Introduction

Matrix methods of structural analysisfirstproved of interest in the late forties and the
early fifties [1-3], as a reult of a requirement for lighter aircraft structures.
The main problem at that time, however, was the lack or complete absence of
computational power, as the high-speed digital computer with its own memory was
not invented until 1946. Despite the fact that this computer had 19000 valves, its
memory was very small. This computer was called ENIAC, and according to Willis
[4], it weighed about 30 tonnes, required about 110 m3 to house it, and it consumed
about 140 kW of power. Furthermore, to prevent if from overheating, it required
several tonnes of ice per day to keep it cool, and based on today's values, its purchase
price was in millions of dollars!
Thus, it is evident that during this period, progress in matrix methods in structural
mechanics was relatively slow, largely because of the lack of computational power.
Indeed, during that period, teams of operators of desktop electromechanical
calculators often took several days to invert a matrix of modest size.
In 1956, a major breakthrough was made with numerical methods in structural
mechanics, when Turner et al. [5] invented the finite element method. Turner et al.
showed how complex in-plane plate problems can be represented by finite elements
of triangular shape, where each triangular element was described by three corner
nodes.
Throughout the sixties, much progress was made with both computer technology
and the development of more sophisticated finite elements [6-11].
In 1965, Melosh [12] realised that thefiniteelement method could be extended to
field problems by variational methods. This paper was an important contribution, as
it led to a much wider use of thefiniteelement method, and Zienkiewicz [13] applied
it to a large number of steady-state and transient field problems.
At about the same time, researchers realised that a similar concept had been
presented by Courant [14] in 1943. The main difference between Courant's concept
and that of the finite element formulation was that Courant used finite differences.
In the early sixties, the integrated circuit was invented, and in 1970, Intel
invented the first microprocessor. Since then, the accessibility to computational
 Introduction 13
power has increased at an astonishing rate, and this has accelerated the use and
development of the finite element method.
Today, computational power is much larger, more reliable, and relatively cheap,
and as most technological concerns have access to computers, the popularity of using
numerical methods is an ever increasing phenomenon. Even microcomputers [15,
16] can be used for finite element analysis, and as microcomputers become more
powerful, it is likely that their effect will cause a technological explosion in the use of
sophisticated methods for engineering science.
It is the author's belief that microcomputers and hand-held computers will
revolutionise the teaching of engineering science [17] during the nineties. Closed-
loop solutions will be replaced by numerical ones, wherever necessary, although if
the problem is trivial and a closed-loop trivial solution exists, then the engineer might
as well use the simpler solution.
Finite elements require computers, for without computers the finite element
method would be like trying to move an automobile without a motor.
In general, the finite element method is particularly useful for solving a differen­
tial equation, together with its boundary conditions, over a domain of complex
shape. The process, therefore, is to represent the domain by a large number of finite
elements of simpler shape, as shown in Fig. 1.1. These finite elements are described
by nodal points, the larger the number of nodes per element, the more sophisticated
the element.

Fig. 1.1 — Finite elements representing a domain.

By assuming an approximate variation of the required function over the finite

element, and by considering elemental boundary conditions, the function approxi­
mation can be obtained in terms of the nodal values of the function for a particular
element. Then, by considering equilibrium/compatibility at all the inter-element
boundaries, together with known boundary conditions, a set of simultaneous
equations will result.
14 Introduction

Some of the simultaneous equations will be homogeneous and others non-

homogeneous, but in general, their solution will give nodal values of the unknown
function, together with other information.
Sometimes the nodal values of the function are all that are required, as in the case
of temperature or piezometric pressure head, but in other cases, such as in structural
analysis, the function may be in the form of generalised displacements, hence it will
usually be necessary to relate these generalised displacements to generalised forces,
stresses, etc.
Generalised displacements take various forms, including translations and
rotations, and these displacements correspond to generalised forces, such as line
forces and couples, respectively.

Good FEM practice

In choosing an element, it is usually necessary to ensure that the theoretical
predictions from the element converge with an increase in mesh refinement.
One method of achieving this is to select a simple problem, with known results,
and to check the finite element by plotting its predictions against the number of
nodes, as shown in Fig. 1.2.
Exact value

Number of nodes
Fig. 1.2 — Converging (conforming) element.

Fig. 1.2 shows the results of a converging element, but non-converging elements,
with results such as those of Fig. 1.3, should be avoided, if possible.

Exact value

\ FEM

Number of nodes
Fig 3 — Non-converging element.
 Introduction 15

Other elements, which should be used with care, are those where the results only
partially converge with increase in the number of nodes, as shown in Fig. 1.4.

Number of nodes

Fig. 1.4 — Partially converging element.

Another possible test on the converging properties of the element is the 'patch'
test, as described by Irons [18,19].
Even if the element is a converging one, care should be taken to avoid attaching a
very stiff element to a very flimsy one, as shown in Fig. 1.5. When structural

element / + 1
element /
/

Fig. 1.5 — Undesirable choice of elements.

element ' + 1

element I . I I I
i •element / + 2

Fig. 1.6 — More desirable choice of elements.

members, such as in Fig. 1.5, appear it is better to choose a mesh like that of Fig. 1.6,
where the variation in stiffness between any two adjacent elements is decreased.
Such a choice usually improves numerical stability.
Numerical instability is a problem of which the engineer has to be continuously
aware. Apart from numerical instability occurring due to a very 'stiff element being
16 Introduction

connected to a very 'flexible' one, it can also occur if a badly shaped element is
chosen, such as that shown in Fig. 1.7. Ideally, triangular elements should be
equilateral triangles and, in any case, the minimum angle between any two adjacent
sides should not be less than 30°.

Fig. 1.7 — Badly shaped triangular element.

Other badly shaped elements are those that can occur with the more sophisticated
elements, as shown in Fig. 1.8. In these cases, the elements have been badly distorted
at the points shown by the arrows.

Fig. 1.8 — Badly shaped elements.

Badly shaped elements very often cause negative numbers to appear on the main
diagonal of the stiffness matrix, when, in fact, such numbers should always be
positive.
Other numerical problems that occur with finite elements are the method of
solution used and the number of equations to be solved. Either of these features can
cause the numerical precision of the computer to be exceeded, and for many cases it
will be necessary to resort to double-precision arithmetic.
To guard against bad finite element practice, it will be necessary for the engineer
to gain suitable experience from trial and error, and also by searching the appropri­
ate references [13,19]. Perhaps the best test of all is to compare the finite element
solution with large amounts of carefully obtained experimental observations.