116 ‘Some Basic Concepts of Engineering Analysis Chap. 3 stationarity condition on the IT derived does indeed yield the governing differential equa- tions. This procedure is employed to derive appropriate functionals in many cases (see Section 3.3.4 and Chapters 4 and 7, and for further treatment see, for example, R. Courant and D. Hilbert [A], S. G. Mikhlin [A], K. Washizu [B], and J. T. Oden and J. N. Reddy [A]). In this context, it should also be noted that in considering a specific problem, there does not generally exist a unique appropriate functional, but a number of functionals are applicable. For instance, in the solution of structural mechanics problems, we can employ the principle of minimum potential energy, other displacement-based variational formulations, the Hu- Washizu or Hellinger-Reissner principles, and so on (see Section 4.4.2). Another important observation is that once a functional has been established for a certain class of problems, the functional can be employed to generate the governing equa- tions for all problems in that class and therefore provides a general analysis tool. For example, the principle of minimum potential energy is general and is applicable to all problems in linear elasticity theory. Based simply on a utilitarian point of view, the following observations can be made in regard to variational formulations. 1. The variational method may provide a relatively easy way to construct the system- governing equations. This ease of use of a variational principle depends largely on the fact that in the variational formulation scalar quantities (energies, potentials, and so on) are considered rather than vector quantities (forces, displacements, and so on). 2. A variational approach may lead more directly to the system-governing equations and boundary conditions. For example, if a complex system is being considered, it is of advantage that some variables that need to be included in a direct formulation are not considered in a variational formulation (such as internal forces that do no net work). 3. The variational approach provides some additional insight into a problem and gives an independent check on the formulation of the problem. 4, For approximate solutions, a larger class of trial functions can be employed in many cases if the analyst operates on the variational formulation rather than on the differ- ential formulation of the problem; for example, the trial functions need not satisfy the natural boundary conditions because these boundary conditions are implicitly con- tained in the functional (see Section 3.3.4). This last consideration has most important consequences, and much of the success of the finite element method hinges on the fact that by employing a variational formulation, a larger class of functions can be used. We examine this point in more detail in the next section and in Section 3.3.4. 3.3.3 Weighted Residual Methods; Ritz Method In previous sections we have discussed differential and variational formulations of the governing equilibrium equations of continuous systems. In dealing with relatively simple systems, these equations can be solved in closed form using techniques of integration, separation of variables, and so on. For more complex systems, approximate procedures of solution must be employed. The objective in this section is to survey some classical tech- niques in which a family of trial functions is used to obtain an approximate solution. WeSec.3.3 Solution of Continuous-System Mathematical Models "7 shall see later that these techniques are very closely related to the finite element method of analysis and that indeed the finite element method can be regarded as an extension of these classical procedures. Consider the analysis of a steady-state problem using its differential formulation Lal] =r (3.8) in which Lo» is a linear differential operator, ¢ is the state variable to be calculated, and r is the forcing function. The solution to the problem must also satisfy the boundary condi- tions Bd] = ilar voudary 5;3 i=1,2,. (3.9) We shall be concerned, in particular, with symmetric and positive definite operators that satisfy the symmetry condition J entune dD= J (Lan{v])u dD 3.10) > b and the condition of positive definiteness [enti aD>0 @.11) B where D is the domain of the operator and and v are any functions that satisfy homoge- neous essential and natural boundary conditions. To clarify the meaning of relations (3.8) to (3.11), we consider the following example. EXAMPLE 3.21: The steady-state response of the bar shown in Fig. E3.17 is calculated by solving the differential equation (a) subject to the boundary conditions Uleo FA~| =R ) Identify the operators and functions of (3.8) and (3.9) and check whether the operator Lay is symmetric and positive definite, Comparing (3.8) with (a), we see that in this problem --u&, - m= "EAS 6 Similarly, comparing (3.9) with (b), we obtain B, a a B= EAT; m=R To identify whether the operator L2m is symmetric and positive definite, we consider the case R = 0. This means physically that we are concemed only with the structure itself and not,18 Some Basic Concepts of Engineering Analysis Chap. 3 with the loading applied to it. For (3.10) we have 5 Pu au ey as ii = 2 ax L © ou av = BAS o} + Baw Since the boundary conditions are w = » = Oatx = Qand du/ax = av/ax = Oatx = L, we have : Fu - f #o f BAS sede = | BATS ude and the operator is symmetric. We can also directly conclude that the operator is positive definite because from (c) we obtain “ 1 Pu uy [~ 202 utc= 2a( 2) a In the following we discuss the use of classical weighted residual methods and the Ritz method in the solution of linear steady-state problems as in (3.8) and (3.9), but the same concepts can also be employed in the analysis of propagation problems and eigenproblems and in the analysis of nonlinear response (see Examples 3.23 and 3.24). The basic step in the weighted residual and Ritz analyses is to assume a solution of the form oo > af, (3.12) where the fi are linearly independent trial functions and the a, are multipliers to be deter- mined in the solution, Consider first the weighted residual methods. These techniques operate directly on (3.8) and (3.9). Using these methods, we choose the functions f, in (3.12) so as to satisfy all boundary conditions in (3.9), and we then calculate the residual Rer- tal 3 asi} (3.13) For the exact solution this residual is of course zero. A good approximation to the exact solution would imply that X is small at all points of the solution domain. The various weighted residual methods differ in the criteria that they employ to calculate the a; such that Ris small. However, in all techniques we determine the a; so as to make a weighted average of R vanish. Galerkin method. In this technique the parameters a; are determined from the n equations [sean =O §=1,2%...,0 (3.14) B where D is the solution domain.Sec. 3.3 Solution of Continuous-System Mathematical Models 19 Least squares method, _ In this technique the integral of the square of the residual is minimized with respect to the parameters ai, a R? dD = 0; G=1,2,...,0 a dai Jp Substituting from (3.13), we thus obtain the following n simultaneous equations for the parameters a,, i Rl dD = 0; G.16) Collocation method. _ In this method the residual R is set equal to zero at n distinct points in the solution domain to obtain n simultaneous equations for the parameters aj. The location of the n points can be somewhat arbitrary, and a uniform pattern may be appropri- ate, but usually the analyst should use some judgment to employ appropriate locations. Subdomain method. The complete domain of solution is subdivided into n sub- domains, and the integral of the residual in (3.13) over each subdomain is set equal to zero to generate equations for the parameters a.. ‘An important step in using a weighted residual method is the solution of the simulta- neous equations for the parameters a,. We note that since Lay is a linear operator, in all the procedures mentioned, a linear set of equations in the parameters a; is generated. In the Galerkin method, the coefficient matrix is symmetric (and also positive definite) if Lay is a symmetric (and also positive definite) operator. In the least squares method we always generate a symmetric coefficient matrix irrespective of the properties of the operator Ln. However, in the collocation and subdomain methods, nonsymmetric coefficient matrices may be generated. In practical analysis, therefore, the Galerkin and least squares methods are usually preferable. Using weighted residual methods, we operate directly on (3.8) and (3.9) to minimize the error between the trial solution in (3.12) and the actual solution to the problem. Considering next the Ritz analysis method (due to W. Ritz [A]), the fundamental difference from the weighted residual methods is that in the Ritz method we operate on the functional corresponding to the problem in (3.8) and (3.9). Let II be the functional of the C™~! variational problem that is equivalent to the differential formulation given in (3.8) and (3.9); in the Ritz method we substitute the trial functions $ given in (3.12) into IT and generate n simultaneous equations for the parameters a, using the stationarity condition of I, BI] = 0 {see (3.1)], which now gives all 3a, en @.17) An important consideration is the selection of the trial (or Ritz) functions f; in (3.12). In the Ritz analysis these functions need only satisfy the essential boundary conditions and not the natural boundary conditions. The reason for this relaxed requirement on the trial functions is that the natural boundary conditions are implicitly contained in the functional TI. Assume that the L2, operator corresponding to the variational problem is symmetric and positive definite. In this case the actual extremum of II is its minimum, and by invoking120 Some Basic Concepts of Engineering Analysis Chap. 3 (3.17) we minimize (in some sense) the violation of the internal equilibrium requirements and the violation of the natural boundary conditions (see Section 4.3). Therefore, for convergence in a Ritz analysis, the trial functions need only satisfy the essential boundary conditions, which is a fact that may not be anticipated because we know that the exact solution also satisfies the natural boundary conditions. Actually, assuming a given number of trial functions, it can be expected that in most cases the solution will be more accurate if these functions also satisfy the natural boundary conditions. However, it can be very difficult to find such trial functions, and it is generally more effective to use instead a larger number of functions that satisfy only the essential boundary conditions. We demonstrate the use of the Ritz method in the following examples. EXAMPLE 3.22: Consider a simple bar fixed at one end (x = 0) and subjected to a concen- trated force at the other end (x = 180) as shown in Fig. E3.22. Using the notation given in the figure, the total potential of the structure is 0 1, (du? n-|, Sea(%) dx — 100x|--180 @ and the essential boundary condition is u|--0 = 0. 1, Calculate the exact displacement and stress distributions in the bar. 2. Calculate the displacement and stress distributions using the Ritz method with the follow: ing displacement assumptions: 4 = ax + ax? (b) ua and w=, 0s5x=100 100’ © Cross-sectional area = (1+ 7 Tom? L. +100 are om——+| Figure E3.22 Bar subjected to a concentrated end force In order to calculate the exact displacements in the structure, we use the stationarity condition of II and generate the governing differential equation and the natural boundary condition, We have all = [le *) (4) dx — 100 51.190 @Sec. 3.3 Solution of Continuous-System Mathematical Models 121 Setting 611 = 0 and using integration by parts, we obtain (see Example 3.19) a ae ® di FA Gs lem 2 The solution of (¢) subject to the natural boundary condition in (f) and the essential boundary condition u|.-0 = 0 gives O GL |e |=] 0 @ oP 4b Le. 32 GL 3 IL 0Sec. 3.3 Solution of Continuous-System Mathematical Models 123 The final equilibrium equations are now obtained by imposing on the equations in (@) the condition that @|,-1 = 6); ie., Oi(t) + (DL + O()L? = 6 which can be achieved by expressing 6, in (¢) in terms of 62, 05, and 6,. EXAMPLE 3.24: Consider the static buckling response of the column in Example 3.20. As- sume that w= ax? + ax? (a) and use the Ritz method to formulate equations from which we can obtain an approximate buckling load. ‘The functional governing the problem was given in Example 3.20, 1" (dw)? P {* (aw? 1 7 0 ali a(S) dx - al (GY ae + Sher ) ‘We note that the trial function on w in (a) already satisfies the essential boundary conditions (displacement and slope equal to zero at the fixed end). Substituting for w into (b), we obtain =5 f El(2ay + 6a)? dx — ef Qayx + 34x?) dx + SHaL* + ab¥ Invoking the stationarity condition S11 = 0, ie., aml am aa; das ° we obtain 2b 3k? 1 L))fa ; % a 0 261) + kL lar ar = 3L? 6L* Lv a, z F\le 0 The solution of this eigenproblem gives two values of P for which w in (a) is nonzero. The smaller value of P represents an approximation to the lowest buckling load of the structure, The weighted residual methods presented in (3.14) to (3.16) are difficult to use in practice because the trial functions must be 2m-times-differentiable and satisfy all—essen- tial and natural—boundary conditions [see (3.13)]. On the other hand, with the Ritz method, which operates on the functional corresponding to the problem being considered, the trial functions need to be only m-times-differentiable and do not need to satisfy the natural boundary conditions, These considerations are most important for practical analy- sis, and therefore the Galerkin method is used in practice in a different form, namely, in a form that allows the use of the same functions as used in the Ritz method. In the displacement-based analysis of solids and structures, this form of the Galerkin method is referred to as the principle of virtual displacements. If the appropriate variational indicator Tlis used, the equations obtained with the Ritz method are then identical to those obtained with the Galerkin method. We elaborate upon these issues in the next section with the objective of providing further understanding for the introduction of finite element procedures.124 ‘Some Basic Concepts of Engineering Analysis Chap. 3 3.3.4 An Overview: The Differential and Galerkin Formulations, the Principle of Virtual Displacements, and an Introduction to the Finite Element Solution In the previous sections we reviewed some classical differential and variational formula- tions, some classical weighted residual methods, and the Ritz method. We now want to reinforce our understanding of these analysis approaches—by summarizing some impor- tant concepts—and briefly introduce a mathematical framework for finite element proce- dures that we will further use and extend in Chapter 4. Let us pursue this objective by focusing on the analysis of a simple example problem. Consider the one-dimensional bar in Fig. 3.2. The bar is subjected to a distributed load F(x) and a concentrated load R at its right end. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, the differen- tial formulation of the bar gives the governing equations EA os +f? in the bar (3.18) pinerental G.19) EA # oe (3.20) Since f? = ax, we obtain the solution =e eo*r” (ox*/6) + (R+ dab'yx B.21) EA Constant cross-sectional area A Young's modulus E £9x) = ax Figure 3.2 Uniform bar subjected to body load f* (force/unit length) and tip load R We recall that (3.18) is a statement of equilibrium at any point x within the bar, (3.19) is the essential (or geometric) boundary condition (see Section 3.2.2), and (3.20) is the natural (or force) boundary condition. The exact analytical solution (3.21) of course satisfies all three equations (3.18) to (3.20). We also note that the solution u(x) is a continuous and twice-differentiable function, as required in (3.18). Indeed, we can say that the solutions to (3.18) satisfying (3.19) and (3.20) for any continuous loading f” lie in the space of continuous and twice-differentiable functions that satisfy (3.19) and (3.20).Sec. 3.3 Solution of Continuous-System Mathematical Models 125 An alternative approach for the solution of the analysis problem is given by the variational formulation (see Section 3.3.2), T= [3 ea( zy dx - ie uf? dx — Ruler (3.22) Variational = formulation Gao) 623) with temo = 0 (3.24) Su |s=0 = (3.25) where 8 means “variation in” and 6u is an arbitrary variation on u subject to the condition 8u|:a0 = 0. We may think of 3u(x) as any continuous function that satisfies the boundary condition (3.25).* Let us recall that (3.22) to (3.25) are totally equivalent to (3.18) to (3.20) (Gee Section 3.3.2). That is, invoking (3.23) and then using integration by parts and the boundary condition (3.25) gives (3.18) and (3.20). Therefore, the solution of (3.22) to (3.25) is also (3.21). The variational formulation can be derived as follows. Since (3.18) holds for all points within the bar, we also have (aos at 7) bu =0 (3.26) where 8u(x) is an arbitrary variation on u (or an arbitrary continuous function) with 5u|,-0 = 0. Hence, also f (eS mt r) bu dx = 0 3.27) Integrating by parts, we obtain * d5u ofa de Le cat ax fe buds + EAT bulp (3.28) Substituting from (3.20) and (3.25), we therefore have * 6 Principle of Be pg Sax = f f8 budx + R Bul. (3.29) virtual displacements with w|.-0 = Bu |.-0 = 0 (3.30) Of course, (3.29) gives (CTEG) ~~ m4} which with (3.30) is the variational statement of (3.22) to (3.25). The relation (3.29) along with the condition (3.30) is the celebrated principle of virtual displacements (or principle of virtual work) in which u(x) is the virtual displace- 0 G31) “In the literature, differential and variational formulations are, respectively, also referred to as strong and ‘weak forms. Variational formulations are also referred to as generalized formulations.126 ‘Some Basic Concepts of Engineering Analysis Chap. 3 ment. We discuss this principle extensively in Section 4.2 and note that the derivation in (3.26) to (3.30) is a special case of Example 4.2. It is important to recognize that the above three formulations of the analysis problem are totally equivalent, that is, the solution (3.21) is the (unique) solution’ u(x) of the differential formulation, the variational formulation, and the principle of virtual displace- ments. However, we note that the variational formulation and the principle of virtual work involve only first-order derivatives of the functions u and 6u. Hence the space of functions in which we look for a solution is clearly larger than the space of functions used for the solution of (3.18) [we define the space precisely in (3.35)], and there must be a question as. to what it means and how important it is that we use a larger space of functions when solving the problem in Fig. 3.2 with the principle of virtual displacements. Of course, the space of functions used with the principle of virtual displacements contains the space of functions used with the differential formulation, hence all analysis problems that can be solved with the differential formulation (3.18) to (3.20) can also be solved exactly with the principle of virtual displacements. However, in the analysis of the bar (and the analysis of general bar and beam structures) additional conditions for which the principle of virtual work can be used directly for solution are those where concentrated loads are applied within the bar or discontinuities in the material property or cross-sectional area are present. In these cases the first derivative of u(x) is discontinuous and hence the differential formulation has to be extended to account for such cases (in essence treating separately each section of the bar in which no concentrated loads are applied and in which no discontinuities in the material property and cross-sectional area are present, and con- necting the section to the adjoining sections by the boundary conditions; see, for example, S. H. Crandall, N. C. Dahl, and T. J. Lardner [A]). Hence, in these cases the variational formulation and the principle of virtual displacements are somewhat more direct and more powerful for solution. For general two- and three-dimensional stress situations, we will only consider math- ematical models of finite strain energy (meaning for example that concentrated loads should only be applied as enumerated in Section 1.2, see Fig. 1.4, and further discussed in Section 4.3.4), and then the differential and principle of virtual work formulations are also totally equivalent and give the same solutions (see Chapter 4). These considerations point to a powerful general procedure for formulating the nu- merical solution of the problem in Fig. 3.2, Consider (3.27) in which we now replace 6u with the test function v, is (za a + r) vdx=0 3.32) with u = 0 and v = 0 at x = 0. Integrating by parts and using (3.20), we obtain 1 [ fPodx + Roles (3.33) 0 This relation is an application of the Galerkin method or of the principle of virtual displace- ments and states that “for u(x) to be the solution of the problem, the left-hand side of (3.33) (the internal virtual work) must be equal to the right-hand side (the external virtual work) The uniqueness of u(x) follows in this case clearly from the simple integration process for obtaining (3.21), but a general proof that the solution of a linear elasticity problem is always unique is given in (4.80) to (4,82)Sec. 3.3 Solution of Continuous-System Mathematical Models 127 for arbitrary test or virtual displacement functions v(x) that are continuous and that satisfy the condition v = 0 at x = 0.” In Chapter 4 we write the formulation (3.33) in the following form: Find w € V such that® aav)=(f0) WeV (3.34) where the space V is defined as ve LXL), # € LAD), v|:-0 = o (3.35) and L*(L) is the space of square integrable functions over the length of the bar, = x < L, P= {w | w is defined over 0 < x = L and [ (wy dx = || w |i < + (3.36) Using (3.34) and (3.33), we have =f Mmne alu, &) = axe ax © (3.37) and Go= f fio dx + Roler (3.38) 5 where a(u, t) is the bilinear form and (, v) is the linear form of the problem. The definition of the space of functions V in (3.35) says that any element v in Vis zero atx = 0 and _ [euce [ [Jace lo fo Lax, Hence, any element v in V corresponds to a finite strain energy. We note that the elements in V comprise all functions that are candidates for solution of the differential formulation (3.18) to (3.20) with any continuous f* and also correspond to possible solutions with discontinuous strains [because of concentrated loads, in this one-dimensional analysis case, or discontinuities in the material behavior or cross-sectional area]. This observation under- lines the generality of the problem formulation given in (3.34) and (3.35). For the Galerkin (or finite element) solution we define the space V, of trial (or finite element) functions vs, Y= {estos € LL), ae € LAL), vals, = of (3.39) where S, denotes the surface area on which the zero displacement is prescribed. The subscript h denotes that a particular finite element discretization is being considered (and h actually refers to the size of the elements; see Section 4.3). The finite element formulation of the problem is then Find uy € Vs such that a(us, ox) = (f, ox) Vor EV, (3.40) Of course, (3.40) is the principle of virtual displacements applied with the functions contained in V, and also corresponds to the minimization of the total potential energy within this space of trial functions. Therefore, (3.40) corresponds to the use of the Ritz method ©The symbols V and © mean, respectively, “for all” and “an element of.”128 ‘Some Besic Concepts of Engine ing Analysis Chap. 3 described in Section 3.3.3. We discuss the finite element formulation extensively in Chapter 4. However, let us note here that the same solution approach can also be used directly for any analysis problem for which we have the governing differential equation(s). The procedure would be: weigh the governing differential equation(s) in the domain with suitable test function(s); integrate the resulting equation(s) with a transformation using integration by parts (or more generally the divergence theorem; see Example 4.2); and substitute the natural boundary conditions—as we did to find (3.33). We obtain in this way the principle of virtual displacements for the general analysis of solids and structures (see Example 4.2), the “principle of virtual temperatures” for the general heat flow and temperature analysis of solids (see Example 7.1), and the “principle of virwal velocities” for general fluid flow analysis (see Section 7.4.2). To demonstrate the use of the above notation, consider the following examples. EXAMPLE 3.25: Consider the analysis problem in Example 3.22. Write the problem formu- lation in the form (3.40) and identify the finite element basis functions used when employing the displacement assumptions (b) and (c) in the example. Here the bilinear form a(.,.) is 7 alu, &9) = [ een Shar and we have the linear form (f, bx) = 1000s |,-180 With the displacement assumption (b) we use Uy = ax + yx? Hence V, is a two-dimensional space, and the two basis functions are Wax and Paw With the displacement assumption (¢) we use x a = 100 = 100 wn (23 an + E10) 100 = x = 180 and the two basis functions for Vs are x a w=) x 100 . _ for 100 <= x < 180 and for 100 = x < 180 Clearly, all these functions satisfy the conditions in (3.39). If we use (3.40), the equations in (g) and (j) in Example 3.22 are generated.