7/13/2021

Topics
CE 6504
Finite Elements Method in Structures • FEM in 2–D Problems
Part 3 • Higher order element construction
AAiT • FEM in 3–D Problems
• Deep (Timoshenko) Beam
• Plate Bending
• Shell Elements
• Introduction to Non-linear FEA
AY 2020/21 – II
Bedilu Habte
7/13/2021 3D Elements 2

Lagrange & Serendipity Elements Lagrange & Serendipity Elements

If only continuity of basic unknown (displacement) is to be satisfied,
Lagrange polynomials can be used to derive shape functions. Lagrange
polynomial in one dimension is defined by

7/13/2021 3D Elements 3 7/13/2021 3D Elements 4

Lagrange & Serendipity Elements

3D Finite Elements
1. 3D Elements
 Volume Coordinate
 Element Stiffness
 Integration

Lagrange polynomial Serendipity polynomial

7/13/2021 3D Elements 5

1
 7/13/2021

Equations of Equilibrium & y

Three-Dimensional Stress Strain Displacement yz
xy
xy
Analysis  x  xy  xz zy
x
   X b 0 3D stress zx xz
x y z  z

 xy  y  yz
  Yb 0 u u  v
x y z x  xy  
x y x
 xz  yz  z
  Z b 0 v u  w
x y z  y  xz  
y z x
w w  v
z  yz  
z y z
7/13/2021 3D Elements 7 7/13/2021 3D Elements 8

Stress-Strain Relationships Selecting the Element Type

 x  1     0 0 0   x 
    1   0 0 0   
  y   y 
 z  E   1  0 0 0   z  1. Discretize Body into n-noded solid elements.
    (12 )   2. Three degrees-of-freedom per node.

 xy (1   )(1  2 )  0 0 0 2 0 0   xy 
 yz   0 0 0 0 (12 )
0   yz  3. These are x , y, and z displacements.
  (12 )   
2
 4. ui - x displacement at ith node.

 zx   0 0 0 0 0 2   zx 

1     0 0 0 
5. vi - y displacement at ith node.
  1  

0 0 0 

6. wi - z displacement at ith node.
Stress-Strain    1  0 0 0 
D  E
 
Matrix (1   )(1  2 )  0 0 0 (1 2 )
2 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 (12 )
2 0 
 (1 2 ) 
 0 0 0 0 0 2 

7/13/2021 3D Elements 9 7/13/2021 3D Elements 10

Tri-Linear Displacement Function Shape Function  u1 

v 
u( x, y, z )  a1  a2 x  a3 y  a4 z  u1 
v   1
 1  u   N1 0 0 N 2 0 0 N 3 0 0 N 4 0 0   w1 
v( x, y, z )  a5  a6 x  a7 y  a8 z  w1    
 v    0 N1 0 0 N 2 0 0 N 3 0 0 N 4
 
0   

 
 u2  w  0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 4   u4 
w( x, y , z )  a9  a10 x  a11 y  a12 z  v2 
   1 2 3
 
  1  1 x   1 y  1z   v4 
N1  w 
d   
w2 
4
3   6V  4
z,w  u3     2 x   2 y   2 z 
 v3  N2  2
  6V
1  w3     3 x   3 y   3 z  Refer Area coordinates on how
 u4  N3  3 the various coefficients are
2   6V
determined.
x,u y,v  v4 
N4 
4  4 x   4 y   4 z 
w 
 4 6V
7/13/2021 3D Elements 11 7/13/2021 3D Elements 12

2
 7/13/2021

Strain/Displacements and
Stress/Strain Relationships
Element Stiffness
 B D B dV d    f 
T
 u 
 x  B  B1 B2 B3 B4 
 1 0 0 
V
 v 
k    B D B dV
T
x   0  0

    y   N1, x 0 0 
 0  1 
   w 
0 
y V
    
N1, y
 1  0 0 1 
    z  u z v 
 0 N1, z 
B1    

    
xy
B1   
0 6V   1 1 0 
 yz   y x  
   v w   N1, y N1, x 0   0 1  1 
 xz   z  y   0  
N1, y 
 1 0 1 
  N1, z
 w  u   

 x z    N1, z 0 N1, x 
7/13/2021 3D Elements 13 7/13/2021 3D Elements 14

Body & Surface Forces Uniform pressure on surface 1-2-3

 f b    N  X b  dV
T
 f s    N T T  dS
S
V

 f s    N  T  dS T
 f s    N 
S
T
 px 
 
evaluated on  p y  dS
surface 1, 2 , 3
p 
S  z

7/13/2021 3D Elements 15 7/13/2021 3D Elements 16

 px 
Volume Coordinates
p 
 y
 pz  1
 
 px 
 py  4
 
 f s   S123  z 
p P
S123  Area of surface 123
3  px 
 py  z
 
 pz 
0 2
  y
0
0
  x 3
7/13/2021 3D Elements 17 7/13/2021 3D Elements 18

3
 7/13/2021

Volume Coordinates Volume Coordinates

1 = V1/V
At a point P, four tetrahedrons can be drawn,
2 = V2/V
P-2-3-4, P-1-3-4, P-1-2-4, and P-1-2-3. 3 = V3/V
1  1 1 1 1 1 
4 = V4/V x x   
   x x x4  2 
Let V be the volume of tetrahedron 1-2-3-4.  
1 2 3
 
Let V1 be the volume of tetrahedron P-2-3-4.  y  y1 y2 y3 y4  3 
1 + 2 + 3+ 4 = 1   
Let V2 be the volume of tetrahedron P-1-3-4. z  z1 z2 z3 z4  
 4 

Let V3 be the volume of tetrahedron P-1-2-4. 1 1 1 1
Let V4 be the volume of tetrahedron P-1-2-3. x1 x2 x3 x4
6V 
y1 y2 y3 y4
z1 z2 z3 z4
7/13/2021 3D Elements 19 7/13/2021 3D Elements 20

Shape Functions Hexahedral elements

1 = N1
2 = N2 • Tri-Linear element; 8 corner nodes
3 = N3 • Natural Coordinates s , t, z t
4 = N4 • Corners at 1
3 7

 = N1 1 + N22 + N3 3 + N4 4 4
8
s
Integration 2
k!l! m! n! 6
  2l3m4n dV  6V
k

(3  k  l  m  n)!
1
V 1
z 5
7/13/2021 3D Elements 21 7/13/2021 3D Elements 22

Jacobian matrix:
 x y z 
 s s    
 x  8  Ni 0 0   xi  
s
  x 0 0 

    
0   yi  J     x y z 
 y    0
i 1 Ni    
  t t s   x  0
 0 
si  1    y 
 z  i 1  0 N i   zi   x y z   y     u 
ti  1    0      0 z   v 
0
  z  z z      z       
zi  1  xy   0   w
 yz   y x  
      
Strains in terms of  xz   0 

N1 
1  s 1  t 1  z operator matrix:

  
z y 
 
0
8  z x 
7/13/2021 3D Elements 23 7/13/2021 3D Elements 24

4
 7/13/2021

  y z x   z Chain Rule
s s s s s s
  1   y z   1  x   z f y z x f z x y f
  s s s s s s s s s
x J t t t y J t t t f y z x f z x y f
  y z x   z t t t t t t t t t
 z  z  z  z  z  z f y z x f z x y f
f  z  z  z f  z  z  z f  z  z  z
x y   x

x y z y

x y z z

x y z
s s s s s s s s s s s s
  1  x y   x y z x y z x y z
 t t t t t t t t t
z J t t t
x y   x y z x y z x y z
 z  z  z  z  z  z  z  z  z
 z  z  z
7/13/2021 3D Elements 25 7/13/2021 3D Elements 26

Stiffness Matrix Example

Gaussian Quadrature can be performed in three

dimensions in a manner similar to that of 1D and
2D elements Beam theory vs FEM
Element Nodes DOFs Δ – Error % σ – Error %

7/13/2021 3D Elements 27 7/13/2021 3D Elements 28

Contents Continuity (Smoothness)

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

 Continuity & Smoothness  A function is called a Cn function if its derivatives of

order j for 0 ≤ j ≤ n exist and are continuous functions
in the entire domain; like: C-1 , C0 and C1.
 Timoshenko Beam Theory

 Plate Bending Theories

 Kirchhoff, Mindilin, …

 Example

30

5
 7/13/2021

Necessary conditions for convergence Necessary conditions for convergence

Plate Bending

Plate Bending
CONDITION 1. COMPATIBILITY CONDITION 2. COMPLETENESS
Along element boundaries, the field variable and its partial
In the limit as element size shrinks to zero in mesh
derivatives up to one order less than the highest-order
derivative appearing in the integral formulation of the refinement, the field variable and its partial derivatives up to,
element equations must be continuous.
and including, the highest-order derivative appearing in the
Physical meaning: no gaps/cracks open up when the finite
element assemblage is stressed. integral formulation must be capable of assuming constant
i.e, the displacements within the elements and across the values.
element boundaries must be continuous.
The displacement field for C0 elements, or its first derivative This requires that the displacement interpolation functions
field for C1 elements, must be continuous along inter-
must be chosen so that the elements can represent
elemental boundaries.
Elements satisfying the compatibility condition are termed 1. Rigid body modes
compatible or conforming.
2. Constant strain states
7/13/2021 31 7/13/2021 32
Bedilu Habte Bedilu Habte

Timoshenko Beam Theory Timoshenko Beam Theory

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

 In thick beams:
• Shearing force contribute to the beam deformation
• Assumption “Cross sections remain perpendicular to  Governing equations
centroidal plane” no longer valid
• Kinematic equations
 Beam is condensed to a 1- D continuum
• Equilibrium
 Assumption • Constitutive equations (Material Laws)
• Mid-surface plane remains in mid-surface after bending

 Two independent variables (displacement and rotation) at

each point

33 34

Kinematic Equation Element Stiffness Matrix

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

Timoshenko Beam Theory

where

 12 6 L  12 6 L 
  6 L 2 L2 

2
ˆ EI  6 L 4 L
k  3
L  12  6 L 12  6 L  Textbook – Page 269
 
 6L 2L
2
 6 L 4 L2 
35 36

6
 7/13/2021

Plate Bending Plate Theories

General Assumptions
Plate Bending

Plate Bending
 Plate is thin, h is small compared to the length(s), but not
so thin that the deflection w become comparable to h.
 Plate thickness is either uniform or varies slowly so that
three-dimensional stress effects are ignored.
 Plate is symmetric in fabrication about the mid-surface.
 Applied transverse loads are distributed over plate
surface areas of dimension h or greater.
 The support conditions are such that no significant
extension of the mid-surface develops.
 Sections normal to the original reference surface remain
straight and normal to the deformed reference surface.
37
Assumptions of the Kirchhoff plate theory
The assumptions are:
1. geometrically linear: - small strains - small
deflections (”small” is problem dependent)
2. linear material: - linear elastic (Hooke), - in the
most simple case homogeneous and isotropic
3. thin plate hypotheses:
a) straight lines perpendicular to the mid-surface
(i.e. transverse normals) before deformation
remain straight after deformation.
b) transverse normals rotate such that they remain
perpendicular to the mid-surface after
deformation
38

Plate Model Plate Types

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

Rule of thumb

39 40

Stresses & Forces Displacements, Strains & Stresses

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

41 42

7
 7/13/2021

Plate Curvature Stresses on an Element

Plate Bending

Plate Bending
43 44

Stress Resultants Moments

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

45 46

Governing Equation Derivation Summary

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

47 48

8
 7/13/2021

Mindilin’s Thick Plate Theory Mindilin’s Thick Plate Theory (2)

Plate Bending

Plate Bending
The Reissner/Mindlin theory allows shear
deformation, i.e. rotations and displacement
derivatives are not directly coupled and differ
by the shear deformation.
Consequently, rotation fields θx and θy as well
as displacement field w are independently
introduced into the virtual work expression.
Since the highest derivatives of displacements
and rotations are of first order; FE
approximations must not be more than C0-
continuous; an important simplification
compared to the Kirchhoff theory.
49 50

Mindilin’s Thick Plate Theory (3) FEM

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

As the plate becomes thinner shear

deformation becomes unimportant . If the
Reissner/Mindlin theory is implemented for thin
plates, the element behaves far too stiff, for
some element formulations the plate even does
not deflect; leading to the effect called “shear
locking”.

51 52

FEM (2) FEM (3)

Plate Bending

Plate Bending

12 DOF Element:

Shape function:
Non-conforming /
Incompatible
B/s curvature is
Lisa Samples : mod40.liml to mod47.liml WHY?
not continuous
53 54

9
 7/13/2021

Strains – Displacement FEM (4)

Plate Bending

Plate Bending
16 DOF Element: Conforming /Compatible

55 56

Boundary Conditions
CONTENTS
Plate Bending

 Shells

 Non-Linear Analysis

 Modeling Issues

57 58

SHELLS SHELL BEHAVIOR

 Shells are structurally continuous
 they can transmit forces in a number of different directions in
the surface of the shell.
 Mathematical models of shells are constructed following
the same general idea used for plates.
 Classification: stretching, bending and transverse shear
 Very thick shells, Thick shells, Moderately thick shells, Thin
shells, Very thin shells

59 60

10
 7/13/2021

SHELL FINITE ELEMENTS SHELL ELEMENT (8-NODE)

Approaches used to generate the shell elements:
 Flat Elements

 Curved Elements

 Solid Elements

 Degenerated Solid Elements

61 62

SHELL ELEMENT (HIGHER ORDER) SHELL THEORIES

The Kirchhoff-Love (Thin Shell) Theory
 The shell thickness is very small compared to the least
radius of curvature of the shell middle surface.
 Strains and displacements that arise within the shell
are small.
 Straight lines that are normal to the middle surface
prior to deformation remain straight and normal to the
middle surface after deformation.
 The direct stress acting in the direction normal to the
shell middle surface is negligible.
The Flügge-Byrne (Thick Shell) Theory
 displacements are not small
Text: 331
 higher-order approximations
Zienk.:Ch8
63 64

TYPES OF NONLINEAR PROBLEMS

ANALYSIS TYPES
1. Geometric nonlinearity First-Order Linear Elastic Analysis
a. Large deflections  most basic analysis type;
b. Large rotations  fundamental assumption = the material is strained
2. Material nonlinearity below the proportional limit (i.e. one E) and equilibrium
is formed on the undeformed configuration of the
a. Plasticity
structure.
b. Nonlinear elasticity
Linear Nonlinear

K D  P K D  P Second-Order Elastic Analysis

K    f D
P   f D
Stiffness and Forces are
independent of displacements.
the next step-up in complexity, also called second order
K    f D 
analysis.
P   f D  the equilibrium equations are written for the deformed
Stiffness and Forces are
structure. Second-order elastic forces and deformations
functions of displacements. can be approximated using first-order elastic analysis
65
and amplification factors. 66

11
 7/13/2021

ANALYSIS TYPES MATERIAL PROPERTY

Elastic Load Analysis:
A structure with linearly elastic material can have loads of
increasing magnitude applied successively until the
structure becomes unstable. The point of instability is
also called point of bifurcation (splitting) in the load Nonlinear Elastic
deformation response. The elastic critical load is
determined using eigen value analysis.

Nonlinear Effects
 Nonlinear stress-strain behavior
 Buckling
 Gaps opening or closing
 Contact problems
 Phase changes
67 68

ITERATION METHOD
Possible solution techniques for non-linear
problems:
1. Let load PA be applied to a softening spring.
1. Incremental procedure 2. Assume kN = 0 for the first iteration.
2. Iterative procedure and 3. Compute first approximation to
3. Mixed procedure displacement: u1 = PA/k0
4. Take nonlinear term to the RHS.
5. Compute next approximation to
displacement: u2 = (PA-kN1u1)/k0
Text: Page 321 6. Generate sequence of approximations.

69 70

EXAMPLE 1: P= 0.006
MATRIX APPROACH
k
0.2000000000
u
0.0300000000
Del u
ke u  P Linear elastic case
kt du  dP
0.1700000000 0.0352941176 15.00000000%

k  0.2  u 0.1647058824
0.1635714286
0.0364285714 3.11418685%
0.0366812227 0.68877551%
0.1633187773 0.0367379679 0.15445930%
P  0.006 0.1632620321
0.1632492630
0.0367507370 0.03474506%
0.0367536116 0.00782121%
kt – tangent stiffness matrix, ke plus function of u/P
0.1632463884 0.0367542587 0.00176085% du – incremental nodal displacement
u1 0.1632457413 0.0367544045 0.00039645% dP – incremental nodal force

k 
0.1632455955 0.0367544373 0.00008926%

 k g du  dP
0.1632455627 0.0367544447 0.00002010%
72

0.1632455553 0.0367544463 0.00000452%

0.1632455537 0.0367544467 0.00000102% e
0.1632455533
0.1632455532
0.0367544468 0.00000023%
0.0367544468 0.00000005%
kg – geometric stiffness matrix

71 72

12
 7/13/2021

MATRIX APPROACH Example: 2

ke  km du  dP
For first order inelastic analysis
km – plastic reduction stiffness matrix
Consider two serially connected nonlinear springs, as shown
below. The stiffness of both springs depends on the
elongation of springs such that k1 = 50 + 500u [N/m] and
k2 = 100 + 200u [N/m] with u being the elongation of the
spring. When a force of F = 100 N is applied at the tip,

k e 
 k g  km du  dP
construct the system of nonlinear equations using the two
spring elements.

For second order inelastic analysis

k  kˆ u  0

74
73

e g
For elastic critical load analysis
^
kg – plastic reduction stiffness matrix
73 78
7/13/2021

Example: 3
Consider the three connected nonlinear springs shown below.
The stiffness of the springs depends on the elongation of
springs such that k1 = 10n + 500u [N/m], k2 = 20n + 300u
[N/m] and k3 = 5n + 200u [N/m]. When the forces are F1 =
20n N, F2 = 15n N are applied as shown (with n your roll
150+300u1+400u2 -100 - 200u2 number and u being the elongation of the spring), construct
-100 +200u1 -400u2 100 + 200u2 the system of nonlinear equations using the spring elements.
76

75 78
7/13/2021

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN

CONTENT
 Engineering Analysis & Design
 Types of Errors
 Mesh Refinement
 Rate of Convergence

 Modeling Issues

77 78

13
 7/13/2021

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN TYPES OF ERRORS

Physical Problem Change Type of error Source
physical
Validation problem Discretization error Use of FE approximation for geometry
and solution variables
Mathematical Improve
Model mathematical
model
Verification
Numerical integration Evaluation of FE element matrices and
vectors using numerical integration
Numerical model

Round off Due to the finite precision arithmetic used

No! in the computers, in the solution of the
Does answer Refine analysis global system of FEM equations; due to
make sense?
the ill-conditioning of the equations;
YES! Design improvements 79 truncation and round-off errors 80
Structural optimization
End

“Convergence” of FE – Analysis
Mesh refinement
“Convergence” of solution results to the exact solution
FE scheme exhibits convergence if the
1. h – refinement Consecutively reducing element size; refines Discretization error → 0 as the mesh is made infinitely fine (i.e.,
the element size based on solution gradients. element size → 0)
2. p – refinement increasing the approximation (polynomial) Convergence in energy and displacement
order of the elements, while keeping their sizes constant u : exact displacement solution to a problem that makes the
potential energy of the system a minimum
corresponding stress  (u )
3. r – refinement In this method, grid points are moved around  (u ) 1
(mesh redistribution) to provide clustering in certain and strain U
2 V
 T  dV 
regions, based on error indicators Exact strain energy of the body
uh : FE solution (‘h’ refers to the element size)
4. Mixed method also possible corresponding stress  h (u h ) 1
Uh    h dV
T

81 and strain  h (u h ) 2 V
h
82
Approximate strain energy of the body

Calculation of strain energies

The exact strain energy of the system is
Example: 2
1 80 1 80  du exact ( x)  3E 39 E
2 x  0
Consider a linear elastic bar with varying cross section U  Adx   EA   dx  
2 2 x 0  dx  160 2080
1 2  x 
A( x)   1   sqcm
x  40  If we discretize the problem using a single linear finite element, the stiffness
The governing differential (equilibrium) equation matrix is
P=3E/80
80cm
d  du 
A( x)   0 for x  (0,80) Eq(1)
80
E
dx 
E A( x)dx  1 1
E: Young’s modulus dx  K x 0
 1 1 
802  
Boundary conditions 13E  1 1
  1 1 
u ( x  0)  0 240  
du 3E
EA P The strain energy of the FE system is
dx x 80 cm 80
1 80 1 27 E
sin ce d  0 9 /13
2 x 0
  Uh   h h Adx  d T K d  T
Analytical solution 2 2080
3 1 
u exact ( x)  1   83 84
2  1 x  Note U  Uh
 
 40 

14
 7/13/2021

Convergence in strain energy Criteria for monotonic convergence

An FE solution does not tend to imitate
U  U h as h  0 the deflected shape as closely as 1. COMPLETENESS
possible; rather, the solution tends to 2. COMPATIBILITY
minimize the error in the strain energy
(the internal energy). © 2002 Brooks/Cole Publishing / Thomson Learning™

Convergence in displacement (norm)

u  uh 0   u - u   v - v   dV  0 as h0
2 2
h h
V

Monotonic convergence
85 86
Nonmonotonic convergence

CONDITION 1. COMPLETENESS Constant strain states

This requires that the Strain computed using linear finite elements
Actual variation of strain
displacement interpolation 
functions must be chosen so
that the elements can
represent

1. Rigid body modes

x

87 88

COMPLETENESS CONVERGENCE RATE

Mathematical implication of the two conditions A measure of how fast the discretization error goes to zero as
The element displacement approximation must be at least a the mesh is refined
COMPLETE polynomial of degree one
Convergence rate depends on the order of the complete
polynomial (k) used in the displacement approximation
1 1
x x y k=1
1
x 2 x 2 xy y2
x y k=1
 
x2 xy y2
k=2
1D 2D x3 x2 y xy 2 y 3
 k=3
89 90

15
 7/13/2021

Property of finite element solution MODELING ISSUES – 1

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the longest to the shortest
When the conditions of monotonic convergence are dimension
satisfied (compatibility and completeness) the finite
element strain energy always underestimates the strain
energy of the actual structure.

Strain energy of mathematical model

Strain energy of FE model

91 92

MODELING ISSUES – 2 MODELING ISSUES – 3

MESH COMPATIBILITY Symmetry
It is required that displacement has to be admissible Symmetry shall be used to reduce the size of the problem
continuity of the displacement in the entire domain.

93 94

See: For Degenerate Technique, Text (Page 98)

MODELING ISSUES – 4 COMMON SOURCES OF ERRORS IN FEA

Infinite Medium 1. Incorrectly applied boundary conditions – the most common
Take large amount of material to be part of the FEM model, one
so that the nodal displacements and element stresses
become small at points far from the loading(s). 2. Mesh not fine enough

Equilibrium and Compatibility of FEM Results
At nodes, within an element, between element boundary,
the entire model, etc.
3. Not knowing the material well enough
4. Applying linear analysis to non-linear FEA problems
5. Over complicating things. KISS (keep it simple stupid).

6. Wrong units

95 96
7. Doing analysis for the sake of it

16
 7/13/2021

COMMON SOURCES OF ERRORS IN FEA

8. Lack of verification
9. Wrong elements
10. Bad post-processing
11. Assuming conservatism
12. Attempting to predict contact stresses without modeling
contact
13. Not standardizing finite element analysis procedures
14. Inadequate archiving
15. Ignoring geometry or boundary condition approximations
97
16. Ignoring errors associated with the mesh

17