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

net/publication/316645053

Finite Element Model for Linear Elastic Thick Shells Using Gradient Recovery
Method

Article  in  Mathematical Problems in Engineering · April 2017

DOI: 10.1155/2017/5903503

CITATION READS
1 170

4 authors, including:

Achille Germain Feumo Robert Nzengwa

University of Yaounde I University of Douala
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    25 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nkongho ANYI Joseph

University of Buea, HTTTC Kumba
10 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Formulation, Development and validation of a double curved fem based on a high order thick shell theory for calculation of walled structures View project

VALIDATION OF THE N-T ( Nzengwa-Tagne) LINEAR ELASTIC THICK SHELL MODEL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nkongho ANYI Joseph on 03 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Finite Element Model for Linear Elastic Thick
Shells using Gradient Recovery Method
∗ † ‡
FEUMO Achille Germain, NZENGWA Robert, NKONGHO. A. Joseph

Abstract
This author purposed a new family of nite element for spherical thick
shells with governing equations based on the Nzengwa-Tagne's model pro-
posed in 1999. The model referred to here after as N-T model contains the
classical Kirchho-Love (K-L) kinematic with additional terms related to
the third fundamental form. Strain energy contains also the change in
the third fundamental form in addition to the classical K-L strain. Trans-
verse shear stresses are computed and a C 0 nite element is proposed for
numerical implementation. However, using straight line triangular ele-
ments does not garantee a correct computation of stress across common
edges of adjacent elements because of gradient jumps. The gradient re-
covery method known as Polynomial Preserving Recovery (PPR) is used
for local interpolation and applied on a hemisphere under diametrically
opposite charges. A good agreement of convergence results is observed,
numerical results are compared to other results obtained with the classical
K-L thin shell theory. Moreover, simulation on increasing values of the
ratio (half the thickness over the smallest radius in absolute value) of the
shell shows impact of the N-T model especially on transverse stresses be-
cause of the signicant energy contribution due to the third fundamental
form tensor present in the kinematics of this model. The analysis of the
thickness ratio shows dierence between the classical K-L theory and N-T
model when the ratio is greater than 0.099.
Keywords thick shell, gradient recovery, N-T model, Polynomial Preserving
Recovery, Kirchho-Love, Reisner-Mindlin

1 Introduction
N-T's theoritical approach which was mathematically and rigorously deduced
from three dimensional linear elastic curvilinear media through multiple scaling
and limit analysis is a more general Kirchhof- Love ( K-L) model. The displace-
ment here is a two degree polynomial of the thickness parameter z while the

∗ Corresponding author: achillefeumo@yahoo.com/ University of Yaounde I, Department

of Mathematics
† rnzengwa@yahoo.fr/University of Douala, Department of Civil Engineering
‡ nkonghojoseph@gmail.com/University of Buea, Department of mechanic

1
strain tensor which is planar contains the change in the third fundamental form
in addition to the change of the rst and second.
For more than thirty years, numerous articles, books and theses have ad-
dressed the problem of shell. Plates and more generally thin shells represent
over 70% of industrial calculations [1, 2]. The mechanical models have been
validated by some well known benchmarks. Some locally stiened thin shells
or more generally thick shells have not received the same essor probably be-
cause some few existing models do not account for transverse stresses and have
not been mathematically established. Moreover it is well known that trans-
verse stresses can not be neglected as the shell becomes thicker. Without
any ad-hoc geometrical hypothesis, it was deduced that the strain tensor is
planar, that is, ∈i3 = 0 and as a consequence, the limit displacement reads
u = uα g α + u3 g 3 , with uα (x, z) = ξα (x) − zθα (x) + z 2 ψα (x), u3 = ξ3 (x)
1 2 3
(where {g , g , g } is the three-dimensional contravariant shell basis); the in-
2 αβ
plane strain ∈αβ = eαβ − zkαβ + z Qαβ and the stresses σ depend on the
i3
in-plane strains and σ are computed from appropriate dierential equations,
see [3].
The form of the displacement clearly shows that a C 0 nite element is discon-
tinuous across adjacent elements and usually provides inaccurate results at ele-
ments boundaries. Some authors indeed, proposed dierent numerical methods:
the nite dierence method (FDM); nite volume method (FVM); nite ele-
ment method for various simulation like Magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD)[4, 5, 6];
Curved Triangular Finite Elements (CTFE) of [7]; a weighted average method
to calculate stresses, which provided good results for both interior and bound-
ary elements; a L²-projection to also calculate stresses, by considering discrete
smoothingand least squares tting at the gauss points. But this last method was
limited to one element; consequently, the smoothen stress is still discontinuous
across element boundaries. This problem was completely solved 20 years ago,
when Ziekiewicz-zhu introduced their Superconvergence Patch Recovery (SPR)
[8, 9], where the discrete least square tting was performed on an element patch,
a set of elements having the same vertex. This SPR method produces a con-
tinuous stress eld, which is superconvergent under uniform mesh. Soon after,
Wiberg et al incorporated equilibrium and boundary conditions to enhance SPR
[10, 11] and discussed strategies to improve the nite element solution uh itself
( other than the stress, which is essentially the gradient of uh )[11]. Recently,
A. Naga and Z.Zhang and his collegues proposed an alternative strategy, called
Polynomial Preserving Recorvery ( PPR) [12, 13, 14, 15, 16], to recover the
gradient. Theoretical analyses revealed that PPR has better superconvergence
(over any mesh) properties than SPR and the numerical tests indicated that the
a posteriori error estimator based on PPR is as good as or better than that of
SPR [17, 18, remarks: page 323].
In oder to validate the N-T model, the program is rst tested successfully
on the widely known hemisphere under diametrically opposite charges of thin
shells. Then thin shell theory of K-L and thick shell theory N-T are imple-
mented in order to evaluate the impact of thickness ratio. Next, simulations
with various values of the characteristic shell parameter (thickness ratio) are

2
implemented in order to reveal the contribution of gauss curvature (change of
the third fundamental form) in the stiness energy.
In addition to that, section 2 presents materials and methods: a brief de-
scription of the N-T model is presented without all the mathematical developpe-
ment, including gradient recovery method. A variational formulation of the shell
equation and the resolution of transverse stresses equations are done. Section
3 is devoted to the discretization of the N-T model. Finite element spaces are
next described and also the discretization scheme is layout. All numerical in-
tegrations are performed on a reference triangular element using the gradient
recovery PPR method. Section 4 is completely devoted to the validation of the
nite element model. Finally, results are discussed and concluded.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 The N − T model of thick shells
−−→
Ω = M ∈ Ω, OM = − → + za3 ; − h ≺ z ≺ h , m ∈ S ( S is midsurface,
n o
Let om 2 2
h  0 is the thickness and x the coordinate of m in S ) denote a shell. We
assume the surface S is bounded and suciently smooth for all subsequent
1 2 3
computations. Let {a1 , a2 , a3 } and {a , a , a } denote the covariant and con-
1 2 3
travariant basis of the midsurface and {g1 , g2 , g3 },{g , g , g }respectively the
covariant and contravariant basis of the shell. Then

gα = (δατ − zbτα )aτ = (µτα ) aτ , g3 = a3 (1)

−1
g α = (µα
τ) aτ , g 3 = a3 (2)

dΩ = (1 − 2zbα 2 α
α + z det(bβ ))dzdS = φ(x, z)dzdS (3)
ρ ργ ργ
where bα = a bγα and bγα denote curvature tensor components and a is
the contravariant component of the metric of the midsurface S . The repeated
index convention is adopted. Values of Greek indices α, β take range in the
set {1, 2}while Latin indices i, j {1, 2, 3}. A vector
take their values in the set
i i
eld can be expressed component wise indierently in the g -basis or a -basis as
follows:

−1
v = vi (x, z)g i = v̄i (x, z)ai , vα = (µτα ) v̄τ , v̄α = (µτα ) vτ (4)

Then the strain tensor see [3] is given by

1


αβ (u) = 2 uα/β + uβ/α

  
= 12 ((µτα ) (∇β ūτ − bτ β ū3 ) + µτβ (∇α ūτ − bατ ū3 ))




3α (u) = 21 uα/3 + u3/α (5)



= 21 ((µτα ) ūτ,3 + ū3,α + bτα ūτ )





33 (u) = ū3,3


3
 ( / and ∇ indicate covariant derivation in Ω and S respectively while f,α =
∂f
∂xα ). The equation ∈i3 (u) = 0 yields the following results:


ūα
 = (µτα ) ξτ − z∂α ξ3 ū3 = ξ3 f or ξα , ξ3 f unction of x = (x1 , x2 )
and

uα = ξα − z (∂α ξ3 + 2bτα ξτ ) + z 2 (bτν bνα ξτ + bτα ∂α ξ3 ) u3 = ξ3

(6)
The strain tensor now reads:




 αβ (u) = eαβ (ξ) − zkαβ (ξ) + z 2 Qαβ (ξ)
1
eαβ (ξ) = 2 (∇α ξβ + ∇β ξα − 2bαβ ξ3 )



kαβ (ξ) = ∇α bνβ ξν + bνα ∇β ξν + bνβ ∇α ξν + ∇α ∇β ξ3 − bλα bλβ ξ3 (7)

Qαβ (ξ) = 21 [bνα ∇β bϕ

 ν ϕ ν ϕ ν ϕ
ν u̇ϕ + bα bν ∇β u̇ϕ + bβ bν ∇α u̇ϕ + bβ ∇ν bα u̇ϕ




+bν ∇ ∇ u̇ + bν ∇ ∇ u̇ ]


α β ν 3 β α ν 3

Let us recall that (eαβ ),(kαβ ) and (Qαβ ) are respectively changes in the rst,
second and third fundamental forms tensors, while the displacement

u = uα (x, z)g α + ξ3 (x)a3 = ūα (x, z)aα + ξ3 (x)a3 (8)

is a more generalized Kirchho-Love displacement [3] and can also be written

in Reissner-Midlin format as:

u = (ξα (x)−zθα (x)+z 2 ψα (x))g α +ξ3 (x)a3 = (ξα (x)+zβα (x))aα +ξ3 (x)a3 (9)

Where βα = ξ3,α +2bνα ξν = θα +zbνα ξν and θα are the rotations angles. Strain
tensors are mis-calculated in some literatures because wrong basis vectors were
used. The condition ∈i3 (u) = 0 modies the constitutive law which expressed
with the Lamé constants, now reads

σ αβ (u) = λ̄g γδ g αβ + µ g αγ g δβ + g αδ g γβ



∈γδ (u) (10)

2λµ
where λ̄ =
λ+2µ
or equivalently with Young's modulus E and Poisson's coecient ν, reads

E
σ αβ (u) = νg γδ g αβ + (1 − ν) g αγ g δβ + g αδ g γβ ∈γδ (u)



(11)
1 − ν2
Consider a shell of thickness h, clamped on a part of its border Γ0 , subject
to volume forces f α, f3 and to surface forces h̄α , h̄3 on the rest of its border
Γ1 . Suppose the forces are suciently smooth, then the transverse stresses are
solutions to the dierential equations:

4
   
∂σ α3 α λ3 λ α3 αβ
 ∂z + 2Γλ3 σ + Γλ3 σ

 = − σ,β + Γα
βλ σ
λβ
− fα
α
− h2 = −h− (12)
α3


σ
σ α3 + h
= hα

2 +

Where f α ∈ L2 (Ω); σ α3 ∈ H 1 (− h2 , h2 ; H −1 (S))

and
 33  
∂σ α
 ∂z + Γα3 σ

 33 3α
= − σ,α + Γ3αλ σ λα + Γββλ σ λ3 − f 3
3
σ 33 − h2 = −h− (13)


 3
σ 33 + h = h


2 +

Where f 3 ∈ H 1 (Ω); σ 33 ∈ H 2 (− h2 , h2 ; H −2 (S)).

The generic point of the sphere is described by: :


 X = Rsin(y)cos(x)
−−→ 
OM Y = Rsin(x)sin(y) (14)

Z = Rcos(y)


Where x and y are curvilinear coordinates, 0 ≤ x ≤ 2Π and 0 ≤ y ≤ Π; R is

the radius of the sphere and X, Y, Z are the global coordinates.
The covariant and contravariant metric tensors on the middle surface S are
dened by:

1
R2 sin2 (y) 0
   
αβ R2 sin2 (y) 0
(aαβ ) = (a )= (15)
0 R2 0 1
R2
.
The covariant and contravariant curvature tensors on S ( second fundamental
form) is given by:

1 1
Rsin2 (y) 0
     
αβ 0 0
(bαβ ) = ; (b )= R3 sin2 (y)
1 ; (bα
β) = R
1
0 R 0 R3
0 R
(16)
Let h be the thickness of the sphere; the Christoel symbols are dened by:



 Γ111 = Γ212 = Γ221 = Γ222 = Γ122 = 0;
Γ12
1
= Γ121 = cotan(y); Γ211 = −1 2 sin(2y);



Γ123 = Γ213 = Γ312 = Γ321 = 0; (17)
1

Γ113 = Γ223 = h−R ; Γ311 = (R − h)sin2 (y);




Γ 3

= R − h.
22

5
2.2 Variational equations
Let the border ofS , ∂S = γ0 ∪ γ1 be partitioned in two parts and the border of
∂Ω = Γ0 ∪Γ1 with Γ0 = γ0 × − h2 , h2 , and Γ1 = γ1 × − h2 , h2 ∪Γ− ∪Γ+ .

the shell
 h h
We denote Γ− = S × − and Γ+ = S ×
2 2 . Suppose the shell is clamped
on Γ0 and subject to volume and surface forces as stated above, then the three
dimensional variational equation related to the equilibrium equation reads

(
f ind u ∈ IHΓ10 such that:
´ ´ ´ (18)
Ω
(σ(u) : (v))dΩ = Ω f.vdΩ + Γ1 h̄.vdS = L(v) ∀v ∈ IHΓ10

where IHΓ10 (Ω) = ui Ω → R , ui ∈ L2 (Ω) ; ∇j ui ∈ L2 (Ω) and ui = 0 on Γ0
is the Sobolev space, : and . denote respectively tensors and vectors scalar prod-
ucts. The variational formulation under Kirchho-Love's approach is given by:

Eh
´ h
t α β α β
i
A0 (u, v) = 1−ν 2 { S ({Euh} (1 − ν)([De ]β )t [De ]α + ν([De ]α )t ([De ]β ) {Ev }
2
i
t α β α β
+ h12 {Eu } (1 − ν)([Dk ]β )t [Dk ]α + ν([Dk ]α )t ([Dk ]β ) {Ev }
= L(v̇)
(19)

and

Eh
´ t
h
α β α β
i
A1 (u, v) = 1−ν 2 { S ({Euh} (1 − ν)([De ]β )t [De ]α+ ν([De ]α )t ([De ]β ) {Ev }
2
i
t α β α β
+ h12 {Eu } (1 − ν)([Dk ]β )t [Dk ]α + ν([Dk ]α )t ([Dk ]β ) {Ev }
2
h i
t α β α β
+ h12 {Eu } (1 − ν)([De ]β )t [DQ ]α + ν([De ]α )t ([DQ ]β ) {Ev }
2
h i
t α β α β
+ h12 {Eu } (1 − ν)([DQ ]β )t [De ]α + ν([DQ ]α )t ([De ]β ) {Ev }
4
h i
t α β α β
+ h80 {Eu } (1 − ν)([DQ ]β )t [DQ ]α + ν([DQ ]α )t ([DQ ]β ) {Ev })dS
= L(v̇)
(20)
is a truncated thick shell or the best rst order thick shell variational equation
under N-T's model, see [3]. It can be observed that this equation has similarities
with familiar equations in engineering litterature.
Let
 1   2

H (S) = ϕ ∈ L2 (S), ∇α ϕ ∈ L2 (S) IH 1 (S) = H 1 (S)
IH 1 (S) = (η ) ∈ IH 1 (S), η = 0 on γ

α α
2
γ0
 1 1
0 (21)


 H (S) = ϕ ∈ H (S), ∇ α ϕ ∈ H (S)
 2 
Hγ0 (S) = ϕ ∈ H 2 (S), ϕ = ∂α ϕ = 0 on γ0

Uad = IHγ10 (S) × Hγ20 (S) (22)

6
 R.Nzengwa and B.H.Tagne Simo established existence and unicity of solu-
tions of this truncated problem in Uad . We should remember that the displace-
ment calculated after ξ is :

(
uα = ξα − z (∂α ξ3 + 2bτα ξτ ) + z 2 (bτν bνα ξτ + bτα ∂α ξ3 )
(23)
u3 = ξ3
or in the Nzengwa-Tagne format

(
uα = ξα (x) − zβα (x) + z 2 ψα (x)
(24)
u3 = ξ3 (x)
which suggests a C0 nite element implementation.
The linearized membrane strain tensor is expressed as follows:

1 αλ
eα αλ
β (u) = a eβλ (u) = a (uβ,λ + uλ,β ) − aαλ Γ̄ρλβ uρ − aαλ bλβ u3 (25)
2
.
Using the formulas:

α
Tβα (u) = aαλ Tβλ (u) = [T ]β {Eu } (26)

,
we can put (25) in the form:

α
eα
β (u) = [De ]β {Eu } (27)

,
where

[Eu ]T = [u1 ; ∂1 u1 ; ∂2 u1 ; u2 ; ∂1 u2 ; ∂2 u2 ; u3 ; −2b11 u1 −2b21 u2 −∂1 u3 ; −2b11 ∂1 u1 −2b21 ∂1 u2

− 2b11 ∂2 u1 − 2b21 ∂2 u2 ; −2b12 u1 − 2b22 u2 − ∂2 u3 ; −2b12 ∂1 u1 − 2b22 ∂1 u2 ;
1 1 1 1
− 2b12 ∂2 u1 − 2b22 ∂2 u2 ; b u1 + b u2 + b11 ∂1 u3 + b21 ∂2 u3 ; b ∂1 u1 + b ∂1 u2 ;
1 1 2 2
b ∂2 u1 + b ∂2 u2 ; b u1 + b u2 + b12 ∂1 u3 + b22 ∂2 u3 ;
2 2 2 2 2 2
b u1 + b u2 + b12 ∂1 u3 + b22 ∂2 u3 ; b ∂1 u1 + b ∂1 u2 ; b ∂2 u1 + b ∂2 u2 ] (28)

where
1 1 2 2
b = b11 b11 + b12 b21 , b = b21 b11 + b22 b21 , b = b11 b12 + b12 b22 , b = b21 b12 + b22 b22 ;

α
[De ]β = [−aαν Γ1βν ; aα1 I(β, 1); 21 aαλ J(λ, β); −aαλ Γ2βλ ; 12 aαλ J(λ, β); aα2 J(β, 2);
−bαβ ; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0];
(29)
   
1 0 0 1
I= and J= .
0 1 1 0

7
 The linearized part of the change of the curvature tensor of the middle surface
is expressed as follows:

α
[Dk ]β = [ 12 aαµ (b1µ,β + Γ̄1λβ bλµ − Γ̄λµβ b1λ )0; 0; 12 aαµ (b2µ,β + Γ̄2λβ bλµ − Γ̄λµβ b2λ );
0; 0; bαµ bµβ ; −aαµ Γ̄1µβ ; −I(α, 1)aα1 ; 21 J(α, β)aαµ ; −aαµ Γ̄2µβ ;
1 αµ
2 J(α, β)a ; I(α, 2)aα2 ; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
(30)
The linearized part of the change of the third fundamental form tensor can
be expressed as follows:

α
[DQ ]β = [aαµ b1ν (bνβ,µ + Γ̄νγβ bγµ − Γ̄γµβ bνγ ); 0; 0; aαµ b2ν (bνβ,µ + Γ̄νγβ bγµ − Γ̄γµβ bνγ );
0; 0; 0; (b1β,µ + Γ̄1γβ bγµ − Γ̄γµβ b1γ ); 0; 0; (b2β,µ + Γ̄2γβ bγµ − Γ̄γµβ b2γ ); 0; 0;
−aαµ Γ̄1µβ ; I(α, 1)aα1 ; 12 J(α, β)aαµ ; −aαµ Γ̄2µβ ; 12 J(α, β)aαµ ; I(α, 2)aα2 ]
(31)

2.3 Resolution of the transverse stress ordinary differential equation

−4
Using the expressions (29), (30),(31) let τ = h−R , Γijk be the three dimension
Christoel symbols, and


−E




 σ̄013 = 1−ν 2[ a
11 1
(e1 + νe22 ) ,x1 + (1 − ν)(a11 e21 ),x2 + (1 − ν)cotan(y)a11 e21
+(1 − ν)cotan(y)a22 e22 ]





σ̄ 13 = −E [ a11 (K 1 + νk 2 )
+ (1 − ν)(a11 k 2 ) 2 + (1 − ν)cotan(y)a11 k 2

1 1−ν 2 1 2 ,x1 1 ,x 1
22 2


 +(1 − ν)cotan(y)a k2 ]
σ̄ 13 = −E [ a11 (Q1 + νQ2 )
+ (1 − ν)(a11 Q1) 2 + (1 − ν)cotan(y)a11 Q2



 2 1−ν 2 1 2 ,x1 ,x 1
+(1 − ν)cotan(y)a22 Q22 ]


(32)
Then the rst shear stress of equation (12) is given as follows:

σ̄ 13 σ̄ 13
σ 13 (x, y, z) = {−h̄1− exp(−τ (z + h2 )) + (1 − exp(−τ (z + h2 ))[ τ0 + τ12
σ̄ 13 σ̄ 13 σ̄ 13 2 σ̄ 13
+2 τ23 + (z − h2 )(− τ1 − 2 τ22 ) + (z 2 + h4 ) τ23 ]} {Eu }
(33)
In the same way, let

 h i
−E
σ̄023

 = 1−ν 2 (1 − ν)(a22 e22,x1 + (a11 e21 ),x2 + 21 sin(2y)a11 (e11 + νe22 )
 h i
−E
σ̄123 = 1−ν 2 (1 − ν)(a22 k2,x
2
1 + (a k1 ),x2 + 21 sin(2y)a11 (k11 + νk22 )
11 2
 h i
−E

σ̄223 = (1 − ν)(a22 Q22,x1 + (a11 Q21 ),x2 + 21 sin(2y)a11 (Q11 + νQ22 )

1−ν 2
(34)
The second shear stress (12) is dened as:

8
 σ̄ 23 σ̄ 23
σ 23 (x, y, z) = {−h̄2− exp(−τ (z + h2 )) + [1 − exp(−τ (z + h2 )][ τ0 + τ12
σ̄ 23 σ̄ 23 σ̄ 23 2 σ̄ 23
+2 τ23 + (z − h2 )(− τ1 − 2 τ22 ) + (z 2 + h4 ) τ23 ]} {Eu }
(35)
Let

 13 23 13 23 13 23
σ̄0,x 1 +σ̄0,x2 σ̄1,x 1 +σ̄1,x2 σ̄2,x 1 +σ̄2,x2


 γ1 = τ + τ2 + τ3
13 23 13 23


 σ̄1,x 1 +σ̄1,x2 (σ̄2,x1 +σ̄2,x2 )


 γ2 = τ + 2 τ2
13 23

 (σ̄2,x1 +σ̄2,x2 ) 2
= Γ113 + Γ223

γ 3
 =2 τ3 ; ς= h−R
h h4
 γ0 = γ1 + 2 γ2 − 4 γ3
E(h−R)sin2 (y) 11 1

a (e1 + νe22 ) − E cotan(y) 11 2 E(h−R) 22 2 1



 γ̄1 = 1−ν 2 1+ν a e1 + 1−ν 2 a (e2 + νe1 )
E(h−R)sin2 (y) 11 1

cotan(y) E(h−R)
a (k1 + νk22 ) − E 1+ν a11 k12 + 1−ν 2 a22 (k22 + νk11 )



 γ̄2 = 1−ν 2
E(h−R)sin2 (y) 11

a (Q11 + νQ22 ) − E cotan(y) 11 2 E(h−R) 22 2 1

 γ̄3 = 1−ν 2 1+ν a Q1 + 1−ν 2 a (Q2 + νQ1 )
(36)
Then the third expression of equation (13) is dened as:

γ0 2
z 1 z 2z
σ 33 (x, y, z) = {[ ς−τ − γ2 ( ς−τ − (ς−τ )2 ) + γ3 ( ς−τ − (ς−τ )2
γ̄1 −γ0
2
+ (ς−τ )3 )]exp(−τ (z − 2 )) + [ ς + (γ2 − γ̄2 )( zς −
h 1
ς2 )
2 γ0 −γ̄1
+(γ̄3 − γ3 )( zς − 2z 2 h 3
ς 2 + ς 3 )] + exp(−τ (z − 2 ))[h̄+ + ς
2 γ0
h
+(γ̄2 − γ2 )( 2ς − ς12 ) + (γ3 − γ̄3 )( h4ς − ςh2 + ς23 ) + ς−τ h
+ γ2 ( 2(ς−τ )
2
1 h h 2
− (ς−τ )2 ) − γ3 ( 4(ς−τ ) − (ς−τ )2 + (ς−τ )3 )]} {Eu }
(37)

2.4 P olynomial preserving recovery method

Let us recall that the linear stress-strain relation does not guarantee smoothness
across elements because of gradient jumps since the displacement is only C 0.
The shell is meshed with straight lines triangular elements obtained by linear
transformation of a reference 2-D triangle. Jumps across elements will be pre-
vented by implementing the gradient recovery methods that we briey present
here after. Let uh be a C0 nite element approximation of the solution u,
(
E1 = (I, J, K)
(38)
E2 = (I, J, L)
be two triangular elements with a common node I. We denote

(
U1 = (UhI , UhJ , UhK ),
(39)
U2 = (UhI , UhJ , UhL )

9
 the vector of nodal values in E1 and E2 respectively. Let Ni be the shape
functions matrix, then restriction of uh in each element reads

(
uh|E1 = N1 U1t , uh|E2 = N2 U2t ,
(40)
u0h|E1 = N10 U1t , u0h|E2 = N20 U2t
where Ni0 stands for the derivative according to x or y of Ni . At the common
node I, the derivative of uh , u0h (I), is not necessary the same in both elements.
This means that on a patch including a node I common to dierent elements the
gradient of uh , ∇uh , cannot be calculated because of the jump on each part of
the patch. Consequently ∇uh is not a good approximation of ∇u across elements
and stress and strain calculated using ∇u cannot be continuous across edges.
How to dene a unique ∇uh at a nodeI common to dierent elements has been
addressed by gradient recovery methods. The idea is to dene a local operator
Gh such that Gh uh (I) be unique through any patch and | Gh uh − ∇u |be better
approximation than | ∇uh − ∇u | . Consequently convergence issues of these
methods should be considered also. In this analysis we consider the 2-D PPR
gradient recovery methods which also guarantees a superconvergence property
of Gh uh to ∇u independently of mesh size. The method is described as follows:
j
Let Zi be a node where ∇u is to be determined. Let Zi be the nodes of all
triangles Ej having Zi as common vertex. Suppose uh|Ej ∈ Pk+1 , the set of
polynomials of order k + 1, then the gradient recovery PPR operator consists
in dening p(x) ∈ Pk+1 such that

P n n
 (p(x) − uh )2 (Z j ) = min P (q(x) − uh )2 (Z j )
i i
j=1 q(x)∈Pk+1 j=1 (41)
Gh uh (Zi ) = ∇p(Zi )


This value also depends on the sampling points choosen. In the 2-D case it is
proved, cf [13] that if n = m = (k + 2)(k + 3)/2 and if the sum of two adjacent
angles in the mesh is not more than π , then Gh uh (Zi ) is unique for any Zi . In
this work the angle condition will be implemented in the triangularization. The
number m of sampling nodes will be respected as follows:

Gh uh (Zi ) = ∇p(xi , yi ) = ∇p̃(0, 0) ' ∇u(xi , yi ) (42)

.
For the 2-D case, three types of nodes can be distinguished: internal nodes,
boundary nodes at a corner and boundary nodes out of a corner.

ˆ For the in-plane displacement uα (α = 1; 2), the existence and uniqueness

2
solution is possible if (u1 , u2 ) ∈ H 2 (S) ; we t linear polynômial using
the same regular pattern:

t t
P1 (x, y) = (1, x, y) (a0 , a1 , a3 ) = (1, ξ, ς) (b
a0 , b
a1 , b
a2 ) (43)

. we scale by a factor h with x = hξ and y = hς ; (ξ, ς) with respect to the

six derivative values at the barycentric center of each element on the patch.

10
 now we dene e = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1), b
a = (b
a0 , b
a1 , b
a2 ) = (a0 , ha1 , ha3 ) , A =
→
− → −
(e, ξ , ς ), H = diag(1, h, h).
Let uiα be the values of uα at the nodal points ZIi i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; we denote
ū = (uiα )6i=1 we hereby determine b
a so that Ab
a = b̄h .
Then, we obtain

P1 (x, y) = (1, x, y) H −1 (At A)−1 At b̄h (44)

notice that:

(
∂uα ∂P1
∂x (x, y) = ∂x (x, y) = (0, 1, 0) H −1 (At A)−1 At b̄h = [P1 Xα1 ]b̄h
∂uα ∂P1 (45)
∂y (x, y) = ∂y (x, y) = (0, 0, 1) H −1 (At A)−1 At b̄h = [P1 Xα2 ]b̄h

For the transversal displacement, u3 , the existence and uniqueness of a gra-

dient recovery solution is possible if (u3 ) ∈ H 2 (S); we t quadratic polynômial
using the same regular pattern:

t
P2 (x, y) = 1, x, y, x2 , xy, y 2
(a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 , a6 )
2 2 t (46)
= 1, ξ, ς, ξ , ξς, ς (b a1 , b
a2 , b
a3 , b
a4 , b
a5 , b
a6 )
then, we scale by a factor h with x = hξ and y = hς ; (ξ, ς) with respect to the
six derivative values at the coordinates nodes of each element on the patch. Let


e = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1), b
a = (b
a1 , b
a2 , b
a3 , b
a4 , b a6 ) = a1 , ha2 , ha3 , h2 a4 , h2 a5 , h2 a6 ,
a5 , b
→
− → − → −2 →
− → −2
be the vectors of the matrix B = (e, ξ , ς , ξ , ξς , ς ) and consider the diag-
2 2 2
onal matrix H1 = diag(1, h, h, h , h , h )
and also b̄h = (u30 , u31 , u32 , u33 , u34 , u35 , u36 ) the approximation vector of u3
H1 (B B) B b¯h ,
2 2

−1 t −1 t
in a nodal point ZI ; Then we t P2 (x, y) = 1, x, y, x , xy, y
and obtain the recovered gradient at the patch center point as follows:

= (0, 1, 0, 2x, y, 0) H1−1 (B t B)−1 B t b̄h = [P2 X31 ]b̄h

 ∂u ∂P2
∂x (x, y) = ∂x (x, y)
3


∂u ∂P2
= (0, 0, 1, 0, x, 2y) H1−1 (B t B)−1 B t b̄h = [P2 X32 ]b̄h

 ∂y (x, y) = ∂y (x, y)

 3

∂ 2 u3 ∂ 2 P2
∂x 2 (x, y) = ∂x2 (x, y) = (0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0) H1−1 (B t B)−1 B t b̄h = [P2 X311 ]b̄h
∂ 2 u3 ∂ 2 P2
= (0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0) H1−1 (B t B)−1 B t b̄h = [P2 X312 ]b̄h

∂x∂y (x, y) = ∂x∂y (x, y)




 ∂ 2 u3 ∂ 2 P2
= (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2) H1−1 (B t B)−1 B t b̄h = [P2 X322 ]b̄h

∂y 2 (x, y) = ∂y 2 (x, y)
(47)
With Gh ui given at each vertex by the same processes in (45)and (47), we are
able to form a recovered gradient eld by using the nite element basis functions.
Recovering the gradient at a boundary vertex is more delicate. Using ecient
strategy computational experiment indicated in [13], to recover the gradient
at a vertex zI ∈ ∂S , we look for the nearest layer of vertices around zI that
contain at least one internal vertex. Let this layer be the nth one, and denote
the internal vertices in this layer by z1 , z2 , ..., zm , where m ≥ 1. The union
of the sampling points used in recovering the gradient at z1 , z2 , .., zm and the
mesh nodes in the rst n layers around zI constitute the set of sampling point
for recovering the gradient at zI see [14].

11
3 Discretization of N-T model
3.1 Finite element space
The continuous truncated variational equation (20)is dened in the space Uad .
In order to dene a nite element space, we begin by recalling the following
results. Let Tj be a triangle with nodes a1 = (x1 , y1 ), a2 = (x2 , y2 ) and
a3 = (x3 , y3 ). LetP1 and P2be the sets of the rst and second order polynomi-
2 2
als with basis {1, x, y} and 1, x, y, x , y , xy respectively then {λ1 , λ2 , λ3 }and
{λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , 4λ1 λ2 , 4λ1 λ3 , 4λ2 λ3 } also generate P1 and P2 where the barycentric
basis functions of the triangle are dened by


1
λ1 (x, y) =
 2M [(y3 − y2 )(x2 − x) − (x3 − x2 )(y2 − y)]
1
λ2 (x, y) = 2M [(y1 − y3 )(x3 − x) − (x1 − x3 )(y3 − y)] (48)
1

λ3 (x, y) = 2M [(y2 − y1 )(x1 − x) − (x2 − x1 )(y1 − y)]


ˆ
 
1 1 1
2 M= 2 dxdy = 2det  x1 x2 x3  = (x3 −x2 )(y1 −y2 )−(x1 −x2 )(y3 −y2 )
Tj y1 y2 y3
(49)
Let Th be a triangularization of the midsurface of the shell and nh the number
of triangles. We denote by:


Xh1 = vh ∈ C 0 S̄ , vh|Tj ∈ P1 (Tj ) , ∀Tj , j = 1, ...nh
the subspace of dimension Nh (which is the number of nodes) and


Xh2 = vh ∈ C 0 S̄ , /vh|Tj ∈ P2 (Tj ) , ∀Tj , j = 1, ...nh and ∇vh = Gh vh = ∇P2 ,
S̄ is the closure of S ,
2
the subspace of dimension Nh which is the number of unisolvant points ( nodes
and edge mid points ).
The space Uad = (HΓ10 (S))2 × HΓ20 (S) is approximated with the nite element
2
space of dimension 3N = 2Nh + Nh

fh = Xh1 × Xh1 × Xh2 (50)

3.2 The discrete scheme

Let Th be a triangularization of the shell's midsurface S , Tj ∈ Th be a triangle
of vertices a1 , a2 , a3 and midedges a4 , a 5 , a 6 . Let η h ∈ fh as denined above.
Then

ηαh (x, y) |Tj ∈ P1 , α = 1, 2; 1 ≤ j ≤ nh (51)

and
η3h (x, y) |Tj ∈ P2 , 1 ≤ j ≤ nh (52)

By using the barycentric polynomials and writing λ4 = λ1 , 1 ≤ l ≤ 2; 1 ≤

α, β ≤ 2 and 1 ≤ j ≤ nh

12
 3 3

ηαh (x, y) |Tj = ηαh (ak )λk (x, y) = η̄αk λk (x, y)
 P P



 k=1 k=1


 3 6
h
η3h (ak )λk (x, y) + η3h (ak )λk−3 (x, y)λk−2 (x, y)
P P
η3 (x, y) |Tj =




 k=1 k=4

 3 6
η̄3k λk (x, y) + η̄3k λk−3 (x, y)λk−2 (x, y)
 P P
 =
k=1 k=4 (53)
 P3
∂α ηlh (x, y) |Tj = ∂α η3h (ak )λk (x, y), ∂α ηlh (ak ) Gh (ηlh )(ak )

=




 k=1







∂ 2 η h (x, y) |T = P3 2 h 2
∂αβ η3 (ak )λk (x, y), ∂αβ η3h (ak ) = Gh (∂α η3h )(ak )

 αβ 3 j
k=1

In the above formula, Gh is the gradient operator and η̄34 ,η̄35 and η̄36 are
respectively the unknown values of η3 in the midedge a1 a2 , a1 a3 and a2 a3 . Let

ˆ [Pν Iαβ ] = [Pν Xαβ ] and [P2 Iααβ ] = [P2 Xααβ ] the coecient of the approxima-
tion of the gradient when the vertex is internal of the mesh

ˆ [Pν Cαβ ] = [Pν Xαβ ] and [P2 Cααβ ] = [P2 Xααβ ] the coecient of the approxi-
mation of the gradient when the vertex is in the boundary at the corner
of the mesh

ˆ [Pν Mαβ ] = [Pν Xαβ ] and [P2 Mααβ ] = [P2 Xααβ ] the coecient of the approx-
imation of the gradient when the vertex is in the boundary not at the
corner of the mesh.

Exploiting the above, let us take linear element on uniform triangular mesh of
a regular pattern; we hereby investigate the case of the element where all three
nodes are internal of the mesh; the matrices deduced from the discretization of
the gradient are given as follow:

 t
λ1 (x1 , y1 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
[A1 ] =  0 λ2 (x1 + h, y1 ) 0 0 0 0 0  (54)
0 0 0 0 0 0 λ3 (x1 , y1 − h)
 t
0 0 0 0 λ1 (x2 − h, y2 ) 0 0
[A2 ] =  λ2 (x2 , y2 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 λ3 (x2 − h, y2 − h) 0
(55)
 t
0 0 0 λ1 (x3 , y3 + h) 0 0 0
[A3 ] =  0 0 λ2 (x3 + h, y3 + h) 0 0 0 0 
λ3 (x3 , y3 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
(56)

13
 When we return to energy function with m = 0, 1, we have:

ˆ 3 ˆ
nh X
s X T T
Am (u, v) = (EuT Cg Ev )dS = ([Eukj ]t Cgs [Evkj ])dxdy (57)
S j=1 k=1 Tj

Using equations (45), (47), and (53) in which all three vertices of the trian-
gular element are internal and let :i = 1, 2, 3; α, β = 1, 2 and



 αi = λi (x, y)
ρ = 4λk−3 (x, y)λk−2 (x, y), k = 4, 5, 6


 k

βiα = [P1 Iiα ][A1 ](:, i) + [P1 Iiα ][A2 ](:, i) + [P1 Iiα ][A3 ](:, i) (58)

γiα = [P2 I3α ][A1 ](:, i) + [P2 I3α ][A2 ](:, i) + [P2 I3α ][A3 ](:, i)




 τ αβ

= [P2 I3αβ ][A1 ](:, i) + [P2 I3αβ ][A2 ](:, i) + [P2 I3αβ ][A3 ](:, i)
i
n o n T o
T 
Then the deformation vector can be written as: Eu j = B Tj duj
where

14
  
α1 α2 α3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 β11 β21 β31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 β12 β12 β12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 α1 α2 α3 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 β11 β21 β31 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 β12 β22 β32 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 α1 α2 α3 ρ4 ρ5 ρ6 
 
 −2b11 α1 −2b11 α2 −2b11 α3 −2b21 α1 −2b21 α2 −2b21 α3 −γ11 −γ21 −γ31 0 0 0 
 
 −2b11 β11 −2b11 β21 −2b11 β31 −2b21 β11 −2b21 β21 −2b21 β31 −τ111 −τ211 −τ311 0 0 0 
 
 −2b11 β12 −2b11 β22 −2b11 β32 −2b21 β12 −2b21 β22 −2b21 β32 −τ112 −τ212 −τ312 0 0 0 
 T t  
B j = −2b12 α1 −2b12 α2 −2b12 α3 −2b22 α1 −2b22 α2 −2b22 α3 −γ12 −γ22 −γ32 0 0 0 
 
 −2b12 β11 −2b12 β21 −2b12 β31 −2b22 β11 −2b22 β21 −2b22 β31 −τ112 −τ212 −τ312 0 0 0 
 
 −2b12 β12 −2b12 β22 −2b12 β32 −2b22 β12 −2b22 β22 −2b22 β32 −τ122 −τ222 −τ322 0 0 0 

 1 1 1 1 1 1 

 b α1 b α2 b α3 b α1 b α2 b α3 b11 γ11 + b21 γ12 b11 γ21 + b21 γ22 b11 γ31 + b21 γ32 0 0 0 

15
 1 1 1 1 1 1 

 b β11 b β21 b β21 b β11 b β21 b β31 b11 τ111 + b21 τ112 b11 τ211 + b21 τ212 b11 τ311 + b21 τ312 0 0 0 

 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 b β12 b β22 b β22 b β12 b β22 b β32 b11 τ112 + b21 τ122 b11 τ212 + b21 τ222 b11 τ312 + b21 τ322 0 0 0 
2 2 2
 
 2 2 2 
 b α1 b α2 b α3 b α1 b α2 b α3 b12 γ11 + b22 γ12 b12 γ21 + b22 γ22 b12 γ31 + b22 γ32 0 0 0 

 2 2 2 2 2 2 

 b β11 b β21 b β31 b β11 b β21 b β31 b12 τ111 + b22 τ112 b12 τ211 + b22 τ212 b12 τ311 + b22 τ312 0 0 0 
2 2 2 2 2 2
b β12 b β22 b β32 b β12 b β22 b β32 b12 τ112 + b22 τ122 b12 τ212 + b22 τ222 b12 τ312 + b22 τ322 0 0 0
 and
n o
T
dūj = [uj1 j2 j3 j1 j2 j3 j1 j2 j3 j4 j5 j6 t
1 , u1 , u1 , u2 , u2 , u2 , u3 , u3 , u3 , u3 , u3 , u3 ] (59)

3.3 Stif f ness matrix

Using local element, stiness matrix can be expressed as follows:

( j ´  t
[K0 ] = Tj ( B Tj Cg0 [B Tj ])dxdy; 1 ≤ j ≤ .Nh
´  t (60)
[K1j ] = Tj ( B Tj Cg1 [B Tj ])dxdy; 1 ≤ j ≤ .Nh
Where

 t    
 0 Eh α β Eh α t λ
Cg = − ν) [De ]β
1−ν 2 (1 [De ]α + 1−ν 2 ν ([De ]α ) [De ]λ
 t    
Eh3 α β Eh3 α t λ
+ 12(1−ν 2 ) (1 − ν) [Dk ]β [Dk ]α + 12(1−ν 2 ) ν ([Dk ]α ) [Dk ]λ
(61)

 t    
 1 Eh α β Eh α t λ
Cg = 1−ν 2 (1 − ν) [De ]β [De ]α + 1−ν 2 ν ([De ]α ) [De ]λ
 t    
Eh3 α β Eh3 α t λ
+ 12(1−ν 2 ) (1 − ν) [Dk ]β [Dk ]α + 12(1−ν 2 ) ν ([Dk ]α ) [Dk ]λ
 t    
Eh3 α β Eh3 α
t λ
+ 12(1−ν 2 ) (1 − ν) [DQ ]β [De ]α + 12(1−ν 2 ) ν [DQ ]α [Dk ]λ
 t    
Eh3 α β Eh3 α t λ
+ 12(1−ν 2 ) (1 − ν) [De ]β [DQ ]α + 12(1−ν 2 ) ν ([De ]α ) [DQ ]λ
 t    
Eh5 α β Eh5 α
t λ
+ 80(1−ν 2 ) (1 − ν) [DQ ]β [DQ ]α + 80(1−ν 2 ) ν [DQ ]α [DQ ]λ
(62)
is the generalized 19 × 19 behavior matrix
 t  t
Let F0 (x, y) = ( B Tj Cg0 [B Tj ]) and F1 (x, y) = ( B Tj Cg1 [B Tj ]); then we
have:
´
[K0j ]


 = F (x, y)dxdy; 1 ≤ j ≤ .Nh
Tj 0
 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
= 3 F0 ( 3 x1 + 6 x2 + 6 x3 , 3 y1 + 6 y2 + 6 y3 )




+ 13 F0 ( 16 x1 + 32 x2 + 16 x3 , 16 y1 + 23 y2 + 16 y3 )





+ 13 F0 ( 16 x1 + 61 x2 + 23 x3 , 16 y1 + 16 y2 + 23 y3 )


´ (63)


 [K1j ] = F (x, y)dxdy; 1 ≤ j ≤ .Nh
Tj 1
1 2 1 1 2 1 1




 = 3 F1 ( 3 x1 + 6 x2 + 6 x3 , 3 y1 + 6 y2 + 6 y3 )
+ 3 F1 ( 6 x1 + 3 x2 + 6 x3 , 6 y1 + 3 y2 + 16 y3 )
1 1 2 1 1 2





+ 13 F1 ( 16 x1 + 61 x2 + 23 x3 , 16 y1 + 16 y2 + 23 y3 )


Using equation (20) the second member of the variational equation is written
as:

16
 N ´ n ot ¸ $∗ n T ot
T
dv̄ j [B Tj ]t [P ] | J |Tj dS + $∗2 dv̄ j [B Tj ]t [G] | J∗ |Tj dζ
P
L(v̇) = Tj 1
j=1
nh n o
P Tj  j 
= dv̄ f
j=1
(64)
 j  h j1 j2 j3 j1 j2 j3 j1 j2 j3 j4 j5 j6 iT
Where f = F1 , F1 , F1 , F2 , F2 , F2 , F3 , F3 , F3 , F3 , F3 , F3 and
n o
Tj
dv̄ is dened as in (59), here| J∗ | is the determinant of the jacobian which

toggles between the linear element dζ of curve φ(γ1 ) to real element dγ . These
formulas take into account the load spread over the entire surface and average
load at the edges.

4 Validation tests of our nite element

The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy of N-T thick shells theory
for linear elastic shell by using Spherical Shell Finite Element (SSFE). We lay
our investigation on a well known benchmark as hemisphere under diametri-
cally opposite charges given in gure 1 below used to evaluate the performance
of a shell element. The computed deformed limit surface of a quarter of the
hemisphere is shown in gure 2 plooted with the Matlab R2015a tools and the
displacement convergence results are shown in gure 3 and table 1. We monitor
the displacements in load point A presented in gure 1.
Here, the case study is that of a thin shell of hemisphere subjected to four
opposite diametrically concentrated loads at the base proposed by MacNeal and
Hater [19] which is a standard test . This benchmark is usually used to ver-
ify the absence of membrane locking and good representation of rigid bodies
motion. The hemisphere undergoes large rotations around the normal of the
middle surface. Deformations of inextensible bending membrane are also im-
portant and this problem is therefore an excellent test to examine the ability
of a shell element to represent the rigid and inextensible modes. The geomet-
rical and mechanical characteristics are indicated for h/R = 0.004, the radius
R = 10m, the thickness h = 0.04m, the angle sustended by the north pole of
the hemisphere is θ = 180 ,
Young's modulus is E = 6.825e + 7P a, the Poisson's
ratio isν = 0.3 and the diametrically opposite loads at points A and B are 0.5N .
The limits conditions W = 0 in the slib bound E and the symetric conditions
are given by V = 0 on the edge bound AC and U = 0 on the edge bound BD .

4.1 Convergence
A reference solution presented in [19] provides for displacement in the direc-
tion of the loads as follow UA = VB = 0.094m . Only 1/4 of the hemisphere is

17
 Figure 1: Hemisphere shell benchmark

discretized because of the symmetry of loads and the geometry. Both Kirchho-
Love shell theory and N-T shell theory are computed using SSFE model and
the respective results are analysed, compared with DKT12, DKT18 proposed
in [20] and SFE3 [21] then comented. The table1 below shows the displace-
ments results at point A and the gure 3 perfectly describes their variation and
the rate of convergence. The convergence properties of the method are clearly
shown from gure 3 and table1. Then SSFE converge as well as both the semi
Finite Element (SFE) and Discrete Kirrchho Triangle (DKT) elements for the
membrane displacement at load point A

4.2 Scaling and deviation

Scaling of the ratio 2χ = h/R given in table2 is proceded on the range of
following values 0.006, 0.099, 0.12, 0.15,0.175 and 0.2 of the spherical shell.
Notice that the radius R is constant while the thickness varies with the ratio. We
observe in table1, table2 and gure 3 that for the thickness ratio 0 ≺ 2χ ≺ 0.099,

18
 Figure 2: deformed conguration of one quarter of the hemisphere

Table 1: Table of results of displacement at point A for the hemisphere

Thickness = 0.04 and Force = 0.5N sol− ref = reference solution (UA ∗ 103 )
N DKT12 DKT18 SKLFE SFE3(cmc) SSFE sol− ref
2 121 87 - 4.1 − 94
3 - - 1.6 - 1.61 94
4 108 94 10.2 28 10.21 94
6 102 94 52.3 63 52.3 94
8 99 93 73.8 77 73.8 94
10 98 93 81.56 82 81.55 94
12 96 93 86.3 84 86.32 94
15 88.4 86 88.4 94
20 86.5 87 86.52 94

19
 Figure 3: convergence in the hemisphere

the membrane displacement in load point A are the same for both K-L and N-T
models. When the ratio 2χ = h/R is greater or equal to 0.099, the displacement
computed for inextensible bending membrane from spherical equation of K-L
1
and N-T are not the same. This means that above 2χ '
10 , both K-L and N-T
approaches are dierent for all values of the thickness ratio.
We investigate now the deviation between K-L and N-T displacements in
load point A. With the variation of thickness ratio 2χ = 0.06, 0.099, 0.12, 0.15,
0.175 and 0.2 the results plotted in table 2, gures 4, gure 5, gure 6 and
gure 7 clearly show that the deviation of displacements are encountered at
the specied values of 2χ above. This deviation increases with the number of
meshes at the load point A. We also observe that the deviation increase with
thickness ratio.

20
Table 2: Deviation of both Reisner-Mindlin(R-M) and N-T thick shell according
to the scaling of the ratio h/R
ratio T HEORY M ESH
h/R 5×5 7×7 9×9 11 × 11 13 × 13 15 × 15
0.006 R−M 1.77 ∗ 10−5 3.91 ∗ 10−4 0.0035 0.088 0.0954 0.0950
N −T 1.77 ∗ 10−5 3.91 ∗ 10−4 0.0035 0.0877 0.0954 0.0950
0.099 R−M 1.14 ∗ 10−5 2.64 ∗ 10−4 0.0018 0.0109 0.0209 0.0204
N −T 1.14 ∗ 10−5 2.64 ∗ 10−4 0.0018 0.0110 0.0209 0.0204
0.12 R−M 2.91 ∗ 10−6 8.76 ∗ 10−6 4.52 ∗ 10−3 1.07 ∗ 10−2 2.76 ∗ 10−2 2.47 ∗ 10−2
N −T 4.67 ∗ 10−6 9.72 ∗ 10−6 3.52 ∗ 10−3 9.90 ∗ 10−3 2.67 ∗ 10−2 2.47 ∗ 10−2
0.15 R−M 1.07 ∗ 10−6 1.20 ∗ 10−5 4.67 ∗ 10−4 5.02 ∗ 10−3 1.57 ∗ 10−2 1.39 ∗ 10−2
N −T 3.03 ∗ 10−6 4.21 ∗ 10−6 1.79 ∗ 10−4 2.35 ∗ 10−3 1.36 ∗ 10−2 1.17 ∗ 10−2
0.175 R−M 1.23 ∗ 10−6 2.87 ∗ 10−6 3.20 ∗ 10−4 3.22 ∗ 10−3 9.41 ∗ 10−3 8.96 ∗ 10−3
N −T 8.20 ∗ 10−7 1.02 ∗ 10−6 2.30 ∗ 10−4 3.41 ∗ 10−4 7.12 ∗ 10−3 6.89 ∗ 10−3
0.2 R−M 5.36 ∗ 10−7 3.51 ∗ 10−6 4.89 ∗ 10−4 2.89 ∗ 10−3 5.88 ∗ 10−3 5.52 ∗ 10−3
N −T 4.01 ∗ 10−7 3.10 ∗ 10−6 3.71 ∗ 10−4 2.49 ∗ 10−4 5.57 ∗ 10−3 5.23 ∗ 10−3

Figure 4: Variation of membrane displacement UA at A for the thickness ratio

2χ = h/R = 0.006.

21
Figure 5: Variation of membrane displacement UA at A for the thickness ratio
2χ = h/R = 0.099.

Figure 6: Variation of membrane displacement UA at A for the thickness ratio

2χ = h/R = 0.12.

22
Figure 7: Variation of membrane displacement UA at A for the thickness ratio
2χ = h/R = 0.15

4.3 Impact of the transverse stresses

Surveys of various shear stresses in linear elastic thick shells can be found in the
works of [3] where they are mathematically substantiated. We have obtained
good convergence results for thin shells with the half side element N = 12
and a pressure in the load point P A = 0.53P a for a spherical shell. For the
z ∈ − h2 , + h2 , where h = 1.2m, the numerical results
 
thickness coordinate
of the transverse shear stresses through the thickness are computed ( see table
3) below.
After shear stresses investigation, we observe that they satisfy tangential
stress-free boundary conditions at bottom to top surfaces of the panel. These
results show predicting ability of SSFE nite element based on N-T's model. It
also appears that the shear stresses vary through the thickness as compared to
3-D thick shell equations. We can also appreciate that transverse shear stresses
σ 13 and σ 23 are not negligable in thick shells.

Table 3: Transverse shear stresses of a thick spherical shell under load point A
convergence analysis
z -0.6 -0.466 -0.2 0.066 0.2 0.467 0.6

σ 13 (P a) 0 0.005 0.001 0.019 0.021 0.025 0.259

σ 23 (P a) 0 0.007 0.018 0.026 0.028 0.034 0.035
σ 33 (P a) 1.610−14 -0.132 -0.309 -0.417 -0.455 -0.514 -0.533

23
4.4 Discusion
The C0 nite element discretization of the rst order N-T model applied the
PPR method to solve problems of gradient discontinuities across edges of trian-
gular elements during interpolation. The displacements are two degrees poly-
nomial of the thickness ratio χ while the membrane strain tensor contains the
change in the third fundamental form.
The convergence of SSFE has been clearly established and this element uses
12 degrees of freedom per triangular element which is robust and less greedy
(in terms of memory) than DKT12, DKT18, and SFE that are based on the
Kirchho-Love ( thin shells) and Reisner-Mindlin ( thick shells) approaches
which neglect the third fundamental form in their shell kinematic equations
[22]. The constitutive law through the strain tensor contains the change of third
fundamental form Qαβ as shown in the tables, the thickness ratio χ impacts the
behavior of the shell because of the signicant energy contribution due to Qαβ
as the ratio increases unlike the K −L classical model[3].
Recall that in equation (19), we see that total deformation energy due to
K-L and R-M models contains membrane deformation energy Eee and bending
deformation energy Ekk ; that is E R−M = Eee + Ekk . Equation (20) shows
that the total deformation energy due to N-T model contains additional terms:
coupled membrane and gaussian bending (EeQ , EQe ) and gaussian deformation
energy EQQ . Then E N −T = E R−M + EQQ + EeQ + EQe .
Where
Eee = E(h/R)αee , Ekk = E(h/R)(h/R)2 αkk , EQQ = 10−1 E(h/R)(h/R)4 αQQ
−1
and EeQ = EQe = 10 E(h/R)(h/R)2 αeQ ; which represents the portion of en-
ergy contribution; αee , αkk and αQQ are constants which do not depent on
h/R.
As we mentioned above, when the thickness ratio 2χ is greater than 0.098,
this additional energy (EeQ , EQe ) inuences global deformation energy and show
the dierence between N-T and R-M models applied to the spherical thick shells.
The investigation of the variation of the thickness ratio h/R for certain
values 0 ≺ 2χ ≺ 0.099 prove that, the Kirchho-Love, Reisner-Mindlin and N-T
classical models have the same contribution of total deformation energy. The
additional terms containing the change of the third fundamental form don't
have here any inuence. EeQ and EQQ disappear in the global
The energy
deformation energy when 2χ ≺ 0.1 or χ2 ≺ 0.01 because they are inversely
4 8 N −T
proportional respectively to 10 and 10 . In this case E = E R−M . But
if the thickness ratio is 0.099 ≤ h/R ≺ 1, displacements results encountered
for both two models are dierent because EeQ and EQQ do not disappear in
the global deformation energy. The consequence is that, they enhance global
deformation energy and improve the rigidity of the shell structure. Moreover, N-
T's model brings us real facilitation to determine the distribution of transverse
shear stresses through the thickness.

24
5 Conclusion
The nite element SSFE using the PPR method for the spherical shell described
in this paper for C0 nite element triangularization has given accurate results
and is abilitated to design thicker shells. It has proved to be faster and uses
less memory than other well- known methods used in the dierent benchmarks.
The N-T model handles spherical thin and thick shell properly because it clearly
shows how the change of the third fundamental form enhance the total defor-
mation energy when the ratio χ becomes greater.
Transverse stresses which have been predicted by the 2-D governing equa-
tions of N-T model were calculated numerically and correctly. Structural engi-
neers can therefore design more accurately spherical thick shells.

competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conict of interest regarding this research
article

References
[1] Reisner.E,The eet of transverse shear deformation on the bending
of elastic plates. J Appl Mech,12(1945),A-69-77.

[2] M. Bernadou, P. MATO E, Approximation de Problèmes linéaires

de coques minces par une méthode d'éléments nis de type
DKT.,Rapport de recherche, Institut National de recherche en In-
formatique et en Automatique, France, Juillet 1987.

[3] R.Nzengwa and H.B.Tagne Simo,A two-dimensional model for lin-

ear elastic thick shells. International Journal for Solids and Struc-
tures 36(1999)5141-5176.

[4] M. Sheikholeslami, Numerical simulation of magnetic nanouid

natural convection in porous media, Physics Letters A, 381 (2017)
494503.

[5] M. Sheikholeslami, P. Rana, Soheil Soleimani, Numerical study of

MHD natural convection liquid metal ow and heat transfer in
a wavy enclosure using CVFEM, Heat Transfer Research 48(2),
(2017) 121138.

[6] M. Sheikholeslami, Houman B. Rokni, Numerical modeling of

nanouid natural convection in a semi annulus in existence of
Lorentz force, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En-
gineering, 317 (2017) 419430.

25
 [7] J.Nkongho Anyi,R.Nzengwa,J.C. Amba and C.V.A.Ngayihi: Ap-
proximation of Linear Elastic Shells by Curved Triangular Finite
Elements Based on Elastic Thick Shells Theory. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering Volume 2016, Article ID 8936075.

[8] M. Sheikholeslami , M. Gorji-Bandpy , D. D. Ganji: Investiga-

tion of Nanouid Flow and Heat Transfer in Presence of Magnetic
Field Using KKL Model. Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:50075016.O.C.
Zienkiewicz and J.Z.Zhu, The superconvergence patch recovery and
a posteriori error estimates Part1: the recovery techniques, inter-
nat, J Numer Methods Engrg, 33(1992) PP 1331-1364.

[9] O.C.Zienkiewicz and J.Z.Zhu. The superconvergence patch recov-

ery and a posteriori error estimates part 2: error estimates and
adaptivity, internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg, 33(1992), 1365-
1382.

[10] N.E Wiberg and F. Abdulwahab, Patch recovery based on super-

convergent derivatives and equilibrium, internat, J Numer, meth-
ods Engrg 36(1993) pp 2703-2774.

[11] N.E Wiberg and F. Abdulwahab, and S.Zrukas, Enhanced super-

convergence patch recovery incoorparating equilibrium and bound-
ary condition, internat, J Numer Methods Engrg, 37(1994) pp
3417-3440.

[12] A.Naga and Z.Zhang, The polynomial preserving recovery for

higher order nite element methods in 2D and 3D, Discrete and
continuous dynamical systems series B, 5(2005),769-708.

[13] .A.Naga and Z.Zhang, A posteriori error estimates based on poly-

nomial preserving recovery, SIAM.J.Numer. Anal, 9(2004),1780-
1800.

[14] Zhimin Zhang and Ahmed Naga, A new Finite element gradient
recovering Method: Superconvergence property SIAM J Sci com-
puter 26(2005) pp 1192-1213.

[15] Z.Zhang and J.Z.Zhu, Analysis of the superconvergent patch recov-

ery technique and a posteriori error estimator in the nite element
method (1), comput.Methods Appl.Mech.Engrg, 123(1995), 173-
187.

[16] Z.Zhang, polynomial preserving recovery for anisotropic and irreg-

ular grids,J. Comp. Math, 22-2 (2004), 331-340.

[17] Z.Zhang, polynomial preserving gradient recovery and a posteriori

estimate for bilinear element on irregular quadrilaterals, Interna-
tional Journal of Numerical Analysis and Modeling, 1 (2004), 1-24.

26
 [18] Z.Zhang ,Recovery techniques in nite element
methods,8(2005),297-365.

[19] R.H MacNeal and R.L Harter, A proposed standard set of problems
to test nite element accuracy Journal of Finite Element in analysis
and Design 1,3-20,1985.

[20] Bernadou, Methodes d'éléments nis pour les problemes de co-

ques minces. Edition Masson - Recherches en mathématiques Ap-
pliquées, Paris.

[21] Hervé Laurent, Etude en grande transformation d'une nou-

velle famille d'éléments nis coque triangulaire à trois degrés
de liberté par noeud. Application à la simulation numérique de
l'emboutissage, Thèse présenté à l'Université de Maine,1996.

[22] E. Carrera,S.Brischetto,M.Cinefra and M.Soave: Eects of thick-

ness stretching in functionally grated plates and shells, Composites
part B; Engineering vol 42,no,2,pp 123-133,2011.

27

View publication stats