CHAPTER 1

PATCH TEST
1.0 Introduction and requirement of Patch test: [1,2,4,6]
The Performance of Displacement based formulation in finite element method depends
primarily on the approximate displacement function, which we are free to assume any
function. The approximate displacement function is based on the assumed shape function
(refer any FEM book to know more about Shape function) and the assumed shape functions
limit the infinite degree of freedom of the real system, and the true minimum of the energy
may never reached, irrespective of the fineness of subdivision. To ensure convergence to the
correct result certain simple requirements must be satisfied. Obviously, for instance, the
displacement function should be able to represent the true displacement distribution as closely
as desired. It will be found that this is not so if the chosen functions are such that straining is
possible when the element is subjected to rigid body displacements at the nodes. Thus, the
first criterion that the displacement function must obey is:

Criterion 1: The displacement shape functions chosen should be such that they do not
permit straining of an element to occur when the nodal displacements are caused by a
rigid body motion.
A second criterion stems from similar requirements. Clearly, as elements get smaller nearly
constant strain conditions will prevail in them. If, in fact, constant strain conditions exist, it is
most desirable for good accuracy that a finite size element is able to reproduce these exactly.
It is possible to formulate functions that satisfy the first criterion but at the same time require
a strain variation throughout the element when the nodal displacements are compatible with
a constant strain solution. Such functions will, in general, not show good convergence to an
accurate solution and cannot, even in the limit, represent the true strain distribution. The
second criterion can therefore be formulated as follows:

Criterion 2: The displacement shape functions have to be of such a form that if nodal
displacements are compatible with a constant strain condition such constant strain will
in fact be obtained.
This criterion was first stated by Bazeley et al. 7 in 1966. Strictly, both criteria need only be
satisfied in the limit as the size of the element tends to zero. However, the imposition of these
criteria on elements of finite size leads to improved accuracy, although in certain situations
(such as in axisymmetric analysis) the imposition of the second one is not possible or essential.
In considering the virtual work for the whole system [Eq. (1.0)] and equating this to the sum
of the element contributions it is implicitly assumed that no discontinuity in displacement
between adjacent elements develops. If such a discontinuity developed, a contribution equal
to the work done by the stresses in the separations would have to be added.

.. 1.0

It therefore appears necessary that the following criterion be included:

Criterion 3: The displacement shape functions should be chosen such that the strains
at the interface between elements are finite (even though they may be discontinuous).

1
This criterion implies a certain continuity of displacements between elements. In the case of
strains being defined by first derivatives, as in the plane stress example quoted here, the
displacements only have to be continuous (Co continuity). If, however, the 'strains' are defined
by second derivatives, first derivatives of these have also to be continuous (C1 continuity).
Those displacement function which satisfied above stated criterion is always converges
towards the exact solution and the rate of convergence is asymptotic and monotonic. The
element which formulate that kind of displacement function is called Conforming Element.
And from above discussion we know that the all conforming element is converges towards
the exact solution. But what about those element which are non-conforming, whether they
are converging towards exact solution or not? If they are converging then how we know this
nonconforming element is converging and what is the rate of convergence? Answer of all
these question can be given by PATCH Test.
1.1 Patch Test:[1,6]
As now we know that those displacement function which satisfied compatibility and
completeness criteria, the calculated solution converges in the strain energy monotonically (i.e.
, one-sided) to the exact solution. In practice, a frequently made observation is that satisfactory
finite element analysis results have been obtained although some continuity requirements
between displacement based elements in the mesh employed were violated.
Since in finite element analysis using incompatible (nonconforming) elements the requirements
presented in above section are not satisfied, the calculated total potential energy is not
necessarily an upper bound to the exact total potential energy of the system, and consequently,
monotonic convergence in the analysis is not ensured. However, having relaxed the objective
of monotonic convergence in the analysis, we still need to establish conditions that will ensure
at least a nonmonotonic convergence.
As a test to investigate whether an assemblage of nonconforming elements is complete (this
criterion we cant compromise even in nonconforming element, there should be rigid body
modes), the patch test has been proposed by B.M. Irons and A. Razzaque. In this test a specific
element is considered and a patch of elements is subjected to the minimum displacement
boundary conditions (essential boundary conditions) to eliminate all rigid body modes and to
the boundary nodal point forces (natural boundary conditions) that by analysis should result in
constant stress conditions. If for any patch of element stresses actually represent the constant
stress conditions and all nodal point displacements are correctly predicted, we say that the
element passes the patch test.
Patch test is:
a) it is a necessary condition for assessing the convergence of any finite element
approximation and further that, if properly extended and interpreted, it can provide,
b) a sufficient requirement for convergence,
c) an assessment of the (asymptotic) convergence rate of the element tested,
d) a check on the robustness of the algorithm, and
e) a means of developing new finite element forms which can violate compatibility
(continuity) requirements.
f) a check that correct programming was achieved.
1.2 Procedure: [5]

2
 1. Prepare simple FE Model (i.e. patch of element as shown below)

Fig 1.0 Simple FE Model

2. At least one node should be inside the boundary as shown above. A node internal to
an element, if present, is neither loaded nor restrained.
3. Provide enough support (essential boundary conditions) to eliminate rigid body modes.
4. Now we assign to the nodes on the boundary of the patch Displacements- including
rotations, if any corresponding to some arbitrary state of constant stress (it may be
shear or normal or both type of stress) (i.e. apply constant stress, constant strain or
constant curvature).
5. Now solve this by any FEM technique.
6. Check - The displacements in the internal nodes have been computed exactly, and
7. Check - The stressed are correct everywhere (at Gauss Points, node points, centroids)
and constant everywhere.
8. Findings - If the exact displacements and stresses are reproduced, the particular element
is said to have passed patch test.
Example of Plate Bending: [2]

3
 Fig 2.0 Patch of Element for Plate Bending
Assumed displacement functions (@ boundary):

You can see above constant curvature condition is there for plate bending case.
Example 2: [3]
Problem Geometry in 2D Case:

Problem Geometry in 3D Case:

4
Boundary Conditions and theoretical Solution:

Types of Elements Used in the analysis and their properties:

Results and reporting on Patch test:

5
Patch test result is presented in percentage error and a letter grade is assigning to the element.
Table 1.0 Rules and Grading for Patch test.
S No. Grade Rule
1. A 2% error
2. B 10% to 2%
3. C 20% to 10%
4. D 50% to 10%
5. F Error>50%

Table 2.0 Patch Test results for elements considered.

Maximum error in stress
QUAD 2 QUAD4 QUAD8 HEXA (8) HEXA (20) HEXA (20) R
Constant- 0.0 0.0 18% 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stress
loading
Constant- 30.7% 0.0 51.6% N/A N/A N/A
Curvature
loading

Table 3.0 Grade Classification in 2D

Element Loading Element
In Plane Out Plane Shape QUAD2 QUAD4 QUAD8
Irregular A A C
Irregular D A D

Table 4.0 Grade classification in 3D Case

Element Shape HEXA 8 HEXA 20 HEXA 20 R
Irregular A A A

Note: From above result we can see that the no. of failing patch test is 2 i.e. QUAD2 and
QUAD4 is failing in constant curvature patch test i.e. in plate bending.
1.3 Suitability of the problem for element type: Patch Test [3]
Beam
Membrane Plate ()
Bending Plate ()
Shell (an element that combines membrane and bending properties)
Solid ()
1.4 Precautions: [2]

6
 Patch should be completely arbitrary, consisting of arbitrary shaped elements.
The test stress field should include all the appropriate components.
The Poisson's ratio should be non-zero.
Material properties should be same as the real problem like, for isotropic application it
should be isotropic, for anisotropic it should be anisotropic.

References:
1. O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor & J. Z. ZHU, The Finite Element Method Its Basis
& Fundamentals, Elsevier,6th Edition, 2013.
2. Abdur Razzaque, The Patch Test for Elements, International Journal for Numerical
Methods I N Engineering, Vol. 22, 63-7 1 (1986).
3. Richard H. MACNEAI. And Robert L. HARDER, A Proposed Standard Set Of
Problems to Test Finite Element Accuracy, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 1
(1985) 3-20 North-Holland.
4. O. C. Zienkiewicz And A. C. H. Chan, R. L. Taylor And J. C. Simo, The Patch Test-
a Condition For Assessing Fem Convergence, International Journal For Numerical
Methods M Engineering, Vol. 22, 39-62 (1986).
5. R. D. Cook, David S. Malkus, Micheal E. Plesha, R. J. Witt, Concepts and Applications
of Finite Element Analysis, Wiley India (P) limited, 4th Edition, 2013.
6. K. J. Bathe, Finite element Procedures, PHI, 1966.
7. G.P. Bazeley, Y.K. Cheung, B.M. Irons, and O.C. Zienkiewicz. Triangular elements in
bending -conforming and non-conforming solutions. In Proc. 1st Conf. Matrix Methods
in Structural Mechanics, volume AFFDL-TR-66-80, pages 547-576, Wright Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, Oct. 1966.