Finite element analysis
N C Knowles
Current use of the finite element method in engineering
practice is considered. The increasing use o f finite element
analysis in a CAD environment and factors influencing it
are discussed.
The technological state o f the art is briefly reviewed,
Special consideration is given to shell elements and solution
methods, illustrating the progress being made in these and
other areas o f finite element technology. Future trends are
predicted.
finite element method, analysis, shell elements, solution methods
As far as is known, the name 'finite element' first appeared
in the open literature some 23 years ago 1 . Its use heralded
the beginning of a new era of analytical techniques,
inextricably linked to the computer, which has subsequently
had a profound effect on most areas of engineering design.
Conceived as a structural analysis tool, finite element
analysis is now a key ingredient of any mechanical CAD
system. More generally the method can be viewed as a
discretization technique for solving partial differential
equations and as such it has found application in many
other areas including fluid flow, lubrication, seepage,
electromagnetic fields, heat transfer, biomechanics and
others. In consequence there are now literally hundreds of
textbooks and perhaps tens of thousands of technical papers
published on various aspects of the finite element method.
It would be impossible to do justice to this entire subject
area. Instead this paper concentrates on the traditional role
of finite elements for stress and structural analysis and
reviews recent developments from the perspective of an
engineer, with hopefully due recognition of the contribu-
tions of the computer scientist and mathematician. As
Kelsey 2 has noted 'despite the clothing of academic
legitimacy afforded it by mathematics, the method remains
essentially an engineering approach'. This is especially so in
the CAD environment of today.
After some introductory remarks, which attempt to
present an appropriate historical perspective, the paper
considers current use of the finite element method in
engineering practice. The increasing use of finite element
analysis in a CAD environment is noted and factors
influencing it are discussed.
The third section reviews very briefly, the technological
state of the art on which the success, or otherwise, of the
method ultimately relies. This is pursued in greater depth in
the sections which deal with shell elements and solution
methods. The choice of these two areas for special
consideration is necessarily narrow, but nevertheless
illustrates the remarkable progress being made in most
other areas of finite element technology.
Some predictions of future trends are briefly attempted.
Atkins Researchand Development
134 0 0 1 0 - 4 4 8 5 / 8 4 / 0 3 0 1 3 4 - 0 7 $03.00 © 1984 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
HISTORICAL REVIEW AND GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT
The finite element method, of course, predates the first use
of its name in 19601 . Its origins can be traced back to the
19th century work of Castigliano, Maxwell, Navier, Ritz
and others. A history to 197S is given by Spooner 3 . It is
now generally agreed that the foundations of the modern
finite element method, which date from the development
of digital computing, were spelt oyt simultaneously by two
groups - Argyris and colleagues 4 in Europe and by Turner,
Clough et al s in the USA.
The essence of the finite element method is the approxi-
mation of a continuous structural system by a set of discrete
elements connected together at nodes or points. The
continuous equations describing the system are thus
replaced by a finite set of equations, in which usually, but
not necessarily, the independent variables are the nodal
displacements. The equations are commonly derived from
variational principles as distinct from difference approxima-
tions to the continuum. It is the formation of the equations,
independently of their solutions, that gives the finite
element method its chief virtue - generality and wide scope
of application. This systematic identification and separation
of the stages of an analysis is only possible with a computer
and in this sense, as Argyris noted 6, the digital computer
was to 'shape the theory' of structural analysis. With estab-
lished methods of analysis, however, the computer served
only as a very efficient calculator, to which the methods
could be adapted.
The significance of Argyris's prophetic message is only
now becoming apparent in the commercial world. It has
been given renewed significance by the advent in the early
1980's of relatively cheap interactive graphics hardware and
associated software, which result in easier and more efficient
communication between the computer and the applications
user. At the same time hardware developments, whether of
the larger mainframes or the superminis, have resulted in a
substantial reduction in real terms in the cost of computa-
tions. As a result interactive online finite element analysis is
now a possibility if not yet a practicality.
The development of low-cost graphics hardware is
probably the most significant 'external' influence on the
finite element community in recent years. Coupled with the
availability of graphical preprocessing systems it is trans-
forming the role of analysis in the overall design process.
With graphics, finite elements analysis can be now performed
quickly enough for it to be incorporated in the design cycle.
Therefore there is scope for finite element analysis to be
integrated into CAD and CAE systems. (This capacity has
already been taken up in some industries.) The problem
previously was that the elapsed time was so great that the
results were obtained too late to have a significant influence.
Because of this most finite element analysis was under-
taken Jposter/oc/as a check on structural adequacy and
only in rare circumstances did it contribute to the evolution
of a design.
The justification for such a fundamental change must
computer-aided design
ultimately be a better, cheaper or more efficient design
than was previously possible. Such benefits are difficult to
quantify. However even for the traditional checking role of
finite element analysis, the speed and ease of use of inter-
active graphics is widely believed to offer clear benefits. For
example, Fielding 7 assessed the increase in productivity due
to use of graphics at 80 per cent. This experience is in a
design-analysis environment of an aircraft stress office,
where use of computer packages tends to be sustained and
reasonably continuous. In other situations, where the need
for analysis is more intermittent, there is some evidence
that the use of interactive graphics in present-day systems
offers little or no productivity increase over conventional
methods of data preparation and interpretation. This is
because the level of proficiency required to use some
systems properly is beyond that which a casual analyst can
reasonably retain from job to job. An additional factor that
mitigates against improved productivity is the 'toy factor'.
Graphics are undoubtedly fun to use and there is a marked
tendency for infrequent users to explore facilities not
wholly relevant to the job in hand.
Properly used, all computer analysis methods decrease
the risk of human error and the overall reliability and
confidence in a design is improved. Nevertheless with the
wider use of finite element analysis, questions about the
reliability and accuracy of the process are very much in
evidence. In particular, users are increasingly asking
developers to demonstrate the 'correctness' of their analysis
software. The expression 'validation' is frequently used in
this context as are the terms 'verification' and 'qualification',
especially in the USA. Verification has to do with demon-
strating that the computer code performs correctly in a
mathematical and syntactical sense. However it says
nothing about the appropriateness of the mathematical
model to a particular physical situation. For example it is
not concerned with demonstrating the performance
(ie accuracy) of a particular type of element in a given
situation. Qualification, on the other hand, deals with the
ability of a program to represent adequately a real physical
situation. It thus includes such aspects as discretization
(ie element mesh), the representation of loads, temperatures
and boundary conditions, the description of material
properties and the adequacy of the mathematical model
leg the shell theory used). A program can only be qualified
for one particular physical problem, but with a properly
verified one, extrapolation to a similar situation not too far
from contemporary experience can be attempted with
confidence.
The distinction between qualification and verification is
crucial, but is not widely appreciated outside the relatively
narrow world of the finite element developer's community.
Indeed the enthusiasm with which finite element analysis
has been espoused by the CAD community suggests that
the method's intrinsic reliability and accuracy are not fully
recognized. Finite element procedures ultimately are
founded on approximations (ie the model) and their
appropriateness to a physical situation can only be judged
by experience. Analysis is (and probably always will be) an
art. Rules based on a careful assimilation of relevant
experience help, but their slavish application is no guarantee
of success. It follows that the analyst who treats finite
element analysis as a 'black box procedure' and is ignorant
of the procedure's assumptions and approximations is court-
ing disaster. Certainly the present state of the art gives little
justification for finite element analysis to be incorporated
into automated 'intelligent' CAD systems.
volume 16 number 3 may 1984
Despite this, there is a clear trend evident in the major
commercial programs towards improving the reliability of
the program for the casual, nonexpert user. There is also
increased interest in demonstrating the actual level of
reliability that can be achieved - ie in quality assurance.
Most major programs now have a senior team member
charged with this responsibility; and at least one (ASAS)
has given over its users' conference to the topic of quality
assurance9. A future conference I° will feature over I00
papers on the theme 'Accuracy, reliability and training in
FEM technology'. In the UK the NAFEM is paying
particular attention to questions of element reliability and
system validation. NAFEM was recently established with
government backing.
Proportionately more attention is being paid to the
difficult area of qualification testing than to verification
which is properly the exclusive domain of the developer.
The user community is increasingly involved with qualifica-
tion, often allied to experimental or full-scale studies.
Such participation is invaluable. It provides some assurance
of the system's reliability for a particular user's needs and
also serves to illustrate a program's capabilities to other
users. It frequently identifies theoretical limits that have
not been recognised before.
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT STATE OF THE ART
Interactive graphics
The use of interactive graphics for finite element pre- and
post-processing operations is now standard. All major
commercial finite element systems offer such facilities.
There are also a number of independent proprietary
systems 11'I~'13, which can be interfaced to the major finite
element systems.
The basic numerical techniques incorporated into these
graphics systems are not new 14. The recent significant
development is the marriage of numerical and procedural
algorithms to exploit relatively low cost graphics hardware
devices and thus produce attractive user-friendly tools. In
the hands of experienced users these systems allow accurate
error-free finite element models to be generated with sub-
stantial savings of runtime and cost.
The success of graphical pre-processors lies, in part, in
the separate identity of two constituent processes. First a
model is created which defines to appropriate accuracy the
shape of the component to be analysed. This 'geometry
model' can be manipulated, edited and adjusted indepen-
dently of the second phase which is the creation of a suitable
finite element mesh.
The latter, of course, requires the geometry model, but
the procedures for meshing and assigning element properties,
boundary conditions, loads etc is carried out independently.
Wide ranging creation and editing facilities ease the user's
task and improve the reliability of the final model. These
facilities include perspective and orthographic plots,
independent operations on split screens, overlays, view and
window control, dynamic isolation, hidden surface plots,
clash detection, colour coding, element shrinking and
instant replay, among others.
Three philosophically distinct procedures are apparent
for creation of geometry models Is, Historically the earliest
is the 'wire-frame' approach in which solids are defined by
their edges. A second approach is 'constructive' solid
geometry in which the model is constructed by manipulat-
ing certain standard forms eg cubes, cylinders, etc. The
third is analytical modelling, so called because analytical
135
 geometrical functions provide the basic shape definition
together with higher level operations such as translate and
rotate. The analytical modelling approach has the advantage
that the resulting shape definition is described by
continuous functions which facilitates subsequent finite
element meshing.
On the post-processing side colour graphics are now
standard for such things as history plots, contour plots
(with colour fill highlighting key areas) and the representa-
tion of deformed shapes (increasingly with shading and
toning available). In this area the graphical capacity to
portray and represent quantities is probably superior to the
current ability to manipulate and organize the data into a
suitable format in the first place. For example few of the
'independent' post-processors can display one quantity as a
function of another adequately, or treat discontinuities
(eg due to a change in material). Post-processor manipula-
tion of finite element results tends to be according to the
needs of traditional stress reports and CAD has, as yet,
changed this very little.
Technical mechanics
For linear static problems of structural and solid mechanics
the state of the art is now such that quite complex
structural configurations and loading conditions can be
analysed routinely. The analyst nevertheless still requires a
basic familiarity with the theory of finite element mechanics
and an understanding of the limitations of the process. The
performance and capability of most of the more popular
finite elements are understood, but arguably are not widely
publicized. Robinson, among others, has argued eloquently
for more comparative behaviour of elements in the various
commercial systems 16 and has evolved the single element
test 17. In this it is argued that any element should, at a
minimum, behave well as a single element. A more general
form of this is Iron's patch test which has recently acquired
fresh respectability 18 following debate as to its mathe-
matical rigour ~9. Benchmark studies on realistically large
physical situations are still relatively rare, although a number
of developers are now publishing documentation which
provides a comparison of the behaviour of elements in real
problems 2°.
Much research activity is evident directed ultimately at
improving the efficiency of the overall analysis process.
Dramatic improvements can scarcely be expected from any
one effort and accordingly there are a number of potentially
fruitful avenues of current research. These include the:
• continuing adaptation of established numerical
procedures to
o pipeline
o array
o and/or vector processing
• the invention or rediscovery of new algorithms
o eg the Lanczos method for eigenvalue extraction 21
• a search for better and cheaper element formulations
o especially shell elements (see Solution Algorithms
later)
Elsewhere in the solid and structural mechanics field (for.
other than 'linear"ptoblems) the capabilities are by no
means complete. In many areas, the mathematical ability to
solve a problem exceeds the understanding of the physical
behaviour necessary to define the problem in the first place.
Nevertheless there is still scope for improvement in
numerical techniques as can be demonstrated by the
136
accuracy of current methods on the few simple problems
for which solutions are available 22. Much research is still
needed to establish suitable material models that satisfac-
torily account for material non-linear behaviour under
general loading, including cyclic and reverse loading. This is
especially true in the nuclear industry where long-term,
high-temperature effects (creep) interact with short term,
quasi-static effects (plasticity) in a way that is not at all
well understood 23 .
Problems of very large strain, such as are experienced in
metal forming and impact also present analytical difficulties,
although good progress is reported 24. Such problems are
prodigously expensive in computer resources if rigorously
analysed. To save cost it is often admissable to neglect
elastic distortion and treat the problem as one of plastic
flow in a similar manner to fluids. There are now a number
of such 'hydro-code'-Iike programs available 2s .
In structural mechanics, the non-linear analysis of beams,
pipes, plates and shells, still present many difficulties. Some
of the research efforts in this area are expanded on in the
next section.
Significant strides are evident in the associated fields of
heat transfer and fluid mechanics. The treatment of non-
linear convection and radiation boundary conditions in heat
transfer analysis is still relatively imperfect. There are also
organizational difficulties in calculating view factors for
radiation problems. This topic would appear to be particu-
larly amenable to geometric modelling techniques and
interactive graphics. The capability with regard to fluids is
confused. Certain problems can be solved, but it is evident
that many modelling difficulties still have to be overcome
(eg the treatment of transonic and non-Newtonian flows).
The ultimate aim of a reliable general capability for the
treatment of complex thermal-fluid-structural behaviour
problems still remains very much a research goal rather than
a practical reality.
PLATES AND SHELLS
Typical of the research activity in most areas of structural
mechanics is the enormous effort that has been, and con-
tinues to be, directed towards improving the performance
of shell elements. Although shells are among the most
common structural forms, they have proved to be the most
difficult to analyse. Physically this can be attributed to a
shell's natural tendency to deform such that its geometry
takes a funicular form and thereby minimizes bending.
There is close coupling between the bending and membrane
actions and a strong dependency on the shell's geometry.
In a mathematical sense this complexity is evidenced by
the high order (eg 6th and 8th) partial differential equations
governing the structural behaviour in contrast to the second
order elliptical equations for membrane stress states.
Historically three approaches have been used to derive
finite elements for shell analysis 26 . First low order
membrane elements (usually triangular) have been super-
imposed on topologically similar flat plate bending elements
to create a flat facet idealization. Such elements have
proved useful but by no means satisfactory 2~. Their short-
comings when applied to continuous shells stem from the
following:
• the lack of coupling between the stretching and bending
actions within the elements
• the difficulties of treating junctions where all elements
are co-planar and
• the presence of 'discontinuity' moments which are
spurious in the continuously varying shell
computer-aided design
The second approach is to formulate curved-shell elements
directly from appropriate shell theories. Such elements
behave relatively well. However, they tend to be difficult
and expensive to use in practice and some mathematical
ability is needed to define their geometrical properties.
Moreover the displacement field within the element is often
improved by taking successively higher derivatives as basic
nodal degrees of freedom. As a result they are not easy to
apply to intersections, reinforcements and other areas
where strain continuity is obviously not present.
The third approach is the use of isoparametric solid
elements specified to tackle shells by applying appropriate
shell assumptions explicitly. Elements of this type are
sometimes referred to as degenerate shell elements. The
earliest of such elements 2s proved successful for thick shells
but was found to be too stiff for thin shell problems. This
'locking' behaviour, as it became known, was subsequently
attributed to the domination of the shear strain energy over
the bending counterpart and a number of procedures were
adopted to deal with it.
One of the earliest was the use of so called 'discrete
Kirchoff constraints' in which the transverse shear strain is
explicitly constrained to be zero at a number of discrete
points within the element. The 'semi-loof' element of
Irons 29 is possibly the logical culmination in this direction.
It is a good performer, but is complex to code and expensive
in practice which reduces its appeal for nonlinear computa-
tions.
An alternative procedure to deal with locking phenomena
is the use of reduced integration a°. Early use of this tech-
nique was much criticised on the grounds that it was
mathematically unsound and could lead to rank deficiency
and spurious mechanisms. The reasons for its success
remained unclear for some time, but recently reduced
integration has been related to penalty function procedures
and it has been given academic legitimacy 31 .
Recent research effort has been directed at improving the
simplest of the degenerate isoparametric elements: the facet
representation given by a three-node triangular and four-
node quadrilateral. Both discrete Kirchoff constraints a2'33
and reduced integration strategies are advocated 34'3s
together with a number of ad hoc strategies 36. The motiva-
tion for this work is the need for simple and economical
shell elements for nonlinear analyses, in which cost
efficiency is paramount. Although simple three and four
node elements may not be the most accurate for a given
number of degrees of freedom, they prove to be significantly
cheaper than higher order elements. The efficiency is
particularly marked in nonlinear analysis where element
level computations have to be repeated many times. Some
success has been reported but it is clear that difficulties still
remain, particularly in these elements' performance in large
deflection curvilinear shell analysis. A good review of recent
developments is given by Hughes37.
SOLUTION ALGORITHMS
For linear problems, direct solution of the simultaneous
equations of equilibrium, using Gaussian elimination and its
variations has long been accepted practice. Alternative
algorithms, such as those based on iteration, relaxation or
conjugate gradient methods a8 have found little favour. For
nonlinear problems much research into the solution
procedure is still being carried out, however. It was moti-
vated by the fact that these procedures are relatively
expensive and, in many cases, unreliable. Consequently
volume 16 number 3 may 1984
they need to be improved before they can be widely used
by a potentially large industrial base.
In practice the majority of nonlinear problems appear to
be path dependent. It is natural, therefore, that most non-
linear solution procedures are based on solving a series of
locally linearized incremental problems, usually with some
form of iteration within the increment. Numerous possibili-
ties exist, according to the form of linearization. The
simplest form, the so called 'initial stiffness' procedure,
maintains a constant stiffness matrix and performs 'equili-
brium correction' iterations to account for nonlinearities.
An alternative is the Newton-Raphson (N-R) iteration in
which the stiffness matrix is updated with each iteration to
reflect changes in current stress and deformation states.
Convergence is generally faster with the N - R method, but
this has to be offset against the expense of reforming and
factoring the tangent stiffness with each iteration. An
obvious modification is to reform the stiffness at the first
iteration of each new increment and thereafter keep it
constant. This is known as the 'modified Newton-Raphson'
M - N - R . It has been claimed 39 that it is better to do this at
the second iteration of each new increment on the grounds
that with proportional loading, the change in the direction
of the response vector is due to the effect of residuals
which are clearly largest at the second iteration. With both
N--R and M - N - R convergence is not always obtained;
knowledge of the stability and convergence properties of
solution methods relies more on experience than mathe-
matical analysis. Convergence can often be improved, or
divergence prevented, by adding some form of line search4°.
Unless sophisticated line search strategies are adopted,
however, difficulties are experienced when material unload-
ing (or failure) occurs. In such cases initial stiffness often
proves reliable, if slow.
In recent years a great deal of effort has been devoted to
the development of 'quasi-Newton' procedures. Such
methods have been used in the mathematical programming
and optimization fields for a number of years but have only
recently been applied in the finite element context. Quasi-
Newton methods resemble N - R techniques in that the
stiffness matrix is updated. Rather than explicitly reforming
the stiffness matrix, however, its current form is approxi-
mated by updating it according to a suitable formula. The
attraction is that the update formula involves only products
of current residual and displacement vectors and the update
proves to be relatively cheap. A number of formulae have
been proposed. One of the best is the BFGS (Broyden,
Fletcher, Goldfarb and Shanno 41'42) which is usually
implemented with a line search.
In its original form BFGS was applied to the stiffness
matrix or to the Choleski factors, but in doing so it
destroyed the sparsity of the matrix. A significant break
through was the work of Mathies and Strang 4a who reported
a quasi-Newton procedure which does not involve the
explicit updating of either the stiffness matrix or its
Choleski factor. Crisfield ~ uses a similar procedure and
reports very good performance for plated structures.
An important consideration in nonlinear analysis is the
size of the applied load increment. Intuitively this should
be related to the degree of nonlinearity. If it is too large
convergence will be slow. Correspondingly, too small an
increment results in needless iteration. There are a number
of empirical methods reported for controlling the increment
size. One popular technique is based on a measure of the
'current stiffness' relative to the original parameter ~ .
Alternatively the increment size can be adjusted to try to
137
 maintain the number of iterations/increment constant 4s.
Some success has been reported with 'self adaptive'
methods for controlling the incremental procedure. The
original ideas were developed by Riks 46 some ten years ago,
but they have recently been revived by Crisfield 47, Simmons
and Powell 4s, Batoz and Dhatt 49 and others s°. The
fundamental idea governing these procedures is to control
the size of the increment as measured along the equilibrium
path (in contrast to either load or displacement), hence the
name 'arc length' methods. This is done by defining the arc
length in a generalized form involving both displacement
and load in the form of a constraint equation which has to
be satisfied simultaneously with the incremental stiffness
equations. Various forms of constraint are used; they all
claim good performance at stepping round problems involv-
ing limit points. However, some dexterity and computa-
tional manipulation is still required to handle problems
with bifurcations in their equilibrium paths and there
appears to be no substitute as yet for the experience of an
informed analyst.
FUTURE TRENDS
Forecasting the future is difficult and notoriously
unreliable. In the finite element context certain trends are
clear, but the success with which they can be converted to
practical reality is far less so.
In a very general sense the ultimate objective is wide-
ranging computer modelling capabilities covering the solid
and structural mechanics disciplines. An important adjunct
is that they are sufficiently accessible for engineers to use
within the design process rather than, as hitherto, as an
aposteriori check on it. Future developments in this regard
are clearer. 'Finite element work-stations' are already a
reality in some organizations where the throughput of
analysis work justifies the initial capital expense sl . They
are centred on mini computers for pre- and post-processing
and small computational tasks, with direct communications
to additional resources (eg larger mainframe or inter-
connected computation nodes) for the more demanding
computational tasks. To be truly effective such facilities
must be integrated with other CAD activities appropriate to
the designer's business.
A very real danger, occasioned by their prolific growth,
is that the developments in interactive graphical pre- and
post-processors will outpace the improvements in basic
finite element technology that are necessary to justify their
wider use in the first place. 'Garbage in, garbage out' is an
over used cliche, but nonetheless, without a parallel
improvement in the reliability of finite element technology,
advances in interactive graphics will simply make the 'in-out'
process easier. As the various stages of a finite element
analysis become more routine, there is a tendency not to
record adequately what was done,'thereby making any
check assessment increasingly difficult. More automated
analysis thus introduces new challenges for the quality
assurance authorities. It improves the reliability of the
actual analysis but it also does away with a lot of the
documentation and records that define the analysis process.
New procedures will thus have to be evolved to satisfy
checking and certification needs.
Perhaps the greatest uncertainty in a finite element
analysis centres around the adequacy of the mesh. Economic
and sometimes technical limitations all too often dictate a
'cruder' mesh than the analyst would really like. {It is
interesting to note a disparity here between US and Euro-
pean practice. In the USA, with generally cheaper and
138
more powerful computer resources, finite element meshes
tend to be composed of many simple elements. Indeed
commercial systems were relatively slow to incorporate
high-order elements. In Europe the trend is towards fewer
more complex elements.) Even when a mesh is felt to be
'good' it is remarkable that little can actually be said about
its accuracy, given the widespread use of the method. Error
estimates, of course, can be made but in practice, they
seldom are. This is partly because of the extra computa-
tional expense involved and partly because they provide
information only about global quantities rather than the
practical need to know the accuracy of local entities. For
example, they provide information on strain energy rather
than the stress concentration at a point. Recent work tends
to treat error estimates and mesh refinement as closely
related topics s2's3,s4. The idea is to use the error estimates
to provide information about where to refine a given mesh
for subsequent reanalysis. Such techniques have obvious
application for 'intelligent' automatic meshing schemes in
the future.
On the technical front the quest for computationally
simpler and more reliable element formulations is by no
means satisfied. Similarly in transient problems there is
considerable scope for improvement to the integration
procedures ss's6's7 allied to more effective means of con-
trolling the solution procedure. In the longer term it is
foreseen s8 that finite element, finite difference, boundary
integral and related discretization techniques will be merged
into a unified analysis system. Such developments will
probably await far more disciplined software development
practices and better low-level programming languages.
(Currently all major systems are written in Fortran, despite
inadequacies such as the absence of the same word length
on all computers and its input and output capabilities.) Vast
resources are required to develop and support finite element
programs and it is unlikely that any major new systems will
be created until their development costs can be reduced.
Development may be helped by the advent of more flexible
operating systems and programming languages and tech-
niques better suited to large scale numerical computations.
Meanwhile the prospect is that 'commercial' users will
standardize on established major systems which are likely to
grow even more capable.
REFERENCES
I Clough, R W 'The finite element method in plane stress
analysis' Proc. 2nd ASCE Conf. on Elec. Comput.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA {September 1960)
2 Kelsey, S 'Finite element method in civil engineering'
Proc. /st US/]apanSeminarFEM Vanderbilt University
Press {I 969)
3 Spooner, J B 'A history of the finite element method'
in Robinson, J (ed) Proc. World Congress on Finite
Element Methods in Structural Mechanics Vol 1
Bournemouth, UK (1975)
4 Argyris, J H 'Energy theorems and structural analysis'
Butterworth, UK (1960)
5 Turner, M J, Clough, R W, Martin, H C and Topp, L J
'Stiffness and deflection analysis of complex structures'
/. Aero. $ci. Vol 23 (1956)
6 Argyris, J M and Scharpf, D W 'The computer shapes
the theory' Paper to Royal Aero. Society (18 May
1965)
computer-aided design
7 Fielding, T M and De Jong, H J 'Friendly FEA sends
ripples through a corporation' CAEMagazine Penta/IPC
(July/August 1983) pp 62-68
8 'Verification and qualification of inelastic analysis
computer programs' ASME Rap. G00088 NY, USA
(1975)
9 Atkins Research and Development Proc. ASAS Users'
Group Conf. Warwick, UK (1983)
10 Finite Element News No 5 (October 1983) p 27
11 Patran-G User Guide, Version 1.5 PDA Santa Ana,
USA (1983)
12 Femgen FEGS, Cambridge, UK (1983)
13 Supertab CAE International, Milford, OH, USA (1983)
14 Buell, W R and Bush, B A 'Mesh generation - a survey'
Trans. ASME Series B Vol 95 (1973)
15 PDA Engineering 'Solid modelling - a finite element
perspective' PA TRAN-G Newsletter Vol 2 No 3 (October
1983)
16 Blackham, S and Robinson, J 'An evaluation of lower
order membranes as contained in MSC/NASTRAN,
ASAS and PAFEC FEM Systems' MoD, Report No
A936/494 (I 979)
17 Robinson, J 'Understanding finite element stress
analysis' Robinson and Associates (January 1981)
18 Irons, B and Loikkanen, M 'An engineer's defence of
the patch test' Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. Vol 19
No 9 (1983) pp 1391-1401
19 Stummel, F 'The limitations of the patch test' Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. Vol 15 (I 980) See also Finite
Element News issue I (1982) p 30
20 Hibbit, R D 'Abaqus Example Problems' Hibbit,
Karlson and Sorenson (1982)
21 Nour-Omid, B, Parlett, B N and Taylor, R L 'Lanczos
versus subspace iteration for solution of eigenvalue
problems' Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. Vol 19 (1983)
22 Krieg, R D and Krieg, D B 'Accuracies of numerical
solution methods for the elastic perfectly plastic model'
ASME J. Press. Vessel Tech. Vol 99 No 4 (1977)
23 Guidelines and procedures for design of class I elevated
temperature nuclear systems components N E Fg-ST,
US Department of Energy (1981)
24 Argyris, ] Het al 'Thermo-mechanical response of
solids at high strains - natural approach' Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. Vol 32 (1982)
25 Goudreau,G L and Halquist, J O 'Recent developments
in large scale finite element Lagrangian hydrocode
technology' Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
Vol 33 (1982)
26 Gallager in Ashwell, D (ed) Finite elements for thin
shells and curved members Wiley (1976)
27 Knowles, N Cet al in Ashwell, D (ed) Finite elements
for thin shells and curved members Wiley (1976)
28 Ahmad, S, Irons, B M and Zienkiewicz, O C 'Analysis
of thick and thin shell structures by curved finite
elements' Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. Vol 2 (1970)
pp 419-451
29 Irons, B M 'The semi-loof shell element' in Ashwell, D
volume 16 number 3 may 1984
(ed) Finite elements for thin shells and curved members
Wiley (I 976)
30 Zienkiewicz, O C 'Reduced integration techniques in
general analysis of plates and shells' Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. Vol 3 (1971)
31 Fried, I 'Shear in Co and CI plate bending element'
Int. J. Solids Struct. Vol 9 (I 973)
32 Lyons, L P R 'A general finite element system with
special reference to the analysis of cellular structures'
PhD thesis, University of London, UK (1977)
33 Crisfield, M A 'Afour noded thin plate bending element
using shear constraints - a modified version of Lyons
element' Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. Vol 38
(1983)
34 Hughes,T J R, Taylor, R L and Kanoknukulchai, W
'A simple and efficient element for plate bending'
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. Vol 11 (1977)
35 Hughes, T ] R and Tezduuyar, T E 'Finite elements
based upon Mindlin plate theory with particular
reference to the four node bi-linear isoparametric
element' ASME J. AppL Mech. Vol 48 (1981) pp 587
36 MacNeal, R H 'A simple quadrilateral shell element'
Comput. Struct. Vol 8 (1978)
37 Tessler, A and Hughes, T J R 'An improved treatment
of transverse shear in the Mindlin-type four-node
quadrilateral element' Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng. Vol 39 (1983)
38 Jennings, A and Malick, G M Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. Vol 12 (1978) pp 141-158
39 Hinton, E and Owen, D R J 'Finite elements in
plasticity' Pineridge (1980)
40 Crisfield, M A Comput. Methods AppL Mech Eng.
Vol 20 (1979) pp 267-278
41 Broyden, C G 'The convergence of a double rank
minimisation - a new algorithm' J. Inst. Math. AppL
Vol 6 (1970)
42 Shanno, D F 'Conjugate gradient methods with
inelastic line searches' Math. Oper. Res. Vol 13 (1978)
43 Mathies, H and Strang, G 'The solution of non-linear
finite element equations' Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
Vol 14 (1979)
44 Bergan, P G and Soreide, T 'Solution of large displace-
ment and instability problems using current stiffness
parameter' Finite elements in non-linear mechanics
Tapir (1978) pp 647-669
45 Crisfield, M A 'A fast incremental/iterative solution
procedure that handles 'Snap through'Comput. Struct.
Vol 13 (1981)
46 Riks, E The application of Newton's method to the
problem of elastic stability' J. AppL Mech. Vol 39
(1972) pp 1060-1066
47 Crisfield, M A 'Variable step-lengths for non-linear
structural analysis' Trans. Road Res. Lab. Rap. 1049
DoE (I 982)
48 Powell, G and Simmons, ] 'Improved iteration strategy
for non-linear structures' Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
Vol 17 (I 981)
49 Batoz, ] L and Dhatt, G 'Incremental displacement
algorithms for non-linear problems' Int. J. Numer.
139
 Methods Eng. Vol 14 No 8 (1979)
50 Riks, E 'An incremental approach to the solution of
snapping and buckling problems' Int. J. Solids Struct.
Vo115 (1979)
51 Finite Element News issue 5 (1983) pp 5 -7
52 Babuska, I and Rheinbolt, W 'Error estimates for
adaptive finite element computations'/. Namer. Anal.
Vo115 [1978) pp 734 754
53 Rheinbolt, W C 'Adaptive mesh refinement processes
for finite element solutions' Int. I. Numer. Methods
Eng. Vo112 (1981)
54 Kelly, D Wet al 'g posteriori error analysis and
adaptive processes in the finite element method' Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. Vo119 No 11 (1983)
pp 1593- 1656
140
55 Hilber, H M, Hughes, T J R and Taylor, R L 'Improved
numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in
structural dynamics' Earthquake Eng. Slruct. Mech.
Vol 5 [1977)
56 Wood, W L, Bossak, M and Zienkiewicz, O C 'An alpha
modification of Newmark's Method' Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. Vol ] 5 t1981)
57 Adams, D D.and Wood, W L 'Comparison of Hilber-
Hughes-Taylor and Bossak c~ Methods for the Numerical
Integration of Vibration Equations' Int./. Namer.
Methods Eng. Vo119 (1983]
58 Robinson, J 'The emergence of a new philosophy in
computerised structural analysis' Proc. 2nd Int. ASAS
Users' Conf. Atkins Research and Development,
Epsom, UK (1976) pp 107 124
computer-aided design