6/8/2014

CE 6504
Finite Elements Method in Structures
(Part 3 for BDU)

AY 2013/14
Bedilu Habte

Lagrange & Serendipity Elements

If only continuity of basic unknown (displacement) is to be satisfied,
Lagrange polynomials can be used to derive shape functions. Lagrange
polynomial in one dimension is defined by

6/7/2014 3D Elements 2

1
 6/8/2014

Lagrange & Serendipity Elements

6/7/2014 3D Elements 3

Failure Criteria
Normal and shear stresses may be present at many
locations of structural parts that are subjected to
loads. The state of stress is often expressed in terms
of the normal & shear stresses (six values).
The maximum principal stress criteria states,
when one of the principal stresses exceeds the yield
stress, the structure fails.
When the loading is from multiple directions, a
structural part could yield before any of the normal
stresses reached the yield stress.
Effective ways to combine normal and shear stresses,
at a point, into a single value which can be used to
compare with the yield strength of the material:
6/8/2014 4
Bedilu Habte

2
 6/8/2014

Failure Criteria
Von Mises Yield Criteria:

Tresca Yield Criteria:

6/8/2014 5
Bedilu Habte

Lagrange & Serendipity Elements

Lagrange polynomial Serendipity polynomial

6/7/2014 3D Elements 6

3
 6/8/2014

3D Finite Elements
1. Lagrange & Serendipity Elements
2. 3D Elements
 Volume Coordinate
 Element Stiffness
 Integration

Three-Dimensional Stress
Analysis

6/7/2014 3D Elements 8

4
 6/8/2014

Equations of Equilibrium & y

Strain Displacement yz
xy
xy
 x  xy  xz 3D stress
zy
x
   X b 0 zx xz
x y z z

 xy  y  yz
  Yb 0 u u  v
x y z x  xy  
x y x
 xz  yz  z
  Z b 0 v u  w
x y z     
y
y xz
z x
w w  v
z  yz  
z y z
6/7/2014 3D Elements 9

Stress-Strain Relationships
 x  1     0 0 0   x 
    1   0 0 0   
 y   y 
 z  E   1  0 0 0   z 
   (12 )  
 xy  (1   )(1  2 )  0 0 0 2 0 0   xy 
 yz   0 0 0 0 (12 )
2 0   yz 
   (12 )   
 zx   0 0 0 0 0 2   zx 

1     0 0 0 
  1   0 0 0 
 
Stress-Strain E    1  0 0 0 
D   
Matrix (1   )(1  2 )  0 0 0 (1 2 )
2 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 (12 )
2 0 
 (12 ) 
 0 0 0 0 0 2 

6/7/2014 3D Elements 10

5
 6/8/2014

Selecting the Element Type

1. Discretize Body into n-noded solid elements.

2. Three degrees-of-freedom per node.
3. These are x , y, and z displacements.
4. ui - x displacement at ith node.
5. vi - y displacement at ith node.
6. wi - z displacement at ith node.

6/7/2014 3D Elements 11

Tri-Linear Displacement Function

u( x, y, z )  a1  a2 x  a3 y  a4 z  u1 
v 
 1
v( x, y, z )  a5  a6 x  a7 y  a8 z  w1 
 
 u2 
w( x, y , z )  a9  a10 x  a11 y  a12 z  v2 
 
 w2 
4 d    
3  u3 
z,w
 v3 
 
1  w3 
 u4 
2  
x,u y,v  v4 
w 
 4
6/7/2014 3D Elements 12

6
 6/8/2014

Shape Function  u1 
v 
 1
 u   N1 0 0 N 2 0 0 N 3 0 0 N 4 0 0   w1 
    
 v    0 N1 0 0 N 2 0 0 N 3 0 0 N 4 0   

w  0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 4   u4 
   1 2 3
 
 v4 
N1 
1  1 x   1 y  1z  w 
6V  4
   2 x   2 y   2 z 
N2  2
6V

N3  3
  3 x   3 y   3z 
6V
4  4 x   4 y   4 z  See page 51 on the Text book
N4 
6V
6/7/2014 3D Elements 13

Strain/Displacements and
Stress/Strain Relationships
 u 
 x  B  B1 B2 B3 B4 
 v 

 x  
    y   N1, x 0 0 
 y   w   0 N1, y 0 
   
    z  u z v   
 xy    
 0 0 N1, z 
 yz   y x  B1    
   v w   N1, y N1, x 0 
 xz   z  y   0 N1, z N1, y 
 
 w  u   
 x z 
   N1, z 0 N1, x 
6/7/2014 3D Elements 14

7
 6/8/2014

Element Stiffness
 D B dV d    f 
 
T
B
V
 1 0 0 
k    B D B dV
T
0  0
V  1 
 0 0 1 
B1   1  
6V   1 1 0 
 0 1  1 
 
 1 0 1 

6/7/2014 3D Elements 15

Body & Surface Forces

 fb     N  X b  dV
T

 f s     N  T  dS T

S
6/7/2014 3D Elements 16

8
 6/8/2014

Uniform pressure on surface 1-2-3

fs     NT T dS

S

p x 
 
 
fs     NT evaluated on p y  dS
S surface 1, 2 , 3
 
p 
 z
6/7/2014 3D Elements 17

 px 
p 
 y
 pz 
 
 px 
 py 
 
S123  pz 
 fs   S123  Area of surface 123
3  px 
 py 
 
 pz 
0
 
0
0
 
6/7/2014 3D Elements 18

9
 6/8/2014

Volume Coordinates
1

4
P

2
y

x 3
6/7/2014 3D Elements 19

Volume Coordinates

At a point P, four tetrahedrons can be drawn,

P-2-3-4, P-1-3-4, P-1-2-4, and P-1-2-3.

Let V be the volume of tetrahedron 1-2-3-4.

Let V1 be the volume of tetrahedron P-2-3-4.
Let V2 be the volume of tetrahedron P-1-3-4.
Let V3 be the volume of tetrahedron P-1-2-4.
Let V4 be the volume of tetrahedron P-1-2-3.

6/7/2014 3D Elements 20

10
 6/8/2014

Volume Coordinates
L1 = V1/V
L2 = V2/V
L3 = V3/V
1  1 1 1 1  L1 
L4 = V4/V x x   
 
   1 x2 x3 x4   L2 
 
 y  y1 y2 y3 y4   L3 
L1 + L2 + L3+ L4 = 1  z    
 z1 z2 z3 z 4   L4 

1 1 1 1
x1 x2 x3 x4
6V 
y1 y2 y3 y4
z1 z2 z3 z4
6/7/2014 3D Elements 21

Shape Functions
L1 = N1
L2 = N2
L3 = N3
L4 = N4

 = N1 1 + N22 + N3 3 + N4 4

Integration
k!l!m!n!
 
k l m n
L1L L L dV
2 6
3V 4
V
(3  k  l  m  n)!

6/7/2014 3D Elements 22

11
 6/8/2014

Jacobian matrix:
 x y z 
 s s  s 
    
 x 0 0 
 x y z 
J      x  0

  
0 


 t t t     y 
 x y z   y     u 
   0 0
z   v 
      z   
  z  z z  
 xy  
   
0   w
 yz   y x  
      
Strains in terms of  xz   0 
 z y 
operator matrix:    0
 
 z x 
6/7/2014 3D Elements 23

  y z x   z
s s s s s s
  1   y z   1  x   z
 
x J t t t y J t t t
  y z x   z
 z  z  z  z  z  z
x y  
s s s
  1  x y  

z J t t t
x y  
 z  z  z
6/7/2014 3D Elements 24

12
 6/8/2014

Hexahedral elements
• Linear element; 8 corner nodes
• Natural Coordinates s , t, z t
• Corners at 1
3 7

4
8
s

2 6

1
z 5
6/7/2014 3D Elements 25

 x  8  Ni 0 0   xi 
    
i 1
 y    0 Ni 0   yi 
si  1 
 z  i 1  0 0 N i   zi 
ti  1   
zi  1

Ni 
1  s 1  t 1  z
8
6/7/2014 3D Elements 26

13
 6/8/2014

Jacobian matrix:
 x y z 
 s s s 
 
x y z 
J   
 t t s 
 x y z 
 
  z  z z 
6/7/2014 3D Elements 27

Chain Rule
f y z x f z x y f
s s s s s s s s s
f y z x f z x y f
t t t t t t t t t
f y z x f z x y f
f  z  z  z f  z  z  z f  z  z  z
  
x x y z y x y z z x y z
s s s s s s s s s
x y z x y z x y z
t t t t t t t t t
x y z x y z x y z
 z  z  z  z  z  z  z  z  z

6/7/2014 3D Elements 28

14
 6/8/2014

Strains in terms of an operator matrix:

   
0  x 
   
 x  0
 
   y 
 y      u 
   
   z      
z   v 
 
  xy    
  yz   y x  w 
       
  xz   z y 


     
 z x 

6/7/2014 3D Elements 29

  y z x   z
s s s s s s
  1   y z   1  x   z
 
x J t t t y J t t t
  y z x   z
 z  z  z  z  z  z
x y  
s s s
  1  x y  

z J t t t
x y  
 z  z  z
6/7/2014 3D Elements 30

15
 6/8/2014

Stiffness Matrix

Gaussian Quadrature can be performed in three

dimensions in a manner similar to that of 1D and
2D elements

6/7/2014 3D Elements 31

Example

Beam theory vs FEM

Element Nodes DOFs Δ – Error % σ – Error %

6/7/2014 3D Elements 32

16
 6/8/2014

Contents
Plate Bending
 Timoshenko Beam Theory

 Plate Bending Theories

 Kirchhoff, Mindilin, …

 Example

Continuity (Smoothness)
Plate Bending

 A function is called a Cn function if its derivatives of

order j for 0 ≤ j ≤ n exist and are continuous functions
in the entire domain; like: C-1 , C0 and C1.

34

17
 6/8/2014

Timoshenko Beam Theory

Plate Bending
 In thick beams:
• Shearing force contribute o the beam deformation
• Assumption “Cross sections remain perpendicular to
centroidal plane” no longer valid

 Beam is condensed to a 1- D continuum

 Assumption

• Mid-surface plane remains in mid-surface after bending

 Two independent variables (displacement and rotation) at

each point

35

Timoshenko Beam Theory

Plate Bending

 Governing equations
• Kinematic equations

• Equilibrium

• Constitutive equations (Material Laws)

36

18
 6/8/2014

Kinematic Equation
Plate Bending

37

Element Stiffness Matrix

Plate Bending

Timoshenko Beam Theory

where

Textbook – Page 269

38

19
 6/8/2014

Plate Bending
Plate Bending General Assumptions
 Plate is thin, h is small compared to the length(s), but not
so thin that the deflection w become comparable to h.
 Plate thickness is either uniform or varies slowly so that
three-dimensional stress effects are ignored.
 Plate is symmetric in fabrication about the mid-surface.
 Applied transverse loads are distributed over plate
surface areas of dimension h or greater.
 The support conditions are such that no significant
extension of the mid-surface develops.
 Sections normal to the original reference surface remain
straight and normal to the deformed reference surface.
39

Plate Theories
Plate Bending

Assumptions of the Kirchhoff plate theory

The assumptions are:
1. geometrically linear: - small strains - small
deflections (”small” is problem dependent)
2. linear material: - linear elastic (Hooke), - in the
most simple case homogeneous and isotropic
3. thin plate hypotheses:
a) straight lines perpendicular to the mid-surface
(i.e. transverse normals) before deformation
remain straight after deformation.
b) transverse normals rotate such that they remain
perpendicular to the mid-surface after
deformation
40

20
 6/8/2014

Plate Model
Plate Bending

41

Plate Types
Plate Bending

Rule of thumb

42

21
 6/8/2014

Plate Deformations
Plate Bending

43

Stresses & Forces

Plate Bending

44

22
 6/8/2014

Strains – Displacement
Plate Bending

45

Plate Curvature
Plate Bending

46

23
 6/8/2014

Stresses on an Element
Plate Bending

47

Stress Resultants
Plate Bending

48

24
 6/8/2014

Moments
Plate Bending

49

Governing Equation
Plate Bending

50

25
 6/8/2014

Governing Equation (2)

Plate Bending

51

Derivation Summary
Plate Bending

52

26
 6/8/2014

Mindilin’s Thick Plate Theory

Plate Bending

53

Mindilin’s Thick Plate Theory (2)

Plate Bending

The Reissner/Mindlin theory allows shear

deformation, i.e. rotations and displacement
derivatives are not directly coupled and differ
by the shear deformation.
Consequently, rotation fields θx and θy as well
as displacement field w are independently
introduced into the virtual work expression.
Since the highest derivatives of displacements
and rotations are of first order; FE
approximations must not be more than C0-
continuous; an important simplification
compared to the Kirchhoff theory.
54

27
 6/8/2014

Mindilin’s Thick Plate Theory (3)

Plate Bending
As the plate becomes thinner shear
deformation becomes unimportant . If the
Reissner/Mindlin theory is implemented for thin
plates, the element behaves far too stiff, for
some element formulations the plate even does
not deflect; leading to the effect called “shear
locking”.

55

FEM
Plate Bending

56

28
 6/8/2014

FEM (2)
Plate Bending

Lisa Samples : mod40.liml to mod47.liml

57

FEM (3)
Plate Bending

12 DOF Element:

Shape function:
Non-conforming /
Incompatible
B/s curvature is
not continuous WHY?
58

29
 6/8/2014

Strains – Displacement
Plate Bending

59

FEM (4)
Plate Bending

16 DOF Element: Conforming /Compatible

60

30
 6/8/2014

Boundary Conditions
Plate Bending

61

CONTENTS

 Shells

 Non-Linear Analysis

62

31
 6/8/2014

SHELLS
 Shells are structurally continuous
 they can transmit forces in a number of different directions in
the surface of the shell.
 Mathematical models of shells are constructed following
the same general idea used for plates.
 Classification: stretching, bending and transverse shear
 Very thick shells, Thick shells, Moderately thick shells, Thin
shells, Very thin shells

63

SHELL BEHAVIOR

64

32
 6/8/2014

SHELL FINITE ELEMENTS

Approaches used to generate the shell elements:
 Flat Elements

 Curved Elements

 Solid Elements

 Degenerated Solid Elements

65

SHELL ELEMENT (8-NODE)

66

33
 6/8/2014

SHELL ELEMENT (HIGHER ORDER)

67

SHELL THEORIES
The Kirchhoff-Love (Thin Shell) Theory
 The shell thickness is very small compared to the least
radius of curvature of the shell middle surface.
 Strains and displacements that arise within the shell
are small.
 Straight lines that are normal to the middle surface
prior to deformation remain straight and normal to the
middle surface after deformation.
 The direct stress acting in the direction normal to the
shell middle surface is negligible.
The Flügge-Byrne (Thick Shell) Theory
 displacements are not small
 higher-order approximations Text: 331
Zienk.:Ch8
68

34
 6/8/2014

TYPES OF NONLINEAR PROBLEMS

1. Geometric nonlinearity
a. Large deflections
b. Large rotations
2. Material nonlinearity
a. Plasticity
b. Nonlinear elasticity
Linear Nonlinear

K D  P K D  P

K    f D K    f D
P   f D P   f D
Stiffness and Forces are Stiffness and Forces are
independent of displacements. functions of displacements.
69

ANALYSIS TYPES
First-Order Linear Elastic Analysis
 most basic analysis type;
 fundamental assumption = the material is strained
below the proportional limit (i.e. one E) and equilibrium
is formed on the undeformed configuration of the
structure.

Second-Order Elastic Analysis

 the next step-up in complexity, also called second order
analysis.
 the equilibrium equations are written for the deformed
structure. Second-order elastic forces and deformations
can be approximated using first-order elastic analysis
and amplification factors. 70

35
 6/8/2014

ANALYSIS TYPES
Elastic Load Analysis:
A structure with linearly elastic material can have loads of
increasing magnitude applied successively until the
structure becomes unstable. The point of instability is
also called point of bifurcation (splitting) in the load
deformation response. The elastic critical load is
determined using eigen value analysis.

Nonlinear Effects
 Nonlinear stress-strain behavior
 Buckling
 Gaps opening or closing
 Contact problems
 Phase changes
71

MATERIAL PROPERTY

Nonlinear Elastic

72

36
 6/8/2014

Analyze the column behavior assuming

α=0
α≠0

73

74

37
 6/8/2014

75

Possible solution techniques for non-linear

problems:

1. Incremental procedure
2. Iterative procedure and
3. Mixed procedure

Text: Page 321

76

38
 6/8/2014

ITERATION METHOD

1. Let load PA be applied to a softening spring.

2. Assume kN = 0 for the first iteration.
3. Compute first approximation to
displacement: u1 = PA/k0
4. Take nonlinear term to the RHS.
5. Compute next approximation to
displacement: u2 = (PA-kN1u1)/k0
6. Generate sequence of approximations.

77

EXAMPLE 1: P= 0.006

k u Del u
0.2000000000 0.0300000000
0.1700000000 0.0352941176 15.00000000%

k  0.2  u 0.1647058824
0.1635714286
0.0364285714 3.11418685%
0.0366812227 0.68877551%
0.1633187773 0.0367379679 0.15445930%
P  0.006 0.1632620321
0.1632492630
0.0367507370 0.03474506%
0.0367536116 0.00782121%
0.1632463884 0.0367542587 0.00176085%
u1 0.1632457413
0.1632455955
0.0367544045 0.00039645%
0.0367544373 0.00008926%
0.1632455627 0.0367544447 0.00002010%
0.1632455553 0.0367544463 0.00000452%
0.1632455537 0.0367544467 0.00000102%
0.1632455533 0.0367544468 0.00000023%
0.1632455532 0.0367544468 0.00000005%

78

39
 6/8/2014

MATRIX APPROACH

ke u  P Linear elastic case

kt du  dP
kt – tangent stiffness matrix, ke plus function of u/P
du – incremental nodal displacement
dP – incremental nodal force

k 
 k g du  dP
79

e
kg – geometric stiffness matrix

79

MATRIX APPROACH
ke  km du  dP
For first order inelastic analysis
km – plastic reduction stiffness matrix

k e 
 k g  km du  dP
For second order inelastic analysis

k  kˆ u  0

80

e g
For elastic critical load analysis
^
kg – plastic reduction stiffness matrix
80

40
 6/8/2014

CONTENT
 Engineering Analysis & Design
 Types of Errors
 Mesh Refinement
 Rate of Convergence
 Modeling Issues

81

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN

82

41
 6/8/2014

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN

Physical Problem Change
physical
Validation problem

Mathematical Improve
Model mathematical
model
Verification

Numerical model

No!
Does answer
Refine analysis
make sense?

YES! Design improvements 83

Structural optimization
End

TYPES OF ERRORS
Type of error Source
Discretization error Use of FE approximation for geometry
and solution variables

Numerical integration Evaluation of FE element matrices and

vectors using numerical integration

Round off Due to the finite precision arithmetic used

in the computers, in the solution of the
global system of FEM equations; due to
the ill-conditioning of the equations;
truncation and round-off errors 84

42
 6/8/2014

Mesh refinement

1. h – refinement Consecutively reducing element size; refines

the element size based on solution gradients.

2. p – refinement increasing the approximation (polynomial)

order of the elements, while keeping their sizes constant

3. r – refinement In this method, grid points are moved around

(mesh redistribution) to provide clustering in certain
regions, based on error indicators

4. Mixed method also possible

85

“Convergence” of FE – Analysis
“Convergence” of solution results to the exact solution
FE scheme exhibits convergence if the
Discretization error → 0 as the mesh is made infinitely fine (i.e.,
element size → 0)
Convergence in energy and displacement
u : exact displacement solution to a problem that makes the
potential energy of the system a minimum
corresponding stress  (u )
 (u ) 1
and strain U 
2 V
 T  dV
Exact strain energy of the body
uh : FE solution (‘h’ refers to the element size)
corresponding stress  h (u h ) 1
  h dV
T
Uh 
and strain  h (u h ) 2 V
h
86
Approximate strain energy of the body

43
 6/8/2014

Calculation of strain energies

Example:
Consider a linear elastic bar with varying cross section
2
1 2  x 
A( x)  1   sqcm
x  40 
P=3E/80 The governing differential (equilibrium) equation
80cm
d  du 
E  A( x)   0 for x  (0,80) Eq(1)
E: Young’s modulus dx  dx 

Boundary conditions
u ( x  0)  0
du 3E
EA P
dx x 80 cm 80

Analytical solution  
3  1 
u exact ( x)  1   87
2  1 x 

 40 

The exact strain energy of the system is

2
1 80 1 80  du exact ( x)  3E 39 E
U    Adx   EA   dx  
2 x  0 2 x  0
 dx  160 2080
If we discretize the problem using a single linear finite element, the stiffness
matrix is

80
E A( x)dx  1 1
K x 0
 1 1 
802  
13E  1 1
  
240  1 1 

The strain energy of the FE system is

1 80 1 27 E
  h h Adx  d T K d  sin ce d  0 9 /13
T
Uh 
2 x  0 2 2080
88
Note U  Uh

44
 6/8/2014

Convergence in strain energy

An FE solution does not tend to imitate
U  U h as h  0 the deflected shape as closely as
possible; rather, the solution tends to
minimize the error in the strain energy
(the internal energy).

Convergence in displacement (norm)

 u - u   v - v   dV  0 as
2 2
u  uh 0  h h h0
V

Monotonic convergence
89
Nonmonotonic convergence

Criteria for monotonic convergence

1. COMPLETENESS
2. COMPATIBILITY

© 2002 Brooks/Cole Publishing / Thomson Learning™

90

45
 6/8/2014

CONDITION 1. COMPLETENESS
This requires that the
displacement interpolation
functions must be chosen so
that the elements can
represent

1. Rigid body modes

91

Constant strain states

Strain computed using linear finite elements

Actual variation of strain


92

46
 6/8/2014

COMPLETENESS
Mathematical implication of the two conditions
The element displacement approximation must be at least a
COMPLETE polynomial of degree one

1 1
x x y k=1
2 2
x2 x xy y
 

1D 2D
93

CONVERGENCE RATE
A measure of how fast the discretization error goes to zero as
the mesh is refined

Convergence rate depends on the order of the complete

polynomial (k) used in the displacement approximation

1
x y k=1
2 2
x xy y
3 2 2
k=2
x x y xy y3
 k=3
94

47
 6/8/2014

CONVERGENCE RATE
For (1) a sufficiently refined mesh and for problems whose
analytical solution does not contain singularities
Strain energy : order 2k
An FE solution does not tend imitate
U  Uh  C h 2k the deflected shape as closely as
possible; rather, the solution tends to
minimize the error in the strain
Displacements : order p=k+1 energy (the internal energy).
u  u h 0  C1 h k 1

C and C1 are constants independent of ‘h’ but dependent on

1. the analytical solution
2. material properties 95
3. type of element used

Property of finite element solution

When the conditions of monotonic convergence are
satisfied (compatibility and completeness) the finite
element strain energy always underestimates the strain
energy of the actual structure.

Strain energy of mathematical model

Strain energy of FE model

96

48
 6/8/2014

MODELING ISSUES – 1
Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the longest to the shortest
dimension

97

MODELING ISSUES – 2
MESH COMPATIBILITY
It is required that displacement has to be admissible
continuity of the displacement in the entire domain.

98

49
 6/8/2014

MODELING ISSUES – 3
Symmetry
Symmetry shall be used to reduce the size of the problem

99

MODELING ISSUES – 4
Infinite Medium
Take large amount of material to be part of the FEM model,
so that the nodal displacements and element stresses
become small at points far from the loading(s).

Equilibrium and Compatibility of FEM Results

At nodes, within an element, between element boundary,
the entire model, etc.

100

50
 6/8/2014

COMMON SOURCES OF ERRORS IN FEA

1. Incorrectly applied boundary conditions – the most common
one

2. Mesh not fine enough

3. Not knowing the material well enough

4. Applying linear analysis to non-linear FEA problems

5. Over complicating things. KISS (keep it simple stupid).

6. Wrong units

7. Doing analysis for the sake of it 101

COMMON SOURCES OF ERRORS IN FEA

8. Lack of verification
9. Wrong elements
10. Bad post-processing
11. Assuming conservatism
12. Attempting to predict contact stresses without modeling
contact
13. Not standardizing finite element analysis procedures
14. Inadequate archiving
15. Ignoring geometry or boundary condition approximations
102
16. Ignoring errors associated with the mesh

51