238 TSOPARAMETRIC ELEMENTS Superparametic Subparamettic © Point whore ‘geomety is defined -) Point where © tunction is detined Figure 6.12-1. Examples (of superparametric and ssubparametric plane ® © elements. ‘The foregoing argument says nothing about accuracy in a coarse mesh, rate of conver- ‘gence with mesh refinement, or the extent to Which element distortion reduces the efficacy of higher-order terms in the approximating field. It shows only that the approximating. field of an isoparametric element contains a complete linear polynomial, which is neces- sary for convergence toward exact results as a mesh is refined. Iti also necessary that ele- ‘ments are either compatible or become compatible as a mesh is refined. All these requirements are checked by the patch test discussed in Section 6.13. Superparametric and Subparametric Elements, These elements are defined in Section 6.1. Examples appear in Fig. 6.12-1. The foregoing argument fails for a superparametic, clement, For the element in Fig. 6.12-1a, each summation in Bq, 6.12-3 spans four terms, ‘while each summation in Eq. 6.12-4 spans eight terms. Reduction to Eq. 6.12-1 is not ‘obtained. In stress analysis this means that a superparametric element cannot represent a state of constant strain. Moreover, because displacement gradients also define rotation, a ‘superparametric element will display strain when asked to undergo rigid body rotation. An. inability to display rigid-body motion may be disastrous. For the subparametric element in Fig. 6.12-1b, each summation in Bq. 6.12-3 spans eight terms, while each summation in Eq. 6.12-4 spans four terms, At first glance it appears that reduction to Eq. 6.12-1 is not obtained. However, we do indeed obtain Eq, 6.12. straight sides and side nodes at midsides, four-node and eight-node interpolations define the same geometry, as may be checked by use of Eqs. 64-1 with x5 = ‘¥s = 404 + 92), and so-on. With geometry restricted in this way, the eight-rode element ‘becomes the subparametric element of Fig. 6.12-Ib. Subparametric mapping allows exact, representation of some states that would only be approximated with isoparametric mapping. ‘Thus, with a ninth node added, at € = 7 = 00 that geometric mapping is unchanged, the clement in Fig. 6.4-1a can exactly represent linearly-varying states of strain; the element in Fig. 6.4-1b cannot. 7 6.13 PATCH TEST Imagine that a problem is solved repeatedly, each time using a finer FE mesh. Will the sequence of solutions converge toward exact displacements, strains, and stresses? The answer is yes provided that the elements used pass patch fests, which ask if an assembly of elements can display a constant state of strain. ‘The patch test was originated by Irons and has since been analyzed, discussed, and rein- terpreted at length [3.3,6.6]. Here we describe a “numerical experiment” form of the patch test. It is easily applied using software into which the element has been coded. Because613 Patch Test 239 software typically reports stresses rather than strains, we can examine cSmputed stresses, which are directly proportional to their associated strains if the matetial is isotropic, Pois- son's ratio is zero, and stresses are computed as (6) = [E]{e). Although the patch test is performed using specific (but arbitrary) element geometries, passing the testis sufficient to guarantee that, when the element is used in other shapes and in other problems, com- puted results will converge toward exact results with mesh refinement (provided that the clement is stable; see subsequent discussion). Procedure. To perform a patch test, one builds a simple FE model, that is, a “patch” of clements, such thet at Ieast one node is internal to the patch (rather than on its boundary). ‘The patch is provided with just enough support to prevent rigid-body motion. Element shapes should be irregular because some element types pass the test if they are rectangular but fail otherwise. The boundary of the patch can be a rectangle, with uniformly spaced nodes if desired. To one or more boundaries of the patch, we apply work-equivalent nodal loads (Section 3.11) consistent with a state of constant stress. Incompatible modes, if present, are ignored in determining these loads. A node intemal to an element, if prescnt, is neither loaded nor restrained. An example of a loaded patch of four-node plane elements appears in Fig. 6.13-1a. The roller support on the left edge permits Poisson-effect strain 6 Iv is not zero, it would be incorrect to prohibit y-direction motion at both of the sup- ports shown, The choice of uniform nodal spacing along left and right edges makes it easy to determine the nodal loads F = !(o,/1t) shown, which are consistent with uniform uniaxial stress 0, in a plane body of uniform thickness t. One computes results for the patch model as if it were any other FE model. Exact results are the value of 0, used to determine loads F and zero for all other stresses. If computed results are correct at all points, say at all comers of each element, the patch testis passed. By “correct” we mean exact to the limit of computer accuracy. ‘One can also testa plane patch for proper calculation of constant o, and constant 7yy- A paich of solid elements should be able to properly display each of the six constant stresses. Elements for plate bending analysis should be able to display constant bending moments ‘M,and M, and constant twisting moment My. ‘One might also examine computed nodal displacements. If these are correct but stresses ae rot, one suspects that the stress calculation algorithm is in error. bee te § fort Oo) » Figure 6.13-1. (a) A patch test for in plane four-node elements. (b) Repeated subdivision ofa trapezoid produces parallelograms.240 TSOPARAMETRIC ELEMENTS Stability. It is possible for an element to pass a patch test even though it is unstable because it contains a spurious mode. Typically, the cause of element instability is use of too few Gauss points for integration of [k]. Ifa patch of elements contains an instability, software should complain that a zero pivot was encountered in attempting to solve the equation system [K}(D} = {R}. One can also detect instability by perturbing the loads used in a patch test. Instability is present if a small change in the magnitude of a load produces a large change in computed nodal displacements. As another altemative, eigenvalues of [K] for the patch can be extracted. All should be positive if the patch is just-adequately supported against rigid-body motion. A zero eigenvalue then indicates the presence of a spurious mode (see Sections 6.8 and 8.10). “Weak” Patch Test. Conceivably, a sequence of mesh refinements will produce conver: gence toward exact results even when the elements used fail a patch test. Ths is possible if elements are formulated in a such way that they fail patch tests when they are of general shape, but pass if they are parallelograms or parallelepipeds. Correct convergence is possi- ble because repeated subdivision of arbitrary shapes eventually creates parallelogrems and parallelepipeds (Fig. 6.13-1b). An clement that passes a patch test when ithas a shape that results from repeated mesh subdivision, for which the Jacobian J becomes essentially con- stant over the element, is said to have passed a “weak” patch test. Clearly there are practi- cal difficulties in conducting a weak patch test [6.23]. Remarks. As described above, the patch test examines only states of constant stress or strain. A test for correct representation of a more complicated state such as linear variation of stress or strain is called a “higher-order” patch test. An FE model of a prismatic beam. loaded in pure bending constitutes a higher-order patch test. ‘A stable element that passes the patch testis able to display (a) rigid-body motion with- cout strain, (b) states of constant strain, and (c) compatibility with adjacent elements when a state of constant strain prevails in adjacent elements. Meeting these requirements is suf- ficient to guarantee that a mesh of these elements will converge to exact results in prob- Jems other than a patch test as the mesh is refined ad infinitum (6.6), Passing constant-strain patch tests shows that an element is valid in the sense that there {is proper convergence with mesh refinement. The test says nothing about how well an ele~ ‘ment works in other applications. An element that passes may display poor accuracy in a coarse mesh or display slow convergence with mesh refinement. For the developer of new elements, patch tests are essential. They have shown that sus- pect formulations such as some incompatible or underintegrated elements are in fact valid, ‘The student of FEA and the practitioner learning to use new software may also find patch tests useful because they are simple, input data is easy to prepare, and exact results are known. 6.14 A 2D APPLICATION A square plate of uniform thickness contains a central circular hole, Geometry and elastic properties are depicted in Fig. 6.14-La. Uniform pressure p acts on the boundary of the hole, and plane stress conditions prevail. Magnitudes and locations of significant principal stresses are to be determined.