹º
à
·
¢
»
î Ü Î
Î
»Å
»Å
the shorthand
G P
has been introduced.
w
× gÕ Ý
w
T
Ü Î »GP Î » ×³ G E ±
G P
Q RÕ
¢
»
º
UVk ¼
× G Õ Ï
where
,
is the global node number of local node
»
so
Ï
Î G H × G Õ ¢ î Ï Ü pÎ »Å Î I » × G Õ ¢ î Ï G P Î I × G Õ H Ï G
Ï
I
»
»
¢Å
Ï
Å
S
E Fà
D 5»
Let
à
and interpolate the virtual displacements
from their nodal values. i.e.,
à
Ï Ð
Ï
Ï
k ©j
º
¼
º ÂØ
k ©j
Ø à
¼
» ¸ ÿv·
·
Ï
A
Ï
´
!
º
Ï
»
´
i
k
¼
¼
k
k ©j
»
¼
» ¸ g©·
à
» ¸ h©·
·
¢Å
Ï
Ï
¢
Ï
E
º
E
k ©j
¼
k ©j
¼
k
¼
A
E
¥
æ
4 .5 T HREE D IMENSIONAL E LASTICITY
87
(4.30)
(4.31)
(4.32)
(4.33)
on element , and
88
L INEAR E LASTICITY
and since the virtual displacements are arbitrary we get
! ¥ » ¢ ¥
(4.34)
The next step is to express the stress components in terms of the virtual displacements and their ﬁnite element approximation by substituting Equation (4.33) into Equation (4.24) (the straindisplacement relation) and in turn into Equation (4.25) (the generalized Hooke’s law). which We ﬁrst introduce the ﬁnite element approximation for the displacement ﬁeld gives
¢
and
Thus
Î ÙÚ
G
which, due to symmetry of the stress tensor, simpliﬁes to
¢ BpÎ ½ Ü 
where the summation index has been replaced with , but the parenthesis in implies that there is no sum with respect to that particular index. Substituting this expression into Equation (4.34) and simplifying, we get for each element
³
where denotes the right hand side terms in Equation (4.34). (Note that there has been some careful manipulation of summation indices with the substitution of Equation (4.36) to arrive at Equation (4.37).) So for each element
G
Ï n
± ¢
»
¢
H
Ï
¢
Ï î
G
H
¹º ¸ ©·
BpÎ ½ Ü r ¢
Ï î
Î
vÎ ½ Ü
»
½ Ü vÎ

G P à Î · Î
½ Ü vpÎ

E ¢ H
Ø
U k Ø W©j ¥à Î ÙÚ Ï
¢ »
Ï î
¼

î Ü pÎ
H
Ï
Î
Î î ½  ½BÜpÎ Å Î BpÎ ½ Ü
¢ î ½ Ü BpÎ
Ø
»Å
»

Î
GP î ½  BpÎ Å ½ Ü
Ï
· Ï
¢
½ Ü vÎ

» î ½ Ü BpÎ
¢ î ½ Ü BpÎ
Î
G P
º 1
Î
8 ¤Ú
Î
Î
8 ¤Ú
Î
G
½ Ü BpÎ

r
½ Ü BpÎ

Ø
ÙÚ
Ø
U »
Î »
¼
k » ½¢ Ü BpÎ
8 9Ú
¢
»
Ï
î
Ï n G
» î ½ Ü BpÎ
Î
H
³ ½  ± S° G Å ¢ ½ Ü vpÎ
»Å »
E Ø
¢
8 9Ú
Î
¢
»
Ï

î
Î Ü pÎ
Ï n
»
Ø
»
»Å
Î
»
à
¢
» » w
· Ï G H
¢
°
» î ½ Ü BpÎ
î
Î
î Ü pÎ Î Î Î
° ¢ î ½  G ½ Ü BpÎ Å
»
»
Î
»Å  ¢
½ Ü BpÎ
Ø ×
G H
o º
Î

¢
Ï n Õ
°
º
U
U Vk ¼
¼ »
¢ k
î
Î
¢
¢
E Î
º
Ï
G
ÙÚ
»
¢ w
(4.35)
(4.36)
(4.37)
G
r
and have been used to transform volume and surwhere the Jacobians face integrals so that they can be can be calculated using coordinates. (Note: without loss of generality, the above deﬁnition of assumes that are deﬁned to lie in the surface .) So in summary, the ﬁnite element approximation leads to element stiffness matrix components that can be calculated from the known material parameters, the chosen interpolation functions, and the geometry of the material (note that the element stiffness components are independent of the unknown displacement parameters). Element stiffness components are then assembled into the global stiffness matrix in the usual manner (as described previously). Note that this is implicitly a Galerkin formulation, since the unknown displacement ﬁelds are interpolated using the same basis functions as those used to weight the integral equations.
4.6 Linear Elasticity with Boundary Elements
Equation (4.28) is the starting point for the general ﬁnite element formulation (Section 4.5). In the above derivation, we have essentially used the GreenGauss theorem once to move from Equation (4.26) to Equation (4.28) (as was done for the derivation of the FEM equation for Laplace’s equation). To continue, we ﬁrstly note that
Å ¢ ¢
¢ w
where
are the virtual strains corresponding to the virtual displacements.
¸
È
ï ï ï Ü × sÝ Õ Ü Ü ·ø · ø X
Ü
Ü
·
ï ï Ü × È sÝ sÝ Y@ Ü Ü ÜÕ ·ø · ø
Ü
@
G P
Å ¢
¢Å
»Å
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ü
E
¢
¢
GP ½  Å
ï × ðÝ íÕ Ü Ü
º
º
º
È Ø ¼ Á¼
ø
ÙÚ
ÙÚ
ÙÚ
ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
¢Å
¢Å
¢Å
È
H
Å ¢
Ü
ï ï × sÝ íÕ Ü Ü ø X
¢
»
Ï
Ï
Ï
·
î Ü Î
¢
¢
¢
ï ï Ü × È ðÝ ðÝ Y@ P Ü Ü ÜÕ G ·ø · ø
Ï
Î
Ü
¢
º
º
º
BpÎ ½ Ü
ÙÚ
ÙÚ
ÙÚ
º
î
Î
»
»
»
»
8 ¤Ú
¢ w ¢
@
Ø
G
»
º
r
Î î Ü pÎ
ï × È ðÝ ðÝ íl@ Ü Ü ÜÕ ø
¢ î ½ Ü BpÎ
Î
°
!
G
ø È ¼ ¼ ÁÁ¼
È ¼ ¼ ÁÁ¼
ø
»
»

G
¢
r
G
æ
4 .6 L INEAR E LASTICITY
WITH
B OUNDARY E LEMENTS
89
where
(4.38)
90
L INEAR E LASTICITY
Using the constitutive law for linearly elastic materials (Equation (4.25)) we have
· à
¢ w ¢
due to symmetry. Thus from the virtual work statement, Equation (4.28) and the above symmetry we have
¸ ©·
This is known as Betti’s second reciprical work theorem or the MaxwellBetti reciprocity relationship between two different elastic problems (the starred and unstarred variables) established on the same domain. Note that (i.e., ). Therefore Equation (4.39) can be written as
! Q» !
(or equivalently ), where is the th component of a unit vector in the th direction and . We can interpret this as the body force components which correspond to a positive unit point load applied at a point in each of the three orthogonal directions. Therefore
Ï
¢ w
¢
º
à
%»
w
à ß hüÖ
Ø
¢Å ¢
º
w
ë»
!
w
×ÛÖ ç Ø
!
ç
4
Õ
w Q»
´ ¤Ý
¢ w
w
Ý
¢
(
represents the equilibrium state corresponding to the virtual displacements ). Note: What we have essentially done is use integration of parts to get Equation (4.28), then use it again to get Equation (4.39) above (after noting the reciprocity between and ). Since the body forces, , are known functions, the second domain integral on the left hand side of Equation (4.40) does not introduce any unknowns into the problem (more about this later). The ﬁrst domain integral contains unknown displacements in and it is this integral we wish to remove. We choose the virtual displacements such that
º
¸ ©·
à
Ï
·
à
¢ w ¢ w
´
Ï
·
¢ w ¢ w
´
k ©j
¸ ¼ ç ©·
k lj
¼
¼
k
Ø ¥à
8 9Ú ¼
k
8 ¤Ú
Ï
·
Ø à
´
Ï
Ø à
!
k ©j
·
¼
¢
·
»
¼ » ¸ ÿv·
k
à
» » w » w »
¢ w » w »
·
à
¢
·
º ¢ w
Ï
º
Ï
k °
k °
¼
¼
´
k k
¼ ¼ » ¼
k
k ©j
» » » ¼ Ø à
Ø à
Ø ¥à
¢Å ¢
· ·
¢Å
·
º
Ï
Ï
¢
¢Å ¢
Ï
!
º º k
¢Å ¢
¼ ¼
k º k
(4.39)
¼
ç »
!
(4.40)
(4.41)
i.e., the volume integral is replaced with a point value (as for Laplace’s equation). Therefore, Equation (4.40) becomes
·
¢ ¢ !
where and represent the displacements and tractions in the th direction at corresponding to a unit point force acting in the th direction ( ) applied at . Substituting these into Equation (4.42) (and equating components in each direction) yields
î
1
where (see later for ). 1 This is known as Somigliana’s identity for displacement.
4.7 Fundamental Solutions
4 ¢
Recall from Equation (4.41) that
º
satisﬁed (4.46)
» w
or equivalently
1
Somigliana was an Italian Mathematician who published this result around 18941902.
» !
Ø
Å » »
Ï
Á
Ú
Õ
ç
Ù
Navier’s equation for the displacements
Ï
» » Å Õ
is
× ¥à × Õ Õ î · î
¢ !
Ö
× ËÕ Ý Ö î
¢
Ï
× Õ
î
k
¼
w
¢
¸ ©·
´
Ø
× Õ
î
× ÛÖ
w
w
w
¢
If each point load is taken to be independent then
× ËwÕ Ý Ö î × ËwÕ Ý Ö î Ï
¢
and
can be written as (4.43) (4.44)
à ß güÖ
w
× Ö wÕ Ï
à
ç »
Ï
à
·
k
¼
Ï
w
Ø
¢
× Ö
Ï × ¤Õ Ý Ö
× ÛÖ
¸ ©·
ç
î
4
¢
ç
Õ
ç
Ï
¢
¢
4
´
Õ a
Ï
´
Õ ËeØ
w Q» !
¢
´
k ©j
¼ ç ©· ¸
»
»
¢
¢
k ©j
k
¼ ç
Ø
´
¼ Tç
Ï
¢Å ¢
à Î ß güÖ
º
× Õ
»
¢
Ï
î
Ï
¢
à
´
·
¸ ©·
k ©j
Ï
¼
× ¤Õ Ý Ö î
× Õ
¢Å ¢
î
»
º
¢
´ F×
w
× Ö wÕ
¢
k
¼
î
´
Ý Ö ËÕ
Ï
¢
× ËwÕ Ý Ö î
à ß güÖ
Ï
k ©j
¼ »
¢
× Ö ÛÕ
Ï
Ï
æ
4 .7 F UNDAMENTAL S OLUTIONS
91
(4.42)
(4.45)
92
L INEAR E LASTICITY
where = shear Modulus. Thus satisfy
%» w
The solutions to the above equation in either two or three dimensions are known as Kelvin 2 ’s fundamental solutions and are given by
a Å Å b¢ Æê Æê
¢ Á
for threedimensions and for twodimensional plane strain problems,
a Å Å ê ç ê é è b¢ Æê Æóil£ÄÂ
¢ Á
and
ç ã ù »
4 ¢
and the stresses are given by
ã ù »
4 » ¦¢
mathematical equivalence of plane stress and plane strain  there are obviously physical differences. What the mathematical equivalence allows us to do is to use one program to solve both types of problems  all we have to do is modify the values of the elastic constants). Note that in three dimensions
Ø Ù ê Ù G Ó»
¢
2
Lord Kelvin (18241907) Scottish physicist who made great contributions to the science of thermodynamics
Á
»
Á
is replaced by
Á
Á
where and are deﬁned above. The plane strain expressions are valid for plane stress if
c â
a Å 9» ¢ê
a Å h» Æê
Å Å ¢ ¢ê Æê
Å Å ¢ Æê ¢ê
c dØ
c Ø g ×
Å ê » ¦¢ Æóç
Ö
In addition the strains at an point given by
Õ
Å ê Å » ¼¢ Æóç » ¢ Æê
×
H
»
ï
Å ¢ Æê
Ø
Ø
¢
¢
Å » Æê
Å » Æê
´
Õ £×
Õ ×
Á
Á
Ú
Ú
ç
ç
ÙÕ Y
H
ÙÕ Y
ê Ù ËG
ê
4
Q» ¢
ê
×
×
Á eç
Á eç
Ù
Ù
Ï
ç
ç
ÙÕ
ÙÕ
ã
â
â
À
ê
»
×
×
»
Ý Ö ¤Õ
4
×
Ý Ö ËwÕ
4
Õ
Î
» ¼¢ w
î
º
Î
»
Å Æê
and
.
due to a unit point load applied at
in the
th
direction are
(This is a
× Ö ÛÕ
î ç
×
Õ
î Ô»
ê
, the distance between load point ( ) and ﬁeld point ( ),
Ö
4
4
Ä Ý
ê×
4
»
Ý Ö ËwÕ ê
c
ê
Ý Ù
ê
»
where tively. Here
â
for twodimensional plane strain and threedimensional problems respec
¡ D×
Ð
Å ê ¢ Æóç ¢
Ð
Å ¢ê
Õ ×
Á
Ú
ç
Ø
ÙÕ
×
× ÛÖ
ç
×
ù
ê
Ð Î × Î
ç
ç
4
ù
Õ
Ä {Õ
Å Å ¢ Æê Æê
eØ
ç
Y `ê
Ä {Õ
Å » »
c dØ
Y
Õ
×
Õ
Á Âç
Ï
¢
×
Á
Ù
×
Á eç
Ú
Ù
ÙÕ
Õ
Á
ç
ç
Ú
ÙÕ
ã
Ù
Ô DÙ
ç
ã nÀ
Ø
Ù sÕ Õ
» » Å
»
»
×
Ï
×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
4
ê
Õ
Ý Ö ¤Õ
×
Á Âç
¢
Ù
¢
Ï
Ï
Ú ÙÕ
â
e fÚ
×
Ï Ý Ö ËÕ
´
Õ
(4.47)
(4.48)
(4.49)
(4.50)
Somigliana’s identity (Equation (4.45)) is a continuous representation of displacements at any point . Consequently, one can ﬁnd the stress at any ﬁrstly by combining derivatives of (4.45) to produce the strains and then substituting into Hooke’s law. Details can be found in Brebbia, Telles & Wrobel (1984b) pp 190–191, 255–258. This yields
4
Note: One can ﬁnd internal stress via numerical differentiation as in FE/FD but these are not as accurate as the above expressions. and are on page 191 in (Brebbia et al. 1984b). Expressions for the new tensors
4.8 Boundary Integral Equation
Just as we did for Laplace’s equation we need to consider the limiting case of Equation (4.45) as is moved to . (i.e., we need to ﬁnd the equivalent of (in section 3)  called here .) We use the same procedure as for Laplace’s equation but here things are not so easy. If we enlarge to as shown.
× Ö ÛÕ
¢ ¨æ
F IGURE 4.5: Illustration of enlarged domain when singular point is on the boundary.
×
Õ
¸ ©·
× Õ
4
»
Ï ×
¿ ¾ ©¸
u
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
H
à ß ¥Ö
Ù
ê
G
× Ö Õ
» ¼¢
» ¢
´
æ
½¼ ç
¿ x¸
´
×
×
à
4
4
Õ à
Õ
» ¼¢
¸ ©·
·
Ö
ã
´
×
×
×
ê é è YeÄÂ
4
4
Õ
Õ
»
» !
´ y×
» ¦¢
Õ
×
Q» ¢
Ï
4
4
Ý Ö ¤Õ
Ý Ö ËÕ
W
à
» ¼¢
» ¦¢
Ï
Ï
Ï
à
½¼
k
¼
W
à
»
Ø
× Ö wÕ
¢
à áÎ
º
à Î ß gÖ
à ß ¥ìÖ
Ö
æ
4 .8 B OUNDARY I NTEGRAL E QUATION
93
and for two dimensions
×
4
Õ
4
4
Ç
× Õ
4
¸ ©·
×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
¢ ´
È Åw Ø Ç Í ¼ ½ ÉÄÃ ¿ Â
¢
»
× Ö wÕ
¢ ©æ
× Õ
4
¸ ©·
×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
¢ ´
Í ¼½
× Ö wÕ
¢
Ï UØ
³ ±
§
§ ¢
t × Õ × Ö ÛÕ î v· Ç ¸
Ï ç
× Õ
4
¸ ©·
×
4
Õ
¢
Ï ×
4
Ý Ö ¤Õ
¢ ´
Í Ì¼ 8e½ ×
4
94
We need to look at each integral in turn as (i.e., from above). The only integral that presents a problem is the second integral. This can be written as
× à Õ
4
·
×
4
Õ
¢ !
×
4
Ý Ö ¤Õ
¢
i Ï pk Ø ¼ Õ
4 ¢
× Õ
4
¸ ©·
×
Ï ×
4
Then Equation (4.45) can be written as
The ﬁrst integral on the right hand side can be written as
Ø
¢ ´ ¢ ´ }
Õ
¸ ©·
×
4
À
ã
Ý Ö ËÕ
by continuity of
u
×
s ¨r
È Ý Ö ¤Õ
4 ¢ ´
Õ
4 ¢
Ï ×
Ã
q ¼½ Í (» ×
Õ
4
¸ ©·
× Õ
4 ¢
Ï ×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
¢ ´
Õ
¢
Ï ×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
Í ¼½ »
×
4
Õ
¸ ©·
×
4
Õ
¢
Ï ×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
Í Ì Í ½ ¼ e½
Ç
ã
¢ ´
}
Í Ì Í ½ ¼ 8e½ ç
×
4
Õ
¸ ©·
× Õ
4 ¢
´ F× 4
Ý Ö ËÕ
¢
}
Ï
Í Ì Í ½ ¼ 8n½ »
× Ö wÕ
As
Let
,
and we write the second integral of Equation (4.52) as
¸ v·
× Õ
¢
Ï ×
Ý Ö ËwÕ
¢ ´
½¼
where we interpret this in the Cauchy Principal Value3 sense.
¸
À ¿ ¾ R©x¸
Consider
ã
3
What is a Cauchy Principle Value?
on
w dR0`¡PH¤'
y yw '7xv
L INEAR E LASTICITY
(4.54) (4.53) (4.52) (4.51)
Í ¼½
Ï
side is interpreted in the Cauchy Principal sense. In practical applications and the principal value integral can be found indirectly from using Equation (4.55) to represent rigidbody movements. The numerical implementation of Equation (4.55) is similar to the numerical implementation of an elliptic equation (e.g., Laplace’s Equation). However, whereas with Laplace’s equation the unknowns were and (scalar quantities) here the unknowns are vector quantities. Thus it is more convenient to work with matrices instead of indicial notation. i.e., use
ø
´ i
Then
which does NOT exist. i.e., the integral does not exist in the proper sense, but it does in the Cauchy Principal Value sense. However, if an integral exists in the proper sense, then it exists in the Cauchy Principal Value sense and the two values are the same.
m 7 m 7 7 y y zv v n9$k y y v l$k y 9y$k p y p y l$k m e m e e vv u7PP7 p ¤'
But if we replace
by
then
(by deﬁnition of improper integration)
y k yw B¡v
This is the Cauchy Principle Value of
f
e
¢ ©æ
È dÈ ´ ï ö÷ È ´
È ´
ø
ï
ï
ï «ï
ø
È ´
´
´
ø ï ø ø «ø
È ´
¸ v·
ö÷ ´ ñò
´
´ ñò
ï
È ´
´ ¢ ¢
»
»
Ï
i
m
trsy rxpn m7 tsy xgoBk y r q rr r qp y ¤
½¼
» ¸ hv·
Ý
h g Bf {o$7xv y k yw vp e {~¤}u{zvp`yPpxHP`wvu q q n qp qp m ¡ y
ï Ý hö÷ Ï
ö÷ È
È
È dÈ ï
ø
È
¢
ø
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ñò
¢
´
ï«ï Ï ï Ï
ï
»
ø
È
½¼
Ï
A
Ø
ø «ø
ø Ï
Ï ø ï Ï
¢
(or, in brief (no body force),
) where the integral on the left hand
à
·
× Õ
4
¢ !
×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
¢
Ï
k
¼
Ø ×
4
Õ
¸ ©·
× Õ
4
¢
´ F×
4
Ý Ö ËwÕ
× Õ
4
¢
Ï
¸ ©·
×
½¼
4
Õ
»
¢
È
Ï ×
Ï
¢ ¨æ
ñò
4
m e
Ý Ö ËÕ
»
Ð Î Ï Î
n y FBk
¢
A
´
½¼
¤ e
Ï
Ø × Ö wÕ
y k yw lB¡jiv
Thus as
ã ¢ ¢ ¨æ
Ç
Ï × Ö vÛÕ
e
f
h g Bf
e
æ
4 .8 B OUNDARY I NTEGRAL E QUATION
95
we get the boundary integral equation
(4.55)
96
L INEAR E LASTICITY
Then (in absence of a body force) we can write Equation (4.55) as
¡ W A ¸ £ Ç · ¢ ¶ ´ µ¦ Â pº » ¢ ¡ VA ¨ ¢ §A ¦ $ ÂpÀ» ¿Á ¥ A
(4.56)
We can discretise the boundary as before and put , the singular point, at each node (each node has unknowns  displacements and tractions  we get equations per node). The overall matrix equation
¥ ¬ ¾ ¼ ½¢ ³ Â» Ä »» t¡º ¹ ® ¥ ® iA ¬ A Ç 5¢ ± ±² ±° ¯ 0hA ¤
(4.57)
The diagonal elements of the matrix in Equation (4.57) (for threedimensions, a x matrix) contains principal value components. If we have a rigidbody displacement of a ﬁnite body in any one direction then we get
¥ ¥ ¶ ´
( = vector deﬁning a rigid body displacement in direction ) (no sum on )
Ã
i.e., the diagonal entries of result for an inﬁnite body.
4.9
Body Forces (and Domain Integrals in General)
The body force gives rise to a domain integral although it does not give rise to any further unknowns in the system of equations. (This is because the body force is known  the fundamental solution was chosen so that it removed all unknowns appearing in domain integrals). Thus Equation (4.55) is still classed as a Boundary Integral Equation. Integrals over the domain containing known functions (eg body force integral) appear in many situations e.g., the Poisson equation yields a domain integral involving . The question is how do we evaluate domain integrals such as those appearing in the boundary integral forumalation of such equations? Since the functions are known a coarse domain mesh may work.(n.b. Since the integral also contains the fundamental solution and may not be a “nice” region it is unlikely that it can be evaluated analytically). However, a domain mesh nulliﬁes one of the advantages of BEM  that of having to prepare only a boundary mesh. In some cases domain integrals must be used but there are techniques developing to avoid many of them. In some standard situations a domain integral can be transformed to a boundary integral.
È Æ ® Å
¦ ±² ± ±° 0h¯
where
. . .
and
ª« ¦
©ª ª
¢
©ª ª ª«
¢ dA
. . .
where
is the number nodes.
(the
’s) do not need to be determined explicitly. There is a similar
Under a constant gravitational load
Â ¢ Â ç ë å é ë ¢
which is a boundary integral. Unless the domain integrand is “nice” the above simple application of Green’s theorem won’t work in general. There has been a considerable amount of research on domain integrals in BEM which has produced techniques for overcoming some domain methods. The two integrals of note are the DRM, dual reciprocity method, developed around 1982 and the MRM, multiple reciprocity method, developed around 1988.
ïHÂ $Í Ë » Ê Ñ ÒÐ Í ³ Ï Ô í Ó ¤î¼ Ï ¡V ä Ñ ÒÐ È ÂÖÍ ËBÍ » Ê Ï Ô Ó Õg¼
Ï
¼ Â $Í » Ê Ë
¼
ì Í ÌÂ » Ê Ë
ã
æ
Â
Â
é
é
ç Â BÂ »
ë ¢
Æ
»
æ
¹
¢
»
å
Then
è Â é êÑ ä ¢æ Ô Ñ ÒÐ È Â ç ÂÖÍ Ë$Í » Ê È Í Ë dÍ ÌÂ » Ê Ï ÔÕÓd¼ ¢ Ï ¼ ã ä%Ý Þ Ý Ê Ü 9Û Â» ØÚ Þ¤ÝÊ Ü Ï Ï 9Û Ù ãâ¡áÂ ß'® à » ×Ø ¢ Ï ÎÍ ÌÂ Ê Í Ë »
Â Ë ÖÍ BÍ » Ê
Ô Ó Õg¼ Ï Â»
Æ
Ï
Ñ ÒÐ
¼
¢
Â»
Â» Ê
Æ
¹
Â» Ê
É
4 .9 B ODY F ORCES ( AND D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN
G ENERAL )
97
e.g., a body force arising from a constant gravitational load, or a centrifugal load due to rotation about a ﬁxed axis or the effect of a steady state thermal load can all be transformed to a boundary integral. Firstly, let (the Galerkin tension) be related to by
(3D) (2D)
98
L INEAR E LASTICITY
4.10
CMISS Examples
Ï Ð ð Ï 7Ï ð
1. To solve a truss system run CMISS example shown in Figure 4.2.
This solves the simple three truss system .
2. To solve stresses in a bicycle frame modelled with truss elements run CMISS example
Chapter 5 Transient Heat Conduction
5.1 Introduction
In the previous discussion of steady state boundary value problems the principal advantage of the ﬁnite element method over the ﬁnite difference method has been the greater ease with which complex boundary shapes can be modelled. In timedependent problems the solution proceeds from and it is almost always convenient to calculate each new solution at a an initial solution at constant time ( ) throughout the entire spatial domain . There is, therefore, no need to use the greater ﬂexibility (and cost) of ﬁnite elements to subdivide the time domain: ﬁnite difference approximations of the time derivatives are usually preferred. Finite difference techniques are introduced in Section 5.2 to solve the transient one dimensional heat equation. A combination of ﬁnite elements for the spatial domain and ﬁnite differences for the time domain is used in Section 5.3 to solve the transient advectiondiffusion equation  a slight generalization of the heat equation.
ò ó¢ ñ
5.2 Finite Differences
5.2.1 Explicit Transient Finite Differences
Consider the transient onedimensional heat equation
Ô pò ô Fñ ù ýú ü ø ú ûò Ñ ù î® øÕö Æ ö ÷ ¢ ¬ Æ ¢ ñ Æ ö ö Æ ® Æ
is the conductivity and is the temperature, subject to the boundary conditions and and the initial conditions . A ﬁnite difference approximation of this equation is obtained by deﬁning a grid with spacing in the xdomain and in the time domain, as shown in Figure 5.1. Grid points are labelled by the indices (for the direction) and (for the direction). The temperature at the grid point is therefore labelled as (5.2)
§
Finite difference equations are derived by writing Taylor Series expansions for
¬
¤
ùñ
¯ Æ
»
¡ ¡ ¢¢¡
¬
© »
¯ Æ
ù Ï ù ¢ ò
ù ¬
§ ¨»
¯ Æ
³
ø
ø
¡ »
¯ Æ
øÑ
Ô
¢³ Ô Ã
ù £
ñ ¦³
Ñ
ù
¡ ¡ ¢¢¡
ù
ø
ù Ï ù ¢ ò
¥Ã
Ñ
Æ
ñ
Ã
¢ Ô ù
ñ
øÑ
Æ
Ñ
where
ñ Ñ
ò ¢ Ô ÿpò ù
È
Æ
Ô ù
øÑ
¢ Ô ù ü
ñ
ò
Æ
ô õñ
(5.1)
þ îÆ
ñ
¢ xÔ ù ò ÷
Æ
100
Ô ù
T RANSIENT H EAT C ONDUCTION
where and represent all the remaining terms in the Taylor Series expansions. Adding Equations (5.3) and (5.4) gives
ø
which is a “central difference” approximation of the second order spatial derivative. Rearranging Equation (5.5) gives a “difference” approximation of the ﬁrst order time derivative
¡
Substituting Equation (5.6) and Equation (5.7) into the transient heat equation Equation (5.1) gives the ﬁnite difference approximation
Æ ® ø
Given the initial values of at (i.e., ), the values of for the next time step are found from Equation (5.8) with . Applying Equation (5.8) iteratively for time steps etc. yields the time dependent temperatures at the grid points (see Figure 5.1). This is an explicit ﬁnite difference formula because the value of depends only on the values of at the previous time step and not on the neighbouring terms and at the latest time step. The accuracy of the solution depends on the chosen values of and and in fact the stability of the scheme depends on these satisfying the Courant condition: (5.9)
¬ ¬
§
ñ
© "»
¯ Æ
¬
ø
¬
³
§
§ ¨»
¯ Æ
¡
®
¬ ¯ Æ ñ ø
§
»
ù
®
¯ Æ
»
¬
© "»
¯ Æ
¡ Ð
ñ ù òó¢ » Ð
Ï
¯ Æ
Ã ¡¢¢¡ ¡ Ð £ ³ ù ù Ï ¢ òó¢ ø ñ
# $®
ø ñ
¼ ¬
which is rearranged to give an expression for
§ ¨»
in terms of the values of
ù
®
ø
¬
Ô
© "»
ñ û
¯ Æ
Ñ
®
¬
¯ Æ
»
ø
© "»
Ð
¯ Æ
»
¼ ¬
®
ñ
¬
¼
»
§ ¨»
ø
¯ Æ
§
¬
¯ Æ
»
Ð
§
¯ Æ
»
÷ ¢ Ô
¼ ¬
÷
¯ Æ
§ »
¢
ñ
¯
»
®
ä
Ñ
¢
ñ
Æ
ö
»
ö
ã
÷ d
ä
¯ Æ »
»
®
ø Õö
¯ Æ
»
ö
¯ Æ
ã
or
at the
!ø ø
th
»
¯ » ä ä Æ
Õö ø
ö ã ¡ ø ö ¡
ö
ã
ø ø
¯
»
Ï¤
Ï ¤ ä ®
¼ »
Æ B®
ø Õö
¯
ñ ä » øÕö ¡ ® ø ö ä ® ø Õö ã ¡ ® ¯ Æ ö ã
¡
® Æ ® ® ö
¯ Æ
ø
ã
® ø ¯ Æ » Ï
¯ Æ
ä » ñ ö ä ö » Ð øÕö ã ¯ Æ ä ö Ï ø Õö ã Ð Ð » ¢ ¬ ¯
© »
¯ ¯ Æ Æ
Æ ®
ö ¬ Ô
¡ ¡ § ¨»
ã
¡® ñ
about the grid point
»¯ Æ »¯ » Æ ¢ ¢ ¬ ¢ ¬ Ô
ø § » §
¯ Æ
¯
Æ ®
¯ Æ
ñ û
¯ Æ ñ
ø
ø ¼ ¢ ¬
³ Ã ¯ Æ Ñ ¬ Ñ
§
¯ Æ
»
¼
§
¯ Æ
»
Ã » ¡ ¡ ¢¢¡ Ð Ñ £ Ï Ô ¡¢ù¢¡ ù ù ³¢ ¡ ¯ Æ Ð ù ù Ï ¢
¬ » ¯ Æ ©
¯ Æ »
(5.3) (5.4) (5.5)
¯ Æ
Ñ
(5.6)
(5.7)
time step (5.8)
5 .2 F INITE D IFFERENCES
%
101
:
Ï ò
F IGURE 5.1: A ﬁnite difference grid for the solution of the transient 1D heat equation. The equation is centred at grid point shown by the . The lightly shaded region shows where the solution is known at time step . With central differences in and a forward difference in an explicit ﬁnite difference formula gives the solution at time step explicitly in terms of the solution at the three points below it at step , as indicated by the dark shading.
5.2.2 Von Neumann Stability Analysis
The concept behind the Von Neumann analysis is that all Fourier components decay as time advances or as they are processed by an iterative solver. Considering Equation (5.8), we can rearrange this to be of the form,
Ô ¯ ¢ ¯ Æ ¬
© »
Equation (5.12) predicts the growth of any component (speciﬁed by ) admitted by the system.
i
³Ã bq
q p D!Ä
using
Ô
øÑ
®Ð
Ð
¼
using
ä
s» tV©
C
s d»
C
¢ Ô
Ï
¢ xÔ q p h!Ä øÑ
Ð ø Ñ
i
Ô
S Q IF » RPGE Ñ V©
C
A
ø
Ô
ri
ü Ü
ä
S Q IF R¥eE Ñ »
ø ü
ã
ui
Ð
q p D!Ä ã ®
Ü
C
A
A Ð
C hÍ
If divide Equation (5.11) by,
A Ð
we obtain (no sum on ),
S Q Icb f Y F RdD1H `eE Ñ »
C
A
Â
Ô
S Q IHF E RPUe!Ñ »
C
Ô
A Ð
¼
Ï
Ñ
Ô
S Q Icb a Y F RdRPH `GE Ñ »
Ô
S Q IHF E RPUe!Ñ »
C ¯ XÍ W A B
!Ô
³Ã bq
B
¯
A Ð
A
ð
¼
¼
¼
¢ Ô
Ï
Ñ
Ï
Ï
S Q IHF E RVUGTÑ »
¢
¢
¢
¬
Í
¯§
Í
¯
B
C
B
¬
§
Í
¯
where
. By subsituting the general Fourier component
, we obtain, (5.11)
6
gGÔ C DÍ S B Q IHF E RP"G!Ñ »
9 7 @80
¯ Æ
A
5
¯ Æ
»
Ã
Ô
A Ð
0
4
¼
Ã
Ï
Ñ
¬
§ ¨»
¯ Æ
Ã
...
...
ø
£
Ï
Ï
¼
A
0 2 0( ' 31)"&
¢
Ð
¬
§
¯ Æ
»
Ï
ò
ñ Ï ® ³
x x x x
ø ñ
³ ÷ ¢
B A
(5.10)
(5.12)
102
v
T RANSIENT H EAT C ONDUCTION
If all components are to decay,
Í B ww ¯§ Í
Bw w §
Thus, to ensure stability, the time step should be chosen such that
ø÷ Ð
#
The Courant condition
An improvement in accuracy and stability can be obtained by using a higher order approximation
¢ b § ñ ¯
in place of Equation (5.7) and Equation (5.1) is approximated with the “CrankNicolson”formula
® ø Õö ö ã Ï
§
in which the spatial second derivative term is weighted by at the old time step and by at the new time step . Notice that the ﬁnite difference time derivative has not changed  only the time position at which it is centred. The price paid for the better accuracy (for a given ) and unconditional stability (i.e., stable for any ) is that Equation (5.18) is an implicit scheme  the equations for the new time step are now coupled in that depends on the neighbouring terms and . Thus each new time step requires the solution of a system of coupled equations. A generalization of (5.18) is
ñ ³ ¯ ® Æ B® ø Õö ö ã Ô ¬ ¼
§
¬
®
ï
ï »
ä
»
¯
ä
Æ ®
ñ ® ³
ñ
Ð¬
®
¯ Æ
»
PÃ
Ï
Ñ
¬
¯
»
¬
ä
§
®
¯
Æ ®
ø ö
ä
»
ö
®
Æ ®
ã
ñ
øÕö ö
Ï
Ð
ã
ì
ì
÷
»
¢
ä
÷ ¢
ñ
ö ö ã Æ ³
¯ Æ
»
¯ Æ
»
ñ
¼
¬
ñ
PÃ
centering the equation at
rather than
we get
(5.17)
(5.18)
(5.19)
ñ
ö
for the time derivative. For example, if a central difference approximation is used for
ù ø ñ » » § ¼ ¬ ¯ Æ Ñ ¯ Æ
Æ
5.2.3
Higher Order Approximations
ö Ô Ô ¬ ® ù
ñ
Ï
The ﬁrst inequality is trivially satisﬁed, since second condition will always hold if
÷ ¢
A
for positive values of
# ®
and
÷
ð
Ð
ò
and
x A
Ï
¼
x yA
¼
Ï
ø ñ
Ï
®
#
A
ð
ñ
¼
Ï
ø
¼
¯ Æ
»
Ñ
¬
§
¯ Æ
»
Ï
³
¬
¬
§
³Ã bq
Since the criteria that
term in Equation (5.12) is always between
and , we effectively have the stablity
i
Ï
ò
Ï
# w w w w
¬
¯
for stability (no sum on )
(5.13)
®
© "»
(5.14) , and the
(5.15)
(5.16)
by
¯ Æ
¬
¬
§
§ »
¯ Æ
5 .3 T HE T RANSIENT A DVECTION D IFFUSION E QUATION
%
103
:
Ï ò
F IGURE 5.2: An implicit ﬁnite difference scheme based on central differences in , as well as , ) shown which tie together the 6 points shown by . The equation is centred at the point ( by the . The lightly shaded region shows where the solution is known at time step . The dark shading shows the region of the coupled equations.
5 9 0 7 0( 1)' 6
in which the spatial second derivative of Equation (5.1) has been weighted by at the new time step at the old time step. The original explicit forward difference scheme Equation (5.8) and by is recovered when and the implicit central difference (CrankNicolson) scheme (5.19) when . An implicit backward difference scheme is obtained when . In the following section the transient heat equation is approximated for numerical analysis by using ﬁnite differences in time and ﬁnite elements in space. We also generalize the partial differential equation to include an advection term and a source term.
5.3 The Transient AdvectionDiffusion Equation
Ç § Æ® ÷ ¢ Æ
Consider a linear parabolic equation
ö ö Æ
where is a scalar variable (e.g., the advectiondiffusion equation, where is concentration or temperature; then represents advective transport by a velocity ﬁeld is the diffusivity and is source term. The ratio of advective to diffusive transport is characterised by the Peclet number where and is a characteristic length). Applying the Galerkin weighted residual method to Equation (5.20) with weight gives
÷ù
Æ
Ï
ò ¢
¢
È
f ä
Ç d¼
Ã
Å
Æ ®
Å
Ã
÷ ¼
Å
Æ
Å
Ã
...
...
ø
£
Ï
Ï
¼
ed
ü
ñ
Æ
ñ
Æ
Ð
ö
ö
® T¢
ã
æ
Ï
ò ¢
ñ Æ ò
Ï Å ³
Ô ÷ 7ü ³
4
x x
x x
x x
¼
Ï
Ñ
¬
®
Ç
¢
(5.20)
104
g
T RANSIENT H EAT C ONDUCTION
where is the normal derivative to the boundary . Putting and and summing the element contributions to the global equations, Equation (5.21) can be represented by a system of ﬁrst order ordinary differential equations,
A
s A q ¢ A q t§r
where is a weighting factor discussed in Section 5.2. Note that for the method is known as the CrankNicolsonGalerkin method and errors arising from the time domain discretization are . Rearranging Equation (5.25) as
Ô Ï Ð
s A }q
gives a set of linear algebraic equations to solve at the new time step from the known solution at the previous time step . The stability of the above scheme can be examined by expanding (assumed to be smoothly continuous in time) in terms of the eigenvectors (with associated eigenvalues ) of the matrix
»
. Writing the initial conditions
and steady state solution
¢
s A
»
Ï
ñ
#
Ï
# ò
¢
³A
Ñ
ñ û
¡ ¡ ¢~¡
s A q t}m¢
» ¡º »
¯
A q
ñ
h¯
¾
³ ñ ³
A Ô
Ô
¢ p» ò Ô
¼
¼
Ñ
Ï
Ï
Ñ
A
Ñ
¼
ñ
If the time domain is now discretized placed by
¬
§
Equation (5.22) can be re
} R{
Ô Â ø ö » ö » ö } ö
}
¯ Pl
n zl
Ð ù ù Ï ù ¢ ò
Â
þ
R{ }
ù
¢ Í Í øÕö Õö ø Â ö » ö
}
}
Ñ
p
ñ ³
¯
¯ Pl
Â
} ö
A
¢
ö » ö
¬
§
n zl
and
þ ¢ y ¯ i~wn
p
¬
} { ¯ l n RPtzl
¬
þ
¢ y ¯ ¢Pn
w
x u vñ
where is the global mass matrix, unknowns with steady state values ( given by
the global stiffness matrix and a vector of global nodal ) . The element contributions to and are
q
¡ V
f
³
ö ö
æ k
÷ § È
f
Ç æ
¢ È
È ö
i jf s tA
Å ñ
Æ A g Å
÷ §
p q f ä
¯
} ö
q r
n l o¢
A q
Æ ÷ Å ¯
ed
ñ û
¬
A ó¼
f
ñ
¬
§
ñ
¯
¯
ö Æ A
p
ö
¯ l Pm¢
ã
h p
æ
q
or
Æ
Æ
(5.21)
Æ
¬
¯
©
A
³
ö
Ô
ö
(5.22)
p
(5.23)
(5.24)
(5.25)
p
®
ñ ¢
Ñ
(5.26)
¦
5 .3 T HE T RANSIENT A DVECTION D IFFUSION E QUATION
%
105
The timedifference scheme Equation (5.26) on the other hand, with now replaced by a set of discrete values at each time step , can be written as the recursion formula
s A ¦ ¯ ñ
(You can verify that Equation (5.27) and Equation (5.29) are indeed the solutions of Equation (5.22) and Equation (5.25), respectively, by substituting and using .) Comparing Equation (5.27) and Equation (5.29) shows that replacing the ordinary differential equations (5.22) by the ﬁnite difference approximation Equation (5.25) is equivalent to replacing the exponential in Equation (5.27) by the approximation
» »
The stability of the numerical time integration scheme can now be investigated by examining the behaviour of this approximation to the exponential. For stability we require
Ï
#
since this term appears in Equation (5.29) raised to the power . The right hand inequality in Equation (5.32) is trivially satisﬁed, since and are all positive, and the left hand inequality gives
¬
ñ
or
A consequence of Equation (5.33) is that the scheme is unconditionally stable if For the stability criterion is
Ð Ð¼ Ï ú »
ñ û
(5.34)
Ï
#
# ®
»
Ð
û ñ
»
# Ô
ñ û
³
Ð
Ï
¼
Ï
¼
Ñ »
»
Ï
ñ
»
¢
ñ
»
Ô
»
»
ñ
Ï
ñ
¼
ù
¼
Ï
ñ û Ñ Ï
Ï
Ð
# Ï ¼
#
»
¼
ñ
Ï
»
ñ
!©
Ï
C
ñ ¦³
¬
®
ñ
or, with
,
»
i
»
¢
Ô
»
»
¯
¦ ñ
i
»
¼
Ï
ñ û Ñ Ï
Ô
»
ñ
¼
Ï
¼
ñ Ñ Ï
Ï
h
Ô
»
¼
ç
Ï
¼
h
» ¡º Ñ
oT©
»
ç »
C
¾ ¢ §A
with solution
A
»
¯
A 8¦
¨T©
ñ
C
Ô » Ô ç
¼ ¼ » ¡º Ñ Ï Ñ ¼
»
ç
ñ ³ ¢
»
¬
¾
§
¯
¢ dA A ±¦ ñ
T©
¯
A
C
¢
» » ú
ç
»
¾
, the set of ordinary differential equations Equation (5.22) has solution
(5.27)
(5.28)
(5.29)
(5.30)
(5.31)
(5.32)
(5.33) .
106
T RANSIENT H EAT C ONDUCTION
If the exponential approximation given by Equation (5.31) is negative for any the solution will contain components which change sign with each time step . This oscillatory noise can be avoided by choosing
max
where max is the largest eigenvalue in the matrix , but in practice this imposes a limit which is too severe for and a small amount of oscillatory noise, associated with the high frequency vibration modes of the system, is tolerated. Alternatively the oscillatory noise can be ﬁltered out by averaging. These theoretical results are explored numerically with a CrankNicolsonGalerkin scheme ( ) in Figure 5.3, where the onedimensional diffusion equation on
ø ñ ñ Ñ Ñ Ï ù ¢ Ô ù òø Ñ ¢zÔ ù ò Æ Æ ò ¢ pò ù Ô Æ ø Ï
# # ò
is solved for various time increments ( ) and element lengths ( ) for both linear and cubic Hermite elements. from to with linear elements produces more oscillation because the Decreasing system has more degrees of freedom and leads to greater oscillation. At a sufﬁciently small the oscillations are negligible (bottom right, Figure 5.3). With this value of ( ) the numerical results agree well with the exact solution (top, Figure 5.3) given by
ñ
Ï
5.4
Mass lumping
p
is replaced A technique known as mass lumping is sometimes used in which the mass matrix by a diagonal matrix having diagonal terms equal to the row sums. For example, consider the mass
ò ò
¡
Ï
subject to initial conditions and boundary conditions
ñ Ï ò ò
»
ñ
Ô
ø Ü
³
³
Ñ e
ù ¯
© C
¦
¯
Ô Ô
Ï
Ï
³
¼
¼ Ï
Ñ ¬
®
Ñ Æ ® Á ø Õö
s
¯ Ð
¾
ö
ú
(5.35)
Ü
ñ ÷ ¢ ø ñ Æ
¡
ö
ö
¢ Ô ù
ñ
øÑ
RÐ
¡
Æ
ñ ø
¬
®
¢
(5.36)
(5.37)
5 .4 M ASS
%
LUMPING
107
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x
x x x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
linear elements
cubic elements
x
x
x
x x x
x x
x x x x
x x
x x
linear elements
x x
linear elements
F IGURE 5.3: Analytical and numerical solutions of the transient 1D heat equation showing the and time step size . The top graph shows the exact and approximate effects of element size solutions as functions of at various times. The lower graphs show the solution through time at the speciﬁed positions and with various choices of and as indicated.
6 ½» 5 ¼» 6 ¼» 5 5 ¼» 5
¶
´
¯e©§ « ª ¨
¦ ¥ ¤ £ ² !¤ !³o¡ ¦¥ ¤ £ ¢ T$®z¡
ª
µ
¶
´
¬©§ « ª ¨
(d)
(e)
x
x
¶
´
± °« ª ¨ T¯e©§
¦¥ ¤ £ ² !³z¡ ¹ ¥ ¤ £ ¢ e¸ !³®·¡
ª
¶
´
± °« ª ¨ !º¬©§
(b)
(c)
x x
Ï
x x
x
x
ø
x x x
¡
ñ
¡
x
x
Linear CNG with
Ï
Exact solution
ø ò ò ¢ ñ
¦¥ ¤ £ ² !³z¡ ¹ ¥ ¤ £ ¢ e¸ !³·¡ ¦¥ ¤ £ ² !³o¡ ¦¥ ¤ £ ¢ Tvz¡
ò ¢ ò
ù Ï ¢ ò
¡
µ
ñ
Ð
ò ¢ ò
¡
ñÏ
¡
ò ¢
ñ
w
Ô ù ¢ ñ
øÑ
ª
ò
ª
µ
µ
ò
Æ
¡ ¡
Ï ò
108
¾
T RANSIENT H EAT C ONDUCTION
The element mass is effectively lumped at the element vertices. Such a scheme has computational advantages when in Equation (5.26) because each component of the vector is obtained directly without the need to solve a set of coupled equations. This explicit time integration scheme, however, is only conditionally stable (see (5.34)) and suffers from phase lag errors  see below. For evenly spaced elements the ﬁnite element scheme with mass lumping is equivalent to ﬁnite differences with central spatial differences. In Figure 5.4, the ﬁnite element and ﬁnite differences (lumped f.e. mass matrix) solutions of the onedimensional advectiondiffusion equation (5.20) with , , are compared for the propogation and dispersion of an initial unit mass pulse at . The length of the solution domain is sufﬁcient to avoid reﬂected end effects. The exact solution is a Gaussian distribution whose variance increases with time:
ò ¢ gÇ
§
(5.38)
The ﬁnite element solution, using the CrankNicolsonGalerkin technique, shows excellent amplitude and phase characteristics when compared with the exact solution. The ﬁnite difference, or lumped mass, solution also using centered time differences, reproduces the amplitude of the pulse very well but shows a slight phase lag.
5.5
CMISS Examples
¥ ¡¥
¥ ¡¥
2. To investigate the stability of time integration schemes run CMISS examples
and
Ð 7Ð
Ï
Ð
¥ ¡¥
1. To solve for the transient heat ﬂow in a plate run CMISS example
¬
¯
A
¬
©
®
òÆ ¢
Ï
¡
ò
ø
± 0°²
±
¢
Ï
÷
¬
©
Æ Ç
®
Ô
¢
ñ ð ñ
u
÷
¼
øÑ
©
± 0°²
±
C
Ã
ñ
Ü
Ã
therefore
¢
ò
ò
ò
mass lumping
¬
ò
ò
ò
¬
ò
ò
¬
ò
ò
and similarly
¬ ¬ ¬ ¤ ¡¥
Ä ¬
.
¥
®
and similarly
and
.
1
®
1
and similarly
x
and
.
Ï
Á
¢ Ï Ï ¥ ¥
x
¢
Ï þ ww
w w w
Ô ® } bÀ¼
x
matrix ((5.23)) for a bilinear element (see Figure 1.9 and (1.6)).
Ï Û Ï ò Ñ Ï x
ò ©ª
¥
ª«
x
¢ Ï
¼
Ï þ ww ¥
w w w
ä
¼
Ô¬ } 9@¼ ÏÁ ¥
Ï ¥¢ Ï Ï
¼ Ï¥ ¼ ¥ ã
Ð
Ä¬ Å¬ 1 Ä ¬
Ï ¬ Ñ
ÛÏ
Ï
¼ Ï
Ä1 ¬ Å¬
¬
¬
¬
x
ð
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
È Å 1 Ä ¬ Ä ¬ ¬Ã ¬ ¬
¢ ® }¬ }Ô ® } F¨1¤1b¿¼
¬
¬
® }¬ Ô¬ } ¨1¤} 9@¼ ®
® }¬ }Ô ® } ¨1¤1b@¼
¢ xÔ ù
® }¬ Ô ® } b19} B¨¿¼ ® ñ ¬ Ä¬ ª« ¬ Ã ©ª Ä ¬
Å 1
¬
¬
øÑ
Æ
®¨}1¬¤} ÔbÀ¼ ® } Ñ Ï Ñ ¢ Ï Ñ Ï ® } Ô¬ } ¨9@¼ ò Ñ ®
p
Ï
® Ô¬ } b} 9@¼ ® Ñ
Ô¬ } 9@¼
®
Ô¬ } 9@¼
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ñ
Ñ
®
¬ } ¤Â 5F¬ ¢ ®
¬¤} Ñ
¬ }
Ï Ï Ñ
¢ ¢
¢ Ö¬ ¬ ¢ ® FÖ®
¬
¬
x x x x
x
.
5 .5 CMISS E XAMPLES
%
109
Exact solution x x Finite element solution o o Finite difference solution
x
x x x x x x x
x
x
, F IGURE 5.4: Advectiondiffusion of a unit mass pulse. The ﬁnite element solutions (at = , and ) and ﬁnite difference solutions (at = only) are compared with the exact solution. = 0.1, = for 0 and = 0.01 for .
Ö 9 ÔÕ jÐRÔ 6 Ö 9 ÔÕ Ô Ü jÐRÞÝ6 6¼» Ö 9 ÔÕ Ô Ù 6 ÛÐR·ÚÙ Ö ØÕ ºRÔ 6 Ö 9 Ô ÔÕ jÐRÔ 6 ¼» 5¼» Ö ØÕ ºRÔ Ö
ø
ox ox o x o ox x o x o x ox x o x
Ê « ª zË ¯e¨
¶
x x x
Ï Î Ê Ò Ð`Í ¯e¨ « ª ´
Ñ
Ï Î Ê Í ± Ð`@¨
Ì
Ê É« ª oº¯e¨
¶
Ê ± « ª Óª ¯e¨
Ê
´
ª ¯e¨ « ª
Ô ù ñ
¶
øÑ
¶ Õ Ö × ÔÕ RÔ t¯RÔ
Æ
Chapter 6 Modal Analysis
6.1 Introduction
The system of ordinary differential equations which results from the application of the Galerkin ﬁnite element (or other) discretization of the spatial domain to linear parabolic or hyperbolic equations can either be integrated directly  as in the last section for parabolic equations  or analysed by mode superposition. That is, the timedependent solution is expressed as the superposition of the natural (or resonant) modes of the system. To ﬁnd these modes requires the solution of an eigenvalue problem.
6.2 Free Vibration Modes
Consider an extension of Equation (5.22) which includes second order time derivatives (e.g., nodal point accelerations)
Ô A
q ä
and are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices, respectively, is the external load vector and is the vector of nodal unknowns. In direct time integration methods and are replaced by ﬁnite differences and the resulting system of algebraic equations is solved at successive time steps. For a small number of steps this is the most economical method of solution but, if a solution is required over a long time period, or for a large number of different load vectors , a suitable transformation
ñ Ñ ß ñ Ô ñ Ñ
ç æ ¢
xÔ
applied to Equation (6.1) can result in the matrices of the transformed system
ä è æ oXm¢ Ô
having a much smaller bandwidth than in the original system and hence being more economical to solve. In fact, if damping is neglected, can be chosen to diagonalize and and thereby uncouple the equations entirely. This transformation (which is still applicable when damping is
p
Ô
Ñ
Ô
ñ
ñ Ñ
Ñ ñ
ç æ q è æ m¦éáÔ
ä å¢ Ô
Ñ ñ Ñ ñ
A q }áÔ
æ à è æ â ç érPÔ
Ñ ñ Ñ
æ
âA à ãáÔ
A
ñ
Ñ ß ñ ³ Ñ ß
p
A
(6.1)
ç æ
p
è æ
Ô
ñ
Ñ
q
A
à ù
Ô
Ô
ñ
ñ
Ñ
Ñ
âA p ä
(6.2)
(6.3)
112
v
M ODAL A NALYSIS
included but does not then result in an uncoupled system unless further simplications are made) is found by solving the free vibration problem
· ¢ xÔ ³ ñ Ñ ñ Ñ A q rÔ ®
f p
where and are constants and is a vector of order . Substituting Equation (6.5) into Equation (6.4) gives the generalized eigenproblem
q
having eigensolutions . If is a symmetric matrix (as is the case when the original partial differential operator is selfadjoint) the eigenvectors are orthogonal and can be “normalized” such that
ër¢ ë r¢
..
f
.
f
Thus the modal matrix  whose columns are the orthonormalised eigenvectors of (i.e., satisfying Equation (6.6))  can be used as the transformation matrix in Equation (6.2) required to reduce the original system of equations (6.1) to the canonical form
Ô ñ Ñ
ä è î
q
æ
ï
¢
¢ Ô
ï
¢
x
ç
ï ðî
ï
Ô
p
ñ
Ñ
è
âç
î
î
¢
à ¦è
î
î
q ¦è
or
î
± ±² ±° ¯ ®
ò
®
®
¬
where
òf ª« ª© ª ¢
ï íî
¢
®
î
q
where
is the identity matrix, (6.6) becomes
³
(the eigenvectors are said to be orthonormalised). Combining the  the modal matrix  rewriting Equation (6.7) as
ù Ô
Proof: Consider a solution to Equation (6.4) of the form
ñ ¼ ñ Ñ
e
þ
ì íÃ
Ã
Ô ¡¯
p
Ï
¢
ò
f
î
®
¯
f
Ñ
¢
¢
p
ù
è
Â
¡ ¡ ¢~¡
ñ
Ñ ß
î
¢ zÔ
q
ù ® ® Ô ®
A
p »
ñ
Ñ ê
è
p ï f
(6.4)
PÔ
Ñ
ù Ì¬ ¬ Ô ®
x
ñ
Ñ ß
ç
f
Ñ
h¯
ù
¡ ¡ ¢~¡
þ ñ ù ® ù ¬
(6.5)
³
f
(6.6)
(6.7) eigenvectors into a matrix
¢
î
(6.8)
(6.9)
(6.10)
(6.11)
(6.12)
6 .3 A N A NALYTIC E XAMPLE
ñ
113
With damping neglected equation Equation (6.12) becomes a system of uncoupled equations
ä è
± ²°
giving the modal matrix
which, when used as the transformation matrix,
i
¤
È
¤
È
i
¥
È
¥
È
¤ Ð
Ï
¤
È
È
¼
¥
¥
Ï
The
orthognormalised eigenvectors are now
Ï È ©ª« ¢
î
and
Ð
Ï
¼
h
¢ ®è Ð
i
i
Ï
Ï
(Notice that the orthogonality condition is satisﬁed:
).
¥
Ï
È
Ð
¢
ç
ò ¢
¹
ç
Ï
Ï
¢
¼
h
i
Ï
Ð
Ï
ò
¼
h
Ðò h
i
Ï
ò
º
has a solution when or has solutions with corresponding eigenvectors the magnitude of the eigenvectors we use Equation (6.7), i.e.,
. This characteristic polynomial . To ﬁnd
f
To ﬁnd the solution by modal analysis we ﬁrst solve the generalised eigenproblem i.e.,
ò ¢
i ®
p
®
and
i
¢
Ï
q
¼
¢ ¬è ù
i
Ï ò h
ò
Ï
¢ ä
Ï
ò
Ï
Ðò h
¢ ¬è Ï ¢ ò
Ï
h
Ð
ç ¢ ¬è º
Ï
Ð
®
¼
ð
f
¼
As an example, consider the equilibrium equations
Ð ¤ ¼h ¢
q
ä å¢
ê
q á
6.3 An Analytic Example
ßê p
where
þ
Á
÷ Ô pò
Ñ ê
p »
è
q
þ
Á
÷ Ô ¯pò
Ñ ê
f
Ð ¼
ü ý¼ ð
®
ç
¼
p »
Á è
q
f
®
Á Ñ » ø q ¢ Ñ þ ê ¡ò p » ÷ Ô
¥
f ò
Ï
Ð
Ð ¼
È
¼
¢
¢w ¤
h
º
ù
è
where the constants
and
are determined from the initial conditions (6.15)
ò »
f
à
ö ¯»
õ
ñ
»
f
e
»
ô r
ò
ÒÔ
ò
Ã
where is the th component of and is the this system is given by the Duhamel integral
¼ Ñ »
"
th
component of the vector
î
³ ¢¢¡ ¡ ¡
ù
Ð ù ù Ï
¢
Ã
Ô
ñ
Ñ » Ý
÷ Ô þ ¯¡ò
ñ
¢ Ô
f
ñ »
Ñ » ø » Ý Ô
ò óÑ » f È i p
®
Ï
¹
ò
ç
®
Ô Ý Ï
f
¢ »þ
Á Ñ » ø Á ¢ þ pò Ñ » â ø ÷ Ô
ñ
Ðò h
Ñ » ßø þ ¢ ¼
õ
(6.13) . The solution of
»
i
Ï ¢ Ï Ï
q h
÷pò Ô » f
Ð û ù !úø
¢ Ô
i p
Ï
ò
ù
ñ
ô
Ñ » ø
Ðò h
¢
Ã
®
f
Ï
Ï
x
» ø ® º
(6.14)
,
114
g
M ODAL A NALYSIS
The solution of the nonhomogeneous system, subject to given initial conditions, is found by solving the uncoupled equations
ò ò Ï
È ©ª«
by means of the Duhamel integral (6.14) (in this case with constant) and then, from Equation (6.2) with
Ô ñ Ñ » ø»
ÿ
Notice that the solution is expressed in Equation (6.16) as the superposition of the natural modes (eigenvectors) of the homogeneous equations. If the forcing function (load vector) is close to one of these modes the corresponding coefﬁcient will be large and will dominate the response  if it coincides then resonance will occur. Very often it is unnecessary to evaluate all eigenvectors of the system; the higher frequency modes can be ignored and the solution adequately represented by superposition of the eigenvectors associated with the lowest eigenvalues, where .
6.4
Proportional Damping
î
When element damping terms are included in the original dynamic equations (6.1) the transformation to a lower bandwidth system is still based on the model matrix but Equation (6.12) is then not a system of uncoupled equations. One simpliﬁcation often made in order to retain the diago
³
ú
¢
¡
þ 1ñ
³
ñ
± ²°
¥ Ð
¤
È
¢
¤
i
È
Ï ò h
ò
± ²°
¢
¥ Ð
¤
Ï
ñ
and
ñ
Ô þ
¼
Ñ È
"
± 0²° ¤ Ð
Ï
È
¼
Thus the natural modes of the system are given by
«©ª ¢ Ô ® Ô þ ¼ Ñ Ð È
e
¢
i
Ï
ò
Ï
òh
¢
± 0²° ¤ Ð
Ï
¤
È
È
¼
Ñ
¥
¥
È
È
¬
Ï
Ï È ©ª«
¯
Á»
È
» ø
¾
ê
¤
¥ Ï È ¼ ©ª«
¢ zÔ
Ï
i
È
Ï
ò
ñ
Ñ
Ðò h
ç
¢ Ô
î
± 0²°
ñ
¥ Ð
¤
¢ Ô
Ñ
Ï
È
È
ç
ñ
Ñ ê
ñ
i
ò
¤
¥ Ï È ¼ ©ª«
Ï
and the mass matrix to
¢
î p è î
ï
¢
i
ò
Ðò h
¢ ± ²°
¤ Ð
Ï ¤
È È
¼ ¥ ¥
Ï Ï È ©ª«
È i
Ð ð Ð
¼ ¤
¼h ± ²° ¤
¥ Ð
Ï
È È È
reduces the stiffness matrix to
¥ Ï È ¼ ©ª« ¤
h¯
Ðò h
Ï
È
ù
Ô
± 0²° ¥
¡ ¡ ¢~¡
ñ
¥
Ñ ß
Ï
Ï È «©ª
¢
ù ® ù ¬
¢
È ç î
q è
¢ zÔ
Ñ
ñ
î
Ñ ¢
ê
¬
î
¡
æ
(6.16)
6 .5 CMISS E XAMPLES
ñ
115
nal nature of Equation (6.12) is to approximate the overall energy dissipation of the ﬁnite element system with proportional damping
ù Þ Â» » »
C }
with solution (the Duhamel integral)
"
where . and are calculated from the initial conditions Equation (6.15). Once the components have been found from Equation (6.19) (or alternative time integration methods applied to (6.18)), the solution is expressed as a superposition of the mode shapes by Equation (6.16).
6.5 CMISS Examples
1. To analyse a plane stress modal analysis run CMISS example 451 2. To analyse a clamped beam modal analysis run CMISS example 452 3. To analyse a steelframed building modal analysis run CMISS example 453
í
ñ
»
f
à
ö »
õ d
ñ
»
f
e
Ô
ñ
»
Ñ »
ô
Ý
§¦ ¥
¯ ©
¢ Ô
ñ
Ñ ø ¬ ¬
®
ñ
f
Ô
PÔ
ò
ñ
Ñ » ø» »
¼
Ô
ñ ê Ñ
â
ñ
Þ
where is a modal damping parameter and to equations of the form
}
is the Kronecker delta. Equation (6.12) now reduces
f
Ð
¢ Â Â»
Ñ »
à ¦è
£ ¤
f f
(6.17)
Ð
»
PÔ
¡ õ
©¨ §¦ ¥
ñ
Ñ » ßø
© Ut ¯
» Ô
ô
C¡
ñ
Ñ » ø
Ô
} ® À¼ Ý
»
ò óÑ »
Ï
þ
»
»
Ï
f
f
¢ Ô
¢
»
ñ
»
Ñ » ø
f
}
³
(6.18)
(6.19)
»
116
M ODAL A NALYSIS
Chapter 7 Domain Integrals in the BEM
7.1 Achieving a Boundary Integral Formulation
The principal advantage of the BEM over other numerical methods is the ability to reduce the problem dimension by one. This property is advantagous as it reduces the size of the solution system leading to improved computational efﬁciency. This reduction of dimension also eases the burden on the engineer as it is only necessary to construct a boundary mesh to implement the BEM. To achieve this reduction of dimension it is necessary to formulate the governing equation as a boundary integral equation. To achieve a boundary integral formulation it is necessary to ﬁnd an appropriate reciprocity relationship for the problem and to determine an appropriate fundamental solution. If either of these requirements cannot be satisﬁed then a boundary integral formulation cannot be achieved. The most common difﬁculty in applying the BEM is in determining an appropriate fundamental solution. where is a linear A linear differential equation can be expressed in operator form as operator, is an inhomogeneous source term and is the dependent variable. The fundamental solution for this equation is a solution of
ü
where * indicates the adjoint of the operator and is the Dirac delta function. No speciﬁc boundary conditions are prescribed but in some cases regularity conditions at inﬁnity need to be satisﬁed. The fundamental solution is a Green’s function which is not required to satisfy any boundary conditions and is therefore also commonly termed the freespace Green’s function. The mathematical theory required to determine the fundamental solution of a constant coefﬁcient PDE is welldeveloped and has been used successfully to determine the fundamental solutions for a wide range of constant coefﬁcient equations (Brebbia & Walker 1980) (Clements & Rizzo 1978) (Ortner 1987). Fundamental solutions are known and have been published for many of the most important equations in engineering such as Laplace’s equation, the diffusion equation and the wave equation (Brebbia, Telles & Wrobel 1984a). However, by no means can it be guaranteed that the fundamental solution to a speciﬁc differential equation is known. In particular, PDEs with variable coefﬁcients do not, in general, have known fundamental solutions. If the fundamental solution to an operator cannot be found then domain integrals cannot be completely removed from the integral formulation. Domain integrals will also arise for inhomogeneous equations.
Þ
¢
Æ
ü
ò ¢ zÔ
Ñ
Æ
Þ
Ô ù ç ü
Ñ
f
ü
(7.1)
118
¾
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
Wu (1985) argued that the BEM has several advantages over other numerical methods which justify its use for many practical problems  even in cases where domain integration is required. He argued that for problems such as ﬂow problems a wide range of phenomena are described by the same governing equations. What distinguishes these phenomena is the boundary conditions of the problem. For this reason accurate description of the boundary conditions is vital for solution accuracy. The BEM generates a formulation involving both the dependent variable and the ﬂux . This allows ﬂux boundary conditions to be applied directly which cannot be achieved in either the ﬁnite element or ﬁnite difference methods. Another advantage of the BEM over other numerical methods is that it allows an explicit expression for the solution at an internal point. This allows a problem to be subdivided into a number of zones for which the BEM can be applied individually. This zoning approach is suited to problems with signiﬁcantly different length scales or different properties in different areas. Domain integration can be simply and accurately performed in the BEM. However, the presence of domain integrals in the BEM formulation negates one of the principal advantages of the BEM in that the problem dimension is no longer reduced by one. Several methods have been developed which allow domain integrals to be expressed as equivalent boundary integrals. In this section these methods will be discussed.
7.2
Removing Domain Integrals due to Inhomogeneous Terms
¢ Æ ü
Inhomogeneous PDEs occur for a large number of physical problems. An inhomogeneous term may arise due to a number of factors including a source term, a body force term, or due to initial conditions in timedependent problems. An inhomogeneous linear PDE can be expressed in where is a known function of position or a nonzero constant. If the operator form as fundamental solution is known for the operator , the resulting BEM formulation will be
È
The domain integral in this formulation does not involve any unknowns so domain integration can be used directly to solve this equation. This requires discretising the domain into internal cells in much the same way as for the ﬁnite element method. As the domain integral does not involve any unknown values accurate results can generally be achieved using a fairly coarse mesh. This method is simple and has been shown to produce accurate results (Brebbia et al. 1984a). This approach, however, requires a domain discretisation and a numerical domain integration procedure which reduces the attraction of the BEM over domainbased numerical methods.
7.2.1
The Galerkin Vector technique
For some particular forms of the inhomogeneous function the domain integral can be transformed directly into boundary integrals. Consider the Poisson equation . Applying the BEM gives an equation of the form of
Æ
f
æ
¢ ¼
ü
%
# $¼
¢
ê
Æ d®
"
Å
!
(7.2)
7 .2 R EMOVING D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
domain integration can be avoided for certain forms of . If a can be found which satisﬁes , where is the fundamental solution of Laplace’s equation, then for the speciﬁc case of being harmonic ( ) Green’s second identity can be reduced to
¡ V
Therefore if a Galerkin vector can be found and is harmonic the domain integral in Equation (7.2) can be expressed as equivalent boundary integrals. Fairweather, Rizzo, Shippy & Wu (1979) determined the Galerkin vector for the twodimensional Poisson equation and Monaco & Rangogni (1982) determined the Galerkin vector for the threedimensional Poisson equation. Danson (1981) showed how this method can be applied successfully for a number of physical problems involving linear isotropic problems with body forces. He considered the practical cases where the body force term arose due to either a constant gravitational load, rotation about a ﬁxed axis or steadystate thermal loading. In each of these cases the domain integral can be expressed as equivalent boundary integrals. This Galerkin vector approach provides a simple method of expressing domain integrals as equivalent boundary integrals. Unfortunately, it only applies to speciﬁc forms of the inhomogeneous term (i.e., is required to be harmonic).
7.2.2 The Monte Carlo method
Domain discretisation could be avoided by using a Monte Carlo technique. This technique approximates a domain integral as a sum of the integrand at a number of random points. Speciﬁcally, in two dimensions, a domain integral is approximated as
Ô »
is the value of the integrand at random point , is the number of random where points used and is the area of the region over which the integration is performed. This approximation allows a domain integral to be approximated by a summation over a set of random points so domain integration can be performed without requiring a domain mesh. This method has the secondary advantage of allowing the integration to be performed over a simple geometry enclosing the problem domain  if a random point is not in the problem domain its contribution is ignored. The method was proposed by Gipson (1987). Gipson has successfully applied this method to a number of Poissontype problems. Unfortunately this method often proves to be computationally expensive as a large number of integration points are needed for accurate domain integration. Gipson argues however that, as this method removes the burden of preparing a domain mesh,
B
¡ W
¤
ä
Ô
»
öö
³
20ù
» øÑ
¼
ä
öö
³
³
ö
ö
10ù
¼ » øÑ ³
ã
Equation (7.2). Using Green’s second identity
¢ È
ö
ö
Ç
¬
ã
» ' )¾ (
Á
B
¤
¢
È
£
®
Å
f
£
¼
®
æ
Å
ò
¢
æ
®
Å f
Ô
»
10ù
» øÑ
f
Ç
¢
®
&
DUE TO I NHOMOGENEOUS
T ERMS
119
(7.3)
Å
(7.4)
(7.5)
120
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
the extra computational expense is justiﬁed.
A more general approach can be developed using particular solutions. Consider the linear problem . can be considered as the sum of the complementary function , which is a solution of the homogeneous equation , and a particular solution which satisﬁes but is not required to satisfy the boundary conditions of the problem. Applying BEM to the governing equation using the expansion gives
If a particular solution can be found, all values on the righthandside of Equation (7.6) are known  reducing the problem to
where is a vector of known values. This linear system can be solved by applying boundary conditions. This approach can be applied in a situation where an analytic expression for a particular solution can be found. Unfortunately particular solutions are generally only known for simple operators and for simple forms of . Alternatively an approximate particular solution could be calculated numerically. Zheng, Coleman & PhanThien (1991) proposed a method where a particular solution is determined by approximating the inhomogeneous source term using a global interpolation function. This approach is a special case of a more general method known as the dual reciprocity boundary element method.
Æ
Consider the linear homogeneous PDE . For many operators the fundamental solution to the operator may be unobtainable or may be in an unusable form. This is especially likely if involves variable coefﬁcients for which case it has been shown that it is particularly difﬁcult to ﬁnd a fundamental solution. Instead, a BEM formulation can be derived based on a related operator with known fundamental solution. A BEM formulation for based on the operator will be of the form (7.8)
ü È
where is the fundamental solution corresponding to the operator . This integral equation is similar to Equation (7.2). However in this case the domain integral term involves the dependent variable . This problem could be solved using domain integration where the internal nodes are treated as formal problem unknowns.
Æ
f
@
ü
ü
@
ü
@
ò
¢
Æ
f
Æ
ü
@ Bü 7g¼ ü A
æ
¼
ò
¢
¢
%
ü
7.3
Domain Integrals Involving the Dependent Variable
ü
4
¢
Æ
ü
3
Æ
4
Æ
6 ¤%
# $¼
% " 8 # 9¢ $¼
6 7 " %
ê
¢
ê
# 54 ¼ 3 # $¼
ê
Æ
ò
"
Æ
ê
¢
¢
3Æ "
Æ
ü
4
Æ
Æ
7.2.3
Complementary FunctionParticular Integral method
8
¢
Æ
ü
(7.6)
(7.7)
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
7.3.1 The Perturbation Boundary Element Method
Rangogni (1986) proposed solving variable coefﬁcient PDEs by coupling the boundary element method with a perturbation method. He considered the twodimensional generalised Laplace equation
ò ¢ Ô ù Ô
where is a known function of position. Rangogni treated this equation as a perturbation about Laplace’s equation. He considered the class of equations where
Æ þ ¾
s
Substituting Equation (7.12) into Equation (7.11) and grouping powers of gives
ò ¢
A solution will only exist for all values of if the terms at each power of equal zero. This allows Equation (7.13) to be treated as an inﬁnite series of distinct problems which can be solved using the boundary element method. can be found by solving which Rangogni assumes will satisfy the boundary conditions of the original problem. Each successive can then be found by solving a Poisson equation with homogeneous boundary conditions as has been previously determined. Rangogni used a domain discretisation to solve these Poisson problems. . The Equation (7.10) is a particular member of this family of equations for which
Â
solution to Equation (7.10) is therefore given by
Á Â ¬ Æ
. Rangogni reported that in practice this
series converged rapidly and in his numerical examples he achieved accurate results using only and . Rangogni (1991) extended this coupled perturbation  boundary element method to the general secondorder variable coefﬁcient PDE
Ô ù øÑ øÑ 20 H¢ 0 ö Ô 20ù G Æ ö é Æ ø Õö ö Ô ù
(7.14)
þ 'Æ
Ï
¢
E
Â
Æ
¬
© Â
E
Æ
E
¡ ¡ ¢~¡
ò
¢
Â
E
þ îÆ ®
Â
¬
Æ
Ç w®
Á ÎÂ
Å
¢
¡ ¡ ¢~¡
Æ ®
Æ
Å
þ ¾
w®
s
®
E F
Æ®
E E þ F¬ Æ 5 îÆ
for which he sought a solution of the form
¢ Æ
Ï
#
E
# ò
ò
¢
Æ
Ô ù
10
øÑ
ò ¢
Ç
þ 'Æ
Æ
E
Ô ù
Æ ®
Ç ¬
20 7F Ç E
20
Å
øÑ
øÑ
Æ®
Ç §
þ 'Æ
Å
Æ ®
E þ F 'Æ ®
Æ ®
Å
Å
Using the substitution Helmholtz equation
Ç
Equation (7.9) can be recast as a heterogeneous
20
øÑ
XÅ
Ô ù
Ô ù
20
20
øÑ
Ñ ø`Ñ
Æ Ï
DC
Ð
©
C
Å
¢ µÔ ù
20
øÑ
Å
&
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
121
(7.9)
(7.10)
(7.11)
(7.12)
(7.13)
122
v
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
Applying the perturbation method to this family of equations allows Equation (7.15) to be expressed as an inﬁnite series of distinct Poisson equations which can be solved using the boundary element method. Again Rangogni used an domain mesh to solve these Poisson equations. Rangogni found that in practice convergence was rapid and accurate results were produced. Gipson, Reible & Savant (1987) considered a class of hyperbolic and elliptic problems which can be transformed into an inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation. They used the perturbation method to recast this as an inﬁnite sequence of Poisson equations. They avoided domain discretisation by using a Monte Carlo integration technique (Gipson 1987) to evaluate the required domain integrals. Lafe & Cheng (1987) used the perturbation method to solve steadystate groundwater ﬂow problems in heterogeneous aquifers. They showed the method produced accurate results for simply varying hydraulic conductivities with convergence after two or three terms. Lafe & Cheng investigated the convergence of the perturbation method. They found that for rapidly varying hydraulic conductivity convergence is not guaranteed. From this investigation they concluded that accurate results can be obtained so long as the hydraulic conductivity does not vary by more than one order of magnitude within the solution domain. If the hydraulic conductivity variation is more signiﬁcant they recommend using the perturbation method in conjunction with a subregion technique so that the variation of conductivity within each subregion satisﬁes their requirements. This process could become computationally expensive, particularly if convergence is not rapid, as the solution of multiple subproblems will be required within each subregion.
7.3.2
The Multiple Reciprocity Method
The multiple reciprocity method (MRM) was initially proposed by Nowak (1987) for the solution of transient heat conduction problems. Since then the method has been successfully applied to a wide range of problems. The MRM can be viewed as a generalisation of the Galerkin vector approach. Instead of using one higherorder fundamental solution, the Galerkin vector, to convert the remaining domain integrals to equivalent boundary integrals a series of higherorder fundamental solutions is used. Consider the Poisson equation
þ ç ¢ Æ® Å Ô xç þ ¢ þ
where is a known function of position. Applying BEM to this equation, using the fundamental solution to the Laplace operator, gives
¡ W Æ ö ö þ ¢ È þ þ ç V ¡ þ ö ö Æ Ô
where is the known fundamental solution to Laplace’s equation applied at point . To avoid domain discretisation the domain integral in Equation (7.17) needs to be expressed as equivalent
f
Ô Ï
#
E
³
# ò
Ñ
f
Ô ù
Ñ øÑ ø é 20 9¢ 0 ö Ô 10ù G
f i
ö
æ
³f
He considered the family of equations
øÕö ö Ô ù
Æ
Æ
20
øÑ Ñ
ÆÔ
Ç
h
E 5
Ñ
Ä
Æ ®
(7.15)
Å Ñ ç þ ç
(7.16)
(7.17)
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
¬
boundary integrals. Using MRM this is achieved by deﬁning a higherorder fundamental solution such that
þ ¢ z¬ ® Å
f
Using this higherorder fundamental solution the domain integral in Equation (7.17) can be written as
È f¬ ® Å ç þ ¢ È þ þ ç
This formulation has generated a new domain integral. is a known function so we can introduce a new function which can be determined analytically from the relationship
ç þ ® ç Å ¢ x¬ ç ç
This process can be repeated by introducing a new higherorder fundamental solution
f
and continuing until convergence is reached. This procedure is based on the recurrence relationships
Ð ¡¢¢¡ ù ù Ï ù ¡ Ð ò ¢ ûë ù ù Ï ù ûë ò ¢ ® Å § Â Âç ¢ ¬ § ® ¢ z¬
Using these recurrence relationships gives the boundary integral formulation
ò ¢ V ¡ ³ ö Âç ö ¬
§ Â
which is an exact formulation if the inﬁnite series converges. Errors are only introduced at the stage of boundary discretisation.
ä
f
¡ ¡ ¢¢¡
for for
s
®
¼
¬
§ Â
È
³ f
s¬ ¬
ö
ö
ç
Âç
f
ã
¬
æ
f
þ ¾ V ¡
¢
¢ i®
Á ÎÂ
È
f
®
þ ®
giving
Å ¬
È
þ ®
ç
Å
¬
f
æ
W ¡
þ
ä
³
ö
ö
¬
f
¼
¬
Âç
³f
ç
Å
ö
Â
ö
Å
f
Æ ã
ä
f
Æ
³
ö
ö
æ
þ
f
f
¢
¼
È
þ
³f
þ
ö
f
ö
þ
Æ ã
ç
æ
or
f
Æ
f
æ
f
f
æ
Ô
¬
ÆÔ
Ñ
Ñ
Ä
&
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
123
(7.18)
(7.19)
(7.20)
(7.21)
(7.22) such that (7.23)
(7.24) (7.25)
(7.26)
124
g
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
Introducing interpolattion functions and discretising the boundary gives the matrix system
Ô
where and are inﬂuence coefﬁcient matrices corresponding to the higherorder fundamental solutions and and contain the nodal values of and its normal derivative. The MRM can be applied based on operators other than the Laplace operator. This approach relies on knowledge of the higherorder fundamental solutions necessary for application of the method. These solutions have been determined and successfully used for the Laplace operator in both two and three dimensions but the extension of the method to other equation types needs further research. Itagaki & Brebbia (1993) have determined the higher order fundamental solutions for the twodimensional modiﬁed Helmholtz equation. The MRM can be extended to other equations by allowing the forcing function to be a general function such that . The MRM will be restricted to cases where the recurrence relationships  Equations (7.24) and (7.25)  can be employed. Brebbia & Nowak (1989) have where and the recurrence applied the MRM to the Helmholtz equation relationship deﬁned by Equation (7.24) becomes simply
þ ç Æ ®
In this case the boundary integral formulation will be
Â ö ö Æ ã Â ®
7.3.3
The Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method
Equation Derivation The dual reciprocity boundary element method (DRBEM) was developed to avoid the need for domain integration in cases where the fundamental solution of the governing differential equation is unknown or is impractical to apply. Instead the DRBEM is applied using an appropriate related operator with known fundamental solution. The most common choice is the Laplace operator (Partridge, Brebbia & Wrobel 1992) and in this chapter the DRBEM will be illustrated for this choice. Consider a secondorder PDE which can be expressed in the form
Ô xç ¢ ç ¢ Æ®
The forcing function can be completely general. If then is a known function of position and the differential equation described is simply the Poisson equation. For potential problems and for transient problems . Applying the BEM to Equation (7.30) will
ç ç çÔ ù Æ ù ç ñ Ñ ç ¢ ç ç Ô ù ç Æ Ñ ç ¢ ç
C
¼ ¢
ò ¢ W ¡
þ
U 7RP SQ
ç
ÿ
ä
Æ
³
Âç
ö
ö Â
# 5¼
Ñ
f
ò ¢
Æ ®
Â
U SQP VT7RF" Ñ
¼
C
Æ ®
¼ ¢
³f
C
Â
Æ ®
Æ ®
þ ¾ Å Å Á ÎÂ Å
s
C
¢ ¬
¢
þ ¾ Ô
§ Â
%I
Á ÎÂ
s
Æ
# $¼
ñ
Ô ù
U
ÆÔ
Æ
ÿ
ê
Ñ
ù ç
I $"
Ñ þ ç Ñ
(7.27)
U VT
Ä
SQ 7RP
¢
þ
ç
#
SQP WF"
(7.28)
(7.29)
(7.30)
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
where is the known fundamental solution to Laplace’s equation. The aim of the DRBEM is to express the domain integral due to the forcing function as equivalent boundary integrals. The DRBEM uses the idea of approximating using interpolation functions. A global approximation to of the form
ç Â Â Ç
ô
is proposed. are unknown coefﬁcients and are approximating functions used in the interpolation and are generally chosen to be functions of the source point and the ﬁeld point of the fundifferent collocation points damental solution. The approximating functions are applied at  called poles  generally most, but not all, of which are located on the boundary of the problem domain. As discussed in the previous chapter the solution to a linear PDE can be constructed as the sum of a complimentary function (which satisﬁes the homogeneous equation ) and a particular solution to the equation . Instead of using a single particular solution, which may be difﬁcult to determine, the DRBEM employs a series of particular solutions which are related to the approximating functions as shown in Equation (7.33).
ò ¢ Â@ 3Æ Æ ü
By substituting Equations (7.32) and (7.33) into Equation (7.30) the forcing function is approximated by a weighted summation of particular solutions to the Poisson equation.
ç Â
The DRBEM essentially constructs an approximate particular solution to the governing PDE as a summation of localised particular solutions. With the governing equation rewritten in the form of Equation (7.34) the standard boundary element approach can be applied. Equation (7.34) is multiplied by a weighting function and integrated over the domain. Green’s theorem is applied twice and the fundamental solution of the Laplacian is used to remove the remaining domain integrals. The name dual reciprocity BEM is derived from the application of reciprocity relationships to both sides of Equation (7.34). After applying these steps Equation (7.35) is obtained, where the fundamental solution pole is applied at
f
¢
Æ
ü
x
È
x
ù
¡ ¡ ~¢¡
f
@
Æ®
ç
ù Ï
Å Â
æ
¼
Â
ô
¢ ûë
Ç Â
¬ X¾
ç
¬ X¾
Á ÎÂ
Á ÎÂ Ç
¢
%
Â ¢ ¢
4 Ç3
Ç 5¢ Â Æ ®
# $¼
ç Æ® ¢ Â Å Æ
give
ê
@
ü
Æ
"
Å
4
Æ
Â
ô
ç
f
&
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
125
(7.31)
(7.32)
(7.33)
(7.34)
126
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
In implementing a numerical solution of this equation similar steps are taken as for the standard BEM. The boundary is discretised into elements and interpolation functions are introduced to approximate the dependent variable within each element. The form of each is known from Equation (7.33) once the approximating functions have been deﬁned. It is not necessary to use interpolation functions to approximate each . However by using the same interpolation functions to approximate and the numerical implementation and on both sides of Equation (7.35). The error generated will generate the same matrices by approximating each in this manner has been found to be small and can be justiﬁed by the improved computational efﬁciency of the method (Partridge et al. 1992). The application of this method results in the system
x
poles were chosen to be the boundary nodes plus internal points so that where the . Although it is not generally necessary to include poles at internal points it has been found that in general improved accuracy is achieved by doing so (Nowak & Partridge 1992). It has been shown that for many problems (Partridge et al. 1992) (Huang & Cruse 1993) using boundary points only in this procedure is insufﬁcient to deﬁne the problem. In general using internal points is likely to improve the solution accuracy as it increases the number of degrees of freedom. No theory has been developed of how many internal collocation points should be used for optimal accuracy, or where these points should be positioned within the problem domain. Using internal poles in this interpolation does not require domain discretisation  it is only necessary to specify the coordinates of the internal collocation points. The internal points can be chosen to be locations where the solution is of interest. and vectors can be treated as columns of the matrices and respectively. This The allows Equation (7.36) to be rewritten as
(7.37)
where is a vector containing the nodal values of . To solve this system it is necessary to evaluate . is deﬁned by Equation (7.32) which, for the nodal values, can be expressed in matrix form as . If the matrix is nonsingular this expression can be rearranged to give Equation (7.38) which provides an explicit expression for .
(7.38)
¢
Â
Ç
bc ¡ VV
Â
@
Æ
ä
³ ö Â ñ º
Æ
fi
G
ö
f
fh
¼
£
³f
Ô
ö Â
Â
ö
@
U f%
Æ
@
Æ ã
" fi fh " % p # qB F¼ A ¢ $¼ #
# $¼
Æ
Ô
U g" Ñ Â f
ê
r
¬
Ñ
©
Â
ô
Æ
ô
s ¢ Hp
Ô
e¬d ¾)
§
Á ÎÂ
Ñ
Ä
¤
Ya `Â
¢
p
#
%
ô
# F¼
¬ X¾ ä¢
¡ V
Á Â
ê
ê
"
Æ
³
"
ö
ö
f
¼
Â
@
Æ
³f
Â
ö
ö
@
Æ
Æ ã
U f%
s
§Ô
x
ÆÔ Uf
Ñ
ê £
point .
Ñ
r put¢ s p p p
Ä
¤
(7.35)
(7.36)
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
The approach taken to solve this equation will depend on the form of . The Approximating Function The accuracy of the DRBEM hinges on the accuracy of the global approximation to the forcing function (deﬁned by Equation (7.32)). Therefore the choice of the approximating functions is a key consideration when implementing the DRBEM. The only requirement so far prescribed on the form of the approximating functions is that the matrix generated should be nonsingular and that the related particular solutions can be determined and can be expressed in a practical closed form. Some work has been conducted into investigating what form of should be used in a given situation to provide the highest accuracy and computational efﬁciency. Usually a form of is deﬁned and this can be used, applying Equation (7.33), to specify
Ý Ü 9Ð Â Ç ç Ç
and . The fundamental solution of Laplace’s equation is
f
in twodimensional
in threedimensional space  where is the Euclidean distance between space and the ﬁeld point and the source point of the fundamental solution. Due to the dependence of this fundamental solution only on the approximating function is generally chosen to be some radial function i.e., . Several other options for have been tried (Partridge et al. 1992) but it has been found that in general the most accurate results were generated using some radial function. For both two and threedimensional problems Wrobel, Brebbia & Nardini (1986) recommended choosing from the series
Ý
n
(7.40)
Â
where is the distance between the ﬁeld point (node ) and the DRBEM collocation point (node ). They showed that accurate results can be achieved using some combination of terms from this series. Generally the same approximating function is used at all the collocation points so in this thesis, for simplicity, the form of approximating functions will be referred to by a single . Choosing to be a function of only one variable simpliﬁes the process of determining and . For twodimensional problems, if then the relationship (7.41)
Ç 5¢ Ý
can be reduced to the ordinary differential equation
(7.42) and , for twodimensional
@
Using
deﬁned by Equation (7.40) the corresponding forms of
@
Æ
@!
Ç
@
Æ
Â
Ç
@!
ß
Ï
¼ ½¢ Ô ù ç
Æ
r fi fh " % s B $¼ A ¢ #
©
¬
Including this explicit expression for
ê
1
Ý
Â
Ñ
Ç
¡ ¡ ~¢¡ ë
s
Ô
Â
Ñ
Â
Ç
@
Ç
Ý
Æ
®
Â
Ç ¢
Ý
Ï
Ý
@
Æ ®
Â
® Æ®
Ý
@
Ô
Â
Å
Ý
Ý
Â
Ç
Ñ
@
Æ
Ï
Ç
#F¼ p
¢
¢ Ç
Â
Ç
"
Ý Ý Ô Â Ï Ü Ç Ý ð Ñ Â ¢ Ô ù ç Ç ½¢
1
ç Ñ
Â
Ç
Ç
Â
f
Ç
ç
Â
Ç
Ý
@!
&
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
127
in Equation (7.37) gives
(7.39)
Ã
128
¾
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
problems, can be shown to be
ãÝ ð ¢ ¢
where and . Any combination of terms from Equation (7.40) can be used for specifying . It has been found that in general including higherorder terms leads to little improvement in accuracy (Partridge as this approximation will generally give et al. 1992). The most commonly used form is accurate results with greater computational efﬁciency than other choices. Equation (7.40) was recommended as a basis for the approximating function due to the particular form of the fundamental solution of Laplace’s equation and its dependence on only. If a different operator is used as the basis of the DRBEM then it is likely a different form of will be more appropriate. The choice of in this case will be discussed in Section 7.3.3. The performance of the DRBEM hinges on the choice of the approximating function . The theory of how to determine the best approximating function is therefore a vital component of the DRBEM. Unfortunately the approximating function has generally been chosen and used in a rather adhoc manner. Recently some more formal analysis of the use of approximating functions has been undertaken. Golberg & Chen (1994) argued that a formal analysis of the approximating function can be undertaken using the theory of radial basis functions. Radial basis functions are a generalisation of cubic splines in multidimensions. Cubic splines are known to be optimal for onedimensional interpolation. Therefore, rather than being an arbitrary choice, it seems that choosing to be a radial function is a logical extension for two or threedimensional problems. Golberg & Chen showed that, for the Poisson equation, choosing to be a radial basis function ensures convergence of the DRBEM. They also demonstrated that is a speciﬁc member of the group of radial basis functions. The theory of using radial basis functions for multidimensional approximation is fairly is optimal for threedimensional problems which justiﬁes advanced. It has been shown that the use of when applying the DRBEM to threedimensional problems  the constant is included to ensure a nonzero diagonal for . However for twodimensional problems it has been shown that optimal approximation is attained using the thin plate spline . This observation lead Golberg & Chen to suggest that choosing to be a thin plate spline may improve the accuracy of the DRBEM in two dimensions. Recently Golberg (1995) has published a review of the DRBEM concentrating on developments since 1990 concerning the numerical evaluation of particular solutions. Inhomogeneous Equations
Ç Ç Ý Ç Ç é Ý
p ó¸
If the forcing function is a function of position only then the differential equation under consideration is simply Poisson’s equation. In this case it is not necessary to invert the matrix as can simply be calculated from using Gaussian elimination. Equation (7.39) can be rewritten
p
®
Ý
Ç
¢ ýÇ
s
Ç
ä
Ð
n
Ý
v
¡ ¡ ¢¢¡
Ç
Ý
® Ý ¥ Ô
® Ï
§ n
Ð ÏÝã Ñ Ð Ç
¢ uÇ
wv 0 s
ä Ý ³
¡ ¡ ¢¢¡
ö
ö
xyÝ Â » yxÝ 0 0 @!
Ï Ý ¢ óÇ ¢ Ç Ç ³ ¼ Ý
ÁÝ
ø Õö
ps ¢
ö
s
®
r
¢
@
Æ
(7.43) (7.44)
ç
Ý
» ø
Ï
¼ Â ¢ Ç ø
¢
s
Ý
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
as
By applying boundary conditions Equation (7.45) can be reduced to a linear system which can be solved to give the unknown nodal values of and . Zheng et al. (1991) and Coleman, Tullock & PhanThien (1991) have proposed a method which uses a global shape function to construct an approximate particular solution. As discussed by Polyzos, Dassios & Beskos (1994) this method is essentially equivalent to the DRBEM. However, Zheng et al. and Coleman et al. suggested several alternative ways of determining the unknown for inhomogeneous equations. Zheng et al. (1991) used a leastsquares method coefﬁcients where they minimised the sum of squares
(7.46)
using singular value decomposition. For large systems they found the computational efﬁciency could be improved by employing the conjugate gradient method. Coleman et al. (1991) successfully solved inhomogeneous potential and elasticity problems which are governed by operators other than the Laplacian. Elliptic Problems
Æ ® ç
If is a function of the dependent variable then will also be a function of the dependent variable. Consider, for example, the linear secondorder differential equation
ò ¢ Æ Å
(7.47)
In this case so . Applying the DRBEM to Equation (7.47), based on the fundamental solution to Laplace’s equation, gives
ê
(7.48)
¬
Again, by applying boundary conditions Equation (7.49) can be reduced to a linear system which can be solved to determine the unknown nodal values. Due to the presence of the fullypopulated matrix in Equation (7.49) it is not possible to solve the boundary problem and internal problem separately. Instead the solution can be treated as a coupled problem and the solutions at boundary and internal nodes are generated simultaneously. Derivative Terms The DRBEM can also be applied for elliptic problems where involves derivatives of the dependent variable (Partridge et al. 1992). Consider, for example, the differç
©
¢
¦
where
©
fi fh " s # B 5¼ A
¢
¬
î
s
%
# H¢
which can be rearranged to give
ê
(7.49)
¢
ç ¦
where
fi fh " p B $¼ A ¢ 8 #
¬
i Ô
©
!
n
fi fh " s B $¼ A #
Ý
Ñ
Â Â
Æ
Ç
ô
¬
Á ÎÂ
)¾
¼ Ô yFn
p
Ý
¼
ç Ñ ¬ X ¾ ¢
¢
% " 8 # 9¢ F¼ %
Á
# $¼
ê
n
s ¬ ¢ p
©
ê
Ô
"
î
ê
"Ñ
Æ
¼
¢
Â
ô
ç
&
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
129
(7.45)
130
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
In this case applying DRBEM, using the Laplace fundamental solution, gives
ê ©
To solve this problem it is necessary to relate the nodal values of to the nodal values of . This is achieved by using interpolation functions to approximate in a similar manner as was used to approximate in Equation (7.32). A global approximation function of the form
ê
can be used to approximate where are the chosen interpolation functions and known coefﬁcients. In system form this can be expressed as
are the un
Although it is not necessary, equating to improves the computational efﬁciency of the method as only one matrix inversion procedure is required. Differentiating Equation (7.53) gives
Choosing and inverting Equation (7.53) to give an explicit expression for tion (7.54) to be rewritten as
allows Equa
Equation (7.39) can now be rewritten as
where
By applying boundary conditions Equation (7.56) can be reduced to a linear system which can be solved to give the unknown nodal values. As mentioned earlier, the approximating function is generally chosen to be . This can lead to numerical problems if derivative terms are included in the forcing function . As shown in Equation (7.55) derivative terms require derivatives of to be evaluated. For example, evaluating
{
ø Õöö
d
õ
r
y s y ~ p s t w s n ~}{ Dzj f wf z  y p s s t w 7w xp
7 f i f h " A s # ¤¬ qB F¼
õ
d o20Vwlkd ig1eX d n m j hf
f
ò
r
¢
q W t rq qt
ø ö
ö
w
p
Æ®
ential equation
Å
Æ
(7.50)
p 7 s q
¼ ¢
`
w
dh
%
# $¼
ê
" s vuq
(7.51)
(7.52)
(7.53)
(7.54)
(7.55)
(7.56)
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
This derivative function can become singular, so  as shown by Zhang (1993)  signiﬁcant numerical error may result. This will especially be the case in problems where collocation points are located close together. Zhang (1993) suggested two possibilities for avoiding this problem. The ﬁrst suggestion involved using a mapping procedure to map the governing equation to an equation without convective terms. This method was shown to produce accurate results but is somewhat cumbersome and can only be applied to linear problems. A simpler approach is to choose an approximating function which does not lead to singularities for convective terms. Zhang recommended use of either or . These approximating functions produce accurate results and can be simply applied for both linear and nonlinear problems. Zhang recommended the adoption of these approximating functions for all use of the DRBEM. The same idea of using Equation (7.53) to allow nodal values of to be associated to its derivatives can be applied to extend the DRBEM to cases involving higherorder derivatives or cross derivatives of the dependent variable. Appropriate approximating functions need to be chosen to avoid the problem of singularities. Variable Coefﬁcients The DRBEM can be readily extended to equations with variable coefﬁcients. Consider the variable coefﬁcient Helmholtz equation
where is a function of position in two dimensions. If the DRBEM is applied using the known fundamental solution to the Laplace operator then the forcing function is . Applying the DRBEM gives
where is a vector of the nodal values of the forcing function . The relationship can be written in matrix form as where is a diagonal matrix containing the nodal values of i.e.,
. . .
. . .
..
.
. . .
where
is the number of collocation points used in applying the DRBEM.
~
(7.59)
(7.60)
¢
¬«¬«« ² ¨¨© ³²²±°´ n¯®2m` ¦lj¥ ¬«¬«« §¨ £ ¬«¬«« n 2m ¦l¥ j n 2mªwl f fj p ¤ £ £ y s ~ p z ¡ f z n j H` o2Vm wl n j 7x}{
y
the
matrix requires calculation of
. Using the approximating function
F{
l
l l
{ {
{
µ
nmj o2V¦l¥
st w
v
w
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
131
gives (7.57)
(7.58)
132
where
which is a boundaryonly expression for the variable coefﬁcient Helmholtz equation. This method is general and can easily be extended to accommodate variable coefﬁcient derivative terms and a sum of variable coefﬁcient terms. Formulating the DRBEM for a General Elliptic Problem In this section it has been shown how the DRBEM can be applied for elliptic problems with varying forms of . The DRBEM can be applied in cases where involves a sum of terms due to the basic property
Applying the DRBEM to this equation gives a matrix system of the form
, and respectively.
are diagonal matrices where the diagonals contain the nodal values of , and is a vector containing the nodal values of .
The DRBEM Using Other Operators The DRBEM has been presented in this chapter based on the Laplace operator. However the DRBEM can be be applied using essentially any operator of appropriate order with known fundamental solution. If an appropriate operator can be found the complexity of the forcing function can be reduced. This should improve the accuracy of the method. The problem with applying the DRBEM based on another operator is in choosing the approximating function . A choice of which produces accurate results is required but it is also necessary to choose an for which a particular solution can be determined.
Â
Á
Ó
À

¸
where
Ç¸ È¹{ nmjÄ nmj Â o2VwlÅF{ e1V©lÃ${
Ä y s Ð Ï sWw ts w Ì £ Ë { É ÑÒf w Î}{ y s w Íº Ê ¸ f z p n Æ Dzj l o2V©le{ o2Vwlj n m jÁ n m
Consider a twodimensional equation of the form
y s º z ¸
¾ R½ ¼» ¿ef ¼» ¢n Vf j »¼ { ¾½ ¾½ {
H p £ n ¹{ ·zj ¸
Using this matrix expression for
Equation (7.59) can be rearranged to give (7.61)
f
À n m e2V¦lj
Ç
Î
ÔÕ
Ì
¶
D OMAIN I NTEGRALS
IN THE
BEM
(7.62)
(7.63)
(7.64)
(7.65) (7.66)
£
7 .3 D OMAIN I NTEGRALS I NVOLVING
Zhu (1993) has determined the particular solutions necessary for applying the DRBEM based on the twodimensional Helmholtz operator.
Radial functions have generally been used when applying the DRBEM. Along the lines of Wrobel et al. (1986), Zhu chose an approximating function of the form where is a positive integer. Determining the particular solution requires solving the ordinary differential equation
which can be achieved using a variation of coefﬁcients method. Partridge et al. (1992) applied the DRBEM to the transient convection diffusion equation
where the material parameters , , and are all assumed to be homogeneous. They applied the DRBEM based on the steadystate convectiondiffusion operator (7.70)
which has a known fundamental solution. This analysis requires the determination of a particular solution
which satisﬁes (7.71)
Instead of deﬁning a form of the approximating function and solving for Partridge et al. chose to deﬁne and use Equation (7.71) to determine the corresponding approximating function. Although somewhat adhoc this approach was found to produce accurate results.
Â
ÔÕ
Ø×
t
ÔÕ 9 ÝÀ Ú Ú Ô Ô Õ ØÜÛ Ô Õl 5 Õ Ù ÔÕ H Õ À Ú Ú Õ ØÜÛ Õl 5 Õ Ù À ØÜÚ Ú Ù Ú Õl Û Õ Ù
ÖÕ
Õ À Õ ØÜÛ Ú
Ó Õ H Õ Õ n 1Öm 2Vwlj }{ m m Õ × }{ Ô ½ Õ ½ ÔÕ Ô { Õ ¤¤½ ½
ÔÕ
THE
D EPENDENT VARIABLE
133
(7.67)
(7.68)
(7.69)
Chapter 8 The BEM for Parabolic PDES
8.1 TimeStepping Methods
Several approaches have been proposed for applying the BEM to parabolic problems. These methods can be broadly classiﬁed into two main approaches. Either some form of timestepping procedure is used to advance the solution in time, or a semianalytic technique is used which can directly calculate a solution at a speciﬁed time. In this section timestepping procedures will be considered. Timestepping approaches discretise the time domain in some manner and use some form of time marching scheme to advance the solution from one discrete time to the next. The two most commonly used timestepping methods are the coupled ﬁnite difference  BEM and the direct time integration method. These two methods will be outlined in this section for the diffusion equation
where the diffusivity
is a material parameter which can be a constant or a function of position.
8.1.1 Coupled Finite Difference  Boundary Element Method
This approach discretises the timedomain in a ﬁnite difference form. Consider the variation be. The most common approach (Brebbia et al. 1984b) is tween a time and a time to assume that, for sufﬁciently small , the time derivative can be approximated using a ﬁrstorder fully implicit ﬁnite difference scheme (8.2)
which allows the diffusion equation in this timerange to be approximated as (8.3)
Using this ﬁnite difference approximation the original parabolic equation has been reduced to an elliptic equation. Using the weighted residuals method an integral equation can be generated from
æ Õ â Ö Þ m â`Õ Ö à ß Þ m Õ n Ö× m¢wxj ¯àå { ã ßgä Ö× ¢x ¯Í ãgk× 1ÖÈx Õ Öáà Õ Ö Õ ßÞ m ßÞ m n × Ö1xwj n gk× Ö1xwj n gk× 1ÖÈxj m Ö ¯à ßÞ Öà ¯{ Ö× gk Ö×
Ö Õ n 1Ö·xj Õ m n 1ÖÈxj m
(8.1)
Ö×
136
Equation (8.3).
where and modiﬁed Helmholtz equation
applied at some source point . The fundamental solution of the modiﬁed Helmholtz equation is known in both two and three dimensions. If an internal solution is required at a speciﬁc time this can be determined explicitly from Equation (8.4) where the fundamental solution is applied at internal point and . Unfortunately Equation (8.4) contains a domain integral. This integral is generally evaluated by using a domain mesh (Brebbia et al. 1984b). The domain integral does not include any problem unknowns so a fairly coarse domain mesh will generally sufﬁce. Applying the BEM to Equation (8.4) gives
where is a matrix containing the inﬂuence coefﬁcients due to the domain integral. Using Equation (8.6) the solution can be advanced in time. is known from the initial conditions so a solution can be calculated at . A solution at internal nodes can then be calculated. The timestepping procedure can be repeated using the internal solution at as pseudoinitial conditions for the next timestep. If a constant timestep is used the matrices , and can be calculated once and stored. The boundary conditions can be applied to form a solution system of the form where is the vector of unknown nodal values at time and is a vector constructed from known nodal values from the previous timestep. For a problem with timeindependent boundary conditions at each timestep it is only necessary to update and solve the system for . If a problem has timedependent boundary conditions the solution system needs to be reformed at each timestep. This coupled ﬁnite difference  boundary element method (FDBEM) was ﬁrst proposed by Brebbia & Walker (1980) for the diffusion equation. It was implemented and investigated by Curran, Cross & Lewis (1980). They found that this method will only produce accurate results if Equation (8.2) accurately approximates the time derivative. This will generally require small timesteps to be adopted. Curran et al. investigated the use of a higherorder approximation to the timederivative. They found that this improved the accuracy of the method. Unfortunately it lead to a deterioration in convergence behaviour. Tanaka, Matsimoto & Yang (1994) proposed a generalised version of this timestepping scheme. They approximated the time variation within an interval as
ö Wôõó x ý öô 7õó ü
x
Öà{ ¯ÆûúÖ Ö
ëé ò ©êäè í í H Öà ¯ å ë ñ ë ð ©êé ${ ê x é ë ð Íê Èx é í Õ Õ Õ Õ ßÞ ð ßÞ ð í í ë Ö× ¢x é o ×Õ ë gä Õ Ö× x é gä× í Õ Ö à ¾ ½ × ¼» ¯Í u½ gk× ï »¼ ½ Ä gä× ì» { gä× ÍwêWè { î ßÞ î ßÞ ßÞ ë é
. The fundamental solution
Õ ÿ â ÿ `Õ Õ ð ð ßÞ ð ë × 1Öx é ë é { ã gä× 1Öx ë Ö ¢x é
ý
ß÷ Þ gä Ö× z ù Öà { ¯FkûúÖ Ö ó ÷ öô öôó øp H 7õó ~ 7õÝp
ý
z
v
ò
÷
öô 7þó
ç
T HE BEM
FOR
PARABOLIC PDES
(8.4)
is a solution of the
(8.5)
(8.6)
x
(8.7)
8 .1 T IME S TEPPING M ETHODS
137
where , termed the timescheme parameter, is a constant in the range . Substituting this approximation and a ﬁrstorder ﬁnite difference approximation of the time derivative into the diffusion equation gives
If this approximation of the diffusion equation is equivalent to the standard FDBEM discussed earlier. An integral equation can be derived from Equation (8.8). Tanaka et al. implemented this method and found it gave accurate results for a range of diffusion problems. They tested the accuracy for a CrankNicolson scheme ( ), a Galerkin scheme ( ) and a fully implicit scheme ( ). They found that the best results were achieved using a CrankNicolson scheme.
8.1.2 Direct TimeIntegration Method
Instead of converting the original parabolic equation to an elliptic equation the problem can be treated directly in the time domain by directly integrating over both time and space. The weighted residual statement using this approach is
Integrating in time once and in space twice gives
where the fundamental solution
satisﬁes
This time dependent fundamental solution is known in two and three dimensions. Physically this fundamental solution represents the effect at a ﬁeld point at time of a unit point source applied at a point at time . If an internal solution is required at a speciﬁc time this can be determined from Equation (8.10) with . The variation of and with time is unknown so it is still necessary to step in time. However, as the time dependence is included in the fundamental solution, accurate results can be achieved using larger timesteps than with the FDBEM. Two different timestepping schemes can be used. Similarly to the FDBEM, each timestep can be treated as a new problem so that an internal solution is constructed at the end of each timestep to be used as pseudoinitial conditions for the next timestep. Alternatively the time integration process can be restarted at with increasing numbers of intermediate steps used. These two timestepping approaches are discussed in detail in Brebbia et al. (1984b). The ﬁrst method requires a new domain integral to be calculated after each timestep due to
£ ¡ ¡¤ÿ ¢ ûúÖ
ò ï Õ ë Wè Ö é Ö x í H ò í ò o ò { Ö ð 1Öíð ¡xð ñ Ö ë Ö é ñ ë é ${ ð ë 1Öð 1Ö2xð é ë é í í ©¨¥ o Õ ©¨¥ ò í Õ ¾ ð R½ ë ûúÖ ¢x é »¼ { Ö ¥½ ï ì» §¦¥ » Ö ¥½ Ä ì» §¦¥ » { ë 1Öð é ½î ½î ©¨¥ í ò Ö Õ ð Õ ¼» » Ö R½ ð ½¾ ð ë 1Öð 1Ö¡xð é Ñ ë 1Öx é ë 1ÖÈx é É §¦¥
5ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÕÖ à ¯å Õ Õ ß Þ Õ × gk× × ë é { gä× ßÞ ß 5ÿ
ÿ
Õ ò ë Wè é
ò
Ûÿ
ÿ
(8.8)
(8.9)
(8.10)
(8.11)
138
T HE BEM
FOR
PARABOLIC PDES
the updated pseudoinitial conditions. The second timestepping procedure involves only a domain integral at so, ideally, a domain integral only needs to be calculated once. This, however, will still require the user to create a domain mesh. As mentioned by Brebbia et al. (1984b), in many practical cases the domain integral can be avoided. If the initial conditions are throughout the body the domain integral equals zero. If the initial conditions satisfy Laplace’s equation then a Galerkin vector can be found and the domain integral can be expressed as equivalent boundary integrals. This includes many practical cases such as constant initial temperature or an initial linear temperature proﬁle. Unfortunately, in practice it is not always feasible to restart the integration process at . At each timestep new and matrices are required so if many timesteps are required the storage capacity of the computer is likely to be exceeded. This requires the procedure to be restarted at some time where an internal solution is constructed and used as pseudoinitial conditions to repeat the process. Therefore, in practice, both timestepping methods are likely to require domain integration.
8.2
Laplace Transform Method
An alternative approach which avoids timestepping is to solve the problem in a transform domain which removes the time dependence of the problem. The parabolic PDE is thus converted to an elliptic problem for which the boundary element method has been shown to generally produce accurate results. Once the solution to the elliptic problem is determined in the transform space a solution in the original space can be attained using an inverse transform procedure. The most appropriate transform approach for parabolic problems is the Laplace transform. Consider the diffusion equation
with appropriate boundary and initial conditions. The Laplace transform of bolised as and is deﬁned as
Applying Laplace transforms to Equation (8.12) gives
is the initial conditions of . Equation (8.14) is an with transformed boundary conditions. elliptic PDE which can be readily solved using the boundary element method. Once the solution is determined in Laplace transform space this solution can be inverted to give a solution in the timedomain. This inversion procedure requires solutions to be generated for several values of the transform parameter . This method was ﬁrst proposed by Rizzo & Shippy (1970) and has since been successfully
úûÖ 9 Õ ú
ð ë 1ÖÈx é
Õ
t Õ Õ
ú
Õ Õ x ú ë é ð ð ë1ë x é ú ë Èx é é ë ¢x é Õ y ú Ö ½ ë 1ÖÈx é ¥ » ë Èx é ð ð Ö Õ ð Õ ð ë 1Öx é ë Ö ¢x é
z
ð ë Èx é
ûúÖ
(8.12) will be sym
(8.13)
(8.14)
8 .3 T HE DRBEM F OR T RANSIENT P ROBLEMS
139
used by other practitioners (Moridis & Reddell 1991) (Zhu, Satravaha & Lu 1994). Liggett & Liu (1979) compared the Laplace transform method with the timedependent Green’s function method. They noted that the direct method is simpler to apply. However, due to its greater efﬁciency, they recommended the Laplace transform method for solving diffusion problems. One limitation of the Laplace transform method is that Equation (8.14) is inhomogeneous so that applying the standard BEM will generate a domain integral involving the initial conditions. Traditionally this domain integral has been calculated by using a domain discretisation (Brebbia et al. 1984b). However, recently Zhu et al. (1994) proposed using the DRBEM to convert this domain integral term to equivalent boundary integrals. They chose to apply the DRBEM based on the known fundamental solution to the Laplace operator. Considering Equation (8.14) this means that the DRBEM will be used to convert the righthandside to equivalent domain integrals. Therefore the required DRBEM approximation is
The DRBEM can now be applied to Equation (8.14), giving a matrix system of the form
which can be reduced to a square system by applying boundary conditions. Once the solution is determined for this elliptic equation in the transform space a solution at a given time can be constructed using an inversion process. This Laplace transform dual reciprocity method (LTDRM) can easily be extended to equations of the form
in which case a matrix expression of the form
is generated. Zhu and his colleagues have successfully extended the LTDRM to solve diffusion problems with nonlinear source terms.
8.3 The DRBEM For Transient Problems
The DRBEM can also be applied to parabolic problems. Consider, for example, the diffusion equation
ù p Æ ¸ Õ Ó Ö ð ð ë Èx é { ë Ö x é
"$ &%"
ù p Æ p Ð ¸ z Ë ¸
# ß Õ "! ð Þ ë ë x é ú ë Èx é é
ÖÕ Õ
p Ð ¸  ÍË z Õ ð Õ ë 1ÖÈx é
(8.15)
(8.16)
(8.17)
(8.18)
(8.19)
140
T HE BEM
FOR
PARABOLIC PDES
where the thermal diffusivity, , is a constant. In this case the global approximation of implies a separation of variables such that
Using Equation (8.20), Equation (7.39) becomes
or
where
Equation (8.22) can be solved using a standard direct timeintegration method. Partridge & Brebbia (1990) recommended using a ﬁrstorder ﬁnite difference approximation to the time derivative
and linear approximations to
and within a timestep.
where and between times expression at
are weighting parameters with values in the range and the timestep is and . Substituting these approximations into Equation (8.22) an can be derived in terms of values at . (8.26)
The values of and are known from the initial conditions so a timestepping procedure can be used. If a constant timestep is used the matrices , and only need to be constructed once. Using this twolevel timeintegration scheme the most common choice of timescheme parameters is .
The MRM can be applied to the diffusion equation
of Laplace’s equation. In this case the forcing function becomes
Ó Ö Õ ú ÖÕ Õ
8.4
The MRM for Transient Problems
using the fundamental solution and the recurrence
Ó
3 ó ~ &ÿ ë é { 56 ðé
y s p 0 ~9 p z (p }{ )w w ß z y s º p (p )w z wß z # ß "! Ö Õ " ë Ö é &$ ë x é "
GvÝ&ÿ FEDHþ2ÿ C 3 C 1 ð 0 z ï Õ 1 7 öô 3 öô ó p 2ÿ á@à9Ö 8 7õó ~2&ÿ 7õó ú p 4ú1 ÿ 0 ¯Ö à ABz Ñ z { É ë é ßÞ gk Ö× 1 Ö× ßÞ Öà áÛ{ Ö× gk Ö× &ÿ Ö×3 2ÿ 3 4ÿ 3 4ÿ 1 ßÞ 1 gä× Õ ï 2ÿ { × Õï 2ÿ ï Õ ß gÞk× { × ë é Õ ë é ï ÕÖ áà Õ Ö Õ × gk× ßÞ
0
'
(8.20)
(8.21)
(8.22)
(8.23)
(8.24) (8.25)
8 .4 T HE MRM
FOR
T RANSIENT P ROBLEMS
141
The higherorder fundamental solutions are known for Laplace’s equation. In this case the MRM formulation becomes
The standard BEM numerical procedure can be applied to this boundary integral equation. This gives the matrix system
etc are the inﬂuence coefﬁcient matrices relating to the higherorder where the matrices fundamental solutions. This equation can be solved using a timeintegration procedure. The most common approach is to solve this system numerically by discretising the time domain and using a timestepping procedure. This requires some interpolation between the two timelevels . This most common approach is to use a linear approximation to and marked by and in this timerange (8.30) (8.31)
where
has a value in the range 0 to 1. Differentiating these linear approximations gives (8.32) (8.33)
where
,
. This approach is termed a ﬁrstorder approach as it removes all but the ﬁrst derivatives. A second order approach can be formulated by using quadratic interpolation of and within the timerange. Using Equation (8.34) the solution can be advanced in time. If a constant timestep is used the matrices and only need to be constructed once outside the timestepping loop. If the boundary conditions are not timedependent the boundary conditions only need to be applied
Õ
ù gÿ ö ù ÿ ` { × Ö¯à X z ó ëó p
,
`
{
` Yz
and all the other derivatives vanish. This allows Equation (8.29) to be simpliﬁed to
(8.34)
,
ï
Õ
CC TTC
î R½ ï" Ö "
UH ö ù 9TC6CC p IpH ö { RVP { { { SQ{ RP z í # o # ò í ì» ú " ! î ½ "Õ Ö Ä ì» ú "! { ë é
W Ö ï × ¯à ï ï Õ× × ¯gàß k× Õ W Õ Ö Þ × gk× ßÞ ÿ ÿ ßÞ gk× Õ ï ÿ { × Õï ÿ ï Õ ßÞ gä× { × ëë éé
"Õ Ö
Õ ß gÞ " Õ ö × ¯à Ö é { 7zö þó ô
" X
"
relationship deﬁned by Equation (7.24) becomes
"
` X QVQz ð ` zð X ï ù ÿ ö × ¯à Ö ù ÿ ö ë × ¯à é { Ö Qz ` Y X 7õzô ó p z { z ö
Õ ò ë Wè é
z {
X Yz
{ ÃÂ öö pð ù z
z
Â
ÿ
(8.27)
(8.28)
(8.29)
142
once.
¶
T HE BEM
FOR
PARABOLIC PDES
Bibliography
Brebbia, C. A. & Nowak, A. (1989), A new approach for transforming domain integrals to the boundary, in R. Gruber, J. Periaux & R. P. Shaw, eds, ’Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Numerical Methods in Engineering’, Computational Mechanics Publications, SpringerVerlag, pp. 73–84. Brebbia, C. A., Telles, J. C. F. & Wrobel, L. C. (1984a), Boundary Element Techniques, SpringerVerlag. Brebbia, C. A., Telles, J. C. F. & Wrobel, L. C. (1984b), Boundary element techniques: Theory and applications in engineering, SpringerVerlag, New York. Brebbia, C. A. & Walker, S. (1980), Boundary Element Techniques In Engineering, Newnes– Butterworths. Clements, D. L. & Rizzo, F. (1978), ’A method for the numerical solution of boundary value problems governed by secondorder elliptic systems’, Journal of the Institute of Mathematics Applications 22, 197–202. Coleman, C. J., Tullock, D. L. & PhanThien, N. (1991), ’An effective boundary element method for inhomogeneous partial differential equations’, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics (ZAMP) 42, 730–745. Curran, D. A. S., Cross, M. & Lewis, B. A. (1980), ’Solution of parabolic differential equations by the boundary element method using discretisation in time’, Applied Mathematical Modelling 4, 398–400. Danson, D. J. (1981), A boundary element formulation of problems in linear isotropic elasticity with body forces, in C. A. Brebbia, ed., ’Boundary Element Methods’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag, pp. 105–122. Fairweather, G., Rizzo, F. J., Shippy, D. J. & Wu, Y. S. (1979), ’On the numerical solution of twodimensional problems by an improved boundary integral equation method’, J. Comput. Phys. 31, 96–112. Gipson, G. S. (1987), Boundary Element Fundamentals  Basic Concepts And Recent Developments In The Poisson Equation, Computational Mechanics Publications. Gipson, G. S., Reible, D. D. & Savant, S. A. (1987), Boundary elements and perturbation theory for certain classes of hyperbolic and parabolic problems, in C. A. Brebbia, W. L. Wendland &
144
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Golberg, M. A. (1995), ’The numerical evaluation of particular solutions in the BEM  a review’, Boundary Element Communications . Golberg, M. A. & Chen, C. S. (1994), ’The theory of radial basis functions applied to the BEM for inhomogeneous partial differential equations’, BE Communications 5(2), 57–61. Huang, Q. & Cruse, T. A. (1993), ’Some remarks on particular solution used in BEM formulation’, Computational Mechanics 13, 68–73. Itagaki, M. & Brebbia, C. A. (1993), ’Generation of higher order fundamental solutions to the twodimensional modiﬁed Helmholtz equation’, Engineering Analysis With Boundary Elements 11(1), 87–90. Lafe, O. E. & Cheng, A. H.D. (1987), ’A perturbation boundary element code for steady state groundwater ﬂow in heterogeneous aquifers’, Water Resources Research 23(6), 1079–1084. Liggett, J. A. & Liu, P. L.F. (1979), ’Unsteady ﬂow in conﬁned aquifers: A comparison of two boundary integral methods’, Water Resources Research 15(4), 861–866. Monaco, A. D. & Rangogni, R. (1982), Boundary element method: Processing of the source term of the Poisson equation by means of boundary integrals only, in K. P. Holz, U. Meissner, W. Zielke, C. A. Brebbia, G. Pinder & W. Gray, eds, ’Finite Elements In Water Resources IV’, SpringerVerlag, pp. 19.29–19.36. Moridis, G. L. & Reddell, D. L. (1991), The Laplace transform boundary element (LTBE) method for the solution of diffusiontype problems, in ’Boundary Elements XIII’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag, pp. 83–97. Nowak, A. J. (1987), Solution of transient heat conduction problems using boundaryonly formulation, in C. A. Brebbia, W. L. Wendland & G. Kuhn, eds, ’Boundary Elements IX Vol 3’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag, pp. 265–276. Nowak, A. J. & Partridge, P. W. (1992), ’Comparison of the dual reciprocity and the multiple reciprocity methods’, Engineering Analysis With Boundary Elements 10, 155–160. Ortner, N. (1987), Construction of fundamental solutions, in C. A. Brebbia, ed., ’Topics In Boundary Elements Research’, SpringerVerlag, Berlin and New York. Partridge, P. W. & Brebbia, C. A. (1990), The BEM dual reciprocity method for diffusion problems, in ’Computational Methods In Water Resources VIII’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag, pp. 397–403. Partridge, P. W., Brebbia, C. A. & Wrobel, L. C. (1992), The Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method, Computational Mechanics Publications and Elsevier Applied Science. Polyzos, D., Dassios, G. & Beskos, D. E. (1994), ’On the equivalence of dual reciprocity and particular integral approaches in the BEM’, BE Communications 5(6), 285–288.
a
G. Kuhn, eds, ’Boundary Elements IX’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag, pp. 115–127.
b
B IBLIOGRAPHY
145
Rangogni, R. (1986), ’Numerical solution of the generalized Laplace equation by coupling the boundary element method and the perturbation method’, Applied Mathematical Modelling 10, 266–270. Rangogni, R. (1991), Solution of variable coefﬁcients PDEs by means of BEM and perturbation technique, in ’Boundary Elements XIII’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag. Rizzo, F. J. & Shippy, D. J. (1970), ’A method of solution for certain problems of heat conduction’, AIAA Journal 8(11), 2004–2009. Tanaka, M., Matsimoto, T. & Yang, Q. F. (1994), ’Timestepping boundary element method applied to 2D transient heat conduction problems’, Applied Mathematical Modelling 18, 569–576. Wrobel, L. C., Brebbia, C. A. & Nardini, D. (1986), The dual reciprocity boundary element formulation for transient heat conduction, in ’Finite Elements In Water Resources VI’, Computational Mechanics Publications and SpringerVerlag. Wu, J. C. (1985), Boundary element methods and inhomogeneous parabolic equations, in C. A. Brebbia & B. J. Noye, eds, ’BETECH 85’, SpringerVerlag, pp. 19–30. Zhang, Y. (1993), On the dual reciprocity boundary element method, Master’s thesis, The University of Wollongong. Zheng, R., Coleman, C. J. & PhanThien, N. (1991), ’A boundary element approach for nonhomogeneous potential problems’, Computational Mechanics 7, 279–288. Zhu, S. (1993), ’Particular solutions associated with the Helmholtz operator used in DRBEM’, BE Abstracts 4(6), 231–233. Zhu, S., Satravaha, P. & Lu, X. (1994), ’Solving linear diffusion equations with the dual reciprocity method in Laplace space’, Engineering Analysis With Boundary Elements 13, 1–10.
Index
Advectiondiffusion equation, 103 Area Coordinates, 14 Basis functions Hermite cubic, 12 Basis functions, 2–16, 53 Hermite, 10–14 bicubic, 12, 14 cubic, 10 Lagrange, 10 bilinear, 7–9 linear, 2–4 quadratic, 7 Beam elements, 79 Boundary conditions application of, 29, 54 Coupled ﬁnite difference  boundary element method, 135 Curvilinear coordinate systems, 17–18 Cylindrical polar, 17 Prolate spheroidal, 18 Spherical polar, 18 DiracDelta function, 43–45 Direct timeintegration method, 137 Dual reciprocity BEM approximating function, 127 derivative terms, 129 elliptic problems, 129 transient problems, 139 variable coefﬁcients, 131 Dual reciprocity BEM, 124, 133 element stiffness matrix, 26 Fundamental solution, 43, 45–48, 72, 117 diffusion equation, 72 Helmholtz, 72 Kelvin, 91 Laplace, 46 Navier, 72 wave equation, 72 Galerkin formulation, 25, 31 Galerkin vector, 119 Gaussian quadrature, 39–42, 56 Global stiffness matrix, 27 integration by parts, 24 Isoparametric formulation, 53 Laplace transform method, 138 Mass lumping, 106 Multiple reciprocity method, 122–124 diffusion equation, 140 Helmholtz equation, 124 Poisson equation, 122 Perturbation BEM, 121 Plane stress elements, 81–83 Potential energy, 82 RayleighRitz method, 75, 77 Regular BEM, 64 Strain energy, 82 Trefftz method, 64 Triangular elements, 14–16 Truss elements, 76 Weighted residual, 24 Weighting function, 24