This equation is valid for the range 0 < x < L, also known as domain of the problem (denoted by

: 0 < x < L). Since this is a second-order di_erential equation, its general solution will have 2
constants of integration which are determined from the boundary conditions of the problem to
get the
speci_c solution. In the case of rod shown in Fig. 1.1, the boundary conditions are u(x = 0) = 0,
and AEdu
dx = Q at x = L (the boundaries are denoted by symbolically). A distinct feature of
this formulation is that the solution for the basic unknown of the problem (u in the case of axial
deformations of rod) is a continuous function of the independent variable (x in this case).
In mathematical terms, it is more convenient to express the governing di_erential equation and
the
associated boundary conditions as
Lu + p = 0 in (1.3)
with Mu + r = 0 on
where L(= d
dx

_
EA d
dx

_
) and p denote appropriate di_erential operator and the constant (or, a known
function of the independent variable) term, respectively of Eq. (1.2). Similarly, M and r represent
appropriate di_erential operator and known functions of independent variables, respectively for
the
associated boundary conditions. This di_erential equation is a mathematical representation of a
causal
system relating output parameters to input parameters. The engineering design often involves a
repeated
solution of the governing di_erential equation with di_erent sets of input parameters. Analytical
solution of the governing di_erential equation is possible only for a handful of hypothetical
problems
with homogeneous domains and regular boundaries. In practice, a problem domain is usually
delineated
by irregular boundaries and the operating parameters of the problem may also change within
the domain. A case in point is the possibility of the rod shown in Fig. 1.1 might have a varying
crosssection
across the domain, or it might have been made out of di_erent materials in di_erent parts of
the domain. In view of this, it is worthwhile to explore the possibility of determining an
approximate
method for solution of the governing di_erential equations.

1.2 Approximation via Method of Weighted Residuals

We seek an approximate solution ^u(x) for the unknown function u(x) in terms of a series
involving
basis functions (or, trial functions) with unknown coe_cients. The requirement on the choice of
basis functions is that the chose set of functions should be linearly independent and should
represent
a complete family of basis functions.1 Thus, any arbitrary function can be expressed as a linear
1A

set of functions gj(x) is said to be complete if an arbitrary function f(x) can be expanded as a linear combination
of the members of the set, as in f(x) =
P
j cjgj(x). The basis functions and completeness of the basis are discussed in
Appendix B.

Manish Shrikhande 4 F.E.M. & Comp. Struc. Dyn.

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL MODELING, DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS AND
APPROXIMATE SOLUTIONS DRAFT
combination of these basis functions. Let us assume an approximate solution ^u(x) as:
u(x) _ ^u(x) = u0(x) +
X
j

cjgj(x) (1.4)
where, u0(x) is a function which satis_es the non-homogeneous form of essential boundary
conditions,
gj(x); j = 1; 2; 3; : : : represent a family of basis functions and are chosen so as to satisfy the
homogeneous
essential boundary conditions of the problem. If ^u(x) is an approximate solution then the
governing di_erential equation for the problem as stated in Eq. (1.3) will not be satis_ed exactly
and
we can de_ne two residual (or, error) terms as
Domain Residual R = L^u + p in
Boundary Residual R = M^u + r on
The domain residual R denotes the error of approximation in satisfying the governing di_erential
equation within the domain, and boundary residual R represents the error in satisfying the
associated
boundary conditions by the chosen form of approximation ^u(x). The process of determining the
desired
approximate solution now consists in _nding values of undetermined coe_cients cj so as to
minimize
the domain and boundary residuals.
In the method of weighted residuals, these residuals are forced to vanish in a weighted integral
sense.
Thus, we require that Z
WR d +
Z

_W
R d = 0 (1.5)
where, W and _W are arbitrary weighting functions. If for some ^u(x) the Eq. (1.5) is satis_ed for
all possible choices of W and _W then the two residuals must vanish identically. Hence, in this
case
^u(x) represents an exact solution of the governing di_erential equation. Thus the exact solution
of the
governing di_erential equation is contained in the weighted residual statement of Eq. (1.5). In
actual
practice, however, we relax this rather stringent requirement on satisfying Eq. (1.5) for all
possible sets
of weighting functions, and insist that the chosen approximation ^u(x) should satisfy Eq. (1.5) for
a
chosen set of weighting functions only. Thus, we require
Z
Wj [L^u + p] d +
Z

_W
j [M^u + r] d = 0; j = 1; 2; 3; : : : (1.6)
The practical signi_cance of Eq. (1.6) can not be over emphasized as those allow us to
transform the
problem of solving a di_erential equation into a relatively simpler problem of solution of
simultaneous
algebraic equations in terms of the unkown parameters cj of the chosen form of approximation.
The
only restriction on the choice of basis functions gj(x) is that these should be su_ciently smooth
i.e.,
su_ciently di_erentiable upto the order as dictated by the governing di_erential equation(s) of
the
problem.

1.2.1 Variants of Method of Weighted Residuals

Since the choice of weighting functions in Eq. (1.6) is arbitrary, a variety of approximate
solutions
can be obtained for di_erent choices of weighting functions. The values of the unknown
coe_cients in
the chosen form of approximation depend on the speci_c choice of weighting function. The
method of
weighted residual is generally used with three di_erent types of weighting functions which leads
to the
following classi_cation:
Manish Shrikhande 5 F.E.M. & Comp. Struc. Dyn.
1.2. APPROXIMATION VIA METHOD OF WEIGHTED RESIDUALS DRAFT
1.2.1.1 Point-Collocation Method
In this method, the domain residual is forced to vanish at a discrete set of points, called as the
collocation points distributed through the domain. The weighting function corresponds to a Dirac
delta function W j = _(x xj ), which is de_ned as:
_(x xj) =
(
1; at x = xj
0; otherwise
and
Zc
a

f(x)_(x b) dx = f(b); a < b < c

The use of Dirac delta function _(x xj) as a weighting function in the weighted residual
statement
forces the residual to vanish at the point xj in the domain. The domain residual can be forced to
vanish
at as many points in the domain as the number of coe_cients in the chosen form of
approximation
to establish the su_cient number of algebraic equations. As the number of terms in
approximation
increasing the residual will be forced to vanish at more closely-spaced points in domain and the
approximation
approaches the exact solution.
1.2.1.2 Subdomain-Collocation Method
Alternatively, the domain may be divided into a set of non-overlapping sub-domains over which
the

algebraic sum of total error of approximation is forced to vanish. Thus the weighting functions
take
the form of
Wj(x) =
(
1; x 2 j
0; otherwise
where, j represents the jth sub-domain of . The division of domain into sub-domains is governed
by the number of equations required to determine the unknown coe_cients of the chosen form
of
approximation.
1.2.1.3 Galerkin Method
This is by far the most popular of all weighted residual procedures. The weighting functions are
taken
to be the same as trial functions. Thus for an approximation of the form ^u(x) =
Pn
j cjgj(x), the jth
weighting function W j is selected as
Wj(x) = gj(x); 8j = 1; 2; : : : n:
In Galerkin method, with the choice of trial functions as the weighting functions as