Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Special Topics of FEA: Somenath Mukherjee Gangan Prathap
Special Topics of FEA: Somenath Mukherjee Gangan Prathap
Scientist, Director,
Structural Technologies Division, National Institute of Science and
National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), Information Resources (NISCAIR),
Bangalore, New Delhi,
Karnataka, India India
1
Lecture 4
Special Topics of FEA
Chapters
2
Lecture 4
Special Topics of FEA
Chapter 1
3
1.1 The Pathological problem of locking
Locking is a pathological problem encountered in formulating a
certain class of elements for structural analysis, although these
elements satisfy completeness and continuity requirements.
Explanations:
(1) Locking is caused by ill conditioning of the stiffness matrix due to the
very large magnitude of the shear stiffness terms as compared to the
those of bending stiffness (Tessler and Hughes).
(2) Locking occurs due to coupling between the shear deformation and
bending deformation, and that it can be eliminated by appropriate de-
coupling (Carpenter et al).
x
dw/dx
dw/dx
z,w x
=dw/dx NA zx= - dw/dx
5
Elementary beam theory as constrained media problem
Euler beam model 1
L
dθ
2 L
1
L
dw
2
δΠ = δ EI dx − qwdx + κ θ− =0
2 dx 2 dx
x 0
Equilibrium Equations
0 0
d 2θ dw
EI 2
−κ θ − =0 ....(i )
dx dx
dw/dx
dθ d 2 w
z,w x κ −
dx dx 2
=q i.e.
d
dx
κ θ−
dw
dx
=q ....(ii )
L h/2
1 V 1 1 Q2
U shear = V dx = dy
0
2 kGA kGA G −h / 2 I 2b
1
V k= h/2
A Q2
y I2 b
dy
−h / 2
L L
1 V 1 V dw
U shear = V dx = V γ dx γ= =θ −
2 kGA 2 kGA dx
h 0
L
0
L L 2
1 1 1 dw
U shear = V γ dx = kGA(γ ) 2 dx = kGA θ − dx
0
2 0
2 2 0
dx (1.4)
9
1.3 Formulation of the two-noded Timoshenko Beam Element
(Using Linear Lagrangian C0 Shape Functions)
Element displacement and geometry (iso-parametric):
1−ξ 1+ ξ −1 ≤ ξ ≤ 1
wh = N1w1 + N 2 w2 θ h = N1θ1 + N 2θ 2 N1 = N2 =
2 2
e Le 2x
x = N1 x1 + N 2 x2 with x1 = 0, x2 = L x = (ξ + 1), ξ= e
−1
2 L
Le
dx = dξ
2
w1 w1,F1 w2,F2
wh N1 0 N2 0 θ1
h
= = [ N ]{δ e } (1.5) Le
θ 0 N1 0 N2 w2
θ2
1,M1 2,M2
dθ h dx 0 − 1/ L 0 1/ L
(ε ) =
h
= {δ e }
θ h − dwh dx 1 / L (1 − ξ ) / 2 − 1 / L (1 + ξ ) / 2
{ε } = [B]{δ }
h e (1.6) 10
Element stress resultants :
M EI 0 dθ / dx
= = [ D][ B]{δ e } (1.7)
V 0 kGA θ − dw / dx
1
Le
[ K ] = [ B ] [ D ][ B ] dξ = [ K eb ] + [ K e s ]
e T
−1
2
0 0 0 0 1 Le / 2 −1 Le / 2
EI 0 1 0 −1
kGA Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 3 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 6
[ K e ] = [ K eb ] + [ K e s ] = e + e
L 0 0 0 0 L −1 − Le / 2 1 − Le / 2
0 −1 0 −1 Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 6 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 3
(1.11)
12
FE results of analysis of deep beam cantilever beam under tip load
L P
E=1000
G=375
b=1, h=1
L=4 No of Normalized tip
Locked results elements Displacement
y (Locked)
Observations 1 0.2 (10)-5
•Large errors
h 2 0.8 (10)-5
•A pattern in the
error. 4 0.32 (10)-4
16 0.512 (10)-3
13
Antidote for shear locking.
Use a 1 point (instead of 2 point) Gauss integration
scheme for the stiffness matrix is
0 0 0 0 1 Le / 2 −1 Le / 2
e e e EI 0 1 0 −1 kGA Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4
[ K *] = [ K b ] + [ K s *] = e + e
L 0 0 0 0 L −1 − Le / 2 1 − Le / 2
0 −1 0 −1 Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4
(1.12)
1
Normalized
displacement
No. of elements
1 2 3 4 5
Magic! An error in the integration eliminates locking! WHY ? 14
FE results of analysis of deep beam cantilever beam under tip load
L P
E=1000
G=375
b=1, h=1
L=4
Number Normalized tip Normalized tip
y of Displacement Displacement
elements (Locked) (Lock-free,
Reduced Int.)
h 0.2 (10)-5 0.75
1
15
Example problems solved using a single Timoshenko beam element
Linear displacements: θ h = ax wh = bx
dw h dθ h
Shear strain γ = θ −
h
= ax − b Bending strain =a
dx dx
Rayleigh-Ritz procedure L 0 L3 / 3 − L2 / 2 a 0
EI +κ =
0 0 − L2 / 2 L b qL2 / 2
− 3qL2 qL 1.5qL3
a= b=− −
Element locks when shear 12 EI + κL2 2κ 12 EI + κL2
rigidity is increased
dθ h
indefinitely. As κ → ∞, a → 0, b→0
dx
→0
• For thin beams, the shear strain energy term vanishes, leading to two
constraints: α→0 β→0
(First constraint is physically meaningful in terms of the equivalent
Euler beam model, but the second constraint is a spurious one.
The spurious term β effectively enhances the element's bending
stiffness to EI*=EI+kGA(Le)2 /12, where EI and kGA are the bending
and shear rigidities respectively of the actual beam, leading to locking.
wLF wL = I * I = 1 + kGAL2 (12EI ) = 1 + e
−1
2
0 0 0 0 1 Le / 2 −1 Le / 2
e e e EI 0 1 0 −1 kGA Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 3 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 6
[K ] = [K b ] + [K s ] = e +
L 0 0 0 0 Le −1 − Le / 2 1 − Le / 2
0 −1 0 −1 Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 6 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 3
0 0 0 0 1 Le / 2 −1 Le / 2
EI 0 1 0 −1 kGA Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4
[ K e *] = [ K eb ] + [ K e s *] = e + e
L 0 0 0 0 L −1 − Le / 2 1 − Le / 2
0 −1 0 −1 Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 219/ 4
If one uses a Reduced Integration scheme with a one-point rule of
Gauss Quadrature, instead of the two-point rule necessary for
accurate integration in the shear strain energy, it leads to
20
The Function Space Approach
to Locking Problems
21
1.7 Definition of the Inner product
The inner product for the Timoshenko beam element is defined
through the symmetric bilinear forms:
h
a(u , u ) = e
{ε }
h T EI
0
0
kGA
{ε }dx
e
{ε }
1
h T EI 0 Le
= {ε } dξ =< ε h , ε >
−1
0 kGA 2
a(u h , u h ) e = {ε }
h T EI
0
0
kGA
{ }
ε h dx
e
{ε } { }
1 e
h T EI 0 h L
= ε dξ =< ε h , ε h >
0 kGA 2 (1.13)
−1
22
1.8 The B Subspace
The B subspace is the space in which the column vectors of the
strain-displacement matrix [B] lie.
0 − 1/ L 0 1/ L (1.14)
[B ] =
1 / L (1 − ξ ) / 2 − 1 / L (1 + ξ ) / 2
j =1 < v , v >
{v j }, < v1 , v2 >= 0 (1.18)
j j
1. The bending strain is a lot smaller than the analytical one, showing
that spurious bending stiffness has been introduced through FEA .
2. There is spurious shear strain oscillation in FEA results.
3. Slow Convergence even with many elements.
h 2 2 h 2
Thus ε −ε = ε −ε
FE Strain vectors exactly agree with these orthogonal projections of analytical strains
27
TABLE 2
Error norm square for locked strain projections with the linear
two noded Timoshenko beam element. e=kGAL 2/(12EI)
1
2
q =
L
{q}T [D] {q} dξ {q} = {ε }− {ε }
2 −1
{ε }= {ε }
h 2
q = ε −ε h 2
= ε
2
−ε h 2
28
1.10 The Function Space explanation of locking and its
elimination
The original field-inconsistent [B] matrix is
0 − 1/ L 0 1/ L
[B ] =
1 / L (1 − ξ ) / 2 − 1 / L (1 + ξ ) / 2
1 e
e T L e e
[ K *] = [ B*] [ D][ B*] dξ = [ K b ] + [ K s *]
−1
2
0 0 0 0 1 Le / 2 −1 Le / 2
e e e EI 0 1 0 − 1 kGA Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4
[ K *] = [ K b ] + [ K s *] = e + e
L 0 0 0 0 L −1 − Le / 2 1 − Le / 2
0 −1 0 −1 Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4 − Le / 2 ( Le ) 2 / 4
(1.23)
31
1.12 Orthogonal Projection on B* space
In general, Reduced Integrated FEA results are NOT
variationally correct. (RI is a variational crime !)
Reduced Integrated FEA strains will agree with the
best-fit solution, provided the following rule holds
good,
{F e E }= − [[B]− [B *]]T [D]{ε }dx = 0 (1.24)
Then: e
< ε ,ν i * >
{ε *} = {ε *} =
h m
{ν i *}, < ν i *,ν j * >= 0 for i≠ j (1.25)
i =1 < ν i *,ν i * >
When this extraneous force {F e E }does not vanish, then
the best-fit solution (on the B* space) will suffer
additional strain from this extraneous force vector,
over the lockfree (reduced integrated) FEA solution.
32
TABLE 3
Analytical strains and their locked and lockfree projections as finite element strains
e=kGAL2/(12EI).
Lockfree − M 0 / EI − PL /( 2 EI )
{ ε *} = { ε *} =
strain 0 P / kGA
vector
j =1 < v , v >
{v j }, < v1 , v2 >= 0 {v1} =
0
1
, {v2 } =
2/ L
ξ
B
j j
load P
{ε }= {ε }
h 2
q = ε −ε h
2
= ε
2
− εh ,
2
{ε }= {ε *}
h q*
2 2
= ε −ε h * = ε
2
− εh*
2
34
A case of variational incorrectness through reduced integration
A cantilever beam with uniformly distributed loading ρ
FI: Field inconsistent, Locked, but variationally correct FE results.
FC: Field consistent, Lock free, Reduced Integrated FE results.
Note that FC (by FEA) deviates from the field-consistent best-fit results.
For this case :
The extraneous force vector
(a non-zero vector) from
Reduced Integration consists
of self-equilibrating moments,
that shift the FC Best-fit from
the FC-FEM results.
{F }= −
e
E [[B ] − [B *]]T [D]{ε }dx
e
0
ρL2 / 12
{FEe } =
0
− ρL2 / 12
{ε *}= {ε *}+ δε *
h
35
1.13 Lockfree an-isoparametric formulation
(quadratic transverse displacement and linear rotation)
3 _ 2 _
Displacements: w = h
N i wi h
θ = N iθ i (1.26)
i =1 i =1
1− ξ 1+ ξ
Shape functions N1 = N2 = N3 = 1 − ξ 2
2 2
Strain vector: {ε }
h
=
dθ dx
θ − dw / dx
= [B ] δ e { }
{ε }=
h 0 −1/ L 0
− (2ξ − 1) / L (1 − ξ ) / 2 − (2ξ + 1) / L (1 + ξ ) / 2
1/ L 0
4ξ / L
{δ } e
(1.27)
36
Summary
Shear locking in Timoshenko’s Shear Flexible beam element occurs from spurious
constraints that arise from reducing the discretized domain into an Euler beam (of
infinite shear rigidity).
The field consistency paradigm identifies the spurious constraints related to locking,
and suggests methods to eliminate field inconsistency by eliminating the spurious
constraints (thereby enforcing field consistency).
The function space approach shows that locked strain vector in an element (through
FEA) is actually the orthogonal projection of the analytical strain vector onto a field-
inconsistent subspace B, arising from a field-inconsistent [B] matrix (strain-
displacement matrix). B cannot be spanned by standard orthogonal basis vectors.
FEA through reduced integration (RI) effectively projects the analytical strain vector
onto a field-consistent subspace B*. However, RI is variationally incorrect in general,
and the FE strain vector agrees with the orthogonal projection on B* only when the
spurious extraneous force vector vanishes. 37
Lecture 4
Special Topics of FEA
Chapter 2
Error Analysis in
Computational Elastodynamics
A comedy of errors…
38
2.1 Finite Element Elastodynamic Equations using
the Principle of Least Action
2
Action I = L(q,q, t )dt Lagrangian L = T −V
1
Hamilton’s Principle δI = 0 for q(t), q(t1)= q(t2)=0
d ∂L ∂L
− = Qi
dt ∂q i ∂qi
39
In elastodynamics, the equations of motion are generally derived
in a global sense (with element assembly)
N N N N N N
e e e 1 e T
L = T −V = T − U − W = .{δ } [ M e ]{δ e } − e T e e
{δ } [ K ]{δ } − {δ e }T {F e }
e =1 e=1 e =1 e =1 2 e =1 e =1
d ∂L ∂L
− =0
Equation of motion dt ∂q i ∂qi
Let {δ }= {φ}.sin(ω t )
G
n (2.3)
{[K G
}
] − ωn 2 [ M G ] {φ } = 0 (2.4)
{
det [ K G ] − ωn 2 [ M G ] = 0 }
Eigenvalue ωi 2 , Eigenmode {φi },
ωi is natural circular frequency (rad / sec)
41
Orthogonality of the Eigen-modes (Normal modes)
qi(t)
kii mii
/\/\/\/\/\ Qi(t)
42
Example 1. Free vibration analysis of a simple cantilever beam using 10 Euler beam elements.
L=1m, b=0.1m, t=0.001m I=2.5×10-7m4, A=3×10-4m2
Density ρ=2722.77 kg/m3, Mass per unit length of the beam is ρA=0.816 kg/m
E=7.1 ×1010 N/m2,
Table 3.1Comparison of the natural frequencies in bending of the uniform cantilever beam obtained by different methods
Natural
Natural Differen Natural
Natural Natural Circular
Circular Natural t Frequency
Different Frequenc Different Circular Frequency
Frequency Frequency methods fn (Hz)
methods y methods Frequency n (rad/sec)
fn (Hz) n fn (Hz)
(rad/sec) n (rad/sec)
Classical
Classical 1447.51 9.095×103
Classical 516.935 3.248×103 solution
82.4915 518.31 solution
solution
9.097×103
FE result 82.4836 518.26 FE result 516.935 3.248×103 FE result 1447.83
43
Example 2. Free vibration analysis of an aircraft wing using Euler beam elements.
2.1469m
Trailing edge
Root 0.849 m Tip
Fig (a) A typical subsonic aircraft wing
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Wing First Symmetric Mode 6.71 Hz (by Stick Model) and 6.72 Hz (by detailed FE model in NASTRAN)
Wing Second Symmetric Mode 18.89 Hz (by Stick Model) and 19.51 Hz (by detailed FE model in NASTRAN)
45
HT Anti-Symmetric Mode 10.4 Hz (by Stick Model) and 9.1 Hz (by detailed FE model in NASTRAN)
2.3 Definitions of Inner Products in Elastodynamics
Ne
Inertia-inner product (c, d ) = {c}T [ ρ ]{d }dx (2.8)
ele =1 ele
48
2.6 The Frequency-Error Hyperboloid
Z = ε −ε h (2.16)
H
ωh
X = u −u h 1
E Y =
A
(ω = ω ) ω
θu u θε
ε
(u , u h ) < ε ,ε h > cos θ u (u , u h ) ε ε
h
1 ε ε
h
cos(θ u ) = , cos(θε ) = = =
h
uu ε εh cos θε uu h < ε ,ε h > ω 2
u uh
2
h 2
2
cos θ u 1 ε ε 1 2 h 2 (ω h ) 2
= = ω (ω ) =
Hence for variationally cos 2 θε ω 4 u 2 u h 2 ω 4 ω2
correct formulations (2.17)
• Geometrically, the modal displacement vector suffers less deviation
than that of the modal strain vector. Hence (ω h ) 2
2
>1
ω 50
Example 4: Free Vibration of a Simply Supported Beam
x L
Analytical Approximate
Modal Disp. w = a sin (πx / L ) wh = b
x
1−
x
L L
Modal Strain π
2
d 2 wh 2b
ε = (− d )= a sin (πx / L )
h
2
w / dx 2
ε = − =
L dx 2 L2
Eigenvalue
ω 2 = π 4 EI /( ρAL4 ) (ω h ) 2 = 120 * EI /( ρAL4 )
2 h 2 2 2 h 2 h EI π4
ε −ε = ω u − (ω ) u = a 2 − 4b 2
L3 2
EI
< ε h , ε − ε h >= (u h , ω 2u − (ω h ) 2 u h ) = 4 (πab − b 2 )
L3 51
2.8 Replacement of Consistent Mass by Lumped Mass;
A variational crime L
21
18
15
12 A B
9
6
exact solution
3 lumped mass
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
element length ratio
Chapter 3
53
3.1 What is rank deficiency ?
The rank of the stiffness matrix is the dimension of the B subspace
that emerges from the strain-displacement matrix [B], i.e.
dim (B*) < dim (B) or (N-R*) < (N-R), i.e. R* > R (3.3)
Rank [Ke*] < Rank [Ke] because of introduction of spurious rigid body motions
Reduced integration may introduce rank deficiency 54
Rank deficiency of the plane stress Quad 4 element
1,2,3 are rigid body modes
4,5,6 are constant strain modes
7,8 are bending modes, but cannot
be sensed by a 1x1 reduced integration
55
56
57
The Mindlin Plate element
58
Appendix
59
60
61
62
63
Some Thoughts
A burning question:
Does Mesh Optimisation Maximize Numerical Entropy?
Total Strain
Analytical Strain Energy with the analytical solution u
Energy remains Invariant (Maximum entropy)
2 2
ε ≥ εh
Position of
Middle Node.
64
Cui bono ? (For whose good ?)
How the best-fit paradigm helps
(a) Gives the exact, but hidden, mechanism of the way the Finite
Element Method works. It shows that computations in FEM
are actually determined in a best-fit manner of the strains (and
stresses), instead of the existing myth that they are based on
displacements.
(b) Helps one to make a priori error estimates for bench mark
problems easily.
65
When Arts and Science met at the crossroads…
u P
A
Subspace
66
Bibliography
Linear Algebra
67
Bibliography (Finite Element Method)
Elementary FEM
Advanced FEM
6. G Strang, G J Fix. An analysis of the Finite element Method. Prentice Hall, NJ. .
70