Paper: Carlton
Ordinary Meeting
A paper to be presented and discussed at the Institution of Structural Engineers on Thursday I1 March 1993 at 6 pm.
Application of the finite element method to
structural engineering problems
D. Carlton, BSC, CEng, MBCS
Taywood Engineering Ltd
Dale Carlton has been associated with computer-
assisred engineering at Taylor Woodrow for 30
years, The early days were spent in developing
analytical solutionsfor prestressed concrete
pressurevessels,which ultimately led to the
introduction of the finite element method. Since
then, he has managed the introduction of CAD
and other aspects associated with the use of
computers. Presently, he manages a hybrid team
of analysts and system developers.
Synopsis
The paper briefly traces the development of the finite element
method and considers its relevance to the work of the
structural engineer. It draws attention to the role of the
analyst and the necessity to pay due attention to the modelling
activity. Recent developments aimed at defining accuracy by
the use of adaptive elements are noted, as well as the role of
NAFEMS in ensuring that quality assurance is firmly in place.
The computer technology requirements are defined and
examples given with respect to large-scale analytical work and
the use of FEM in the prediction of the failure behaviour of
reinforced concrete structures.
The beginning
The early historyof the development of the finiteelement method through
the 1960s is well described in a paper by Zienkiewicz’ where the ingenuity
of the engineer seeking solutions to the then current problems is clearly
illustrated. The methodis traceable to that time and occurred because of
the developmentof computer technology. At the end of the 1950s the first
commercialcomputerswere being producedand,shortlyaftertheir
introduction, high level programinglanguagessuchasALGOLand
FORTRAN were made available and were accessible to the engineering
community at large. Prior to that time the use of computers forengineering
analysis had been available only to large aeronautical companies and some
major universities. Access to computerswas enhanced by the opening of
computer bureaux which provided the opportunity to buy time on machines
which were much larger than an organisation could justify.
One major engineering challenge at that time was the development of
nuclear power stations, which necessitated a good understanding of the
behaviour of engineering structures, particularly those associated with the
reactor, including the pressure containment structure, firstlyin steel and
then subsequently in prestressed concrete.
Development of method
With the introduction of computers, it became possible to solve many
simultaneous equations- i.e. by hand, say, three, by calculator maybe
five or six but, with computer, lOs, loos, lOOOs, limited mainly by the storage
size.
Thus the first excursions into solving problems with multiple redundancy
commenced with having available knownsolutionsforstructural
components, such as beams and shells. These solutionsinvolved knowledge
of the reactions causedby applying loads to such components, as well as
boundary deformations and reactions caused by applying unit loads to
specific degrees of freedom, i.e. the assessment of the stiffness. Thisled
specifically to frame analysis software, as first produced by Livesley,
available commercially in the late 1950s.
During the 1960s problems associated with pressure vessel design for
nuclear reactorsled firstly to solutionsbeing based on combining known
solutions for cylinders,flat plates, domes. It is interesting to remind
The Structural EngineerNolume 711No.4116 February 1993
ourselves just how far these methods were probed on some very primitive
computers. Thus a frame analysis program containedthe elastic instability
functions (S and c functions) which could be utilised in an iterative process
to predict the collapse of,say, a steel frame under elastic instability - an
early example of buckling analysiswith an implied geometrical stiffness
formulation. In pressure vessel design, utilising a few basic components
which permitted only a few variables (i.e. thicknesses, together with unit
load cases to represent prestress), it was possible, with the use of linear
programing techniques, to produce minimum construction cost designs
based on the cost of concrete, shuttering and prestress.
An early example of a finite element approach can be traced to our
developments for the Wylfa pressure vessel which used50 to 100 elements
of a specific type to analyse such a structure and permitted loadcases to
be combined in order to provide detailed analysisinformation toassist the
design of this structure’. The development of that software in the early
’60s was performed at the IBM Data Centre on a 7090 computer, and it
was at that time and on that machine that Cheung, working witkzienkiewicz
at Swansea, was developing one of the first finite element systems3.
In the search for understanding the behaviour of such structures and
to generalise the approach, it was recognised that, with the emerging
computer power making it possibleto solve more and more equations, it
waspossible to dividethestructureintomanysmallercomponents.
Clough4 recognised that a most useful element wouldbe a triangle, since
almost any shape could be constructed using this, and this approach led
to the first finite element formulation.As an alternativewe pursued the
development of a mesh-based system which was strictly a finite difference
approach. It is important to recognise that both approaches used an
engineer’s conceptof behaviour. Thus in the triangular element approach
the concentrationwas on the stiffness methodwith the direct solution of
the equations. The alternative approach was, surprisingly, based on the
formulation of equations of motion which, if processed through timewith
a damping function,led to a static solution. This latter method was called
‘dynamic relaxation’, coined by Otter in 19655.
Dynamic relaxation would todayberegardedasan explicit time-
integration approach, while the solution procedure would be an accelerated
relaxation method. The stiffness approach postulated in theearly finite
element methods based on basic engineering principles was later recognised
as a minimum energy theorem.
The two methods are today brought together in the general finite element
system. Elastic problemsusually utilise a direct solutionof equations since
this permits many loadcases to be processed using the reduced equation
matrix. It has, however, now been found that an iterative equation solver
can be more effective for non-linear problems6.
Today’s finite element systems
Most of the current FE systems commercially available consist of three
programs:
-preprocessor
-displacement and stress analysis
-postprocessor
Preprocessor
Most preprocessors have the following capabilities:
-generation of complete input file for FE program
-mesh generation capabilities (lines, surfaces, volume)
-generation of nodes and elements
-geometry plotting capabilities
-checking facilities
-equation optimisation
55
Paper: Carlton
FE program
The main function of this program is to carry out a solution procedure
and produce results for a given problem. The programconsists mainly of
the following:
( I ) Extensive element library (e.g. truss, plane-stress, beam, pipe, spring,
plate/shell elements. Some have user-supplied element facility)
(2) Material models (linear isotropic elastic, linear orthotropic elastic,
non-linear elastic, concrete/rock/soil models, plasticity models, creep)
(3) Solution capabilities (statiddynamic, frequency solution, response
spectrum, linearised buckling, material/geometric non-linearities, large
deformation, large strains, etc.)
(4) Equationsolutionmethods (direct solution techniques: Gauss
elimination, frontal solution, etc.)
( 5 ) Iterative schemes (Newton Raphson, full Newton with and without
line search, BFGS, automatic-time-stepping-method, etc.)
(6) Initial conditions (displacement, velocity, acceleration, temperature,
imperfection, restart facilities)
(7) Boundary conditions and constraints (generalised constraints between
degrees of freedom, rigid links, prescribed displacements, skew system)
(8) Mass and damping option
(9) Loadingoption
(10) Response spectrum analyses
(1 1) Output (displacements, velocity, acceleration, stresses at nodes or
Gauss points, strains, nodal temperature, reactions; state of stress
information (cracking, crushing, yielding))
Postprocessor
This processes the results in order to make them more useful and usually
possess the following features:
-ability to extract results and use in an arithmetic expression
-plots of original/deformed mesh
-plots of mode shapes
-plots of contour (U,€, heat fluxes)
-display vector plots
-graphical presentation
The process
The analysis process involves the use of FE programs toprovide the design
engineer with valid information to design a structure that is safe for the
environment in which it must operate. The total analysis process results
in a FE outputwhich isinterpretable in terms of design decisions and consists
of the following steps:
-converting the designed structure into an idealised structure
-converting the idealised structure into a geometrical model
-interpreting the geometrical model as a meshed model
-converting the meshed model into solution model
-running the solution model to create a numerical solution
-using the numerical solution to perform a results interpretation
-with a satisfactory result set, performing the postprocessing
-with an adequateset of postprocessed results, obtain a set of structural
characteristics that describe the actual behaviourof the real structure
subject to the actual design load
The process of solving an engineering problem using the finite element
method is to model the topological aspects of the problem using an assembly
of elements selected to reflect accurately the physical nature of the problem.
Thus, if the problem is a structure, the elements must not only reflect the
shape of the structure but also ensure the correct flow of stress from the
loaded zones to the reaction zones.
An analyst is thus mapping theelements onto a structure and, in order
to describe this mapping within the system, by the data input,has to define
the position of all the nodes and how the nodes are joined to form the
elements. This phase of the work can be verytedious. A finite element system
usually provides some help in the process by a number of means, e.g.
(1) If an element has mid side nodes, these can be calculated by the program.
(2) The use of mesh generators such thatzones can be defined and a zone
can be divided automatically into elements with predefined divisions
set along its boundaries.
(3) An extension of the abovewhereby the zones are defined as substructures
or superelements.
It is possible that the process can be assisted by the development of small
special-purpose programs, but todayit is most likely that this initial phase
or preprocessing phase will utilise a modelling system, similar to a CAD
56
facility, which can graphically display the object and assist in superimposing
a mesh on that object. It is obvious that a link between a CAD system,
which is being used in the design process, and a modelling system is an
attractive proposition, but this link is not without difficulties.
The input data arecompleted by defining restraints, material properties
and load applications, together with analysis control information.
The processing phase involves submitting the data tothe system to obtain
results. For a large analysis,thisstep mustbe taken with careful
consideration. There is usually a phase where the data is checked by the
system to ensure that it is complete as far as is required by the program.
It is at this time that the analyst should be taking as many views of the
data as is practicable to ensure that he has defined the problem correctly.
Once errors and omissions are corrected, it may be necessary to process
the problem to just prior to the equation-solving phase. At this point it
is usual thatinformation is supplied by thesoftware whichgives an
indication of the equation-solving time, by virtue of number of degrees
of freedom, maximum band width, and the mass storage requirements.
This is essential information to ensure that the solution will be obtained
within a reasonable time, i.e. less than 24 h of processed elapsed time, and
that there is an adequate amountof free disk space to accept the results.
Some care must be taken with this latter requirement because computer
operating systems do not normally allow a single file span over disks;
therefore, either there must be a special feature within the finite element
system or the software shouldbe run on a machine that has this feature.
After processing a structural analysis problem the finiteelement system
will produce nodal deflections and stress and strain information either at
element nodes or, more probably, at the element integration points, (Gauss
points). The results can then be viewed by postprocessing software, some
of which may be part of the finite element system, or by other software
such as the modelling software or by user-written software.
The output of a large finite element analysis is voluminous and usually
cannot be comprehended from a printout; thus thepostprocessing software
inevitably uses a graphical presentation of selected results. Typically, the
graphical presentation takes the formof plotting the deflected shape, vector
plots ofthe stresses usually global and principal, andcontour plots of these
stresses. The trend now is that the contour plots are colour shaded which
can be viewed or plotted on a suitable plotter.
The user may require output in different forms depending on thecriteria
stipulated in the design specification or standard. Thus, if the structure
consists of beam or truss members, force information, usually provided
by the software, may berequired, while for volume structures such as the
ground or heavy prestressed sections such as a pressure vessel the stress
information may be adequate. However, for slab and shell structures it
is inevitable that thedesign will require stress resultant information which
is not always provided by the software. Systems for processing results for
such structures are usually developed by the user organisation.
Linear or non-linear analysis
Design standards inevitably consider limit statesof serviceability and
ultimate. The materials that the structural engineer uses have non-linear
stress-strain relationshipsand a material suchas concrete exhibits changes
in behaviour with time because of gain in strength and creep, both related
to the chemical process between the cement and the water. These aspects
suggest that a non-linear analysis is desirable. Because, however, a structure
has to withstand a variety of possible loads and combinationsof such loads,
it is usually impractical to handle theproblem by non-linear methods except
for special circumstances.
The use of linear methods of analysis for, say, the design of reinforced
concrete structures can openup philosophical discussions as to its validity
since, when part of a structure cracks (which it may do at the level of
serviceability load factors), inevitably there will be a redistribution of the
stresses and stress resultants, possibly therefore causing increases of these
in other partsof the structure. The designer should be encouraged, therefore,
to examine carefully not only the local force (stress resultant) behaviour
with respect tothe dispositionof the reinforcementbutalso a gross
behaviour which may span many partsof the structure(i.e. a cross-section)
involving many element resultants.
The concrete creep problemis also usually dealt with by a linear analysis
approach. The understandingof creep of concrete is that, provided that
the stress is below 0.4 of the concrete strength, the strainsare proportional
to stress. Thestrains, however, under a unit stress (referred to as specific
strains) vary according to age of loading, time under load, and temperature.
In many circumstances, it is possible to arrive at an effective modulus of
elasticity based on the specific strain relevant to the age of loading, time
under load, and temperature. The reciprocal of the specific strain is the
The Structural Engineer/Volume 71 /No.4/ 16 February 1993

effective modulus. In some structures, loading may be applied at different
times, and the modulus may vary through the structure. Therefore, each
load has its own set of effective moduli. Most finite element systems do
not permit load combinationsto be made between identical structures with
different material properties and, under these circumstances, users may
have to produce their own software for this purpose.
Finite element systems are available with non-linear analysis capability
and canbe used under special circumstances provided that a suitable material
model existsor theuser provides one throughan end-user subroutine. The
kinds of problem that might be pursued using a non-linear analysis are:
-ground stability or settlement problems
-behaviour of mass concrete poursinvolving thermal creep and cracking
-gross overload analysis of structures eithersteel or concrete,prestressed
or reinforced
A non-linear analysis is, however, time-consuming with respect to the
computer when compared with a linear analysis and also requires special
skills fromthe analystincontrollingtheprocessas well as a clear
understanding of the material models and the possible limitations of the
system.
The computer technology
As was stated at the beginning, the use of the finite element system was
dictated by the availability of computer technology, and its growth in use
and the continuous development has been maintained by the changes in
computer technology.
The trigger point for bringing the finite element systems inhouse was
thearrival of theminicomputerintheearly ’80s. Since that timethe
computing power of relatively accessible computers has increasedby a factor
of at least 80, while price has decreasedby a factor of approximatelyfour.
The result is a price/performance improvement in excess of 300 times.
A finite element analyst requires the following machine environment:
-a high performing CPU
-a large amount of RAM
-a graphics display screen
-high volume disk capacity
-a graphics plotting facility
Most finite element systems are available on PCswhich have a reasonable
CPU performance at the upper end of the available processors. Basic
machines need to be enhancedwith more memory and moredisk capacity,
perhaps a larger screen and connection to a plotter or a postscript laser
printer.
In a more demanding situation, greater than casual use, it is likely that
a RISC-based workstation will be used with a RAM memory inexcess of
32MB and disk capacity measured in gigabytes.
The graphic facility is more likely to be colour, with the capability to
accept screen dumps, plotting protocols (HPGL), and postscript.
The analystusually functions within a teamwhere it is important toaccept
and deliver information. Data interchangeis thus crucial, and this is best
achieved by the use of a network. Such a network maywell have to share
data between at least PCs and workstations, and today that is best achieved
by a TCPAP-based network with NFS facility.
In many instances the systems in use are pushed to their limits, and it
is disastrous if results are lost after intensive processing; thus, asis good
practice, systems should be backed up frequentlyand results archived. A
networkfacilitymustlogicallycontainagoodbackup and archiving
mechanism.
If there is plenty of activity within the finite element area, it may be
desirable to include a batchprocessing machine, such as vector
a processor.
This machine needs to be at least five times better in performance than
any workstation.
Accuracy of solutions
The route from the postulated problem to the final results for design
validation purposes is fraught with many obstacles which may deviate the
results from an acceptable level of accuracy. As software becomes easier
to use and more automation is built into the process, it is possible that
the degree af competence of auser may become regardedas aless significant
factor. This is a very dangerous attitude to adopt. It is, however, not
unusual, since this trend hasbeen perceivedin all areas of engineeringwhere
the user can use tools provided via the computerwhich are there to assist
him. During the eraof approximately 30 years when all forms of tools have
been developing, whether they be FORTRAN programs, spreadsheets,
analysis software and CAD systems, there has usually been a generation
The Structural Engineer/Volume 71 /No.4/16 February 1993
Paper: Carlton
of engineers who had that‘feel’ for the results and could satisfy themselves
that what was being obtained from the computer was reasonable. Today
some of that ‘feel’ may be missing. The problem is compounded by the
ease of use of the products, the ever-increasing powerof computers, and
the dramatic fall in real costs. With today’s finite element systems and cost-
effective computing, the models being analysed are becoming increasingly
complex to such a degree that even the most competent engineer may be
unable to make qualitative judgment on validity the ofthe answers obtained.
This situation has been recognised, and a major step was taken in 1983
with the formation of the National Agency for Finite Element Methods
& Standards(NAFEMS).Theagencyhasproducedanumber of
publications, the most notable being Guidelines to finite element practice
and A finite element primer, both of which are essential reading for all
associated withfinite element work, whether as analysts or project managers.
The first level of responsibility rests firmly with the software developers,
who must ensurethat the behaviour of the elements, when properly used,
produces accurate results. Comprehensive verification material is essential,
and comparative testing with other systems would be welcome. For the
latter, NAFEMS has developeda series ofbenchmarks andmany developers
have produced results’. The developer also has a responsibilityto inform
the users of the system of known mistakes in the software or misleading
information within the documentation.
After the developer has done all it can to deliver a high quality product,
it is in the hands of the user to use it properly.
The NAFEMS guidelines point outthat a finite element analysisis only
as good as:
-the model of the structure (i.e. the mesh and the elements)
-the assumptions embedded in the properties used for each element
-the representation of the external loads and constraints in terms of
the discrete boundary variables
By definition a finite element analysisis only an approximation, and it is
usually impractical to model all details of the real problem; thus, further
approximations and assumptions are required at the outset. It is important
that the analyst appreciates the mode of behaviour of the problem and selects
elements and boundary conditions thatbest reflect that behaviour.If there
is doubt, consult the verification material and conduct small tests with mesh
refinements to test convergence. This is usually beneficial, but there are
circumstances where convergence can be misleading. Equilibrium checks
utilising boundary stress resultants rather thanreactions can very often assist
in validating the accuracy of solution. It is likely in, say, a linear static
analysis that deflections will be better than, say, bending moments which,
in turn, will be better than shear.
Given a suitable element choice, the skill of the analyst is to develop
the mesh, grading themesh to reflect the proper behaviourof the structure
and avoiding element aspect ratiosthat invalidate the use of that element.
Because the processof mesh creations is so important, the researchers of
finite element systems have been exploring strategies that may, in due course,
make this step contain more certainty about the error of the approximation
and improve the best approximation. Such methods are termed adaptive
procedures, and the aim is to produce a mesh within a specified bound
of local or global error.
There are two main approaches for adaptive procedure^*.^*'^. The h-
version achieves a required accuracyby using a fixed typeof element and
successively reducing the elementsize. Thep-version achieves accuracyby
using a fixed mesh and gradually raising the polynomial order of the
equations describing each mesh element to approximate more closely the
model’s behaviour. A third approach combines the two methods to produce
the h-p version. These approaches are, however, iterativeand are therefore
similar to convergence tests. Thekey issue for their acceptanceis to define
useful error estimation algorithms based on energy and local stresses. In
addition to the adaptive methods, alternative methods based on force
formulations rather than displacement formulations are being pursued.
A goodexample of theforceformulation is theintegratedforce
method”.
Uses in structural engineering
The fundamental basis embedded in the finite element methodis used in
many similar products, such as frame analysis. A design office would
normally use this subsetof the method to assist with the design of building
frames, particularlywhere there were unusual framing arrangementswhich
invalidated the useof simpler methods. For many years, bridges were
analysed by frame analysis software using, if necessary, a grillage analogy.
Today, more specific software exists which incorporates some relevant
elements but, importantly, contains traffic loading modules and design
57
Paper: Carlton
informationpostprocessingmodules.Perhaps we are now missing a
convenient facility to generate influence lines?
Structures that inevitably require the assistance of a finite element analysis
are usually those which contain slabs and walls subject to Some unusual
loading situation. There can be difficulty in interpreting results in line with
design Code requirements.
The methodis useful for theassessment of stresses arising out of thermal
effects provided that the analyst is aware of the creep behaviour when the
material is concrete.
Two examples are cited which briefly illustrate the use of the method
in structural engineering and highlight certain issues concerned with its
application.
Large linear analysis
A recent example of a large linear analysis concerns the work on the caisson
design for a bridge structure. In thisbridge there are63 caissons of similar
shape but ofvarying depths. A representative number of the caissons were
analysed by a finite element system and the results postprocessed in order
to assess the amount and disposition of the reinforcement.
A typical caisson has the order of 1375 elements and 31 000 degrees of
freedom. It is subjected to a variety of loads which are combined to produce
load cases for serviceability, ultimate andaccident situations. The running
time for such an analysis on a SUN Sparc workstation is of theorder of 24 h.
The loads are taken out by reactions on the ground but, instead of
modelling the ground, the reactions were calculated using the principles
of Bent Hansen andNavier which simulated extreme situations. The ground
reactions were calculated from initial reactions atfixed points calculated
by the finite element system. A balanced set was then achieved, with any
small difference balanced by the system.
Certain procedures were followed in mesh generation to ensure logical
node numberingwhich obviously related to different parts of the structure
and progressed in an orderly fashion. Theelements were also grouped into
the parts of the structure.
Thick shell elements were used over most of thestructure. In someplaces,
solid elements were used, and use was made of generalised constraints to
couple nodes together where the section was thick and between solid and
shell elements.
The outputof such an analysis consists of deflectionsat nodes and stresses
at Gauss points. For shell elements thestresses are provided at the top and
bottom surfaces and the midplane. Such output is particularly unfriendly
for the reinforcementdesigner. Inhouse software, originally developed for
similar work on a reactor containment structure,was used to convert the
stress informationinto stress resultantinformation, i.e. direct forces,
bending moments, inplane shear and torsion, and through thickness shear.
The element grouping then permitted sets of load case results filesfor -pecific
parts of the structure to be identified. Further postprocessing could be
carried out on those files, factoring, more combinations, extrapolation,
and (if necessary) integration of boundary forces. The resultant set of files
thus constituted thedesign information. Thatdesign information was then
used to assess steel quantities against standard requirements.
There are two approachesin dealing with the force fields applied to a
plate element.In onecase equivalent forcesets can be produced,using the
Wood Armer approach,which relate to the design of top and bottom steel
in specific directions. The second approach,which was used in this work,
is based on the general non-linear analysis of cracked reinforced concrete.
Thus thedesign stress resultants are treated as forces actinga unit on area
of material of thespecific thickness, and a non-linear analysis of just that
area, taking account of the stress-strain behaviour of the concrete and steel
and permitting the cracking of the concrete,is performed to obtain strains
and stresses inthe concrete and steel. For specified amounts of reinforcement
the program will assess various ratios between actual stresses and permitted
stresses, as well as predicting crack widths. The outputof the program can
then be graphically presented to display the variations of the parameters
for the various load cases. Algorithms have been produced which will
intelligently ‘design’ the steel.
ThepresentprogramincorporatesBritish,NorwegianandDanish
standards.
This problem typifies the use of finite element systems for the design
of this typeof structure and also for concrete offshore platforms - large
problems withlong
running-times andan extensive amount of
postprocessing work all demanding a high degree of analytical skill and
good housekeeping.
Non-linear structural analysis
In the preceding section the problem
was essentially a reinforced concrete
58
structure analysed elastically and designed non-linearly. In such problems
or similar problems, it may be desirable to check a controlling load case
with the designed reinforcement or prestress to understand how the structure
could be expected to behave at theultimate limit state. An obvious example
in the field of nuclear engineering is the prediction of the ultimate pressure-
carrying capacity of a pressure vessel or a containment structure.
There are a number of papers12913v’4 that describe possible reinforced
concrete models. There are basically two approaches with respect to the
element formulation. In one approach thereinforcement is treated as truss
elements attached to the nodes of concrete elements. The concrete element
is a plane element or a solid element. In the other approach, which is more
specific, an element is a reinforced concrete plate element whose behaviour
is obtained by considering it as a layered element. This latter approach is
very similar to that used in the check procedure described previously. In
both cases it is the modelling of the concrete that presents the major
development problem since it is necessary to describe its behaviour under
multiaxial stress states, with non-linear stress-strain relationships and
requiring treatment of the post-crushing and post-cracking behaviour. The
last aspect, along with shear carrying capacity dueto aggregate interlock,
causes the most debate.
Commercially available software, if it possesses a concrete element, is
most likely to use the first form of implementation. Thisis probably more
beneficial to the analyst because it does not presuppose a linear strain
variation across a section. For instance, the ADINA code uses thisapproach.
Taywood Engineering has used this aspect of the abovecode in a number
of situations, predominantly for nuclear containment structures but also
for tunnels and shafts. Two containment structures were also built as models
and subject to a ‘round robin’ of pretest predictions by a number of
organisations. It is undoubtedly quite a challenge to match predictions with
measurement. Within thepredictions there is a degree of scatter, and there
is never certainty about theaccuracy of all measurements, particularly strain
gauges in regionsof interest which, because of theirlocation, may be subject
to damage during the progress of cracking. One of the benefits of an
analytical approach, however, is that assumptions can be varied and usually
therefore a bracketing of the measured behaviour can beachieved which,
in truth, is the essence of design.
This paper is not a place to discuss specific results, but two issues from
the analysis are worth noting.
In one of the containment structures prestressing was present. Where
the prestressing is straight, it is a relatively simple matter to imposeinitial
strains in the prestress elements and totrack the subsequent effectsof the
prestressing tendons, which act similar to reinforcement, be it bonded or
unbonded. Multicurved tendons, particularly unbonded ones, do, however,
pose more difficulty because essentially their behaviour is controlled by
contact between the tendons and the concrete, which involves frictional
behaviour.Moreanalytical research is required to produce a useful
algorithm for this solution.
The other issue concerns crack width prediction. In the finite element
code the behaviour of an element is controlled largely by what happens
at the integration points. Thus if, say, the tensile stress in a particular
direction at an integration point exceeds a preset limit, a crack indicator
is set. It is usual then in the formulation of post-cracking behaviour to
permit this maximum tensile stressto diminish to zero over a certain increase
in strain. Eventually, a strain limit is reached, when it is deemed that a
crack has been formed and thereis no further resistance to tensile loading
in that direction. The behaviourin this tensile region can be characterised
as elastic behaviour up tocrack initiation, followed by a phase association
with crack formationuntil a maximum strain is reached signifying a ‘real’
crack. The normal postprocessing will display ‘cracks’ at every Gauss point
which have reachedthe maximum stress limitand usually therefore illustrates
many apparent cracks. A better interpretation is achieved if cracks are
displayed only when exceedingthe maximum strain. Some estimate of crack
width can be achieved by integrating strains over these apparent cracks
and dividing by a reasonable estimate of crack spacing which is largely a
function of reinforcement spacing and cover.
Future directions
There is no reason to doubt that computertechnology will continue to keep
on breaking the price/performance records; thus the cost-effective capability
of the finite element method will continue to grow.
Now there is strong emphasis on quality assurance of the software and
its application. Itwill be important to produce reliable models and reliable
solutionprocedures.Finite element systems need to focus onthe
measurement of error. The adaptive element approach is moving in this
direction. It may well be important to recognise that, in the real world,
The Structural Engineer/Volume 71 /No.4/ 16 February 1993
 Paper:
Carlton
Informal study groups

there are uncertainties in information and thus designers may wellbe

interested in statistical solutions rather than deterministic solutions.
The design Codes or standardsmay well need enhancement in order to
recognise the sophisticated user. In particular, the British Code for concrete
leaves a lot unstated when dealing with complex force situations.
There is stillroom for improvements with respectto processing the output
data. It may be that the STEP modelling for data exchange will provide
opportunities for CADsystems, modelling systems, finite element systems,
and postprocessing systems, to utilise a common standard.
The progress of the finite element method is rapid and thus the user
community cannot ignore the necessity to ensure a programme of continuous
education so that analysts and engineers retain their ‘feel’for comprehending
the results.
Concluding remarks
With today’s computer technology the finite element method is readily
available to the practicing structural engineer, but it must be used withsome
caution by engineers who appreciate the methods andhave been properly
trained to use it.
Generally, the outputis not in the most useful form for structural design,
and it may therefore benecessary to develop extra postprocessing software
to deal with a large mass of results.
Design standards require careful interpretationin order to ensure that
the complex force field information is takenintoaccount to ensure
compliance with the standard.
Non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete structures can beuseful but
should be applied only when it has been possible to compare the output
from the finite element analysis with test information.
References
1. Zienkiewicz, 0. C.: ‘Finite elements - the background story’, The
mathematics of finite elements and applications,
London, Academic
Press 1972,p1
2. Zbirohowski-Koscia, K., Carlton, D.: ‘Analysis of vessel structures
with particular reference to Wylfa’, Prestressed Concrete Pressure
Vessels, London, ICE, 1967,p311
3. Zienkiewicz, 0. C., Cheung, Y. K.: ‘The finite element method for
analysis of elastic isotropic and orthotropic slabs’, Proc. ICE, 28,
1964,p471
4. Clough, R. W.: ‘The finite element in plane stress analysis’, Proc.
2nd ASCE Conference on Electronic Computation, Pittsburgh, 1960
5 . Otter, J . R. H.:‘Computationsfor prestressed concretereactor
pressure vessels using dynamicrelaxation’, NuclearStructural
Engineering, vol. 1, 1965
6. Tan, L. H., Bathe, K. J.: ‘Studies of finite element procedures - the
conjugate gradient and GMRES methods in ADINA and ADINA-
F’, Computers and Structures, 40, No.2, 1991, p441
7. ‘The Standard NAFEMS benchmarks’, NAFEM publications,1989
8. Zhu, J. Z.,Hinton, E., and Zienkiewicz, 0. C.:‘Adaptivefinite
element analysis with quadrilaterals’, Computers and Structures, 40,
No. 5, 1991,p1097
9. Zeng,L.F.,Wiberg,N.E.:‘Adaptive h-p proceduresfor high
accuracy finite element analysis of 2-dimensional linear elastic
problems’, Computers and Structures, 42, No. 6, 1992, p869
10. Halliday, C.: ‘Applying FEA’, Cadence, Ariel Communications Inc.,
October 1992,p65
11. Patnaik, S. N., et al.: ‘Improved accuracy for finite element structural
analysis via an integrated force method’,Computers and Structures,
45, No. 3, 1992,p521
12. Bathe, K. J., Walczak, J . , Welch, A. K., andMistry, N.: ‘Non-linear
analysis of concrete structures’, Computers and Structures, 32, No.
3/4, 1989,p563
13. Hu,H-T,Schnobrich,W.C.: ‘Non-linear analysis of cracked
reinforced concrete’, ACZ Structural Journal, March-April 1990, p199
14. Stevens, N. J . , Uzumeri, S . M., Collins, M. P., and Will, G . T.:
‘Constitutive model for reinforced concrete finite element analysis’,
ACI Structural Journal, January-February 1991, p49
Informal study groups
The purpose of the Study Group scheme is to create
opportunities for members of the Institution to exchange ideas
and work on deepening and developing their knowledge of
structural engineering, thus stimulating a greater interest in
and promoting the art and science of structural engineering.
Members wishing to take part in the work of a Study
Group or who require further information about a Study
Group should write to the appropriate Convener.
History of Structural Engineering
Convener: Frank Newby, MA(Cantab), FEng, FIStructE, HonFRIBA,
27 Mayfield Avenue, London W4 1PN
The Structural Engineer, March 1973, p1 10
Model Analysis as a Design Tool
Convener: F . K. Garas, PhD, CEng, FIStructE, MICE,
Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd., Taywood House, 345
Ruislip Road, Southhall, Middlesex UBI 2QX
The Structural Engineer, February 1977, p63
Qualitative Analysis of Structural
Behaviour
Convener: D. Johnson, BSc(Eng), PhD, CEng, FIStructE, MICE,
Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Nottingham
Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NGl 4BU
The Structural Engineer, November 1978, p309
The Design of Steel Portal Frames
Convener: L. J. Morris, BSc(Eng), PhD, ACGI, DIC, CEng, FIStructE,
Simon Engineering Laboratories, University of Manchester,
Manchester M1 3 9PL
The Structural Engineer, Part A, June 1983, p1 70
Vibration Problems in Structures
Convener: J. W. Smith, BSc(Hons), PhD, ACGI, CEng, MIStructE,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol
BS81TR
The Structural Engineer, Part A, June 1983, p1 70
Computing in structural engineering
Convener: A. T. Humphrey, CEng, MIStructE, MIMechE,
Analysis & Test Division, GEC Research, Marconi Research
Centre, West Haningfield Road, Gt. Baddow, Essex
The Structural Engineer, March 1987, p83
Advanced Composite Materials and
Structures
Convener: P. R. Head, BSc(Eng), ACGI, CEng, MIStructE, MICE,
Maunsell Structural Plastics Ltd., Maunsell House, 160
Croydon Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 4DE
The Structural Engineer, Part A, June 1987, p221

Management and Maintenance of

Bridges
convener: G. Davison, BSc, CEng, MIStructE,
c/o The Institution of Structural Engineers, 11 Upper Belgrave
Street, London SWlX 8BH
Structural news, 23 January 1990, p4

T h e S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r / V o l u m e 7 1 /No.4/ 1 6 F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 3 59