Page 1

Chapter 3

Variational Formulation &

the Galerkin Method
 Today’s Lecture
Contents:
• Introduction
• Differential formulation
• Principle of Virtual
Work
• Variational formulations
• Approximative methods
• The Galerkin Approach

Method of Finite Elements I

 Page 3

The differential form of physical processes

Physical processes are governed by laws (equations) most probably expressed
in a differential form:

• The axially loaded bar equation:

• The isotropic slab

equation:

• The Laplace equation in

two dimensions:
(e.g. the heat conduction
problem)
 Page 4

The differential form of physical

processes
Focus: The axially loaded bar example.
Strength of Materials Approach
Consider a bar loaded with constant end load
R.
R
Equilibrium equation

f (x)  R    x A
x
RConstitutive equation (Hooke’s Law)

 (x)  E   AE
 x R
R
f(x)
Kinematics equation
L-­‐x
 (x)
 x x
Given: Length L, Section Area A, Young's
ʹ modulus E
Find: stresses and deformations. 

Assumptions:
Rx
The cross-­section
‐‑ of the bar does not change after loading.  x  AE
The material is linear elastic, isotropic, and homogeneous. The
load is centric.
End-­effects
‐‑ are not of interest to us.
 The differential form of physical
processes
Focus: The axially loaded bar example. The Differential
Approach
Consider and infinitesimal element of the bar: Equilibrium equation  d
A  A(   )  A l!im  0  A dx 0
Δx0 x
Constitutive equation (Hooke’s Law)
  E
Kinematics equation
du
 
dx
d
AE 2  0 Strong Form
u
Boundary
dx2 Conditions
Given: Length L, Section Area A, Young'ʹs modulus E
Find: stresses and deformations. (BC) 0
u(0) Essential BC
 L  0 
Assumptions:
The cross-­‐‑section of the bar does not change after
loading. The material is linear elastic, isotropic, and du R Natural BC
AE
homogeneous. The load is centric.
dx x L
End-­‐‑effects are not of interest to us.
 Page 6

The differential form of physical

processes
Focus: The axially loaded bar example. The Differential
Approach
d
AE 2  0 Strong Form
R
u
 20
u(0)dx Essential BC
x du
AE R Natural BC

dx x L

Definition
The strong form of a physical process is the well posed set of
the underlying differential equation with the accompanying
boundary conditions
 Page 7

The differential form of physical processes

Focus: The axially loaded bar example. The Differential Approach

d
AE 2  0 Strong Form
R
u
 20
u(0)dx Essential BC
x du
AE R Natural BC

dx x L

 This is a homogeneous 2nd order ODE with known solution:

Analytical Solution:

du(x)
u(x)  uh  C1 x  C2 &  (x)  dx  C1 
const!
 Page 8

The differential form of physical processes

Focus: The axially loaded bar example. The Differential Approach

d
AE 2  0 Strong Form
R
u
 20
u(0)dx Essential BC
x du
AE R Natural BC

Analytical Solution: dx x L

To fully define the solution (i.e., to evaluate the values of parameters

C1,C2 ) we have to use the given boundary conditions (BC):
C2  0
u(x)  u  C x  C u(0)0
R
h 1 2 du R
 EA C1 
dx x L EA
 Same as in the mechanical approach!
 ux  AE
Rx
 Page 9

The Strong form – 2D case

A generic expression of the two-­dimensional
‐‑ strong form is:

and a generic expression of the accompanying set of boundary conditions:

: Essential or Dirichlet BCs

: Natural or von Neumann BCs

Disadvantages
The analytical solution in such equations is
i. In many cases difficult to be evaluated
ii. In most cases CANNOT be evaluated at all. Why?
• Complex geometries
• Complex loading and boundary conditions
 Page 10

Deriving the Strong form – 3D

case

su : supported area with prescribed displacements

U s u
s : surface with prescribed forces f
sf

f B : body forces (per unit volume)

U : displacement vector
 : strain tensor (vector)
 : stress tensor (vector)
 Page 11

Deriving the Strong form – 3D case

Deriving the Strong form – 3D case
Page 12
 Page 13

Deriving the Strong form – 3D case

Method of Finite Elements I

 Deriving the Strong form – 3D case
Page 14

τ
Cε
C is elasticity matrix and depends on material properties E and

(modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio)

εC τ 1
 Page 15

Differential Formulation

Summary -­‐‑General Form 3D case:

• Boundary problem of the linear theory of elasticity:
differential equations and boundary conditions
• 15 unknowns: 6 stress components, 6 strain components and
3 displacement components
• 3 equilibrium equations, 6 relationships between displacements
and strains, material law (6 equations)
• Together with boundary conditions, the state of stress
and deformation is completely defined

Method of Finite Elements I

 Page 16

Principle of Virtual Work

• The principle of virtual displacements: the virtual work of a system

of equilibrium forces vanishes on compatible virtual displacements;
the virtual displacements are taken in the form of variations of the
real displacements
• Equilibrium is a consequence of vanishing of a virtual work

Internal Virtual Work External Virtual Work

  f dV   U 
SfT S
ε T
τdV  U T B
f f dS U iT
R i
C
V V Sf  i

Stresses in equilibrium with applied loads

Virtual strains corresponding to virtual

displacements
 Page 17

Principle of Complementary Virtual Work

• The principle of virtual forces: virtual work of

equilibrium variations of the stresses and the forces
on the strains and displacements vanishes; the stress
field considered is a statically admissible field of
variation
• Equilibrium is assumed to hold a priori and the
compatibility of deformations is a consequence
of vanishing of a virtual work
• Both principles do not depend on a constitutive
law
 Page 18

Variational
Formulation
• Based on the principle of stationarity of a
functional, which is usually potential or
complementary energy
• Two classes of boundary conditions: essential
(geometric) and natural (force) boundary
conditions
• Scalar quantities (energies, potentials) are
considered rather than vector quantities
 Page 19

Principle of Minimum
Total Potential Energy
• Conservation of energy: Work = change in potential, kinetic and
thermal energy
• For elastic problems (linear and non-­linear)
‐‑ a special case of the
Principle of Virtual Work – Principle of minimum total potential
energy can be applied

• U is the stress potential:  ij  U / ij

1
U  v 2  T C
dv
W   f Udv   f S
BT f

Uds
 Page 20

Principle of Minimum Total Potential

Energy

• Total potential energy is a sum of strain energy and

potential of loads P = U -W
• This equation, which gives P as a function of deformation
components, together with compatibility relations within the
solid and geometric boundary conditions, defines the so called
Lagrange functional
• Applying the variation we invoke the stationary condition of the
functional P

dP  dU  dW  0
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 21

Variational
Formulation
• By utilizing the variational formulation, it is possible
to obtain a formulation of the problem, which is of
lower complexity than the original differential form
(strong form).
• This is also known as the weak form, which however
can also be a_ained by following an alternate path (see
Galerkin formulation).
• For approximate solutions, a larger class of trial
functions than in the differential formulation can be
employed; for example, the trial functions need not
satisfy the natural boundary conditions because these
boundary conditions are implicitly contained in the
functional – this is extensively used in MFE.

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 22

Approximative
Methods
Instead of trying to find the exact solution of the continuous
system, i.e., of the strong form, try to derive an estimate of
what the solution should be at specific points within the
system.

The procedure of reducing the physical process to its

discrete counterpart is the discretisation process.

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 23

Approximative
Methods
Variational Methods Weighted Residual Methods
approximation is based on
start with an estimate of the the solution
the
minimization of a functional, as those and
demand that its weighted average error
defined in the earlier slides.
minimized
is
• Rayleigh-Ritz
• The Galerkin Method
Method
• The Least Square
Method
• The Collocation Method
• The Subdomain Method
• Pseudo-spectral Methods

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 24

The differential form of physical

processes
Focus: The axially loaded
a bar with distributed load example.
d
x AE 2  ax Strong Form
u
 20
u(0)dx Essential BC
x du 0 Natural BC
AE

Analytical Solution: dx x L

To fully define the solution (i.e., to evaluate the values of parameters

C1,C2 ) we have to use the given boundary conditions (BC):
C2  0
ax3

u(x)  uh  up  C1 x  C2  ⎯⎯ ⎯⎯
u(0)0
2
6EA du  EAR aL
dx x L C1  2EA
2 3

aL ax
 ux  2EA x  6EA
Method of Finite Elements I
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 25

The differential form of physical

processes
Focus: The axially loaded
a bar with distributed load example.
x aL2 ax3
u x  x
2EA 6EA
x 
3 2.5
2.5 2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Length (m) Length (m)

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 26

Weighted Residual
Methods
Focus: The axially loaded bar with distributed load
example.
a
x
R and its corresponding strong
form:
x d
AE 2  ax Strong Form
u
Boundary
dx2 Conditions
Given an arbitrary weighting function
(BC) 0
u(0) Essential BC
w that satisfies the essential conditions
and additionally:  L  0 

du 0 Natural BC
If then AE
dx x L
,

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 27

Weighted Residual
Methods
Focus: The axially loaded bar with distributed load
example.
a
x

Multiplying the strong form by w and integrating over

L:

Integrating equation I by parts the following relation is

derived:

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 28

Weighted Residual
Methods
Focus: The axially loaded bar with distributed load
example.
ax

Elaborating a li_le bit more on the

relation:

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 29

Weighted Residual
Methods
Focus: The axially loaded bar with distributed load
example.
ax
Elaborating a li_le bit more on the
relation:
why why
x
? ?

Therefore, the weak form of the problem is defined

as Find such that:

Observe that the weak form involves derivatives of a lesser order than
the original strong form.
Method of Finite Elements I
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 30

Weighted Residual
Methods
Weighted Residual Methods start with
an estimate of the solution and
demand that its weighted average
error is minimized:
• The Galerkin Method
• The Least Square Method
• The Collocation Method
• The Subdomain Method

Boris Grigoryevich Galerkin – (1871-

• Pseudo-spectral Methods
1945) mathematician/ engineer

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 31

The Galerkin
Method
Theory – Consider the general case of Example – The axially loaded
a differential equation: bar:
Try an approximate solution to
the equation of the following
form Choose the following approximation

Demand that the

where are test functions (input) approximation satisfies the
and are unknown quantities that we essential conditions:
need to evaluate. The solution must
satisfy the boundary conditions.

Since is an approximation, The approximation error in this

substituting it in the initial equation case is:
will result in
an error:
Method of Finite Elements I
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 32

The Galerkin
Method
Assumption 1: The weighted average error of the approximation
should be zero

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 33

The Galerkin
Method
Assumption 1: The weighted average error of the approximation
should be zero

But that’s the

Weak
Form!!!!!

Therefore once again integration by parts leads to

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 34

The Galerkin
Method
Assumption 1: The weighted average error of the approximation
should be zero

But that’s the

Weak
Form!!!!!

Therefore once again integration by parts leads to

Assumption 2: The weight function is approximated using the

scheme as for the
same
Remember that the
solution
weight function
must also satisfy the
BCs
Substituting the approximations for both
in the weak form,
Method of Finite Elements I and
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 35

The Galerkin
The following relation Method
is
retrieved:

where:

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 36

The Galerkin
Method
Performing the integration, the following relations are
established:

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 37

Or in matrix
The Galerkin
form: Method

that’s a linear system of

equations:

and that’s of course the exact solution.

Why?

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 38

The Galerkin
Method
Now lets try the following approximation:

Which again needs to satisfy the natural BCs,

therefore: The weight function assumes the same
form:

Substituting now into the weak form:

EAu  x ax dx  0  u2 
L
w2  2
L2
0
 3EA
 
Wasn’t that much easier? But….is it
correct?
Method of Finite Elements I
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 39

The Galerkin
Method
Strong Form Galerkin-Cubic order
Galerkin-Linear
3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Length (m)

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 40

The Galerkin
Method
We saw in the previous example that the Galerkin method is based on the
approximatio of the strong form solution using a set of basis functions. These are by
definition absolutely accurate at the boundaries of the problem. So, why not
increase the boundaries?

element: 1 element: 2

1 2 3

Instead of seeking the solution of a single bar we chose to divide it into

three
interconnected and not overlapping elements

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 41

The Galerkin
Method
element: 1 element: 2
1 2
3

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 42

The Galerkin
Method
1 2 3

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 43

The Galerkin
The weak form of aMethod
continuous problem was derived in
a systematic way:
This part involves only
the solution
approximation

This part only involves

the essential boundary
conditions a.k.a. loading

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 44

The Galerkin
Method
And then an approximation was defined for the displacement field, for
example

Vector of
degrees
of
Displaceme
Shape Functionfreedom
nt field
Matrix
The weak form also involves the first derivative of the
approximation

Strain Strain
field Displacement
Matrix
Method of Finite Elements I
 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 45

The Galerkin
Method
Therefore if we return to the weak
form :

and set:

The following FUNDAMENTAL FEM expression is

derived

Why?
or even ?
be]er

Method of Finite Elements I

 Institute of Structural Engineering Page 46

The Galerkin
Method

EA has to do only with material and

cross-­‐‑sectional properties

We call The
Finite Element stiffness Matrix

Ιf E is a function of Material
{d} Nonlinearity
Ιf [B] is a function of Geometrical
{d} Nonlinearity

Method of Finite Elements I