See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240614820

A smoothed finite element method for shell analysis

Article  in  Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering · December 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2008.05.029

CITATIONS READS

218 1,270

4 authors:

Nhon Nguyen-Thanh Timon Rabczuk

Nanyang Technological University Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
39 PUBLICATIONS   2,378 CITATIONS    749 PUBLICATIONS   35,808 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

H. Nguyen-Xuan Stéphane Pierre Alain Bordas

Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH) University of Luxembourg
340 PUBLICATIONS   14,146 CITATIONS    379 PUBLICATIONS   14,876 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multiscale modelling of fracture View project

Looking for PhD candidates in project of additive manufacturing (3D printing) based on deep learning (DLAM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stéphane Pierre Alain Bordas on 29 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cma

A smoothed finite element method for shell analysis

N. Nguyen-Thanh a, Timon Rabczuk b, H. Nguyen-Xuan c, Stéphane P.A. Bordas d,*
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Technology – VNU-HCM, 268 Ly Thuong Kiet, Viet Nam
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
c
Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA), E4-04-10, 4 Engineering Drive 3, Singapore 117576, Singapore
d
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A four-node quadrilateral shell element with smoothed membrane-bending based on Mindlin–Reissner
Received 5 September 2007 theory is proposed. The element is a combination of a plate bending and membrane element. It is based
Received in revised form 29 February 2008 on mixed interpolation where the bending and membrane stiffness matrices are calculated on the bound-
Accepted 14 May 2008
aries of the smoothing cells while the shear terms are approximated by independent interpolation func-
Available online 25 June 2008
tions in natural coordinates. The proposed element is robust, computationally inexpensive and free of
locking. Since the integration is done on the element boundaries for the bending and membrane terms,
Keywords:
the element is more accurate than the MITC4 element for distorted meshes. This will be demonstrated for
Shell elements
MITC4 elements
several numerical examples.
Smoothed finite elements (SFEM) Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shell elements are especially useful when the behavior of large
structures are of interest. Shell element formulations can be classi-
fied into three categories: (1) Curved shell elements based on gen-
eral shell theory; (2) Degenerated shell elements, that are derived
from the three dimensional solid theory; and (3) Flat shell ele-
ments, that are formulated by combining a membrane element
for plane elasticity and a bending element for plate theory. Since
it avoids complex shell formulations, the flat shell element is the
simplest one. Therefore, and due to their low computational cost,
flat shell elements are very popular.
Shell elements can also be classified according to the thickness
of the shell and the curvature of the mid-surface. Depending on the
thickness, shell elements can be separated into thin shell elements
[1,2,32,31,16] and thick shell elements [8–10,17]. Thin shell ele-
ments are based on the Kirchoff–Love theory in which transverse
shear deformations are neglected. They require C1 displacement
continuity. Thick shell elements are based on the Mindlin theory
which includes transverse shear deformations.
Especially the development of Mindlin–Reissner type shell ele-
ments suffer from one intrinsic difficulty: locking, i.e. the presence
of ‘‘artificial” stresses. It is well known that low-order finite ele-
ments lock and that locking can be alleviated by higher order finite
elements. There are basically four types of locking:
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 330 4075; fax: +44 141 330 4557.
E-mail addresses: stephane.bordas@alumni.northwestern.edu, bordas@civil.
gla.ac.uk (S.P.A. Bordas).
(1) Transverse shear locking, that occurs due to uncorrect trans-
verse forces under bending. When linear finite element
shape functions are used, the shear angle is linear within
an element while the contribution of the displacement is
only constant. The linear contribution of the rotation cannot
be ‘‘balanced” by a contribution from the displacement.
Hence, the Kirchhoff constraint w,x + by = 0, w,y + bx = 0 is
not fulfilled in the entire element any more. Typical for the
shear locking phenomenon are large oscillating shear/trans-
verse forces and hence a simple smoothing procedure can
drastically improve the results.
(2) In-plane shear locking in plates and shells, that is only
important under in-plane loading. For example, the four-
node quadrilateral element develops ‘‘artificial” shear stres-
ses under pure bending whereas the eight-node quadrilat-
eral element does not.
(3) Membrane locking that occurs in curved beams and shells.
Linear elements are free of membrane locking while bilinear
elements exhibit membrane locking types; (a) membrane
locking dominated by a bending response, (b) membrane
locking caused by mesh distortion.
(4) Volumetric locking that occurs when the Poisson ratio m
approaches a value of 0.5.
Early methods tried to overcome the transverse shear locking
phenomenon by reduced integration or a selective reduced inte-
gration, see Refs. [43,19,21]. The idea is to split the strain energy
into a bending part and a shear part. Different integration rules
are usually used for the bending strain and the shear strain energy.
Reduced integration leads to an instability due to rank deficiency

0045-7825/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2008.05.029
166 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

and results in zero-energy modes that can be eliminated by an The membrane em and curvature j strains are defined as
hourglass control, [3,6,18,42]. 2 3 2 obx 3
ou
Transverse shear locking can also be removed by the Assumed ox ox
6 7 6 oby 7
j¼6 7
ov
Natural Strain (ANS) method, [22]. The basic idea is to compute em ¼ 4 oy 5; 4 oy 5 ð1Þ
the shear strains not directly from the derivatives of the displace- ou
þ ov obx oby
oy ox þ
ments but at discrete collocation points from the displacements. oy ox

Afterwards, they are interpolated over the element with specific and the transverse shear strain is
shape functions. For the bilinear element for example, the colloca- " #
ow
tion points will be placed at the midpoint of the element edges ox
þ bx
c¼ ow : ð2Þ
since the shear stresses are linear in the element and zero in the oy
 by
middle of the element. This reduces in addition one of the con-
straints, since it makes one of the Kirchhoff constraints linear The finite element solution uh = [u v w bx by bz]T of a displacement
dependent. Bathe and Dvorkin [4] extended the ANS plate elements model for the flat shell is expressed as
2 3
to shells that is known as the MITC (Mixed Interpolation of Tenso- 0 0 0 0 0 0
rial Components) or Bathe–Dvorkin element, see also [14,5]. A nice 60 0 0 0 0 07
Xnp 6 7
overview can be found e.g. in the textbooks by [42,3]. 60 0 Ni 0 0 07
uh ¼ 6 7qi ; ð3Þ
We will propose a quadrilateral shell elements with smoothed 60 0 0 0 Ni 07
i¼1 6 7
curvatures that is based on the flat shell concept though the ele- 40 0 0 Ni 0 05
ment will also be applied to curved (non-flat) structures. We will 0 0 0 0 0 0
show in some numerical experiments that it gives also good results where np is the total number of element nodes, Ni are the bilinear
for such cases. The element is a combination of the quadrilateral shape functions associated to node i and qi = [ui vi wi hxi hyi hzi]T
membrane element and the quadrilateral bending Mindlin–Reiss- are the nodal degrees of freedom of uh associated to node i.
ner plate element and is free of shear locking and membrane lock- The membrane deformation, the approximation of the strain
ing due to mesh distortion. Membrane strains and bending strains field is given by
are normalized by a smoothed operator which results in comput-
ing membrane and bending stiffness matrixes on boundary of the X
4
em ¼ Bm m
i qi ¼ B q; ð4Þ
element while shear strains are approximated by independent i¼1
interpolation in natural coordinates. The smoothing procedure
was originally developed for meshfree method to stabilize the where
rank-deficient nodal integration. In this so-called stabilized con- 2 3
N i;x 0 0 0 0 0
forming nodal integration, the entire domain is discretized into Bm ¼4 0 N i;y 0 0 0 0 5: ð5Þ
i
cells defined by the field of nodes, such as the cells of a Voronoi Ni;y Ni;x 0 0 0 0
diagram [11,41,35,34,33]. The spatial integration is performed
along the edges of each cell via a smoothed strain technique. Re- The discrete curvature field is
cently, this smoothing technique was incorporated into the FEM, X
4
leading to the smoothed finite element method (SFEM) proposed j¼ Bbi qi ¼ Bb q; ð6Þ
by Liu et al. [25]. It was shown by numerical examples that the i¼1

SFEM is very robust, accurate and computational inexpensive, where

[26,30,29]. As we will show by several numerical examples, the 2 3
proposed shell element is especially useful for distorted elements. 0 0 0 0 Ni;x 0
b 6 7
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we will Bi ¼ 4 0 0 0 N i;y 0 0 5: ð7Þ
state the governing equations and weak form. Section 3 describes 0 0 0 Ni;x Ni;y 0
the smoothing technique in order to evaluate the bending and
membrane stiffness. Section 4 discusses several numerical exam- The approximation of the shear strain is written as
ples that are compared to analytical solutions and other elements X
4
from the literature. Finally, we close our paper with some conclud- c¼ Bsi qi ¼ Bs q ð8Þ
ing remarks. i¼1

with
2. Classically flat element formulation  
0 0 N i;x 0 Ni 0
Bsi ¼ : ð9Þ
Let us assume that the bounded domain X of the shell mid-sur- 0 0 Ni;y Ni 0 0
Pe e
face is discretized into ne finite elements, X  Xh ¼ ne¼1 X . Now
Combining simultaneously membrane and bending actions, we
let us consider a flat shell element in a local coordinate system
write a linear system for the vector of nodal unknowns q,
xyz is subject simultaneously to membrane and bending actions
e e
(Fig. 1): k q¼f ; ð10Þ

Fig. 1. An illustration of a flat shell element subject to plane membrane and bending action: (a) plane deformations, (b) bending deformations.
 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177 167

where ke is the stiffness matrix composed of membrane and plate The transformation between global coordinates XYZ and local
stiffness element matrices: coordinates xyz is required to generate the local element stiffness
Z matrix in the local coordinate system.
m
k ¼ ðBm ÞT Dm Bm dX; 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9
Xe
Z Z ð11Þ <u>
> = <U>
> = < hx >
> = < hX >
> =
p b s
k ¼k þk ¼ ðBb ÞT Db Bb dX þ ðBs ÞT Ds Bs dX v ¼ Tl V and hy ¼ Tl hY ð17Þ
Xe Xe
: >
> ; : >
> ; > >
: ; : >
> ;
w W hz hZ
and the load vector at each node i is of the form
in which Tl is the transformation matrix. Finally the element stiff-
e
f i ¼ ½ F xi F yi F zi M xi F yi M zi T ð12Þ ness matrix K in the global coordinates can be written as
e
with K ¼ TT k T; ð18Þ
2 3 where
1 m 0
m Et
4 m 1 0 5; 2 3
D ¼ 2 Tl
ð1  uÞ 0 0 1m 6 7
2 2
3 6 Tl 7
1 m 0 6 7
Et 3
ð13Þ 6 Tl 7
b
D ¼ 4 m 1 0 5; T¼6
6
7:
7 ð19Þ
12ð1  mÞ2 0 0 1m 6 Tl 7
2 6 7
  4 Tl 5
kEt 1 0
Ds ¼ : Tl
2ð1 þ uÞ 0 1
As known in Refs. [43,19,21], the use of reduced integration on the
Flat shell elements has shown to be simple in their formulation and
shear term ks can avoid shear locking as the thickness of the shell
reliable in order to produce accurate solutions while the program-
tends to zero. However, these elements fail the patch test and exhi-
ming implementation is not as complex as for curved shell ele-
bit an instability due to rank deficiency [30]. In order to improve
ments, see e.g. [42]. Nowadays, flat shell elements are being used
these elements, we use independent interpolation fields in the nat-
extensively in many engineering practices with both shells and
ural coordinate system for the approximation of the shear strains
folded plate structures due to their flexibility and effectiveness. In
[4].
the flat shell elements, the element stiffness matrix is often consti-
" # " #
tuted by superimposing the stiffness matrix of the membrane and cx cn
plate-bending elements at each node. In principle, shell elements ¼ J1 ; ð20Þ
cy cg
of this type can always be defined by locally five degrees of freedom
(DOF), three displacement DOFs and two in-plane rotation DOFs at where
each node. A ‘‘sixth” degree of freedom is combined with the shell
1 1
normal rotation, and it may not claim to construct the theoretical cn ¼ ½ð1  gÞcBn þ ð1 þ gÞcDn ; cg ¼ ½ð1  nÞcAg þ ð1 þ nÞcCg ;
foundation. However, one encounters numerous drawbacks coming 2 2
from modeling problems, programming, computation, etc. Thus the ð21Þ
inclusion of the sixth degree of freedom is more advantageous to where J is the Jacobian matrix and the mid-side nodes A, B, C, D are
solve engineering practices. The element stiffness matrix at each shown in Fig. 2. In case of bending around the g-axis, it is useful to
node i can now be made up for the following submatrices place the sampling points at positions n = 0 where the parasitic
2 3
m
½k 22 023 0 transverse shear strains vanish. We recall, that cn linearly varies
e 6 p 7 in n-direction. In order to retain a linear variation of cn in g-direc-
ki ¼ 4 032 ½k 33 0 5: ð14Þ
tion, we choose two sampling points, at n = 0, g = 1 and at n = 0,
0 0 0 g = 1 (points A and C). For the transverse shear strains cg we pro-
It is clear that the element stiffness matrix at each node i contains ceed in a similar way (points B and D). Presenting cBn ; cDn and cAg ; cCg
zero values of the stiffness corresponding to an additional degree based on the discretized fields uh, we obtain the shear matrix:
of freedom, hzi , combined with it a fictitious couple M zi . hz is some- " 12 11
#
0 0 Ni;n bi Ni;n bi Ni;n 0
times called a drilling degree of freedom, see e.g. [42]. The zero stiff- Bsi ¼ J1 22 21
; ð22Þ
ness matrix corresponding to hz can causes the singularity in global 0 0 Ni;g bi Ni;g bi Ni;g 0
stiffness matrix when all the elements meeting at a node are copla-
nar. To deal with this difficulty, we adopt the simplest approach gi-
ven in [42] to be inserting an arbitrary stiffness coefficient, khz at the
additional degree of freedom hzi only and one writes
khz hzi ¼ 0: ð15Þ
Numerous approaches to estimate and improve the performance of
the element with drilling degrees of freedom have published the lit-
erature, e.g. [42,12]. In this context, the arbitrary stiffness coeffi-
cient khz is chosen to be 103 times the maximum diagonal value
of the element stiffness matrix, see e.g. [23]. Thus the nodal stiffness
matrix in Eq. (16) can be expressed as
2 m 3
½k 22 023 0
e 6 p 7
ki ¼ 4 032 ½k 33 0 5; ð16Þ
3 e
0 0 10 maxðki;i Þ

where ke is the shell element stiffness matrix before inserting khz . Fig. 2. Quadrilateral shell element.
168 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

where where
11
bi ni xM
12
bi ni yM
21
bi ¼g L 22
¼g L e b q;
¼ ;n ; ¼ ;n ; i x; g ; bi i y;g ð23Þ ~¼B
j C
ð29Þ
e m q:
~em ¼ B
with ni 2 {1, 1, 1, 1}, gi 2 {1, 1, 1, 1} and (i, M, L) 2 {(1, B, A); C
(2, B, C); (3, D, C); (4, D, A)}. The smoothed element membrane and bending stiffness matrix is
obtained by
3. A mixed interpolation and a smoothed method for four-node Z X
nc
shell element ~m ¼
k ðB e m dX ¼
e m ÞT Dm B ðB e m ðxC ÞAC ;
e m ÞT ðxC ÞDm B ð30Þ
C C C C
e
X C¼1
The strain smoothing method was proposed by Chen et al. [11]. Z X
nc

A strain smoothing stabilization is created to compute the nodal

~b ¼
k ðB e b dX ¼
e b ÞT Db B ðB e b ðxC ÞAC ;
e b ÞT ðxC ÞDb B ð31Þ
C C C C
Xe C¼1
strain as the divergence of a spatial average of the strain field. This
strain smoothing avoids evaluating derivatives of mesh-free shape where nc is the number of smoothing cells of the element, see Fig. 4.
functions at nodes and thus eliminates defective modes. The moti- We note that for nc = 1, the MIST1 element will contain two zero-en-
vation of this work is to develop the strain smoothing approach for ergy modes due to rank deficiency. The rank of the MIST1 element is
the FEM. The method developed here can be seen as a stabilized rank Ke ¼ 12 while the sufficient rank would be rank Ke ¼ 14, see also
conforming nodal integration method, as in Galerkin mesh-free [25].
methods applied to the finite element method. The smooth strain The integrands are constant over each XC and the non-local
field at an arbitrary point xC is written as strain displacement matrix reads
Z 0 1
~eij ðxC Þ ¼ eij ðxÞUðx  xC Þ dX; ð24Þ Ni nx
Z 0 0 0 0 0
X h e m ðxC Þ ¼ 1
B
B
@ 0 Ni ny
C
0 0 0 0 A dC; ð32Þ
Ci
AC CC
where U is a smoothing function that satisfies the following N i ny N i nx 0 0 0 0
properties 0 1
Z 0 0 0 0 N i nx 0
Z
e b ðxC Þ ¼ 1
B
B
@0 0 0 Ni ny 0
C
0 A dC: ð33Þ
U P 0 and U dX ¼ 1: ð25Þ Ci
AC CC
Xh 0 0 0 Ni nx Ni ny 0
For simplicity, U is assumed to be a step function defined by From Eq. (33), we can use Gauss points for line integration along

1=AC ; x 2 XC ; each segment of CbC . If the shape functions are linear on each seg-
Uðx  xC Þ ¼ ð26Þ ment of a cell’s boundary, one Gauss point is sufficient for an exact
0; x R XC ;
integration:
where AC is the area of the smoothing cell, XC  Xe  Xh, as shown 0 1
in Fig. 3. Substituting Eq. (26) into Eq. (24), and applying the diver- Ni ðxG Þnx 0 0 0 0 0
Xnb

gence theorem, we obtain e m ðxC Þ ¼ 1

B
B
@ 0
CC
N i ðxG Þny 0 0 0 0 Alb ; ð34Þ
Ci
AC b¼1
Z   Z Ni ðxG Þny Ni ðxG Þnx 0 0 0 0
1 oui ouj 1 0 1
~eij ðxC Þ ¼ þ dX ¼ ðui nj þ uj nj Þ dC: ð27Þ 0 0 0 0 Ni ðxG Þnx 0
2AC XC oxj oxi 2AC CC Xnb
e b ðxC Þ ¼ 1 B CC
B Ci @ 0 0 0 Ni ðxG Þny 0 0 Al b ; ð35Þ
Next, we consider an arbitrary smoothing cell, XC illustrated in AC b¼1
S G
0 0 0 Ni ðx Þnx Ni ðx Þny 0 G
Fig. 3 with boundary CC ¼ nb b b
b¼1 CC , where CC is the boundary seg-
ment of XC, and nb is the total number of edges of each smoothing C
where xG and lb are the midpoint (Gauss point) and the length of CCb ,
cell. The relationship between the strain field and the nodal dis- respectively, and nb is the total number of edges of each smoothing
placement is rewritten as cell.
  The smoothed membrane and curvatures lead to high flexibility
~
j
~e ¼ ; ð28Þ such as arbitrary polygonal elements, and a slight reduction in
~em
computational cost. The element is subdivided into nc non-over-
lapping sub-domains also called smoothing cells. Fig. 4 illustrates
different smoothing cells for nc = 1, 2, and 4 corresponding to 1-
subcell, 2-subcell, and 4-subcell methods. The membrane and cur-
vature are smoothed over each sub-cell. The values of the shape
functions are indicated at the corner nodes in Fig. 4 in the format
(N1, N2, N3, N4). The values of the shape functions at the integration
nodes are determined based on the linear interpolation of shape
functions along boundaries of the element or the smoothing cells.
Therefore the element stiffness matrix in (16) can be modified
as follows:
X
nc X
nc
~e ¼ k
k ~ m þ ks ¼
~b þ k ðB e b AC þ
e b ÞT Db B ðB e m AC
e m ÞT Dm B
C C C C
C¼1 C¼1
X
2 X
2
þ wi wj BTs Ds Bs jJj dn dg: ð36Þ
i¼1 i¼1

The element membrane and bending stiffness km, kb in Eq. (36) is

therefore replaced by the smoothed membrane and curvature tech-
nique on each smoothing cell of the element while the shear term ks
Fig. 3. Example of finite element meshes and smoothing cells. is derived from the independent interpolation field of the shear
 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177 169

Fig. 4. Division of an element into smoothing cells (nc) and the value of the shape function along the boundaries of cells: k-Subcell stands for the shape function of the MISTk
element, k = 1, 2, 4.

strains in the natural coordinates [4] and 2  2 Gauss quadrature is

still utilized.
The transformation of the element stiffness matrix from the lo-
cal to the global coordinate system is given by
e ¼ TT k
K ~ e T: ð37Þ

4. Numerical results

We name our element MISTk (Mixed Interpolation with

Fig. 5. Scordelis–Lo roof (R = 25; L = 50; t = 0.25; E = 4.32  108; self-weight 90/
area; t = 0.0).
Smoothing Technique with k 2 {1, 2, 4} related to number of
smoothing cells as given by Fig. 4). For several numerical examples,
we will now compare the MISTk elements to the widely used
MITC4 elements. One major advantage of our element is that it is
especially accurate for distorted meshes. To obtain mesh distortion

0 0
z

0 0

5 25 5 25
20 20
10 15 10
15
x 10 10
15 x 15
5 y 5 y
20 0 20 0

Fig. 6. Regular and irregular meshes used for the analysis.

170 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

Table 1 that occurs naturally under phenomena such as shear bending or

Normalized displacement at the point A for a regular mesh cracking, the coordinates of the initially regularly (structured)
Mesh MITC4 Mixed [38] QPH [7] SRI [20] Present elements spaced interior nodes are relocated by the following expression
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4 [25]:
44 0.9284 1.083 0.940 0.964 1.168 1.060 0.977 x0 ¼ x þ arc Dx;
66 0.9465 – – – 1.062 1.014 0.972 ð38Þ
y0 ¼ y þ ar c Dy;
88 0.9609 1.015 0.980 0.984 1.028 1.001 0.976
10  10 0.9706 – – – 1.014 0.997 0.981
where rc is a random number between 1.0 and 1.0, a 2 [0, 0.5] is
12  12 0.9781 – – – 1.009 0.997 0.985
14  14 0.9846 – – – 1.007 0.998 0.990 used to control the shapes of the distorted elements and Dx, Dy
16  16 0.9908 1.000 1.010 0.999 1.008 1.001 0.995 are initial regular element sizes in the x- and y-directions, respec-
tively. In the next two sections, we did not disturb the y-direction
in order to ensure smooth curvature.
Table 2
The strain energy for a regular mesh 4.1. Scordelis–Lo roof
Mesh no. MITC4 Present elements
Consider a cylindrical concrete shell roof where two curved
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4 edges are supported by rigid diaphragms, and the other two edges
44 1.1247e3 1.4456e3 1.3002e3 1.1888e3 are free, see Fig. 5. This example was first modeled by [28]. The
66 1.1589e3 1.3126e3 1.2488e3 1.1934e3 theoretical mid-side vertical displacement is 0.3024 [37].
88 1.1808e3 1.2700e3 1.2342e3 1.2017e3
Regular and irregular meshes of N  N elements are studied for
10  10 1.1942e3 1.2524e3 1.2294e3 1.2082e3
12  12 1.2037e3 1.2446e3 1.2286e3 1.2136e3 the MITC4 element and the MISTk elements. Typical meshes are
14  14 1.2113e3 1.2416e3 1.2299e3 1.2187e3 shown in Fig. 6.
16  16 1.2180e3 1.2415e3 1.2324e3 1.2238e3

1.1

1.25
Analytical solu.
MITC4
1
MIST1
1.2 MIST2
MIST4 Analytical solu.
MITC4(α=0.5)
0.9 MIST2(α=0.1)
Normalized deflection w

MIST2(α=0.2)
1.15
MIST2(α=0.3)
Normalized deflection w

MIST2(α=0.4)
0.8 MIST2(α=0.5)
1.1

0.7

1.05

0.6
1

0.5
0.95

0.4
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0.9
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Index mesh N
Index mesh N
Fig. 9. The convergence deflection at point A for a irregular meshes.
Fig. 7. The convergence of deflection at point A for a regular mesh.

1450 1400
MITC4
MIST1
MIST2 1300
1400 MIST4

1200

1350 1100 MITC4(α=0.5)

MIST2(α=0.1)
The energy value E
The energy value E

MIST2(α=0.2)
1000 MIST2(α=0.3)
1300 MIST2(α=0.4)
MIST2(α=0.5)
900

1250
800

700
1200

600

1150
500

1100 400
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Index mesh N Index mesh N

Fig. 8. The convergence of strain energy for a regular mesh. Fig. 10. The convergence of strain energy for a irregular meshes.
 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177 171

Table 3 The results for the uniform meshes are summarized in Tables 1
Normalized displacement at the point A for a irregular mesh and 2. Fig. 7 shows the convergence of deflection at point A and
Mesh no. MITC4 (a = 0.5) MIST2 Fig. 8 plots the convergence of strain energy. Especially for coarse
a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5 meshes, the MISTk elements are more accurate than MITC4 ele-
ment and show a better convergence rate to the exact solution.
44 0.8889 1.0736 1.0579 1.0623 1.0119 0.9757
66 0.8224 1.0123 1.0186 1.0291 0.9775 0.9778
Figs. 9 and 10 show the numerical results of the deflections at point
88 0.5799 1.0004 0.9991 0.9929 0.9900 0.9982 A and the strain energy, respectively, for distorted meshes. We note
10  10 0.6154 0.9985 0.9906 0.9830 0.9886 0.9850 that the MISTk elements are always slightly more accurate com-
12  12 0.4626 0.9978 0.9920 0.9915 0.9930 0.9910 pared to the MITC4 element. Simultaneously, they are computa-
14  14 0.4220 0.9992 0.9937 0.9971 0.9945 0.9935
tionally cheaper.
16  16 0.4432 1.0008 1.0000 0.9972 0.9981 0.9962
However, the most remarkable feature of the results appear for
highly distorted meshes where the performance of the MISTk ele-
ments are vastly superior to the MITC4 element, which fails to con-
verge. With increasing curvature and distortion of the mesh, the
effect of membrane locking becomes more pronounced. The MISTk
Table 4
elements are free of membrane and shear locking while the MITC4
The strain energy for a irregular mesh
element is only free of shear locking. We also would like to note
Mesh MITC4 MIST2 that inter alia [27] found shear force oscillations for the MITC4
no. (a = 0.5)
a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5 element especially for distorted meshes. They propose a stabiliza-
44 1.0854e3 1.3239e3 1.3038e3 1.3269e3 1.2391e3 1.1418e3 tion that is not incorporated in our formulation here. This effect
66 1.0256e3 1.2468e3 1.2612e3 1.2814e3 1.1750e3 1.1939e3 may contribute to the error accumulation in the example tested
88 0.6904e3 1.2351e3 1.2290e3 1.2182e3 1.2139e3 1.2275e3 as well.
10  10 0.7617e3 1.2320e3 1.2162e3 1.2088e3 1.2168e3 1.2063e3
12  12 0.5740e3 1.2300e3 1.2215e3 1.2234e3 1.2273e3 1.2227e3
14  14 0.4634e3 1.2311e3 1.2234e3 1.2283e3 1.2260e3 1.2206e3
16  16 0.4990e3 1.2303e3 1.2291e3 1.2261e3 1.2309e3 1.2235e3

0.9

Analytical solu.
Normalized deflection w

0.8 MITC4
MIST1
MIST2
MIST4
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Index mesh N
Fig. 11. Pinched cylinder with diaphragms boundary conditions (P = 1; R = 300;
L = 600; t = 3; t = 0.3; E = 3  107). Fig. 13. The convergence of deflection at under the load for a regular mesh.

300 300

250 250

200 200

150 150
z

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 0
50 50
300 300
100 250 100 250
150 200 150 200
200 150 200 150
x 100 x 100
250 50 y 250 50 y
300 0 300 0

Fig. 12. Regular and irregular meshes used for the analysis.
172 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

In Tables 3 and 4, we have summarized the results of our best Table 5

element, the MIST2 element, for different degrees of mesh distor- Normal displacement under the load for a regular mesh

tion a and compared it to the MITC4 element. Though our element Mesh MITC4 Mixed [38] QPH [7] SRI [20] Present elements
is based on flat shell theory, it provides relatively accurate results MIST1 MIST2 MIST4
for non-flat structures.
44 0.3677 0.399 0.370 0.373 0.4705 0.4376 0.3838
88 0.7363 0.763 0.740 0.747 0.8016 0.7802 0.7481
4.2. Pinched cylinder with diaphragm 12  12 0.8656 – – – 0.9071 0.8935 0.8735
16  16 0.9203 0.935 0.930 0.935 0.9482 0.9391 0.9257
Consider a cylindrical shell with rigid end diaphragm subjected 20  20 0.9481 – – – 0.9681 0.9616 0.9520
24  24 0.9644 – – – 0.9794 0.9745 0.9673
to a point load at the center of the cylindrical surface. Due to its
symmetry, only one eighth of the cylinder shown in Fig. 11 is mod-
eled. The expected deflection under a concentrated load is
1.8425  105 [40].
Table 6
The problem is discredited with N  N MITC4 or MISTk ele- The strain energy for a regular mesh
ments where we study again regular and irregular configurations.
Mesh no. MITC4 Present elements
The meshes used are shown in Fig. 12.
Figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the convergence of the displacement at MIST1 MIST2 MIST4
the center point and the strain energy, respectively, for the MITC4 44 8.4675e7 1.0837e6 1.0078e6 8.8394e7
element and our MISTk elements for regular meshes. Our element 88 1.6958e6 1.8462e6 1.7970e6 1.7230e6
12  12 1.9937e6 2.0891e6 2.0579e6 2.0118e6
is slightly more accurate than the MITC4 element for structured
16  16 2.1196e6 2.1837e6 2.1630e6 2.1320e6
meshes. In Table 5, we have compared the normalized displace- 20  20 2.1836e6 2.2296e6 2.2147e6 2.1926e6
ment at the center point of our element to the MITC4 element. 24  24 2.2210e6 2.2556e6 2.2444e6 2.2278e6
The strain energy is summarized in Table 6.
The advantage of our element becomes more relevant for dis-
torted meshes, see Figs. 15, 16 and Tables 7, 8. For the same rea-
sons as outlined in the previous section, the MISTk elements are 1

significantly more accurate as compared to the MITC4-element

with increasing mesh distortion. 0.9

4.3. Hyperbolic paraboloid

Normalized deflection w

0.8
Analytical solu.
MITC4(α=0.5)
A hyperbolic paraboloid shell are restrained the boundary the MIST2(α=0.1)
0.7 MIST2(α=0.2)
deflections z direction. Furthermore the boundary conditions are MIST2(α=0.3)
considered u(L/2, 0) = u(L/2, 0) and v(0,  L/2) = v(0,L/2), respec- MIST2(α=0.4)
MIST2(α=0.5)
0.6
tively. Numerical parameters are given in Fig. 17. An analytical Kir-
chhoff solution with slightly different boundary conditions using
Fourier series has been derived by Duddeck [13]. The model prob- 0.5

lem is described in Fig. 17. This problem was chosen in order to

study the effect of membrane locking. 0.4

Both the MITC4 element and the MISTk elements are tested for
a series of meshes with N  N elements. The meshes are illustrated 0.3
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
in Fig. 18. Index mesh N
Figs. 19 and 20 present the convergence of deflection and strain
energy at point A for a regular mesh. In Table 9, we have com- Fig. 15. The convergence of deflection for a irregular meshes.

−6 −6
x 10 x 10
2.4 2.4

2.2 2.2

2 MITC4 2
MIST1
MIST2
MIST4
The energy value E

The energy value E

1.8 1.8 MITC4(α=0.5)

MIST2(α=0.1)
MIST2(α=0.2)
MIST2(α=0.3)
1.6 1.6 MIST2(α=0.4)
MIST2(α=0.5)

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Index mesh N Index mesh N

Fig. 14. The convergence of strain energy for regular mesh. Fig. 16. The convergence of strain energy for a irregular meshes.
 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177 173

pared the normalized displacement at the center point of our ele- We note that the MISTk elements are always more accurate com-
ment to other elements in the literature. For the fact that our ele- pared to the MITC4 element. The strain energy is summarized in
ment is based on flat shell theory, our results are reasonably good. Table 10.

The convergence of deflection at the point A

Table 7 1
Normal displacement under the load for a irregular mesh
0.98
Mesh no. MITC4 (a = 0.5) MIST2
a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5 0.96 Duddeck solu.
MITC4
MIST1
44 0.3539 0.4370 0.4342 0.4331 0.4261 0.4398

Normalized deflection w
0.94 MIST2
88 0.6950 0.7777 0.7786 0.7839 0.7803 0.7860 MIST4
12  12 0.7402 0.8941 0.8938 0.8945 0.8959 0.8930 0.92
16  16 0.8488 0.9397 0.9394 0.9344 0.9402 0.9350
20  20 0.8960 0.9614 0.9631 0.9586 0.9628 0.9601 0.9

24  24 0.8718 0.9746 0.9739 0.9764 0.9755 0.9672

0.88

0.86

Table 8 0.84
The strain energy for a irregular mesh
0.82
Mesh MITC4 MIST2
no. (a = 0.5) 0.8
a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Index mesh N
44 8.1512e7 1.0065e6 1.0001e6 9.9738e7 9.8127e7 1.0129e6
88 1.6007e6 1.7911e6 1.7932e6 1.8054e6 1.7971e6 1.8102e6 Fig. 19. The convergence of deflection at point A for a regular mesh.
12  12 1.7047e6 2.0591e6 2.0585e6 2.0601e6 2.0634e6 2.0567e6
16  16 1.9549e6 2.1642e6 2.1636e6 2.1521e6 2.1654e6 2.1534e6 4 The convergence of energy
x 10
20  20 2.0636e6 2.2142e6 2.2182e6 2.2077e6 2.2175e6 2.2113e6
2.1
24  24 2.0078e6 2.2445e6 2.2431e6 2.2488e6 2.2466e6 2.2276e6

2
The energy value E

1.9
MITC4
MIST1
MIST2
MIST4

1.8

1.7

1.6

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Index mesh N
2
Fig. 17. Hyperbolic paraboloid (p = 5 kN/m ; L = 20 m; h = L/32 m; t = 0.2 m; t = 0;
E = 108 kN/m2). Fig. 20. The convergence of strain energy for a regular mesh.

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
z

10 10

5 5

0 0
y y
10 10
5 5
0 0

x x

Fig. 18. Regular and irregular meshes used for the analysis.
174 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

Table 9 The results for distorted meshes are shown in Figs. 21 and 22
The displacement at point A for a regular mesh and Tables 11 and 12. We note again that the results of the MITC4
Mesh MITC4 Taylor Sauer Wagner Present elements element do not converge since it is not free of membrane locking.
[39] [36] [15]
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4
4.4. Partly clamped hyperbolic paraboloid
88 3.7311 4.51 4.51 4.52 4.5029 4.2315 3.9031
16  16 4.2955 4.55 4.56 4.56 4.5190 4.4468 4.3507
32  32 4.4694 4.56 4.58 4.58 4.5282 4.5089 4.4841 We consider the partly clamped hyperbolic paraboloid shell
40  40 4.4937 – – – 4.5319 4.5195 4.5034 structure, loaded by self-weight and clamped along one side.
48  48 4.5089 – – – 4.5351 4.5259 4.5154 The geometric, material and load data are the adopted in Fig. 23,
56  56 4.5186 – – – 4.5384 4.5315 4.5236
and only one half of the surface needs to be considered in the
64  64 4.5259 4.57 4.57 4.60 4.5412 4.5362 4.5297
analysis.

Table 10
The strain energy for a regular mesh
Table 11
Mesh no. MITC4 Present elements The displacement at point A for a irregular mesh

MIST1 MIST2 MIST4 Mesh no. MITC4 (a = 0.5) MIST2

88 1.5946e4 2.1015e4 1.8237e4 1.6705e4 a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5
16  16 1.8617e4 1.9920e4 1.9289e4 1.8858e4
88 3.8680 4.1358 4.1270 4.1342 4.1125 4.1218
32  32 1.9440e4 1.9790e4 1.9620e4 1.9504e4
16  16 4.2742 4.3689 4.3662 4.3634 4.3628 4.3611
40  40 1.9558e4 1.9791e4 1.9679e4 1.9599e4
32  32 4.3519 4.4726 4.4754 4.4683 4.4659 4.4587
48  48 1.9630e4 1.9799e4 1.9705e4 1.9658e4
40  40 4.3133 4.4782 4.4718 4.4676 4.4612 4.4562
56  56 1.9678e4 1.9809e4 1.9827e4 1.9699e4
48  48 4.3721 4.4744 4.4725 4.4717 4.4708 4.4693
64  64 1.9714e4 1.9842e4 1.9820e4 1.9730e4
56  56 4.3436 4.4795 4.4776 4.4735 4.4724 4.4716
64  64 4.3529 4.4897 4.4862 4.4809 4.4746 4.4639

The convergence of displacement for irregular mesh

4.6

4.5
Table 12
The strain energy for a irregular mesh
4.4

Mesh MITC4 MIST2

4.3 no. (a = 0.5)
Displacement w (cm)

a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5

Duddeck solu.
4.2 MITC4(α=0.5) 88 1.5759e4 1.7368e4 1.7336e4 1.7318e4 1.7289e4 1.7254e4
MIST2(α=0.1)
MIST2(α=0.2) 16  16 1.7734e4 1.8382e4 1.8371e4 1.8325e4 1.8293e4 1.8271e4
4.1
MIST2(α=0.3) 32  32 1.7976e4 1.8773e4 1.8744e4 1.8729e4 1.8714e4 1.8702e4
MIST2(α=0.4)
MIST2(α=0.5)
40  40 1.7742e4 1.8821e4 1.8796e4 1.8754e4 1.8732e4 1.8710e4
4
48  48 1.8075e4 1.8857e4 1.8841e4 1.8824e4 1.8817e4 1.8823e4
3.9
56  56 1.7873e4 1.8863e4 1.8834e4 1.8817e4 1.8806e4 1.8785e4
64  64 1.7946e4 1.8874e4 1.8819e4 1.8806e4 1.8765e4 1.8743e4
3.8

3.7

3.6
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Index mesh N

Fig. 21. The convergence of deflection at point A for a irregular mesh.

4
x 10
1.95

1.9

1.85

1.8
The value energy E

1.75
MITC4(α=0.5)
MIST2(α=0.1)
1.7 MIST2(α=0.2)
MIST2(α=0.3)
MIST2(α=0.4) Fig. 23. Partly clamped hyperbolic paraboloid (L = 1 m, E = 2  1011 N/m2, m = 0.3,
1.65 MIST2(α=0.5)
q = 8000 kg/m3, z = x2  y2, x 2 [0.5, 0.5], y 2 [0.5, 0.5]).
1.6

1.55
Table 13
1.5
The reference values for the total strain energy E and vertical displacement w at point
B (x = L/2,y = 0)
1.45
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 t/L Strain energy E (N m) Displacement w (m)
Index mesh N
1/1000 1.1013  102 6.3941  103
1/10000 8.9867  102 5.2988  101
Fig. 22. The convergence of strain energy for a irregular mesh.
 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177 175

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
z

z
0 0

0 y 0 y
0.5 x 0.5
x

Fig. 24. Regular and irregular meshes used for the analysis.

x 10
3 The convergence of deflection at the point B (t/L=1/1000) The convergence of energy (t/L=1/1000)
0.35

6.4
MITC4
0.3 MIST1
6.2 MIST2
MIST4
Ref. solu
6 MITC4 0.25
MIST1
MIST2
Displacement w (m)

5.8 MIST4
0.2
1−E /E
h

5.6

0.15
5.4

5.2 0.1

5
0.05

4.8

0
4.6 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Index mesh N
Index mesh N
Fig. 27. Convergence in strain energy for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/1000).
Fig. 25. The convergence of deflection of point B for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/1000).

The convergence of deflection at the point B (t/L=1/10000) The convergence of energy (t/L=1/10000)
0.5
MITC4
MIST1
0.45 MIST2
MIST4
0.5
0.4
Ref. solu
MITC4
MIST1 0.35
MIST2
Displacement w (m)

0.45 MIST4
0.3
1−E /E
h

0.25
0.4

0.2

0.35 0.15

0.1

0.3 0.05

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Index mesh N Index mesh N

Fig. 26. The convergence of deflection of point B for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/10000). Fig. 28. Convergence in strain energy for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/10000).
176 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177

Table 14 The convergence of energy for a irregular mesh (t/L=1/1000)

Displacement at point B for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/1000) MITC4(α=0.5)
MIST2(α=0.1)
Mesh no. MITC4 MITC16 [24] Present elements MIST2(α=0.2)
MIST2(α=0.3)
0.3
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4 MIST2(α=0.4)
MIST2(α=0.5)
84 4.7581e3 – 5.5858e3 4.9663e3 4.8473e3
16  8 5.8077e3 – 6.1900e3 5.9294e3 5.8624e3
0.25
32  16 6.1904e3 – 6.3470e3 6.2487e3 6.2180e3
40  20 6.2539e3 – 6.3691e3 6.2982e3 6.2751e3

1 − Eh / E
48  24 6.2939e3 6.3941e3 6.3829e3 6.3287e3 6.3108e3
0.2

Table 15 0.15

Displacement at point B for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/10000)

Mesh no. MITC4 MITC16 [24] Present elements

0.1
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4
84 0.2851 – 0.3398 0.2959 0.2899
0.05
16  8 0.4360 – 0.4789 0.4453 0.4401 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
32  16 0.4967 – 0.5169 0.5021 0.4991 Index mesh N
40  20 0.5063 – 0.5214 0.5106 0.5085
48  24 0.5121 0.5298 0.5240 0.5157 0.5137 Fig. 30. Convergence in strain energy for a irregular mesh (t/L = 1/1000).

Table 18
Table 16
Displacement at point B for a irregular mesh (t/L = 1/1000)
Convergence in strain energy for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/1000)
Mesh MITC4 MIST2
Mesh no. MITC4 MITC16 [24] Present elements
no. (a = 0.5)
a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4
84 4.6652e3 5.4683e3 5.4437e3 5.4359e3 5.3768e3 5.3417e3
84 0.8016e2 – 0.9499e2 0.8384e2 0.8172e2
16  8 5.7148e3 6.1379e3 6.1285e3 6.1243e3 6.1196e3 6.1075e3
16  8 0.9918e2 – 1.0623e2 1.0141e2 1.0018e2
32  16 5.8184e3 6.2753e3 6.2648e3 6.2617e3 6.2584e3 6.2520e3
32  16 1.0629e2 – 1.0921e2 1.0737e2 1.0668e2
40  20 5.9769e3 6.2891e3 6.2714e3 6.2682e3 6.2574e3 6.2371e3
40  20 1.0741e2 – 1.0963e2 1.0831e2 1.0795e2
48  24 5.8548e3 6.2957e3 6.2826e3 6.2748e3 6.2664e3 6.2440e3
48  24 1.0821e2 1.1013e2 1.0989e2 1.0885e2 1.0845e2

Table 19
Table 17 Convergence in strain energy for a irregular mesh (t/L = 1/1000)
Convergence in strain energy for a regular mesh (t/L = 1/10000)
Mesh MITC4 MIST2
Mesh no. MITC4 MITC16 [24] Present elements no. (a = 0.5)
a = 0.1 a = 0.2 a = 0.3 a = 0.4 a = 0.5
MIST1 MIST2 MIST4
84 0.7367e2 0.8311e2 0.8287e2 0.8229e2 0.8200e2 0.8171e2
84 0.0471 – 0.0562 0.0488 0.0478 16  8 0.9152e2 0.9937e2 0.9922e2 0.9913e2 0.9895e2 0.9857e2
16  8 0.0731 – 0.0806 0.0747 0.0738 32  16 0.9354e2 1.0248e2 1.0226e2 1.0214e2 1.0191e2 1.0170e2
32  16 0.0839 – 0.0875 0.0848 0.0844 40  20 0.9658e2 1.0285e2 1.0256e2 1.0227e2 1.0202e2 1.0164e2
40  20 0.0856 – 0.0883 0.0865 0.0858 48  24 0.9548e2 1.0261e2 1.0245e2 1.0218e2 1.0199e2 1.0168e2
48  24 0.0869 0.0898 0.0892 0.0881 0.0874

For this problem there is no analytical solution, and reference

values for the total strain energy E and vertical displacement w
−3
x 10 The convergence of displacement for a irregular mesh (t/L=1/1000) present in Table 13, previously obtained by [24] (Fig. 24).
6.4 Figs. 25–28 illustrate the convergence of deflection at point B
and strain energy error for a regular mesh with ratio t/L = 1000, t/
6.2
L = 1/10000, respectively. In Tables 14–17 we have compared the
6
displacement at point B for a regular mesh of our element to other
elements in the literature. We note that the MISTk elements are al-
Displacement w (cm)

5.8 ways more accurate compared to the elements compared with. The
Ref solu. strain energy is summarized in Tables 16, 17. The results for the
5.6 MITC4(α=0.5)
MIST2(α=0.1) distorted meshes are illustrated in Figs. 29, and 30 and Tables 18
5.4
MIST2(α=0.2)
MIST2(α=0.3)
and 19.
MIST2(α=0.4)
5.2 MIST2(α=0.5)

5
5. Conclusions

4.8 A family of quadrilateral shell elements based on mixed inter-

polation with smoothed membrane strain and bending strains is
4.6
proposed. The element is based on the flat element concept though
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 we also tested several problems involving curved structures. Ex-
Index mesh N
cept for the MIST1 element that exhibits two zero-energy modes,
Fig. 29. The convergence of deflection of point B for a irregular mesh (t/L = 1/1000). the MIST2 and the MIST4 elements maintain a sufficient rank.
 N. Nguyen-Thanh et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2008) 165–177
Moreover, these elements do not exhibit shear locking in the thin
shell limit, and pass the patch test.
The MIST1 element gave the best results for several problems
studied. However, this element contains two hourglass modes. In
simple cases, the hourglass modes can be automatically eliminated
by the boundary conditions, but are still undesirable in more gen-
eral settings. Therefore, the most reliable element is the MIST2 that
retains both a sufficient rank and accuracy.
The major advantage of the method, emanating from the fact
that the membrane and bending stiffness matrix are evaluated
on element boundaries instead of on their interiors is that the pro-
posed formulation gives very accurate and convergent results for
distorted meshes.
In addition to the above points, the author believes that the
strain smoothing technique herein is seamlessly extendable to
complex shell problems such as non-linear material and geometric
non-linearities, problems where large mesh distortion play a major
role. Providing an association of boundary integration with parti-
tion of unity methods in the extended finite element method
may be an interesting subject for improving discontinuous
approximations.
References
[1] P.M.A. Areias, J.H. Song, T. Belytschko, A simple finite-strain quadrilateral shell
element. Part I: Elasticity, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., in press.
[2] P.M.A. Areias, J.H. Song, T. Belytschko, Analysis of fracture in thin shells by
overlapping paired elements, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 195 (2006) 5343–
5360.
[3] K.J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, Prentice-Hall, Massachusetts (MIT),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.
[4] K.J. Bathe, E.N. Dvorkin, A four-node plate bending element based on Mindlin/
Reissner plate theory and a mixed interpolation, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg.
21 (1985) 367–383.
[5] K.J. Bathe, E.N. Dvorkin, A formulation of general shell elements-the use of
mixed interpolation of tensorial components, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 22
(1986) 697–722.
[6] J.L. Batoz, G. Dhatt, Modélisation des structures par éléments finis, Poutres et
Plaques, vol. 2, Hermès, 1990.
[7] T. Belytschko, I. Leviathan, Physical stabilization of the 4-node shell element
with one-point quadrature, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 113 (1994)
321–350.
[8] M. Bischoff, Theorie und Numerik einer dreidimensionalen Schalenfor-
mulierung, Ph.D. thesis, University Stuttgart, 1999.
[9] M. Bischoff, E. Ramm, Shear deformable shell elements for large strains and
rotations, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. (1997).
[10] K.U. Bletzinger, M. Bischoff, E. Ramm, A unified approach for shear-locking-
free triangular and rectangular shell finite elements, Comput. Struct. (2000).
[11] J.S. Chen, C.T. Wu, S. Yoon, Y. You, A stabilized conforming nodal integration for
Galerkin mesh-free methods, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 50 (2001) 435–466.
[12] R.D. Cook, D.S. Malkus, M.E. Plesha, R.J. Witt, Concepts and Applications of
Finite Element Analysis, fourth ed., John Wiley and Sons, 2001.
[13] H. Duddeck, Die biegetheorie der flachen hyperbolischen paraboloidschale
z = cxy, Ing. Archiv 31 (1962) 44–78.
[14] E. Dvorkin, K.J. Bathe, A continuum mechanics based four-node shell element
for general nonlinear analysis, Engrg. Comput. (1984).
[15] W. Wagner, F. Gruttmann, A linear quadrilateral shell element with fast,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 4279–4300.
[16] F.G. Flores, C.F. Estrada, A rotation-free thin shell quadrilateral, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 2631–2646.
View publication stats
177
[17] S. Guzey, H.K. Stolarski, B. Cockburn, K.K. Tamma, Design and development of a
discontinuous Galerkin method for shells, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Engrg. 195 (2006) 3528–3548.
[18] T.J.R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1987.
[19] T.J.R. Hughes, M. Cohen, M. Haroun, Reduced and selective integration
techniques in finite element method of plates, Nucl. Engrg. Des. 46 (1978)
203–222.
[20] T.J.R. Hughes, W.K. Liu, Nonlinear finite element analysis of shells. Part II: Two
dimensional shells, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 27 (1981) 167–182.
[21] T.J.R. Hughes, R.L. Taylor, W. Kanoknukulchai, Simple and efficient element for
plate bending, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 11 (1977) 1529–1543.
[22] T.J.R. Hughes, T. Tezduyar, Finite elements based upon Mindlin plate theory
with particular reference to the four-node isoparametric element, J. Appl.
Mech. (1981).
[23] K. Kansara, Development of membrane, plate and flat shell elements in java,
Master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2004.
[24] D. Chapelle, K.J. Bathe, A. Iosilevich, An evaluation of the MITC shell elements,
Comput. Struct. 75 (2000) 1–30.
[25] G.R. Liu, K.Y. Dai, T.T. Nguyen, A smoothed finite element for mechanics
problems, Comput. Mech. 39 (2007) 859–877.
[26] G.R. Liu, T.T. Nguyen, K.Y. Dai, K.Y. Lam, Theoretical aspects of the smoothed
finite element method (SFEM), Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 71 (2007) 902–
930.
[27] M. Lyly, R. Stenberg, T. Vihinen, A stable bilinear element for Reissner–Mindlin
plate model, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 110 (1993) 343–357.
[28] R.H. McNeal, R.L. Harder, A proposed set of problems to test finite element
accuracy, Finite Elem. Anal. 1 (1985) 3–20.
[29] H. Nguyen-Xuan, S. Bordas, H. Nguyen-Dang, Smooth finite element methods:
convergence, accuracy and properties, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., in press,
DOI:10.1002/nme.2146.
[30] H. Nguyen-Xuan, T. Rabczuk, S. Bordas, J.F. Debongnie, A smoothed finite
element method for plate analysis, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 197
(2008) 1184–1203.
[31] T. Rabczuk, P. Areias, A meshfree thin shell for arbitrary evolving cracks based
on an external enrichment, Comput. Model. Engrg. Sci. 16 (2) (2006) 115–130.
[32] T. Rabczuk, P.M.A. Areias, T. Belytschko, A meshfree thin shell for large
deformation, finite strain and arbitrary evolving cracks, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Engrg. 72 (5) (2007) 524–548.
[33] T. Rabczuk, T. Belytschko, Cracking particles: a simplified meshfree method for
arbitrary evolving cracks, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 61 (13) (2004) 2316–
2343.
[34] T. Rabczuk, T. Belytschko, Adaptivity for structured meshfree particle methods
in 2D and 3D, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 63 (11) (2005) 1559–1582.
[35] T. Rabczuk, T. Belytschko, S.P. Xiao, Stable particle methods based on
Lagrangian kernels, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 193 (2004) 1035–
1063.
[36] R. Sauer, Eine einheitliche Finite-Element-Formulierung fur Stab- und
Schalentragwerke mit endlichen Rotationen, Bericht 4 (1998), Institut fur
Baustatik, Universitat Karlsruhe (TH), 1998.
[37] A.C. Scordelis, K.S. Lo, Computer analysis of cylindrical shells, J. Am. Concrete
Inst. 61 (1964) 539–561.
[38] J.C. Simo, D.D. Fox, M.S. Rifai, On a stress resultant geometrically exact shell
model. Part II: The linear theory; computational aspects, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 73 (1989) 53–92.
[39] R.L. Taylor, Finite element analysis of linear shell problems, in: J.R. Whiteman
(Ed.), The Mathematics of Finite Elements and Applications VI (MAFELAP
1987), Academic Press, London, 1988.
[40] R.L. Taylor, E.P. Kasperm, A mixed-enhanced strain method, Comput. Struct. 75
(2000) 237–250.
[41] J.W. Yoo, B. Moran, J.S. Chen, Stabilized conforming nodal integration in the
natural-element method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 60 (2004) 861–890.
[42] O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L. Taylor, The Finite Element Method, fifth ed., Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford, 2000.
[43] O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L. Taylor, J.M. Too, Reduced integration technique in
general analysis of plates and shells, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 3 (1971)
275–290.