Mapped Elements

Finite Elements with Curved Boundaries Evaluation of Integrals in Distorted Domains Element Defects and Remedies
Finite Element Method and Computational Structural Dynamics

Mapped Elements
Manish Shrikhande
manish.shrikhande@eq.iitr.ac.in
Department of Earthquake Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Based on “Shrikhande, M. Finite Element Method and Computational

Structural Dynamics, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
2014. ISBN-13: 978-8120349957.”
Manish Shrikhande manish.shrikhande@eq.iitr.ac.in Department of Earthquake Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

I Finite element method facilitates modeling of arbitrarily
complex domains by an assembly of small elements of
regular geometrical shapes with straight edges/plane
surfaces.

surfaces.
I Curved geometries may be modelled by using a large
number of small size elements.

surfaces.
I Problem size increases due to increased number of
elements and nodes.

surfaces.
elements and nodes.
I Development of finite elements with curved boundaries
based on the mathematical concept of parametric
mapping.

surfaces.
elements and nodes.
I Development of finite elements with curved boundaries
based on the mathematical concept of parametric
mapping.
Parametric Mapping
I It is possible to define a curve by varying a parameter relating the coordinates of
points on the curve. For example:
Parametric Mapping
I Parametric form of ellipse: x = a sin t and y = b cos t for t ∈ [0, 2π]
Parametric Mapping
I Parametric form of parabola: x = at 2 and y = 2at
Parametric Mapping
I Parametric mapping can be used to generate arbitrary curves and surfaces for
modelling complex domains by finite elements.
Parametric Mapping
I Transform regular geometric shapes (parent finite elements of different shapes,
such as, triangle, rectangle, tetrahedron, etc.) to desired shape — element
distortion — use of local/natural coordinate system.
Parametric Mapping
I Transform regular geometric shapes (parent finite elements of different shapes,
such as, triangle, rectangle, tetrahedron, etc.) to desired shape — element
distortion — use of local/natural coordinate system.
I Geoemtry of distorted shape can be defined in the same way as interpolation of
primary variables:
Xn Xn Xn
x= xi Ni (ξ, η, ζ), y = yi Ni (ξ, η, ζ), z = zi Ni (ξ, η, ζ)
i=1 i=1 i=1
Example Element Distortion

1 2 3 x( ξ ) = x1 ξ ( ξ −1) + x 2 (1− ξ2 ) + x3 ξ ( ξ +1)
2 2
−1 0 1 ξ 1
3
2
One-dimensional case

1 2 3 x( ξ ) = x1 ξ ( ξ −1) + x 2 (1− ξ2 ) + x3 ξ ( ξ +1)
2 2
−1 0 1 ξ 1
3
2
η
Two-dimensional case

1 2 3 x( ξ ) = x1 ξ ( ξ −1) + x 2 (1− ξ2 ) + x3 ξ ( ξ +1)
2 2
−1 0 1 ξ 1
3
2
η
ζ η
Two-dimensional case Three-dimensional case

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

I Degree of parametric mapping for geometry is same as that of the degree of
interpolation of primary variable within the element.

I Interpolation functions for polynomial approximation of primary variables are also
used to define the element geometry.

I Geometry of regular parent elements defined by lines/planes bounded by
ξ, η, ζ ∈ [−1, 1] is mapped to desired distorted shapes.

I What are the restrictions on element distortions for not compromising
convergence of finite element solution?

I Neighbouring elements should share contiguous boundary — no overlapping and
voids.

voids.
I Continuity of approximation across element boundaries in distorted domains.

voids.
I Continuity of approximation across element boundaries in distorted domains.
I Completeness of interpolated field in distorted domains.

Geomatric Compatibility of Elements


I Modelling of continuous domains should be

preserved during and after distortion.


I The parametric variation of geometry at the
interface of two adjacent elements should be
identical when approached from either side.


I The parametric variation of geometry at the
interface of two adjacent elements should be
I If two adjacent elements are generated from
‘parents’ in which the shape functions satisfy C 0
continuity requirements then the distorted elements
will be contiguous.

η
(1, 1)
preserved during and after distortion. ξ
I The parametric variation of geometry at the (−1, −1)

Unique variation of
x (ξ, η) and y (ξ, η)
interface of two adjacent elements should be Y
Ωe
I If two adjacent elements are generated from Ω e+1
‘parents’ in which the shape functions satisfy C 0

continuity requirements then the distorted elements X
will be contiguous. Geometric compatibility of

distorted elements

Continuity and Completeness of Approximation
I For moderate distortions of the domain, there exists a one-to-one correspondence

between each point in the regular domain of a parent element to a point in the
distorted domain.


distorted domain.
I The polynomial variation of the primary variables along the interface will be
identical (and hence, compatible) for both neighbouring elements if the
interpolation functions satisfy C 0 continuity requirements in regular parent
element.


distorted domain.
I The polynomial variation of the primary variables along the interface will be
identical (and hence, compatible) for both neighbouring elements if the
interpolation functions satisfy C 0 continuity requirements in regular parent
element.
I If the shape functions Ni are such that C 0 -continuity of primary variable is
preserved in the parent element then C 0 -continuity requirements will be satisfied
in distorted elements as well.

I The interpolated field for displacements should be complete at least upto linear
terms for ensuring convergence: u (e) = a0 + a1 x + a2 y .

I For isoparametric mapping: x = i Ni xi and y = i Ni yi . Thus, we have:
P P
X X
u (e) = a0 + a1 Ni xi + a2 Ni yi
i i

I For isoparametric mapping: x = i Ni xi and y = i Ni yi . Thus, we have:
P P
X X
u (e) = a0 + a1 Ni xi + a2 Ni yi
i i
I The primary variable at node i may be given by: ui = a0 + a1 xi + a2 yi which can
be substituted in the interpolation of primary variable (u (e) = i Ni ui ) to give:
P
X X X X
u (e) = Ni (a0 + a1 xi + a2 yi ) = a0 Ni + a1 Ni xi + a2 N i yi
i i i i
P
which agrees with the requirement provided that i Ni = 1.
Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–1

I Formulation of finite element equilibrium equations requires evaluation of domain
integrals where the integrands are functions of Cartesian derivatives of the primary
variables.

variables.
I Evaluation of these integrals in the case of distorted domains poses a minor
problem — the interpolated field of primary variable is defined in terms of the local
coordinates (ξ, η, and ζ) instead of the Cartesian coordinates (x, y , and z), as:
X X X
u (e) = Ni (ξ, η, ζ)ui , v (e) = Ni (ξ, η, ζ)vi and w (e) = Ni (ξ, η, ζ)wi
i i i

variables.
I Evaluation of these integrals in the case of distorted domains poses a minor
problem — the interpolated field of primary variable is defined in terms of the local
coordinates (ξ, η, and ζ) instead of the Cartesian coordinates (x, y , and z), as:
X X X
u (e) = Ni (ξ, η, ζ)ui , v (e) = Ni (ξ, η, ζ)vi and w (e) = Ni (ξ, η, ζ)wi
i i i
I The geoemtry in Cartesian coordinates is also interpolated in terms of local

coordinates and hence it should be possible to relate Cartesian derivatives to
derivatives with respect to local coordinates.

Since the Cartesian coordinates are defined in parametric form, total derivatives with
respect to local coordinates are:

∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂
= + +
∂ξ ∂ξ ∂x ∂ξ ∂y ∂ξ ∂z
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂
= + +
∂η ∂η ∂x ∂η ∂y ∂η ∂z
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂
= + +
∂ζ ∂ζ ∂x ∂ζ ∂y ∂ζ ∂z

or, in matrix form:
∂  ∂x ∂y ∂z   
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ
∂
= + + ∂ ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂x
∂
∂ξ ∂ξ ∂x ∂ξ ∂y ∂ξ ∂z  ∂η  =  ∂η ∂η ∂η   ∂y 
   
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂ ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂
= + + ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂z
∂η ∂η ∂x ∂η ∂y ∂η ∂z ∂
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂x
∂ 
= + + = J  ∂y
∂ζ ∂ζ ∂x ∂ζ ∂y ∂ζ ∂z ∂
∂z

or, in matrix form:
∂  ∂x ∂y ∂z   
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ
∂
= + + ∂ ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂x
∂
∂ξ ∂ξ ∂x ∂ξ ∂y ∂ξ ∂z  ∂η  =  ∂η ∂η ∂η   ∂y 
   
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂ ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂
= + + ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂z
∂η ∂η ∂x ∂η ∂y ∂η ∂z ∂
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂x
∂ 
= + + = J  ∂y
∂ζ ∂ζ ∂x ∂ζ ∂y ∂ζ ∂z ∂
∂z

or, in matrix form:
∂  ∂x ∂y ∂z   
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ
∂
= + + ∂ ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂x
∂
∂ξ ∂ξ ∂x ∂ξ ∂y ∂ξ ∂z  ∂η  =  ∂η ∂η ∂η   ∂y 
   
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂ ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂
= + + ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ ∂z
∂η ∂η ∂x ∂η ∂y ∂η ∂z ∂
∂ ∂x ∂ ∂y ∂ ∂z ∂ ∂x
∂ 
= + + = J  ∂y
∂ζ ∂ζ ∂x ∂ζ ∂y ∂ζ ∂z ∂
P P P ∂z
x = i Ni (ξ, η, ζ)xi , y = i Ni (ξ, η, ζ)yi , and z = i Ni (ξ, η, ζ)zi define the
mapping of local coordinates onto Cartesian coordinates and J is known as the
Jacobian matrix of this local to Cartesian coordinate transformation.

The Jacobian matrix is computed as:
 ∂N ∂Nm
 
∂ξ
1
... ∂ξ
x1 y1 z1
 ∂N2 ∂Nm   .. .. .. 
J =  ∂η . . . ∂η   . . . 
∂N1 ∂Nm
∂ζ ... ∂ζ xm ym zm
where, m denotes the total number of nodes in the element. Thus, the Cartesian
derivatives may be obtained as:
∂ ∂
∂x ∂ξ
 ∂  = J−1  ∂ 
(1)
∂y  ∂η 
∂ ∂
∂z ∂ζ
which exist if and only if the Jacobian matrix of the transformation is positive definite,
i.e., |J| > 0 everywhere in the domain.
Evaluation of Domain Integrals–1

I After transformation of variables, the domain of integration is also transformed to
a regular bounded domain: dΩ = dx · dy · dz = |J| dξ · dη · dζ

I The integrands in terms of Cartesian coordinates can be transformed in terms of
local coordinates by appropriate substitution of parametric mapping:
G(x, y , z) → Ḡ(ξ, η, ζ).

I The integrands in terms of Cartesian coordinates can be transformed in terms of
local coordinates by appropriate substitution of parametric mapping:
G(x, y , z) → Ḡ(ξ, η, ζ).
I The domain integral can be evaluated as:
ZZZ Z 1Z 1Z 1
G(x, y , z) dx dy dz = Ḡ(ξ, η, ζ) |J| dξ dη dζ
Ωe −1 −1 −1
nξ nη nζ
XXX
≈ Wi Wj Wk Ḡ(ξi , ηj , ζk ) |J(ξi , ηj , ζk )|
i=1 j=1 k=1
which is of the standard form of Gauss-Legendre numerical quadrature.


I An n point Gauss-Legendre quadrature can integrate exactly a polynomial of
degree 2n − 1.

degree 2n − 1.
I The coeffcients nξ , nη and nζ denote the order of quadrature along respective
coordinate directions.

degree 2n − 1.
I The choice of an appropriate order of quadrature is very important is finite elment
computations. While using a high order quadrature rule ensures accuracy of
numerical computations at the cost of a significant increase in computational
costs, choice of a very low order quadrature leads to numerical instability.

degree 2n − 1.
I The choice of an appropriate order of quadrature is very important is finite elment
computations. While using a high order quadrature rule ensures accuracy of
numerical computations at the cost of a significant increase in computational
costs, choice of a very low order quadrature leads to numerical instability.
I The desired order of quadrature rule is one which facilitates exact evaluation
(same RRR
as analytical integration) of the elements of element stiffness matrix
(Ke = T
Ωe B DB dΩ) when the element is in regular, or undistorted shape.

I In the case of four-node rectangle the integrand BT DB involves second degree
polynomial terms as B comprises constants and linear polynomial terms.

I A 2 × 2 quadrature rule is necessary to exactly integrate the second degree
polynomial terms in the integrand.

I Similarly, integrand involves fourth degree polynomial terms in the case of
eight-node serendipity element which requires a 3 × 3 quadrature rule for exact
integration.

integration.
I This order of quadrature is referred to as the full integration (or, full quadrature).

integration.
I This order of quadrature is referred to as the full integration (or, full quadrature).
I Similar formulations for numerical integration of transformed integrands can be
developed for triangular and tetrahedral domains in terms of area/volume local
coordinates.
Evaluation of Boundary Integrals
Tt
R
I The generic form of a boundary integral in the weak form is: f = − ΓN dΓ
I The generic form of a boundary integral in the weak form is: f = − Γ NT t dΓ

R
I The boundary integral is evaluated if the element boundary coincides with the
domain boundary.
I The generic form of a boundary integral in the weak form is: f = − Γ NT t dΓ

R
I The boundary integral is evaluated if the element boundary coincides with the
domain boundary.
I One of the coordinates (say, ξ) is constant along the element boundary. The
resulting integrands on the element boundaries may be evaluated by Gauss
quadrature of suitable order.
Element Distortion and Accuracy of Field Approximation

I Element distortions, in general, reduce the degree of completeness in the
polynomial approximation and adverse affect rates of convergence.

I Element distortions allow for mesh gradation — smooth transition from fine mesh
in the zones of steep strain gradients to a coarse mesh in zones of smoother
gradients.

gradients.
I Numerical stability of computations is strongly influenced by the extent of
distortions.

gradients.
distortions.
I Can be used very effectively for modeling singularity in special cases: square root
singularity in fracture mechanics problems.

gradients.
distortions.
I Can be used very effectively for modeling singularity in special cases: square root
singularity in fracture mechanics problems.
I New finite elements can be developed by the process of degeneration — two
nodes of a 4-node rectangle can be mapped to one point leading to a 3-node
constant strain triangle.
Parasitic Shear–1
Parasitic Shear–1
Parasitic Shear–1
I Sometimes rigorously derived finite elements do not
behave well.
Parasitic Shear–1
behave well.
I Consistency of field approximation with regard to the
mechanics of problem.
Parasitic Shear–1
behave well.
I Consider deformation of a 4-node rectangle plane stress
element under pure flexure.
Parasitic Shear–1
I Sometimes rigorously derived finite elements do not 4 y 3
behave well.
x
I Consider deformation of a 4-node rectangle plane stress 1 2
Parasitic Shear–1
behave well.
x
I The field approximation is incapable of taking the curvature required for flexure.
Parasitic Shear–1
behave well.
x
I The element can only take the shape of bilinear deformation.
Parasitic Shear–1
behave well.
x
I This biliear deformation will be incompatible in an assembly of elements.
Parasitic Shear–1
behave well.
x
I This biliear deformation will be incompatible in an assembly of elements.
I The only possible compromise solution is no deformation at all — element locking.
Parasitic Shear–2
Let us consider the displacement field in a 4-node rectangle:
û e (x, y ) = a0 + a1 x + a2 y + a3 xy and v̂ e (x, y ) = b0 + b1 x + b2 y + b3 xy
The shear strain may be computed as:
∂v̂ e ∂û e
γ= + = (a2 + b1 ) + a3 x + b3 y
∂x ∂y
which for the pure flexure case of vanishing shear strain leads to the following three
constraints on the assumed displacement field:
a2 + b1 = 0 , a3 = 0 , and b3 = 0
The last two constraints are spurious because those involve only one displacement field
(û e or v̂ e ) in each case.
Parasitic Shear–3
I The constraint a3 = 0 may be translated in terms of the nodal displacement

values as (u1 + u3 ) − (u2 + u4 ) = 0 which for the possible deformation mode for
pure flexure has only one feasible solution, namely, ui = 0, i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
Parasitic Shear–3

I The transverse displacement v also vanishes and the element locks into an
unrealistic deformation mode of zero longitudinal and transverse displacements in
response to pure flexure so as to maintain the condition of vanishing shear strain.
Parasitic Shear–3

I This phenomenon is referred to as shear locking.
Parasitic Shear–3

I This phenomenon is referred to as shear locking.
I The higher order elements do not lock in so dramatic fashion but the rate of
convergence of the computed solution is adversely affected.
Variational Crimes–1
Several possibilities exist to rectify the problem:
I Reduced integration: domain integral is intentionally under evaluated by using a
lower order of quadrature to alleviate locking problem.
I Inclusion of incompatible modes: bring in consistency in field approximation by
incorporating more terms with nodeless parameters.
I These additional terms lead to incompatibility of primary variables across the
element boundaries.
element boundaries.
I Suitable incompatible modes should have zero contribution to domain integrals
under constant state of stress to ensure convergence of finite element solution.
element boundaries.
I Reduced integration can trigger instability in computed solution for some
loading/deformation patterns.
element boundaries.
I Reduced integration can trigger instability in computed solution for some
loading/deformation patterns.
I These tricks of the trade are referred to as variational crimes for they effectively
violate the governing variational principles.
Incompatible Modes
The primary cause of the problem is low order of assumed displacement variation:
4
X
û e (x, y ) = Ni (x, y )ui + α1 (1 − x 2 ) + α2 (1 − y 2 )
i=1
= a0 + a1 x + a2 y + a3 xy + α1 (1 − x 2 ) + α2 (1 − y 2 )
X4
v̂ e (x, y ) = Ni (x, y )vi + β1 (1 − x 2 ) + β2 (1 − y 2 )
i=1
= b0 + b1 x + b2 y + b3 xy + β1 (1 − x 2 ) + β2 (1 − y 2 )
where, α1 , α2 , β1 and β2 are known as nodeless variables since these parameters of the
assumed displacement field are not associated with any node of the finite element.
Incompatible Modes
I The corresponding functions, sometimes referred to as the bubble functions
because their profile looks like a bubble, enrich the interpolated displacement field
by introducting the desired higher order polynomial variation.
Incompatible Modes
I The corresponding functions, sometimes referred to as the bubble functions
because their profile looks like a bubble, enrich the interpolated displacement field
by introducting the desired higher order polynomial variation.
I The shear strain for this modified 4-node rectangle may be obtained as:
γ = (a2 + b1) + (a3 − 2β1 )x + (b3 − 2α2 )y
from which the vanishing shear strain condition leads to three constraints on the
displacement field as:
a2 + b1 = 0 , a3 − 2β1 = 0 , and b3 − 2α2 = 0
wherein, all constraints correctly include terms from both orthogonal displacement
fields.
Incompatible Modes
I An unfortunate side-effect of this modification is that the modified displacement
field is now incompatible along the inter-element boundaries.
Incompatible Modes
I It is for this reason that the higher order polynomial terms associated with the
nodeless variables are termed as the incompatible modes.
Incompatible Modes
I Although loss of compatibility is a serious breach of the basic requirements for
convergence of finite element solution, some of these functions can be carefully
selected so that the convergence of finite element solution is guaranteed.
Incompatible Modes
I The incompatible modes are selected so as to have zero contribution to the strain
energy integral for constant stress states.
Incompatible Modes
I The incompatible modes are selected so as to have zero contribution to the strain
energy integral for constant stress states.
I The suitability of such modified finite element approximations in practical finite
element analysis can be examined by using patch test.
Reduced Integration
I The use of a lower order quadrature would result in under-estimating element
stiffness matrix and thereby provide some relief from locking problem.
Reduced Integration
I One of the earliest tricks to circumvent the problem of shear locking — based on
the observation that the computed shear strain in a 4-node rectangle subjected to
pure flexure vanishes at the centroid of the element (x = 0, y = 0) which also
coincides with the location of the sampling point of one-point Gauss-Legendre
quadrature.
Reduced Integration
I One of the earliest tricks to circumvent the problem of shear locking — based on
the observation that the computed shear strain in a 4-node rectangle subjected to
pure flexure vanishes at the centroid of the element (x = 0, y = 0) which also
coincides with the location of the sampling point of one-point Gauss-Legendre
quadrature.
I The strain energy in shear would be correctly evaluated as zero if one-point
quadrature rule is used for evaluation of the domain integrals. For a 4-node
T DB dΩ involves integration of polynomial
RRR
rectangle, the domain integral Ωe B
terms upto second order, i.e., x 2 , xy , and y 2 , which requires the use of a
two-point quadrature rule for correct evaluation.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–1

I Many of enhancements either in the form of additional polynomial terms in the
interpolated field, or in the numerical evaluation of integrals approximation lead to
violation of some basic tenets of convergence of a finite element solution.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–1

I The patch test is used to determine if a suggested enhancement will adversely
affect the convergence of finite element solution.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–1

I The patch test has proved to be a handy tool for designing new elements as well
as to test the correctness of computer coding.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–1

I In recent times, it has also found a new application area in the posteriori error
analysis of finite element solutions.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–1

I In recent times, it has also found a new application area in the posteriori error
analysis of finite element solutions.
I The basic idea behind patch test is that a good element should be able to solve
simple problems exactly either individually, or as component of arbitrary patches.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–2
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–2
1−D bar element
(a) A valid patch of CST elements (b) A valid patch of CST and 4−node (c) An invalid patch of CST,
quadrilateral elements 4−node quad and bar elements
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–2
1−D bar element
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–2

I As originally conceived, a valid patch
comprises a mesh of similar finite
1−D bar element elements with at least one interior
node which is common to several
elements.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–2

I As originally conceived, a valid patch
comprises a mesh of similar finite
1−D bar element elements with at least one interior
node which is common to several
elements.
I In this example, the combination of
bars, triangles and quadrilaterals is not
admissible for the purpose of patch
test as the constant strain states of a
bar element are different from those
for triangle and quadrilateral elements.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–3

Two Versions of Patch Test
Impose displacement field u i = x i Tx = 1 Tx = 1
at all exterior nodes
(a) Displacement
Manish Shrikhande based patch test. All
manish.shrikhande@eq.iitr.ac.in exterior (b)Department
Force based patch test.
of Earthquake Minimally
Engineering constrained
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Finite Elementnodes
Methodare
andcontrained toStructural
Computational have either rigid
Dynamicsbody patch so as to eliminate rigid body modes. The force
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–4

Displacement Patch Test
I Specify suitable displacements to the exterior nodes of the patch and verify that
the patch reproduces exactly the rigid body and constant strain (curvature in case
of beams/plates) states at the interior node in the absence of any external force.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–4

I The displacement component along X direction is prescribed in proportion to the
respective X coordinate at all exterior nodes.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–4

I The system of equations is solved for the unknown displacement at the interior
node which must be consistent with the assumed displacement field.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–4

I The system of equations is solved for the unknown displacement at the interior
node which must be consistent with the assumed displacement field.
I This test is repeated for different displacement fields, namely, rigid body
translations along X and Y directions, rigid body rotation in XY plane,
displacement field proportional to x (constant xx ), displacement field
proportional to y (constant yy ), and displacement field varying linear with
respect to x and y (constant γxy ).
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–5

Force Patch Test
I Apply external forces on exterior nodes consistent with a state of constant
traction to a minimally constrained patch of elements with the force at the
interior nodes set to zero.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–5

Force Patch Test
I The patch equilibrium equation is solved for nodal displacements and
subsequently the stresses are computed.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–5

Force Patch Test
I The constant state of stress should be exactly reproduced at any point within the
patch.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–5

Force Patch Test
patch.
I It is important to check that the reactions at the constrained degrees of freedom
must vanish because the forces at the exterior nodes form a self equilibrating
system of forces.
The Patch Test
The Patch Test–5

Force Patch Test
patch.
I It is important to check that the reactions at the constrained degrees of freedom
must vanish because the forces at the exterior nodes form a self equilibrating
system of forces.
I This force-based test is also referred to as the generalized patch test and can also
be administered to a minimally constrained individual finite element.

Mapped Elements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapped Elements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Elements with Curved Boundaries Evaluation of Integrals in Distorted Domains Element Defects and Remedies

Finite Element Method and Computational Structural Dynamics

Department of Earthquake Engineering

Based on “Shrikhande, M. Finite Element Method and Computational

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Curved Boundaries and Discretisation Error

Example Element Distortion

Example Element Distortion

Example Element Distortion

Two-dimensional case Three-dimensional case

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–1

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–2

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–2

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–2

I Modelling of continuous domains should be

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–2

I Modelling of continuous domains should be

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–2

I Modelling of continuous domains should be

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–2

I The parametric variation of geometry at the (−1, −1)

‘parents’ in which the shape functions satisfy C 0

will be contiguous. Geometric compatibility of

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–3

I For moderate distortions of the domain, there exists a one-to-one correspondence

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–3

I For moderate distortions of the domain, there exists a one-to-one correspondence

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–3

I For moderate distortions of the domain, there exists a one-to-one correspondence

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–4

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–4

Iso-parametric Finite Elements–4

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–1

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–1

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–1

I The geoemtry in Cartesian coordinates is also interpolated in terms of local

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–2

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–2

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–2

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–2

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–2

Local Coordinates and Cartesian Derivatives–3

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–1

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–1

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–1

which is of the standard form of Gauss-Legendre numerical quadrature.

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–2

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–2

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–2

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–2

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–3

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–3

Evaluation of Domain Integrals–3