Locking in the Finite Element method

E. Semih Perdahcıoğlu

Introduction
In the case of a static analysis, the Finite Element method gives an approximation to
the equilibrium equation based on the Galerkin’s method of solution of the virtual work
theorem (or weak form of the weighted residuals) discretized in finite domains. The solution
is made possible by starting with an initial choice of the displacement field which has the
only requirement to be kinematically admissible. It is common practice choose low-order
polynomials for the displacements over each element whose coefficients, once determined,
will give the full displacement field over the structure.
Kinematic admissibility ensures that the resulting displacement field is continuous and
single-valued so that compatibility holds for every choice of the unknown coefficients. How-
ever, it does not guarantee that the chosen polynomial can represent the solution that is
expected from the physics of the process. Therefore it is up to the analyst to select the
best type of elements, hence interpolation functions within the elements, in order to carry
out a successful analysis.
Several issues can arise due to the choice of interpolation functions. Most common issue
happens when the solution is highly non-linear (in space) and few elements with low-order
interpolation functions are chosen for the simulation. The results are expected in this case
to be erroneous. The error in this case can go easily up to an order of magnitude. However
suitable error estimators and common sense will usually lead to the analyst recognizing
and correcting this behavior by increasing either or both the number and the order of the
elements.
In the case of locking however, the mechanism that results in the error is usually much
more concealed. It will happen in problems that are expected to be quite homogeneous
(i.e. not too non-linear), the error estimators might not catch this as an error and mesh
refinement will not help. Most critically, the error will be at least in the order of a few
orders of magnitude.
The rest of this script aims to identify two cases of locking based on the underlying theory
and also propose methods to eliminate, solve or minimize the error.

1
 R R
M θ M

Figure 1: Euler-Bernoulli beam bending theory showing the neutral line and the no-shear
deformation assumption. R is the radius of curvature, M is the external moment and θ is
the bending angle.

Shear Locking
Shear locking occurs when solid elements, either 2D or 3D, with bilinear or trilinear inter-
polation functions, respectively, are subjected to bending. Although the problem can be
easily investigated and understood by the geometry of the deformed element after bending,
in the following a more thorough theoretical approach will be presented that relates the
observed phenomenon to the chosen displacement field.
In Figure 1, the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory is shown where a slender beam bent to a
small angle has no transverse shear deformation. The strain field can be shown to follow:

(R − y) θ − R θ y
εxx = = − = −yκ (1)
Rθ R
εyy = −νεxx = νyκ (2)
γxy =0 (3)

where ν is the Poisson’s ratio and κ is the curvature. According to Equation (1) the normal
strain in the x direction has a constant gradient over the y direction.
In order to carry out an FE simulation an element type needs to be chosen. This implies
that an interpolation function for the displacement over the element is being assumed. For
instance a biquadratic 2D element (Q8) has the interpolation functions:

u(x, y) = a1 + a2 x + a3 y + a4 xy + a5 x2 + a6 y 2 + a7 x2 y + a8 xy 2
v(x, y) = b1 + b2 x + b3 y + b4 xy + b5 x2 + b6 y 2 + b7 x2 y + b8 xy 2 (4)

Using the displacement fields given in equation (4) the strain field as a function of the

2
unknown coefficients can be determined:
∂u
εxx = = a2 + a4 y + 2a5 x + 2a7 xy + a8 y 2 (5)
∂x
∂v
εyy = = b3 + b4 x + 2b6 y + b7 x2 + 2b8 xy (6)
∂y
∂u ∂v
γxy = + = a3 + b2 + (a4 + 2b5 ) x + (2a6 + b4 ) y+
∂y ∂x
a7 x2 + 2 (a8 + b7 ) xy + b8 y 2 (7)

Locking happens when in the displacement solution there is not enough free coefficients
(degrees of freedom) to conform to the equilibrium solution. In the case of the biqudaratic
element therefore we have to check if the previous conditions, given in (1)-(3), can be
satisfied. The solution can be found as follows:

a2 = a5 = a6 = a7 = a8 = 0 , b3 = b4 = b7 = b8 = 0, a3 + b2 = 0
1 1 ν
a4 = − , b5 = , b6 =
R 2R 2R
1 1
x2 + νy 2


⇒ u(x, y) = a1 + a3 y − xy & v(x, y) = b1 − a3 x + (8)
R 2R

Equation (8) shows that it is possible to find the coefficients of the displacement field that
can fulfill the requirements of bending. In this equation a1 , b1 and b3 will have to be
determined using boundary conditions. We can conclude that Q8 element does not have
shear locking.
Let’s now consider the behavior of the bilinear 2D element (Q4) under the same conditions.
The interpolation functions are:

u(x, y) = a1 + a2 x + a3 y + a4 xy
v(x, y) = b1 + b2 x + b3 y + b4 xy (9)

with the corresponding strain field:

∂u
εxx = = a2 + a4 y
∂x
∂v
εyy = = b3 + b4 x
∂y
∂u ∂v
γxy = + = a3 + b 2 + a4 x + b 4 y (10)
∂y ∂x
It is clear that there is no possibility of finding a solution that satisfies all of these equations.
Any existence of bending requires a4 6= 0 which immediately results in γxy 6= 0. This means

3
that when we try to bend this element we will get shear deformation, and therefore the
stiffness of the beam will be increased by the resistance against shear deformation. Another
way of looking at this is to consider the energy required for deformation. When we try to
bend this element the energy required will be both bending and in-plane shearing. However
materials are much more stiff against shear deformation compared to bending and therefore
most of the energy will be spent in shearing the plate and little will remain for bending.
Hence the overall observed stiffness will be magnitudes larger.
It is also possible to see the Q4 element as a constrained Q8 element. Imagine that the
following additional constraints are added to the stiffness matrix of the Q8 element:

a5 = a6 = a7 = a8 = b5 = b6 = b7 = b8 = 0 (11)

By choosing the Q4 element, it seems that we have put constraints on the actual solution
to keep the element edges straight. These are not explicitly added to the system by us but
come implicitly with the element formulation. We will see later that constraints that appear
due to the nature of the problem are called implicit constraints and play an important role
in studying locking phenomenon.

Volume Locking
Interestingly volume locking is triggered by a certain value of one material property; the
Poisson’s ratio. This might induce a faulty interpretation that this type of locking is
caused by something wrong in the mathematical model, i.e. the virtual work theorem. It
is important therefore to keep in mind that locking is purely a numerical error and has
nothing to do with either the physics or the mathematical modeling of the equilibrium
equation.
When the Poisson’s ratio, ν, is equal to 0.5, the material that is subject to deformation
has the property that its volume remains constant. This can be proven in a number of
different ways, where one of the shortest ones is given below. The hydrostatic stress i.e.
sum of normal stresses, is related to the volumetric strain, i.e. sum of normal strains, via
the bulk modulus, κ:
E
σ h = κ εv , κ = (12)
3(1 − 2ν)
When ν approaches 0.5 therefore the bulk modulus tends to infinity. This might sound
as a singularity but this implies that the material is actually rigid with respect to volume
change. In other words, whatever the applied pressure, the volume remains constant:

ν = 0.5 ⇒ κ = ∞
σh
εv = εxx + εyy + εzz = = 0. (13)
κ

4
 Figure 2: A part of a mesh made of Q4 elements.

In 2D and under the plane strain assumption constant volume requirement actually implies
constant area since εzz = 0.
For the 2D, plane strain, 4 node, bilinear quadrilateral element the interpolation functions
were given in (9) and strain components in (10). Applying the constant volume condition
to this element therefore results in the following equation:

εxx + εyy = a2 + a4 y + a3 + b4 x = 0 (14)

This equation must hold for every point inside the element, therefore for any arbitrary
coordinate. This can only happen if the following conditions are satisfied:

a2 + b 3 = 0
b4 = 0
a4 = 0 (15)

This means that constant volume requirement that occurred due to Poisson’s ratio being
equal to 0.5 results in 3 implicit constraints for this element type.
Note: It is left to the reader to do the same exercise for the 2D, plane strain, 8 node,
biquadratic element and find out the implicit constraints that appear for this element
type.
Equation (15) shows that every Q4 element that exists in the mesh for the FE simulation
has 3 implicit constraints which reduce the number of active degrees of freedom by 3 (see
lecture on constraint equations). On the other hand when this element would be added to
an existing mesh, such as the one in figure 2 (imagine element 11), only one new node and
hence 2 degrees of freedom are added to the system equations. This means that the added
d.o.f. will be locked by the constraint equations.

5
Reduced integration
The displacement fields demonstrated in the previous sections were written in terms of
unknown polynomial coefficients, a. However for compatibility and ease of formulation in
the Finite Element formulations the interpolation functions are written in terms of nodal
degrees of freedom, u. Both formulations are equivalent and interchangable. This means
that all the derived formulations in the previous section can also be written in terms of
the nodal displacements equivalently.
When that is carried out the constraint equations that arose are also transferred through
the B matrix to the stiffness matrix K after integration:
Z
Ke = BT D B dV (16)
Ve

where Ve is the volume of the element and D is the elasticity matrix.

This integral is carried out in the natural coordinates and using Gauss-Legendre numerical
integration method. This means that the inside of the integral is evaluated at certain
points we call integration points, whose coordinates in the natural coordinates are always
fixed, and multiplied with known weight values. The results are then only summed up and
an approximation to the integral is obtained.
If the function is polynomial the exact integral can be computed with this method provided
that the correct number of integration points are used. This number is found by the rule:

p = 2n − 1 (17)

where p is the polynomial order of the function to be integrated and n is the (integer)
number of integration points needed.
This process is schematically illustrated in figure 3 in 1D but can be directly generalized
to more dimensions where for every dimension the number of integration points must be
determined independently.
When the number of integration points used for the integration are less than that needed
for the polynomial order it is called a reduced integration scheme. That means an error is
being made. This is usually a bad practice but in the case of locking it reduces the number
of implicit constraints.
This can be seen directly when the volume locking of the four node quadrilateral element
is considered. To be able to satisfy equation (14) everywhere in the element implicit
constraints shown in (15) appear. However when reduced integration is used this equation
will enter the stiffness matrix at the point (ξ = 0, η = 0) in the local coordinates. This
implies that the number of constraints reduce from 3 to 1, thereby freeing 2 d.o.f. to the
system.

6
 Rx2
f (x) dx
x1
x1 x2
R1
= g(η) dη
−1
−1 0 1
n
P
√ √ ≈ wi g(ηi )
i=1
−1/ 3 1/ 3
Figure 3: Conceptual sketch of Gauss-Legendre numerical integration in 1D where the
bottom one shows the location of the integration points for the 2 point rule.

Constraint counting
The direct way of determining if volume locking occurs in a certain element is by the
process that is described in the previous section; by counting the constraints appearing
due to the volume conservation. On the other hand there is an easier method that gives
an indication if volume locking will occur or not. In a misleading way it is referred to as
constraint counting.
It is misleading in the sense that the exact number of constraints are not being counted
but are replaced with something that is easier to determine, which are the number of
integration points.
Consider once again figure 2 and the imaginary element 11. When we add element 11 to
the system we are introducing 2 degrees of freedom and 4 integration points when we use
exact number of integration points. The ratio:
# d.o.f.
(18)
# i.p.
then is the indication for locking. For the Q4 element that means that the ratio is 0.5 ⇒< 1
which implies locking will occur. And when reduced integration is used it becomes 2 ⇒> 1
which predicts correctly that locking is circumvented.