This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393 (DOI: 10.1002/cnm.413)
**

Analysis of shear locking in Timoshenko beam elements

using the function space approach

Somenath Mukherjee

1, ∗, †

and Gangan Prathap

2, ‡

1

Structures Division, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore 560 017, India

2

Center for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation, Bangalore 560 037, India

SUMMARY

Elements based purely on completeness and continuity requirements perform erroneously in a certain

class of problems. These are called the locking situations, and a variety of phenomena like shear locking,

membrane locking, volumetric locking, etc., have been identiÿed. Locking has been eliminated by many

techniques, e.g. reduced integration, addition of bubble functions, use of assumed strain approaches,

mixed and hybrid approaches, etc. In this paper, we review the ÿeld consistency paradigm using a

function space model, and propose a method to identify ÿeld-inconsistent spaces for projections that

show locking behaviour. The case of the Timoshenko beam serves as an illustrative example. Copyright

? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: ÿeld-consistency; function spaces; projection theorems; locking; Timoshenko beam

1. INTRODUCTION

Locking is a pathological problem encountered in formulating a certain class of elements for

structural analysis, although these elements satisfy completeness and continuity requirements.

The problem occurs as shear locking in Timoshenko beams and Mindlin plates, as parasitic

shear in two-dimensional elasticity elements, and as membrane locking in arch elements [1].

Various explanations have been proposed for locking. Tessler and Hughes [2] have ar-

gued that locking is caused by ill conditioning of the stiness matrix due to the very large

magnitude of the shear stiness terms as compared to those of bending stiness. Carpenter

et al. [3] have shown that locking occurs due to coupling between the shear deformation

and bending deformation, and that it can be eliminated by adopting strain ÿelds such that

these are appropriately decoupled. Using the ÿeld consistency paradigm, Prathap [4, 5] has

shown that elements lock because they inadvertently enforce spurious constraints that arise

from inconsistencies in the strains developed from the assumed displacement functions.

∗

Correspondence to: S. Mukherjee, Structures Division, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore 560 017, India

†

E-mail: somu@css.cmmacs.ernet.in

‡

E-mail: gp@css.cmmacs.ernet.in

Received 27 April 2000

Copyright

?

2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 29 January 2001

386 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

Figure 1. The two-noded Timoshenko beam element.

In this paper, we address the locking phenomena using a simple but mathematically rigorous

function space approach. This uniÿes the arguments forwarded by Carpenter et al. [3] with

the ÿeld consistency paradigm of Prathap [4, 5]. The simple Timoshenko beam element is

used to illustrate these concepts.

The displacement ÿeld for this beam element (Figure 1) is given by

For transverse displacement

w=

2

i=1

N

i

w

i

(1a)

For rotation of planes originally normal to the neutral axis

0 =

2

i=1

N

i

0

i

(1b)

where the linear Lagrangian shape functions are given by N

1

=(1 −¸)}2 and N

2

=(1 +¸)}2.

The non-dimensional co-ordinate ¸ is given by ¸ =2x}L, where x is measured with element

centre as origin, and L is the element length. The element strain vector is given by

( c) =

_

d0}dx

0 −dw}dx

_

=

_

0 −1}L 0 1}L

1}L (1 −¸)}2 −1}L (1 + ¸)}2

_

{o

e

} =[B]{o

e

} (2)

where {o

e

} is the nodal displacement vector, given by {o

e

} =[w

1

, 0

1

, w

2

, 0

2

]

T

. The shear strain

in the element is

0 −dw}dx =: + [¸ (3)

where

: =(0

2

+ 0

1

)}2 −(w

2

−w

1

)}L and [ =(0

2

−0

1

)}2

A thin beam requires that shear strain energy term vanishes, leading to two constraints

: →0, [ →0 (4)

Of these, the ÿrst is physically meaningful in terms of the equivalent Euler beam model,

but the second constraint is a spurious one [4, 5]. The spurious term [ eectively enhances

the element’s bending stiness to EI

∗

=EI + kGAL

2

}12, where EI and kGA are the bending

and shear rigidities, respectively, of the actual beam, leading to locking. Here E is Young’s

modulus, I is the sectional moment of inertia about the neutral axis, G is the shear modulus,

A is the area of section and k is the shear correction factor. It can thus be shown, using the

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 387

ÿeld consistency paradigm [5], that if w

LF

and w

L

are the lock-free and locked values of the

transverse displacement, respectively, then

w

LF

}w

L

=I

∗

}I =1 + kGAL

2

}(12EI ) =1 + e (5)

with e =kGAL

2

}(12EI ) =K}n

2

, where K =kGA!

2

}(12EI ), (! is the total beam length and n

the total number of elements). The parameter e becomes smaller for thicker beams, and ÿner

discretization, which can be prohibitively uneconomical for reasonably accurate results.

A reduced integration scheme uses a one-point rule, instead of the two-point rule necessary

for accurate integration in the shear strain energy, thereby eliminating shear locking by ig-

noring the spurious term [, eectively making the element lock-free. We shall now rederive

this using the projection theorems and function space concepts.

2. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AS PROJECTION

Finite element analysis involves equations of the form [1]

D

_

[B]

T

[D][B] dx{o

e

} =

D

_

[B]

T

[D]{c} dx (6)

where [D] is the symmetric, positive-deÿnite rigidity matrix and {c} is the true (analytical)

strain vector. The best-ÿt ÿnite element strain vector,

{ c} =[B]{o

e

}

is the orthogonal projection [6] of the true (analytical) strain vector {c} onto a function

subspace B.

The inner product of two vectors, {a} and {b}, each of r rows, is given by

a, b =

D

_

{a}

T

[D]{b} dx (7)

where the rigidity matrix [D] is essentially symmetric and positive deÿnite and is of size

r ×r. The norm of a vector {a} is given by

a =

_

a, a (8)

If {q} is the error in the strain vector having r components, {q} ={c} − { c} then the error

norm squared, also interpreted as the energy of the error, is given by

q

2

=q, q =

D

_

{q}

T

[D]{q} dx (9)

From the normal Equation (6) we have the projection theorem

q

2

=c

2

− c

2

(10a)

i.e. The error in the strain energy =strain energy of the error. It is also evident that

c

2

= c, c (10b)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

388 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

The m-dimensional function subspace B is one in which the vectors {b

i

}, that are the columns

of the matrix [B] lie, and is the space on which the true strain vector is orthogonally projected.

[B] =[{b

1

}, {b

2

}, . . . , {b

N

}] (11)

Here m=total number of element degrees of freedom−total number of element rigid body mo-

tion. This B space is a subspace of the (r ×n)-dimensional space P

r

n

(¸) of ordered r-tuples

of polynomials in ¸, denoted here by P

r

n

(¸) upto degree n − 1, bounded within the closed

domain (−1, 1). The space P

r

n

(¸) is represented by

P

r

n

=

_

{¸} : {¸} =

n

i=1

{a

i

}¸

i−1

, −16¸61, {a

i

} ∈R

r

_

(12)

The m-dimensional B subspace (B⊆P

r

n

(¸)) can be spanned by m linearly independent vec-

tors. These can be chosen as orthogonal basis vectors, denoted by {u

i

}, (i.e. u

i

, u

)

=0 for

i =)). The vectors {u

i

} can be determined by the Gram–Schmidt procedure [6] applied to

the column vectors of the matrix [B]. The initial basis vector can be taken as any of column

vectors of [B]

{u

1

} ={b

1

} (13a)

The other (m−1) basis vectors can be obtained from the formula

{u

k+1

} ={b

k+1

} −

k

)=1

u

)

, b

k+1

u

)

, u

)

{u

)

} (13b)

These basis vectors can be arbitrarily normalized.

The ÿnite element strain vector can be obtained as the orthogonal projection of the true

strain vector onto the subspace B,

{ c} =

m

)=1

u

)

, c

u

)

, u

)

{u

)

} (14)

3. LOCKED AND LOCK-FREE SOLUTIONS OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM

3.1. Locked projections

The function space approach will now be used to explain shear locking in the two-noded

Timoshenko beam (Figure 1). The approximate, ÿnite element strain vector for the element

is given in Equation (2). The rigidity matrix for the Timoshenko beam is given by

[D] =

_

EI 0

0 kGA

_

(15)

Employing the Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization process on the column vectors of [B], we get

the normalized orthogonal basis vectors {u

i

} for the subspace B as

{u

1

} =[0, 1]

T

and {u

2

} =[2}L, ¸]

T

(16)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 389

Figure 2. Cantilever beam analysis with single element for two loads: (a) end moment; (b) end transverse

load; (–×–) analytical; (–◦–) locked; (–•–) lock-free; e =kGAL

2

}(12EI ).

The space B is evidently a subspace of the space P

2

2

(linear in ¸). The ÿnite element strain

vector can thus be expressed as

{ c} =

_

0 2}L

1 ¸

__

(0

2

+ 0

1

)}2 −(w

2

−w

1

)}L

(0

2

−0

1

)}2

_

(17)

As an example, the cantilever beam can be analysed with a single-element discretization for

two dierent loads. The ÿnite element strain vector for locked case can be obtained as locked

projection of the true strain vector {c} onto the ÿeld-inconsistent B subspace, using the basis

vectors of Equation (16) in Equation (14). These are presented graphically in Figure 2 and

their algebraic expressions are given in Table I. Interestingly, even for a locked solution, that

shows spurious shear oscillations and bending stiening, the rule

energy of the error =error of the energy

that follows from Equations (10a) and (10b), is satisÿed, showing that a ÿeld-inconsistent

solution is variationally correct. The energy of the error, or the error norm squared values are

presented in Table II.

3.2. Lock-free projections

We can deÿne another function space B

∗

subspace as a subspace of the space P

2

1

which is

actually the space R

2

, and is also the subset of the space P

2

2

. The normalized orthogonal

basis vectors for subspace B

∗

are given by

{u

∗

1

} =[0, 1]

T

and {u

∗

2

} =[2}L, 0]

T

(18)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

390 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

Table I. Analytical strains and their locked and lock-free projections as

ÿnite element strains. e =kGAL

2

}(12EI ).

Cantilever with tip moment M

0

Cantilever with tip load P

(Figure 2(a)) (Figure 2(b))

Analytical

strain vector

{c} =

_

M

0

}EI

0

_

{c} =

_

PL(1 + ¸)}(2EI )

P}kGA

_

Locked

strain vector

{ c } =

_

_

_

(M

0

}EI )}(1 + e)

6e

(1 + e)

M

0

¸

LkGA

_

_

_

{ c } =

_

¸

_

¸

_

(PL}2EI )}(1 + e)

P

kGA

_

1 +

3e¸

1 + e

_

_

¸

_

¸

_

Lock-free

strain vector

{ c

∗

} =

_

M

0

}EI

0

_

{ c

∗

} =

_

PL}(2EI )

P}kGA

_

Table II. Error norm square for strain projections with the linear two-noded Timoshenko

beam element. e =kGAL

2

}(12EI ).

q

2

=(L}2)

_

1

−1

{q}

T

[D]{q} d¸

Case Locked solution Lock-free solution

Cantilever with tip moment, (L}2)

2M

2

0

EI

e}(1 + e) 0

M

0

(Figure 2(a))

Cantilever with tip transverse

load P (Figure 2(b)) (L}2)[(PL)

2

}2EI ](e}(1 + e) + 2}3) (L}2)(PL)

2

}3EI

The vector {u

∗

2

} diers from {u

2

} in that it lacks the ¸ component and it can be normalized

to the form {u

∗

2

} =[1, 0]

T

. Using these new basis vectors in Equation (18), and employing

Equation (14), we have the ÿnite element strain vectors { c

∗

} for the cantilever (Figure 2,

Table I) that are the lock-free projections of the true strain vectors onto the new ÿeld-consistent

space B

∗

. Note that the spurious shear oscillations of the locked solutions are eliminated in

the lock-free solutions. Again, by virtue of the projection theorem, the condition, that follows

from Equation (10), is satisÿed, also for the lock-free solution. The error norm squared for

the lock-free solution is always less than that of the locked solution (Table II).

4. LOCK-FREE ANISOPARAMETRIC FORMULATION

A three-noded beam element (Figure 3) can be formulated in an anisoparametric fashion

such that linear Lagrangian interpolation functions are used for rotations 0 but quadratic

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 391

Figure 3. The anisoparametric Timoshenko beam element.

interpolation functions are used for the transverse displacement

w=

3

i=1

N

i

w

i

(19)

where the quadratic Lagrangian shape functions are given as

N

1

= −¸(1 −¸)}2,

N

2

=¸(1 + ¸)}2,

N

3

=(1 −¸

2

)

The element strain vector can be expressed as

{ c} =

_

d0}dx

0 −dw}dx

_

=

_

0 −1}L 0 1}L 0

−(2¸ −1)}L (1 −¸)}2 −(2¸ + 1)}L (1 + ¸)}2 4¸}L

_

{o

e

} (20)

where {o

e

} =[w

1

, 0

1

, w

2

, 0

2

, w

3

]

T

. Using the Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization procedure, the

normalized orthogonal basis vectors for the B-subspace can be derived as

{u

1

} =[0, ¸]

T

, {u

2

} =[1, 0]

T

and {u

3

} =[0, 1]

T

(21)

The problem of the cantilever beam with a tip moment M

0

can be solved by projecting

the true strain vector onto the B-subspace. It is observed that the element does not lock, and

does not show any spurious shear oscillations. Using Equation (14), the orthogonal projection

of the true strain vector onto the B-subspace is

{ c} =

_

M

0

}EI

0

_

(22)

which is the same as the true strain vector {c} for this problem.

5. PREDICTION AND ELIMINATION OF LOCKING

Standard orthogonal basis vectors, called the Legendre orthogonals span the (r ×n)-

dimensional space P

r

n

for a given degree (n −1) of the polynomial in ¸.

For the space P

2

2

(linear in ¸), the Legendre orthogonals are

{L

1

} =[0, 1]

T

, {L

2

} =[1, 0]

T

, {L

3

} =[0, ¸]

T

, {L

4

} =[¸, 0]

T

(23)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

392 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

For the space P

2

3

(quadratic in ¸), the Legendre orthogonals are

{L

1

} =[0, 1]

T

, {L

2

} =[1, 0]

T

, {L

3

} =[0, ¸]

T

, {L

4

} =[¸, 0]

T

,

{L

5

} =[0, (3¸

2

−1)]

T

, {L

6

} =[(3¸

2

−1), 0]

T

(24)

It is now evident that the subspace B originating from the strain–displacement operators is

ÿeld-consistent, and will yield lock-free strain projections, provided it can be spanned by the

corresponding Legendre orthogonals for the parent space P

r

n

. This function space interpretation

of locking agrees closely with the explanation of Carpenter et al. [3]. If shear and bending

strains are completely decoupled, they contribute independently to shear and bending strain

energies, respectively, without the incorporation of the spurious terms as deÿned in the ÿeld

consistency paradigm of Prathap [4, 5] and therefore no locking is encountered.

The anisoparametric element (Figure 3) is lock-free, because the subspace B can be spanned

by the Legendre orthogonals as the basis vectors, as given by Equation (21).

The isoparametric two-noded element locks since the set of the orthogonal basis vectors

for B does not form a subset of the set of the Legendre orthogonals for the parent space

P

2

2

. This space B is therefore ÿeld-inconsistent, and a strain projection onto it shows locking.

The strain vector can also be expressed as

{ c} =

_

0 1 0

1 0 ¸

_

_

_

_

:

¸

[

_

_

_ (25)

where : =(0

2

+ 0

1

)}2 −(w

2

−w

1

)}L, ¸ =(0

2

−0

1

)}L and [ =(0

2

−0

1

)}2.

The Legendre orthogonals now form the basis vectors of this new space B

#

of dimension 3

which is higher than that of the original space B of dimension 2. However, since ¸ =2[}L,

i.e. the parameters ¸ and [ are not linearly independent, the strain vector { c} still lies on the

ÿeld-inconsistent subspace B, (B⊂B

#

). To eliminate this problem two alternative methods

are suggested here.

Method I. Projection on the ÿeld consistent B

∗

subspace (B

∗

⊂B

#

). This can be achieved

either by constraining the parameter [ ([ =0) or ignoring the Legendre orthogonal {L

3

} =

[0, ¸]

T

. This technique is eectively implemented through reduced integration.

Method II. Projection on the ÿeld consistent B

#

subspace. We may make the parame-

ters :, [ and ¸ completely independent of each other by making the provision that we use

independent rotations for bending and shear strains, so that they can now be expressed as

: =(0

∗

2

+ 0

∗

1

)}2 −(w

2

−w

1

)}L, ¸ =(0

2

−0

1

)}L and [ =(0

∗

2

−0

∗

1

)}2 (26)

Here the parameters 0

∗

and 0 represent, respectively, independent rotations, each expressed

by linear Lagrangian shape functions, so that they independently contribute to the shear strain

(0

∗

−dw}dx) and the bending strain (d0}dx). This element is lock-free.

Systems, like the axially loaded uniform bar element and the classical Euler beam element,

in which the strain ÿelds involve only one component, do not lock, since the strains can be

always expressed as a linear combination of the Legendre polynomials.

For uniform elements (constant section properties) and rectilinear geometry (constant

Jacobian over the element), the standard basis vectors are the Legendre orthogonals, which

are mutually orthogonal with any constant as the kernel function included in the integrand

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 393

deÿning the inner product. For non-uniform elements with complicated geometry, the char-

acteristic standard basis vectors associated with the corresponding polynomial function space

need not be equal to the Legendre orthogonals, for the associated kernel function is not nec-

essarily constant over the element. In practice, determination of the basis vectors for such

cases can be tedious. However, the principle behind locking discussed here remains the same.

Locking occurs if the subspace originating from the strain–displacement relationship cannot

be spanned by the corresponding standard basis vectors.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The projection theorems have been invoked to derive both locked and lock-free solutions of

the Timoshenko beam element. A method based on the function space approach is employed

to identify ÿeld-consistent and ÿeld-inconsistent spaces for projections. It can be employed

to predict the possibility of locking for given formulations. The principle behind locking has

been revealed. Here we have succeeded in deriving a priori error estimates for shear locking

using a function space approach.

REFERENCES

1. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1991.

2. Tessler A, Hughes TJR. An improved treatment of transverse shear in the Mindlin type four node quadrilateral

element. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1983; 39:311–335.

3. Carpenter N, Belytschko T, Stolarski H. Locking and shear scaling factors in C

0

bending elements. Computers

and Structures 1986; 22:39–52.

4. Prathap G. Field-consistency and violent stress oscillations in the ÿnite element method. International Journal

for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1987; 24:2017–2033.

5. Prathap G. Reduced integration and the shear exible beam element. International Journal for Numerical

Methods in Engineering 1982; 18:195–210.

6. Edwards LH, Penny DE. Elementary Linear Algebra. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Clis, NJ, 1988.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

A is the area of section and k is the shear correction factor. MUKHERJEE AND G. 5]. I is the sectional moment of inertia about the neutral axis. The non-dimensional co-ordinate is given by = 2x=L. the ÿrst is physically meaningful in terms of the equivalent Euler beam model. Â1 . [3] with the ÿeld consistency paradigm of Prathap [4. where x is measured with element centre as origin. 5]. It can thus be shown. Commun. The displacement ÿeld for this beam element (Figure 1) is given by For transverse displacement w= 2 i=1 Ni wi (1a) For rotation of planes originally normal to the neutral axis Â= 2 i=1 Ni Âi (1b) where the linear Lagrangian shape functions are given by N1 = (1 − )=2 and N2 = (1 + )=2. but the second constraint is a spurious one [4. of the actual beam. Â2 ]T . In this paper. ÿ→0 (4) Of these. where EI and kGA are the bending and shear rigidities. The element strain vector is given by ( )= d Â= d x Â − d w= d x = 0 1=L −1=L 0 1=L (1 + )=2 (1 − )=2 −1=L { e } = [B]{ e } (2) where { e } is the nodal displacement vector. using the Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. Engng 2001. Here E is Young’s modulus. The spurious term ÿ e ectively enhances the element’s bending sti ness to EI ∗ = EI + kGAL2 =12. The two-noded Timoshenko beam element. Numer. w2 . given by { e } = [w1 . respectively. 17:385–393 . Ltd. leading to two constraints → 0. Meth. The shear strain in the element is Â − d w= d x = + ÿ where = (Â2 + Â1 )=2 − (w2 − w1 )=L and ÿ = (Â2 − Â1 )=2 (3) A thin beam requires that shear strain energy term vanishes. This uniÿes the arguments forwarded by Carpenter et al. G is the shear modulus. and L is the element length. The simple Timoshenko beam element is used to illustrate these concepts. PRATHAP Figure 1. leading to locking.386 S. we address the locking phenomena using a simple but mathematically rigorous function space approach.

A reduced integration scheme uses a one-point rule. instead of the two-point rule necessary for accurate integration in the shear strain energy. Numer. q = D {q}T [D]{q} d x (9) From the normal Equation (6) we have the projection theorem q 2 = 2 2 − 2 (10a) i. where K = kGAl2 =(12EI ). Engng 2001. (10b) Commun. e ectively making the element lock-free. The inner product of two vectors. is given by q 2 = q. { } = [B]{ e } is the orthogonal projection [6] of the true (analytical) strain vector { } onto a function subspace B. Meth. then wLF =wL = I ∗ =I = 1 + kGAL2 =(12EI ) = 1 + e (5) with e = kGAL2 =(12EI ) = K=n2 . We shall now rederive this using the projection theorems and function space concepts. also interpreted as the energy of the error. positive-deÿnite rigidity matrix and { } is the true (analytical) strain vector. each of r rows. Ltd. thereby eliminating shear locking by ignoring the spurious term ÿ. The norm of a vector {a} is given by a = a. 17:385–393 Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. respectively. The parameter e becomes smaller for thicker beams. It is also evident that = . b = D {a}T [D]{b} d x (7) where the rigidity matrix [D] is essentially symmetric and positive deÿnite and is of size r × r. {q} = { } − { } then the error norm squared. and ÿner discretization. The best-ÿt ÿnite element strain vector.e. . a (8) If {q} is the error in the strain vector having r components. {a} and {b}. The error in the strain energy = strain energy of the error. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AS PROJECTION Finite element analysis involves equations of the form [1] D [B]T [D][B] d x{ e } = D [B]T [D]{ } d x (6) where [D] is the symmetric.FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 387 ÿeld consistency paradigm [5]. (l is the total beam length and n the total number of elements). which can be prohibitively uneconomical for reasonably accurate results. 2. is given by a. that if wLF and wL are the lock-free and locked values of the transverse displacement.

(i. The vectors the column vectors vectors of [B] r B subspace (B ⊆ Pn ( )) can be spanned by m linearly independent vecchosen as orthogonal basis vectors. bk+1 {uj } uj . bounded within the closed r domain (−1.388 S. The ÿnite element strain vector can be obtained as the orthogonal projection of the true strain vector onto the subspace B. MUKHERJEE AND G. uj (13b) These basis vectors can be arbitrarily normalized. ]T (16) Commun. u j (14) 3. 1]T Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. The space Pn ( ) is represented by r Pn = {p} : {p} = n i=1 {ai } i−1 . Numer. This B space is a subspace of the (r × n)-dimensional space Pn ( ) of ordered r-tuples r of polynomials in . {bN }] (11) Here m = total number of element degrees of freedom−total number of element rigid body mor tion. Engng 2001. {b2 }. Locked projections The function space approach will now be used to explain shear locking in the two-noded Timoshenko beam (Figure 1). {uj } uj .1. denoted here by Pn ( ) upto degree n − 1. 1). [B] = [{b1 }. −16 61. These can be i = j). { }= m j=1 uj . we get the normalized orthogonal basis vectors {ui } for the subspace B as {u1 } = [0. : : : . LOCKED AND LOCK-FREE SOLUTIONS OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 3. 17:385–393 . ui . that are the columns of the matrix [B] lie. The approximate. {ai } ∈ Rr (12) The m-dimensional tors. The initial basis vector can be taken as any of column {u1 } = {b1 } (13a) The other (m − 1) basis vectors can be obtained from the formula {uk+1 } = {bk+1 } − k j=1 uj . Meth. denoted by {ui }. ÿnite element strain vector for the element is given in Equation (2).e. and is the space on which the true strain vector is orthogonally projected. The rigidity matrix for the Timoshenko beam is given by [D] = EI 0 0 kGA (15) Employing the Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization process on the column vectors of [B]. and {u2 } = [2=L. PRATHAP The m-dimensional function subspace B is one in which the vectors {bi }. uj = 0 for {ui } can be determined by the Gram–Schmidt procedure [6] applied to of the matrix [B]. Ltd.

(b) end transverse load. (–×–) analytical. 3.2. e = kGAL2 =(12EI ). 0]T (18) Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. The space B is evidently a subspace of the space P2 (linear in ). The ÿnite element strain vector for locked case can be obtained as locked projection of the true strain vector { } onto the ÿeld-inconsistent B subspace. is satisÿed. even for a locked solution. These are presented graphically in Figure 2 and their algebraic expressions are given in Table I. the cantilever beam can be analysed with a single-element discretization for two di erent loads. using the basis vectors of Equation (16) in Equation (14). Ltd. Cantilever beam analysis with single element for two loads: (a) end moment. 1]T and ∗ {u2 } = [2=L. (–◦–) locked. (–•–) lock-free. showing that a ÿeld-inconsistent solution is variationally correct. Commun. The energy of the error. Interestingly. and is also the subset of the space P2 . the rule energy of the error = error of the energy that follows from Equations (10a) and (10b). or the error norm squared values are presented in Table II.FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 389 Figure 2. The ÿnite element strain 2 vector can thus be expressed as { }= 0 1 2=L (Â2 + Â1 )=2 − (w2 − w1 )=L (Â2 − Â1 )=2 (17) As an example. Numer. The normalized orthogonal 2 basis vectors for subspace B∗ are given by ∗ {u1 } = [0. that shows spurious shear oscillations and bending sti ening. Meth. Lock-free projections We can deÿne another function space B∗ subspace as a subspace of the space P2 which is 1 actually the space R2 . 17:385–393 . Engng 2001.

also for the lock-free solution. Table I) that are the lock-free projections of the true strain vectors onto the new ÿeld-consistent space B∗ . The error norm squared for the lock-free solution is always less than that of the locked solution (Table II). Engng 2001. Meth. q Case Cantilever with tip moment. e = kGAL2 =(12EI ). the condition. LOCK-FREE ANISOPARAMETRIC FORMULATION A three-noded beam element (Figure 3) can be formulated in an anisoparametric fashion such that linear Lagrangian interpolation functions are used for rotations Â but quadratic Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. 0]T . Note that the spurious shear oscillations of the locked solutions are eliminated in the lock-free solutions. M0 (Figure 2(a)) Cantilever with tip transverse load P (Figure 2(b)) 2 = (L=2) 1 −1 {q}T [D]{q} d Lock-free solution 0 Locked solution (L=2) 2 2M0 e=(1 + e) EI (L=2)[(PL)2 =2EI ](e=(1 + e) + 2=3) (L=2)(PL)2 =3EI ∗ The vector {u2 } di ers from {u2 } in that it lacks the component and it can be normalized ∗ to the form {u2 } = [1. PRATHAP Table I. by virtue of the projection theorem. 17:385–393 . Error norm square for strain projections with the linear two-noded Timoshenko beam element. Commun. Again. 4. Cantilever with tip moment M0 (Figure 2(a)) Analytical strain vector Locked strain vector Lock-free strain vector { }= M0 =EI 0 Cantilever with tip load P (Figure 2(b)) { }= PL(1 + )=(2EI ) P=kGA (M0 =EI )=(1 + e) { }= M0 6e (1 + e) LkGA { ∗} = M0 =EI 0 (PL=2EI )=(1 + e) { }= P 1 + 3e kGA 1+e { ∗} = PL=(2EI ) P=kGA Table II. MUKHERJEE AND G. and employing Equation (14). Using these new basis vectors in Equation (18). Numer.390 S. e = kGAL2 =(12EI ). is satisÿed. Ltd. Analytical strains and their locked and lock-free projections as ÿnite element strains. we have the ÿnite element strain vectors { ∗ } for the cantilever (Figure 2. that follows from Equation (10).

Using Equation (14). called the Legendre orthogonals span the (r × n)dimensional space Pnr for a given degree (n − 1) of the polynomial in . Using the Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization procedure. 1]T (21) The problem of the cantilever beam with a tip moment M0 can be solved by projecting the true strain vector onto the B-subspace. PREDICTION AND ELIMINATION OF LOCKING Standard orthogonal basis vectors. The anisoparametric Timoshenko beam element. Â2 . 17:385–393 . {L4 } = [ . Ltd. {L3 } = [0. the orthogonal projection of the true strain vector onto the B-subspace is { }= M0 =EI 0 (22) which is the same as the true strain vector { } for this problem. w2 . N3 = (1 − 2 ) The element strain vector can be expressed as { }= Â − d w= d x 0 −(2 − 1)=L −1=L = 0 1=L (1 + )=2 0 4 =L (1 − )=2 −(2 + 1)=L { e} (20) where { e } = [w1 . Â1 . 0]T . For the space P22 (linear in ). 1 {L2 } = [1. 5. the Legendre orthogonals are {L } = [0. {u2 } = [1. 0]T and {u3 } = [0. ]T . d Â= d x N2 = (1 + )=2. Meth. 1]T . w3 ]T . Engng 2001.FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 391 Figure 3. Numer. Commun. interpolation functions are used for the transverse displacement w= 3 i=1 Ni wi (19) where the quadratic Lagrangian shape functions are given as N1 = − (1 − )=2. and does not show any spurious shear oscillations. 0]T (23) Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. ]T . the normalized orthogonal basis vectors for the B-subspace can be derived as {u1 } = [0. It is observed that the element does not lock.

like the axially loaded uniform bar element and the classical Euler beam element. as given by Equation (21). The anisoparametric element (Figure 3) is lock-free. 1 {L5 } = [0. {L3 } = [0. {L6 } = [(3 − 1). 0]T . Systems. i. the parameters and ÿ are not linearly independent. 17:385–393 . − 1)]T . This can be achieved either by constraining the parameter ÿ (ÿ = 0) or ignoring the Legendre orthogonal {L3 } = [0. 2 {L4 } = [ . This technique is e ectively implemented through reduced integration. so that they independently contribute to the shear strain (Â∗ − d w= d x) and the bending strain (d Â= d x). (3 2 {L2 } = [1. PRATHAP 2 For the space P3 (quadratic in ). 0]T . Numer. Method I. Projection on the ÿeld consistent B# subspace. the Legendre orthogonals are {L } = [0. and will yield lock-free strain projections. MUKHERJEE AND G. Ltd.392 S. ÿ and completely independent of each other by making the provision that we use independent rotations for bending and shear strains. since = 2ÿ=L. To eliminate this problem two alternative methods are suggested here. Projection on the ÿeld consistent B∗ subspace (B∗ ⊂ B# ). 0]T (24) It is now evident that the subspace B originating from the strain–displacement operators is ÿeld-consistent. the strain vector { } still lies on the ÿeld-inconsistent subspace B. [3]. which are mutually orthogonal with any constant as the kernel function included in the integrand Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. The isoparametric two-noded element locks since the set of the orthogonal basis vectors for B does not form a subset of the set of the Legendre orthogonals for the parent space 2 P2 . in which the strain ÿelds involve only one component. they contribute independently to shear and bending strain energies. = (Â2 − Â1 )=L and ÿ = (Â2 − Â1 )=2. respectively. The strain vector can also be expressed as 0 1 0 { }= (25) 1 0 ÿ where = (Â2 + Â1 )=2 − (w2 − w1 )=L. each expressed by linear Lagrangian shape functions. independent rotations. and a strain projection onto it shows locking. 1]T . so that they can now be expressed as ∗ ∗ = (Â2 + Â1 )=2 − (w2 − w1 )=L. ∗ = (Â2 − Â1 )=L and ∗ ∗ ÿ = (Â2 − Â1 )=2 (26) Here the parameters Â and Â represent. the standard basis vectors are the Legendre orthogonals.e. 5] and therefore no locking is encountered. However. (B ⊂ B# ). Engng 2001. This element is lock-free. respectively. since the strains can be always expressed as a linear combination of the Legendre polynomials. Method II. Meth. ]T . provided it can be spanned by the corresponding Legendre orthogonals for the parent space Pnr . If shear and bending strains are completely decoupled. ]T . The Legendre orthogonals now form the basis vectors of this new space B# of dimension 3 which is higher than that of the original space B of dimension 2. do not lock. without the incorporation of the spurious terms as deÿned in the ÿeld consistency paradigm of Prathap [4. because the subspace B can be spanned by the Legendre orthogonals as the basis vectors. This space B is therefore ÿeld-inconsistent. Commun. We may make the parameters . This function space interpretation of locking agrees closely with the explanation of Carpenter et al. For uniform elements (constant section properties) and rectilinear geometry (constant Jacobian over the element).

22:39–52. 18:195–210. Zienkiewicz OC. In practice.FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 393 deÿning the inner product. Prathap G. Here we have succeeded in deriving a priori error estimates for shear locking using a function space approach. An improved treatment of transverse shear in the Mindlin type four node quadrilateral element. Carpenter N. Edwards LH. Numer. 6. The Finite Element Method. 3. NJ. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1987. However. CONCLUSIONS The projection theorems have been invoked to derive both locked and lock-free solutions of the Timoshenko beam element. REFERENCES 1. Field-consistency and violent stress oscillations in the ÿnite element method. Taylor RL. Prathap G. A method based on the function space approach is employed to identify ÿeld-consistent and ÿeld-inconsistent spaces for projections. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1983. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1982. Stolarski H. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. For non-uniform elements with complicated geometry. determination of the basis vectors for such cases can be tedious. 39:311–335. It can be employed to predict the possibility of locking for given formulations. McGraw-Hill: New York. Locking occurs if the subspace originating from the strain–displacement relationship cannot be spanned by the corresponding standard basis vectors. Meth. 2. 5. Computers and Structures 1986. 24:2017–2033. the principle behind locking discussed here remains the same. Engng 2001. Ltd. Reduced integration and the shear exible beam element. The principle behind locking has been revealed. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cli s. 6. the characteristic standard basis vectors associated with the corresponding polynomial function space need not be equal to the Legendre orthogonals. for the associated kernel function is not necessarily constant over the element. Penny DE. Commun. 1988. 17:385–393 . 1991. Belytschko T. Tessler A. Locking and shear scaling factors in C 0 bending elements. Elementary Linear Algebra. 4. Hughes TJR.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Timoshenko Beam Shape Function Matrix
- 3D Timoshenko Beam
- 2010 SS Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory Pitfalls of a deterministic approach
- Hiptmair R., Schwab C. Numerical Treatment of PDEs. Finite Element Method (Web Draft, 2004)(223s)_MNf
- IJAIEM-2013-04-10-019
- Chapter8_8.1_8.3_
- Kaczynski Mischaikow Mrozek_Algebraic Topology - A Computational Approach
- Complexity
- Vector Spaces
- DSm Vector Spaces of Refined Labels, by W.B.Vasantha Kandasamy, F.Smarandache
- solution3.pdf
- Math 2107 lecture notes 4.1
- On the Existence of Noetherian Moduli
- Multi-Dimensional Vector Product
- Speaker Adaptation
- 2.I. DefinitionOfVectorSpace
- Interseccion
- hmw1
- Algebraic Number
- hmw4
- Esercitazioni.pdf
- LinAlg_VectorSpaces
- Marle
- Quantum Fractals on N-spheres
- Canonical Group Quantization, Foundations and Applications
- Advanced Linear Algebra (Yisong Yong).pdf
- ( eBook - PDF - EnG ) Applications of Linear Algebra ( Ma Thematic )
- Pappas Et Al - Hierarchically Consistent Control Systems - 2000
- bavo.pdf
- Mathematics - II.pdf
- Analysis of Shear Locking in Timoshenko Beam Elements

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd