COMMUNICATIONSIN NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, Vol.

9, 35-43 (1993)

CONSISTENT DIAGONAL MASS MATRICES FOR THE

ISOPARAMETRIC 4-NODE QUADRILATERAL AND
&NODE HEXAHEDRON ELEMENTS

GERHARD SAUER
Technischer ifberwachungsverein Bayern. Westendstr. 199. 0-8000 Munchen 21. Germany

SUMMARY
Diagonal mass matrices offer computational advantages in many applications. Their general use is
confronted, however, with the fact that usual finite-element formulations generate consistent mass
matrices. Some methods have been suggested to diagonalize these consistent matrices. These methods are
largely founded on an intuitive basis. They abandon the classical way of calculating finite-element
matrices. In an attempt to overcome this deficiency, a procedure is presented which enables direct
calculation of consistent diagonal mass matrices for the isoparametric 4-node quadrilateral and 8-node
hexahedron. This procedure is based on an expansion of the interpolation functions and the selection of
an appropriate integration order. It is shown that the consistent diagonal mass and the associated stiffness
matrices represent the dynamic structural properties with good accuracy

INTRODUCTION
Calculating finite-element mass matrices on the basis of the conventional interpolation
functions leads to non-diagonal matrices. These matrices are called consistent, as they are
obtained with the same displacement interpolation functions as the stiffness matrices. The
consistent mass matrix is a natural consequence of the application of the usual dynamical
variational principle. Therefore it could also be termed a natural mass matrix in a finite-
element context.
A mass matrix with offdiagonal terms was almost never used in classical mechanics. In
classical mechanics point masses represented the mass of a given structure. The total mass was
condensed in these point masses. Clear equations resulted from this procedure, enabling their
solution with the appropriate amount of effort.
A diagonal matrix, however, offers advantages even in computational mechanics. A striking
example for the efficient use of a diagonal mass matrix is the application of the central
difference scheme for the time integration of the equations of motion.' The diagonal mass
matrix is almost a prerequisite to make the central difference scheme competitive with other
integration methods, as for example the implicit procedures. The central difference method
allows integration of the equations of motion without matrix factorization provided that mass
and damping matrices have diagonal forms. This implies, furthermore, that no total matrices
need to be calculated; the time integration can be carried out on an element level. The central
difference scheme loses, however, much of its attractiveness if a mass matrix with entries out
of the diagonal is employed. In this case it is rather inferior to the implicit methods because
of its conditional stability.

0748-8025/93/01 OO35-O9$09.50 Received 15 October 1991

0 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 January 1992
36 G . SAUER

A diagonal matrix can also be superior to a non-diagonal mass matrix when calculating
eigenfrequencies. In Reference 2 it is shown that the lowest eigenfrequencies of an axially
oscillating rod are better approximated if in the finite-element model the mass concentration
on the matrix diagonal is increased. This mass concentration delivers more accurate solutions
than a non-diagonal mass matrix even if this matrix is a considerably improved version of the
traditional consistent mass representation. The lowest frequencies could be computed even
more accurately by completely diagonalizing the mass matrix. This convergence pattern is, of
course, not valid generally. Other elements, e.g. continuum or shell elements, may exhibit quite
different convergence properties.
The apparent advantages of a diagonal mass matrix in some applications make the
constantly renewed search for a general method to compute lumped mass matrices
understandable. The simplest scheme, which is still widely applied, consists of summing up
row-wise the terms of the consistent matrix and placing the sum on the corresponding diagonal
position. The offdiagonal terms are set to zero. This pragmatic procedure yields useful results
in many cases, but it ignores the variational principle underlying the finite-element formulation
and the convergence characteristics of the finite-element method established by means of the
same principle. Besides, it produces non-positive-definite mass matrices if applied to elements
with mid-side nodes, and it is not applicable to rotatory mass terms.
More refined methods for the calculation of a diagonal mass matrix are described in
References 3-5. In Reference 3 it is suggested to use exact eigenfrequencies and the frequencies
produced by the spatial and time discretizations as measures to select scaling factors for the
determination of the diagonal rotary terms. The translatory mass is lumped according to the
scheme described above. An alternative transition from a consistent to a diagonal mass matrix
is recommended in Reference 4. Owing to this recommendation the diagonal terms of the
consistent mass matrix should be computed first. In a second step these terms should be scaled
such that the total element mass is preserved. This recommendation guarantees that a positive-
definite element mass matrix is always calculated. The use of orthogonal interpolation
functions for the generation of a diagonal mass matrix in one-dimensional problems is
illustrated in Reference 5. A partial drawback of this formulation consists in the need to adopt
a mixed variational principle. Adoption of the usual dynamical variational principle would
lead to an overestimation of the real structural stiffness by several times.
A much simpler approach for the computation of a consistent diagonal mass matrix for the
4-node quadrilateral and 8-node hexahedron elements is described in the following section.
This approach is based solely on the expansion of the interpolation functions and the selection
of an appropriate integration order.

CONSISTENT DIAGONAL MASS MATRIX

Plane 4-node quadrilaterial

The interpolation functions N of a plane isoparametric 4-node element are bilinear functions
of the natural co-ordinates r and s. To compute a consistent diagonal mass matrix, the
interpolation functions are expanded by cubic terms. Cubic terms have the same numeric value
as the linear terms on all nodes. The linear terms can therefore be modified in such a way that
the interpolation function Ni vanishes as demanded on all nodes except on node i. On node
i it continues to have the value 1. The expansion of the interpolation functions delivers the
 CONSISTENT DIAGONAL MASS MATRICES 37

equations
N1= 0*25[1- (1 - a ) r - ar3][ 1 - (1 - 01)s- as’]
N2=0*25[1+(1 - 01)r+a?] [l -(1-01)s-01~~]
N3 = O.25[1+ (1 - 01)r+ar’][ I + (1 - 01)s+ as’]
N~=O~25[1-(1-01)r-01r’][l+(l - 0 1 ) s + a s ’ ]
Equations (1) contain a free parameter 01 whose value remains to be determined. Of course
the aim is to find such a value for 01 that generates a consistent diagonal mass matrix. This
specific value can only be found by the selection of a certain integration order.
An exact integration of the mass matrix by employing the interpolation functions (1) and
Gauss quadrature requires a 4 x 4 integration order. Applying this integration order, however,
it is impossible to detect a value for 01 that would diagonalize the mass matrix. The search for
this specific value of 01 also fails if the mass matrix is calculated by a 3 x 3 integration scheme.
Reducing the integration order in a further step to a 2 x 2 integration, a clear trend for an
accumulation of the mass on the matrix diagonal is found when 01 is successively lowered.
Selecting a value of
01= -1.31 -$) (2)
the mass matrix is completely diagonalized: the offdiagonal terms vanish.
At this point of the development one may be interested to see what a consistent diagonal
mass matrix looks like for an element of simple shape and to get an impression of possible
differences between the consistent diagonal mass matrix and the mass representation delivered
by the conventional lumping scheme. These two points will be addressed by an example. But
first it shall be stated that no differences between the diagonal mass matrices exist when the
quadrilateral element is rectangular.
A 4-node trapezoidal quadrilateral is selected as an example to demonstrate differences
between distinct diagonal mass matrices arising when the element is not rectangular (Figure 1).
Three diagonal mass matrices are computed for this trapezoid. The first mass matrix is derived
from geometrical considerations. The trapezoidal area is divided into four subareas. Each
subarea comprises all points which are closer to the corresponding corner node than to any
of the other three nodes. Consequently, the mass of each subarea is concentrated in the

Geometrical considerations
Y-PA, A,=A,

%=P A 3
with p=1 -
Diagonal masses M,=M, qM,,
geometrical con- 0.8047 0.6953
8idOmtiOn8
oonvmtional
dlagonal 0.8333 0.6667
conri8tent
diagonal 1.oooo 0.5000

Figure 1. Diagonal mass matrices for trapezoidal element

38 G. SAUER

attached corner node. The other two matrices are the usual diagonal and the consistent
diagonal mass matrices. The resulting mass distributions are shown in Figure 1.
One immediately observes that, lumping the mass in the traditional way, a mass distribution
is obtained which resembles the mass partition following from simple geometrical
considerations. The consistent diagonal formulation yields a visibly different mass
concentration. From that it could be concluded that the consistent diagonal mass matrix is less
appropriate to model the dynamic structural properties. That this conclusion is not true, this
will be exemplified in the section dealing with the convergence characteristics of the consistent
diagonal mass matrix.

8-node hexahedron
The usual interpolation functions of the isoparametric 8-node volume element are expanded
in the same way as those of the plane 4-node element. From this the equations
N*= 0- 125 [I- (1 - a)r - ar31 [ 1 - (1 - a ) -~ [ 1 - (1 - a)t -
N2 = 0.125 [1+ (1 - a )+~ar3][ 1 - (1 - 01)s - as3][ 1 - (1 - 01)t - at3]
~3 = 0.125[1+ (1 - a ) r + ~~1 [i + (1 - c ~ ) s + [i-(I- a r ) t -at3]
N~= 0.125 [I- (1 - - ar31 [ 1 + (1 - a ) +~ [ 1 - (1 - a)t - at3]
N~=0.125[1-(1-a)r-arr3] [ l - ( l - ~ ~ ) ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ] [ l + ( l - ~ ) t + (3)
at~]
N6 = 0.125 [1 + (1 - CY)r + ar3][ 1 - (1 - (Y)s- as3][ 1 + (1 - O1)t + at3]
N,= 0- 125 [i + (1 - ~ l )+r ar3][ 1 + (1 - 01)s + [ 1 + (1 - a)t + at3]
= 0.125[I - (1 - a )-~a r 3 ~ [ 1 + (1 - a ) +~ [ 1 + (1 - a)t + at3]
result where r, s and t are the natural co-ordinates of the hexahedron.
With the help of the interpolation functions (3) a consistent diagonal mass matrix can yet
again be computed. One has only to select the value of 01 according to (2) and to choose a
2 x 2 x 2 integration order.
The formulation of consistent diagonal mass and associated stiffness matrices makes sense
only if they contribute to improving the accuracy of finite-element solutions. The convergence
characteristics of the modified formulation are therefore investigated by means of three
examples.

CONVERGENCE INVESTIGATION
The convergence characteristics of the mass and stiffness matrices obtained with the
interpolation functions (1) and (3), respectively, are best described by means of the
eigenfrequency solutions for simple structures. Simple structures corresponding to the two
elements under consideration are a square plate and a cube. Both structures are depicted in
Figure 2 together with the dimensions and a material property. It is assumed that both
structures can vibrate freely. They are not constrained at any point. Of course, the plate can
only vibrate in its plane. The plate stresses obey the plane stress condition.
The eigenfrequencies of the two structures are computed with different finite-element
meshes. At the stage of each mesh the eigenfrequencies are calculated with three different mass
matrices. The eigenfrequencies found with the expanded interpolation functions are compared
with the solutions obtained with the conventional consistent and the usual diagonal mass
matrices respectively. Since in all meshes quadratic or cubic elements are used, consistent
 CONSISTENT DIAGONAL MASS MATRICES 39

side length of plate end cube = 2

plate thickness = 1
Poisson's ratio = 0.3
Figure 2. Square plate with 4 x 4 and cube with 4 x 4 x 4 mesh

Table I. Lowest four non-rigid body frequencies of the plate computed with
different meshes; multiple frequency 6 is skipped

Mesh Mass matrix G4 5s a7 58

Consistent diagonal 0.8771 0-8771 1-2180 1-2180

1x1 Usual consistent 1.5191 1-5191 2.1096 2- 1096
Usual diagonal 0.7032 0-7032 0.8771 1.1952

Consistent diagonal 1.0864 I * 0864 1.2403 1 .6903

2x2 Usual consistent 1.5191 1.5191 1,5449 2 * 0702
Usual diagonal 0.9543 0.9543 1.2403 1* 2403

Consistent diagonal 1.2213 1.2296 1.3343 -

I 7223
3x3 Usual consistent 1.3528 1-4494 1*4593 1-8235
Usual diagonal 1.1019 -
1 1019 1.2158 1-3408

Consistent diagonal 1.2252 1.2693 1.3653 I * 7062

4x4 Usual consistent 1.2954 1.3907 1.4305 1-7063
Usual diagonal 1* 1756 -
1 1756 1*2655 -
1 3903

Consistent diagonal 1.2252 I *2835 1.3772 1.6716

5x5 Usual consistent 1.2679 1.3590 1.4144 1 * 6532
Usual diagonal 1.2154 1-2154 1.3143 -
1 4289

Consistent diagonal 1.2241 1.2895 1.3819 1.6460

6x6 Usual consistent 1-2525 1.3409 1.4044 -
I 6252
Usual diagonal 1 -2174 1-2387 1.3376 1.4600

Consistent diagonal 1* 2230 1.2924 1,3836 1* 6277

7x7 Usual consistent 1,2431 1* 3294 1* 3980 -
I 6089
Usual diagonal 1.2173 1.2532 1.3500 1-4832

25 x 25 1.2185 1-2983 -
1 3794 1.5691

With l i = wJJE/p and the closest approximations to the exact values in italics.
40 G.SAUER

diagonal and usual diagonal mass matrices do not differ in the matrix entries - they differ in
the associated stiffness matrices. The stiffness matrices associated with the consistent diagonal
mass matrices are computed by using the expanded interpolation functions (1) or (3). The
stiffness matrix corresponding to the usual diagonal mass matrix is determined from the linear
interpolation functions which can be derived from (1) or (3) by putting a=O. The same
stiffness matrix is connected with the usual consistent mass matrix.
The eigenfrequency solutions at the different discretization stages are finally compared with
the eigenfrequencies computed with fine finite-element meshes. The lower frequencies obtained
with the fine meshes are considered to be exact solutions. Analytical solutions for the structures
considered do not exist.
Besides these two structures a trapezoidal plate of unit thickness is investigated. The plate’s
shape is given in Figure 1. Two goals are pursued with this investigation. It is shown that the
consistent diagonal mass matrix is able to reproduce the correct mode shapes, and also that
the apparently unfavourable mass distribution in the consistent diagonal mass matrix does not
worsen the eigenfrequency solution.
The four lowest non-rigid-body eigenfrequencies of the plane square plate computed with
different meshes are compiled in Table I. One observes that the matrices based on the expanded
interpolation functions (1) on average better approximate the exact solutions than do the
conventional matrices. The superior convergence properties of the consistent diagonal mass
matrix become evident on evaluating Figure 3. This Figure shows the deviations of the 15
lowest non-rigid-body eigenfrequencies from the exact values when a 7 x 7 mesh is used.
Although the first non-rigid-body frequency is more closely approximated by the usual
diagonal mass matrix, and the conventional consistent mass matrix renders a better solution
for frequency number 8, all other frequencies are computed more accurately by the consistent
diagonal mass matrix. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the exact eigenfrequencies are
approximated from above and from below by the consistent diagonal mass matrix. Conversely,
the solutions obtained by the other two matrices always converge from one side only.
The improved convergence yielded by the expanded interpolation functions is even more
highlighted by considering the eigenfrequencies computed for the cube. Inspecting Table 11,

Error in Frequency [%I

-12
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
\ 1
-15
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18
Frequency [Number]

Figure 3 Errors in the lowest I5 non-rigid-body frequencies of the square plate using a 7 x 7 mesh
 CONSISTENT DIAGONAL MASS MATRICES 41

Table 11. Lowest four non-rigid body frequencies of the cube computed with
different meshes; multiple frequencies are skipped

Consistent diagonal 0.6202 0.8771 0.8771 1.0742

l x l x l Usual consistent I *0742 1.5191 1.5191 1.8605
Usual diagonal 0,3581 0.4848 0.6202 0.7161

Consistent diagonal 0.8771 1-0310 I 1467 1.2403

2X2X2 Usual consistent 1 * 0742 1.3994 1.5191 1.S191
Usual diagonal 0-7161 0-8523 0.8771 0-9162

Consistent diagonal 0.9019 1.1447 1.2210 1.3410

3X3X3 Usual consistent 0.9743 1.3197 1.3517 1-4656
Usual diagonal 0.7978 1.0133 1-0527 1-1360

Consistent diagonal 0.9037 1.1773 1.2246 I a3728

4X4X4 Usual consistent 0.9375 1* 2722 1 -2937 1.4353
Usual diagonal 0.8338 1-0816 1.1573 1.2046

10 x 10 x 10 0.8945 1-2071 1.2266 1 -3890

With 31 = wi/dE/p and the closest approximations to the exact values in italics.

one observes that the eigenfrequencies calculated with the consistent diagonal matrix
approximate best the exact values already after the first mesh refinement step to a 2 x 2 x 2
subdivision. The two other matrices clearly come off worse. The superior convergence
properties of the consistent diagonal mass matrix are also demonstrated by Figure 4.
Comparing the eigenfrequencies computed with a 4 x 4 x 4 mesh with the exact frequencies
one recognizes the great reliability range of the frequencies determined with the consistent
diagonal mass matrix. If an error of 2.5% is postulated to be tolerable, then 12 of the 15
frequencies considered calculated with the consistent diagonal mass matrix reside within the
tolerance band. Two acceptable solutions are obtained with the usual diagonal mass matrix,
whereas all frequencies found with the conventional consistent mass matrix reside outside the
assumed tolerance band.
Finally, the eigensolutions of the unrestrained trapezoidal plate shall be studied. This study
concentrates primarily on the first non-rigid-body eigenfrequency and eigenvector. Exact and
approximated eigenvectors are depicted in Figure 5 . For clarity’s sake, only the eigenvector
components along the edges of the plate are shown. The approximated eigenvector stems from
a 7 x 7 mesh. Consistent diagonal mass matrices were used. Figure 5 displays that the
approximated eigenvector has the same shape as the exact eigenvector. Both eigenvectors are
virtually identical, but at the level of a 7 x 7 mesh even the usual diagonal mass matrix
correctly reproduces this eigenvector. Nevertheless, the eigenfrequencies are different.
The consistent diagonal mass matrix misses the exact frequency by 0.52Vo. The usual
diagonal mass matrix underestimates the exact frequency by 2-88%. These differences prevail
despite the identity of the eigenvectors. Inspecting this result more intensively one is
automatically led to an interesting observation. Taking into account that the eigenfrequency
can be computed from the mass normalized eigenvector and the stiffness matrix K via
w4 = J(* zK*d 1 (4)
42 G.SAUER

Error in Frequency I%1

1I -++ consistent dlagonal

usual coniirtent
9- *
m
8 wual diiponal
w w w - *
, l . , l . , I . m r m

3-

-3

-6

-9

-12

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Frequency [Number]

Figure 4. Errors in the lowest 15 non-rigid-body frequencies of the cube using a 4 x 4 x 4 mesh

I 7x7 mesh

diagonal
mass matrix

0 = 521 Iradhl 0 = 524 [mdkl

4 4
Figure 5 . Comparison of mode shapes 4 for trapezoidal plate

it can be concluded that the enhanced convergence properties of the consistent diagonal mass
matrix formulation are above all due to the improved associated stiffness matrix. The mass
distribution seems to play a minor role. Indeed, the same conclusion could also be drawn from
the results for the square plate and the cube. Remembering that all meshes employed for the
convergence investigation were built up by quadratic or cubic elements, respectively, for which
the diagonal mass matrices from either source are identical, the convergence improvements
obtained by the consistent diagonal as against the usual diagonal mass matrix can only be
attributed to the stiffness matrix. Possible merits of the consistent diagonal mass matrix
formulation appear to lie rather in the altered stiffness matrix than in the mass matrix itself.

CONCLUSION
The use of expanded interpolation functions for the plane 4-node quadrilateral and the 8-node
volume element can considerably increase the accuracy of finite-element solutions without
increasing the computational effort. On the contrary, the expanded interpolation functions
deliver consistent diagonal mass matrices that in many applications tend to decrease the
number of numerical operations needed to solve a dynamical problem. These diagonal
 CONSISTENT DIAGONAL MASS MATRICES 43

matrices dispense with ad hoc assumptions to the mass lumping scheme. They are founded on
the same basis as the conventional consistent mass matrices and are consistent with the
dynamical variational principle underlying the standard finite-element method.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author thanks the reviewers for their suggestions which helped to upgrade the manuscript.

REFERENCES
1. K. J. Bathe and E. L. Wilson, Numerical Methods in Finite EIement Analysis, Prentice Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976.
2. G. Sauer and M. Wolf, ‘A modified beam element mass matrix’, ZAMM, 68, 483-490 (1988).
3. S. W. Key and Z. E. Beisinger, ‘Slade D: A computer program for the dynamic analysis of thin
shells’, Report SLA-73-0079, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1973.
4. E. Hinton, T. Rock and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, ‘Anote on mass lumping and related processes in the
finite element method’, Earthquake eng. struct. dyn., 4, 245-249 (1976).
5 . H. L. Schreyer, ‘Consistent diagonal mass matrices and finite element equations for one-dimensional
problems’, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 12, 1171-1184 (1978).