INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, VOL.

11, 611-622 (1977)

ON COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYTIC ELEMENT ANALYSIS

AND THE
SIMILARITIES OF TETRAHEDRON ELEMENTS
PAUL1 PEDERSEN
Department of Solid Mechanics, ?he Technical Universityof Denmark,Lyngby,Denmark

SUMMARY
A complete analytical analysis of three-dimensional, quadratic displacement tetrahedron elements is
presented. The results show that the element stiffness can readily be obtained from the much simpler
stiffness matrix of the linear displacement element. Thus, the task of obtaining the matrix of the quadratic
displacement element is, in effect, reduced to finding that of the linear displacement element.
The analysis has been made possible only by using a symbolic manipulation language (PL/I-FORMAC)
on a computer. A rather general program for computer-aided basic element analysis is presented. It seems
that the extremely effective tool of symbolic manipulation has hardly been used until now in mechanics.

INTRODUCTION
The basic element analysis, i.e. the stiffness and stress analysis, of the finite element method can
be performed purely numerically, including numerical integration, or by evaluation of analytical
expressions. These two alternatives are, however, extremes, and a spectrum of combinations
exists. Most eflorts seem to have concentrated on the numerical extreme, and the intention of
-
this paper is to show that the more analytically based techniques are also efficient.
Complete analytical analysis of tetrahedron elements based on linear as well as on quadratic
displacement fields is carried through. It is shown that the element stiffnessof the UTE element
(linear strain tetrahedron, i.e. quadratic displacements) can readily be obtained from the much
simpler stiffness matrix of the CSTE element (constant strain tetrahedron). The stiffness
expressions for the CSTE element are presented.
This analysis has been possible only with the use of a symbolic manipulation language
PL/I-FORMAC.' Attention is focused on the application of this language to the basic element
analysis because the rather cumbersome element analysis can then be taken over by the
computer without going over to numerical figures. From this point of view, the analysis of the
tetrahedron elements is only an example of the application of a more general symbolic
manipulation program.
The paper is a follow-up of two earlier papers, one on plane stress elements, Pedersen,' and
the other on axisymmetric elements, Pedersen and Megahed.3

COMPUTER-AIDED BASIC ANALYSIS

The finite element method is applicable to problems which are physically very different. The
almost explosive increase in the use of this method within the last twenty years is partly due to
the fact that although the problems are different, the computer algorithm can be kept much the
same. However, if we go to the central point of a finite element algorithm, i.e. to the element
Received 9 September 1975
@ 1977 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

611
612 PAULl PEDERSEN

stiffness analysis, then only at the purely numericai level do we have unchanged algorithms for
different types of elements. By the principle of virtual work, this algorithm is based on

[SI = ([K1-')T [FITIEl[Fl dVrKI-' (1)

V

where [K] is the matrix of spatial functions evaluated at nodal points, and [El the matrix of
stress-strain relations, while the matrix [F] is defined according to
(4= [FI[Kl-'{D}, (2)
where {E} contains the strains, and {D}the nodal displacements.
In particular, the matrices [K] and [F] are very dependent on the element, and some analytical
work is therefore required on each type before we get more knowledge about the properties of
the element. As we see from (l),this work is not complicated; in fact, it is, in general, very
straightforward, but the amount of work involved is such that it can only be done manually for
the most simple elements.
Therefore, the practical evaluation of the element stiffnesses is often done numerically. This
means that the knowledge of the properties of an element type must be based on numerical
experiments. Further, there is no doubt that much computer time on finite elements is used to
calculate exact zeros or quantities already known. This may just be a matter of available
computer facilities. However, a more serious point is that too much numerics may result in
numerical instabilities, which are then difficult to find and overcome.
If, instead, we are able to carry out the calculations at the analytical level, the basis for
-understanding the properties of the element and the influence of parameters will be available.
The practical evaluation of stiff nesses from analytical expressions may still be non-effective if
these are too complicated. However, starting out with simple displacement assumptions, as we
often do, it is reasonable to expect simple results. This is the case for plane stress elements,2
axisymmetric element^,^ and, as we shall see, for tetrahedron elements.
Let us now treat the aspects of an analytical calculation according to equation (1). This
calculation includes three different operations, which are
1. Matrix inversion,
2. Integration, and
3. Matrix multiplication.
We shall show how these operations are taken over by the computer.
Firstly, the inversion of the matrix [K]. For the LSTE element, this matrix is of order thirty,
but as the space co-ordinates are uncoupled with respect to the interpolation of the displace-
ments we only need to treat a matrix of order ten. Still, inverting a ten-by-ten matrix by hand is
almost impossible. A user-oriented FORMAC program named SYMLEQ is available at our
computing centre. With this program we can solve linear equations, invert matrices or calculate
determinants. The reference of the program is Knoble? which, in turn, refers to Lipson.' The
actual inversion of [K]for LSTE required a computer time of less than one min and storage of
about 200 K bytes. Calculating at the analytical level, such requirements not only depend on the
order of the matrix, but also on the problem itself.
Secondly, the problem of integration. Much work on more general integration by symbolic
manipulation has been done, cf. Petrick,6 but no general program exists. However, the simple
integrations of polynomia can easily be rather generally programmed. To show this, the
FORMAC program made in relation to the present study is listed in Appendix 1.T The program
is not related only to the tetrahedron elements for which we later show the results. On the
t A more efficient program based on Appendix I1 is now available.
 COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYTIC UEMENT ANALYSIS 613
other hand, it does not pretend to be optimally programmed or very user-oriented; the intention
of the list is to show how relatively simple such a FORMACprogram is. Integration is carried out
by two small routines; the VOLJNT which successively calls the line integration routine
LINEint, each time with redefined integrand and integration limits. The necessary integrations
for the UTE element with parameters as stated in the next section are, for this specific case,
aJI-((a- 8 ) / Y ) y , + ( a - a + ( a - 8 ) ~ / ~ ) ~ ~

(2. order polynomial in yl, y,, and y3) dy,,

and although the results prove to be simple, it would not be amusing to do this work by hand.
The symbolic matrix multiplications are also shown in the program. The central routine for
this is MU-ATBC, and as we see, it consists mainly of a number of do-loops. The useful
facility which make such a programming possible is the FORMAC-PL/I interface, cf. Refer-
ence 1.
The rather trivial input routine of the program is not shown. The input data are the non-zero
elements (given symbolically) of the [K]-l matrix, the [F] matrices for each direction, the [El
matrix, the order of the polynomium to be integrated, and the integration limits. The inversion
of the [K]matrix is thus not an integrated part of the program although thi? could, of course,
easily be changed. A computer evaluation of the [F] matrices is also possible because the
FORMAC language includes the possibility of calculating derivatives.
The computer requirements for running the program are reasonable. With an IBM 370/165,
the calculation of the CSTE stiffnesses given in the next section required only 25 sec computer
time and a store of 160 K bytes, including 135 K bytes for the PL/I-FORMAC object time
system. For the complicated LSTE stiffnesses the time was 10 min and the store 250 K bytes.
However, the calculations only have to be done once, thus even large requirements are
acceptable.

BASIC TETRAHEDRON STIFFNESSES

We place the four node tetrahedron element of constant strain in a local co-ordinate system y,,
y,, y3, as shown in Figure 1below. The geometry of the element is then given by the height h and
the non-dimensional parameters a,B, y, S and E . The analytical expressions for the stiffnesses
[Sc]I,I in the co-ordinate system are simple, as shown by Eqs. ( 5 ) below.

Figure 1. Geometry and location of tetrahedron element, and the local numbering system
614 PAUL1 PEDERSEN

We order [Sc]l,l directional, i.e. the four-by-four submatrix [Sc]yl,ylgives the stiffnesses
related purely to degrees-of-freedom in the yl-direction, [Sc]yl,yzthe mutual stiffnessesbetween
y,, y2-directionsetc. Let us define

and

with Young’s modulus E, and Poissons ratio V ; then the output of the FORMAC program for
this type of element can be written?
[SC1Yl,Yl= k. (54
-C4, - CL - C.l

[ sy4:cal
( P 2 + q 2 ) F + 2 y 2 , -(cYeq +aP)F,

[sclyz,y2
= k.
(ff2+ff2&2)c,-ff
ayqF
2

ff2y2V
y&F

(5b)
- CL -EL
(y2+ q 2 ) F +2 p 2 , -cYeqF - 2 4 , ffyqc
ff2E2F +2a2,

t Even more simple expressions can be obtained when defining p , 6 and E according to Figure 3.
 COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYTIC ELEMENT ANALYSIS 615

ESC1y2,y3 = k- (3)
-14, -cJ- -c J-
- ff ySV + ff/3&$, - 2ffpy;
-ff 2 &$, 2ff2y;
-ffprv, ff 2y5, 0 .
The symbols - CJ. and -1+ stand for the negative sum of the column elements below and the
row elements to the right respectively. Physically, this gives the force equilibriums.
From Equation ( 5 ) we can draw conclusions as to the influence of the element and material
parameters. Note, what simple expressions we get for the special case of /3 = S = E = 0,
a = y = 1. Note also, the influence of the parameter 77 defined in Equation (4); 7 = 0 when the
appropriate triangular plane is orthogonal to the yl,y2-plane.
For practical evaluation of [Sc] in relation to a given global co-ordinate system, the numerical
evaluation of Equation (5) has to be followed by ordinary rotation transformation on the joint
submatrices of order three. It could be that a numerically-based evaluation directly in the global
co-ordinate system is just as, or perhaps more, efficient. On the other hand, the alternative
shown here should be kept in mind, and for a basic understanding of the element, it is essential.

SIMILARITIES O F TETRAHEDRON ELEMENTS

We shall now show how an easy evaluation of the stiffness matrix for the linear strain
tetrahedron can be performed. This important result is based on the similarities that are
observed by m p a r i s o n of the stiffnesses, obtained analytically by the FORMAC program.
Figure 2 shows the linear strain tetrahedron (LSTE),with ten joints, and the constant strain
tetrahedron (CSTE),with only 4 joints. The corresponding element stiffness matrices are [S"] of

[sL] : jm
i
m Im 1

/h k
[SC1 :A
i
m 1

k
Figure 2. UTE element with 10 nodal points and corresponding CSTE element with 4 nodal points. The notation jk
refers to the joint in the middle of the comer joints j and k

the order thirty and [S"] of the order twelve. The analytical expressions for the stiffnesses [S"] of
the UTE element, as calculated by the FORMAC program, will not be shown directly. Instead,
we show how, from simple linear connections, they are given by [S"] of the CSTE element with
same exterior geometry.
The linear connections presented as joint submatrices of order three are as follows:
Carrier ergen stijhesses :
5[SLIjJ= 3[SCljJ (6a)
616 PAUL1 PEDERSEN

Sides (not connected to same corner) mutual stijfnesses:

5[SLljk,lm = - 4([sc1j,j + [ S C l k , k + [ s c l j . k +[ s ? k , j ) (6f 1
Sides (connected to same comer) mutual stifnesses :
5[SLljkjm = 8 [ s c I k , m +4 ( [ s c l k , j +[ s " l j , m +[s"lj,j) (6g)
Note that j , k, 1, m are arbitrary, but different. Then the force equilibrium is expressed by
[sTj,j + [ S C l j , k + [ s q j , l + [ s " l j , m = [Ol (7)

These similarities are parallel to those given for plane stress elements,2 which on the level of
natural stiffnesses, they were observed by Argyris et al.'
The practical aspects of the similarities (6) are that we can evaluate numerical values of [S"]
with computational efforts only of the same order as [S"]. Thus, it pays to evaluate IS"] through
[ST. The recorded computing time on an IBM 370/165 for one [S"] is 0.01 sec, and if we
compare that with some computing times given by Fjeld,8 we find, at a rough estimate, that the
computing time is reduced by a factor of 100.
The use of similarities may be essential in more advanced evaluation of stiffnesses. This is
shown by Kristensen and Madsen' for plane stress elements in the calculation of stiffness
derivatives necessary in optimum structural design.
Now,how do we prove the linear connections (6)? This is done by simple comparison, and the
[S"] matrix contains 465 different stiffness expressions, for all of which the connections (6) have
to be proved. The comparison was therefore performed by a separate FORMAC program, i.e.
again the computer took over a trivial but necessary job.
This possibility of comparing on the symbolic level can also be used to check routines
programmed for numerical calculations. Normally, such computer programs are only tested
against known results, experiments or other programs. The fact that the FORMAC language is
so closely related to both the PL/I- and the FORTRAN language add this possibility of testing
on the symbolic level.

CONCLUSION
In finite elementsmany similarities exist between elements of the same family. Taking this into
account in the practical evaluation of element stiffnesses,we can, to a great extent, eliminate the
stiffness evaluation as a limiting factor due to computer requirements. In the present paper it is
shown how the stiffnesses of the linear strain tetrahedron are easily obtainable from the
stiff nesses of the corresponding simple constant strain tetrahedron.
These results were obtained by the aid of a symbolic manipulation computer language,
PL/I-FORMAC. In the domain of finite elememts, these tools serve many purposes, although
 COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYTIC ELEMENT ANALYSIS 617

they have hardly been used until now. The element analysis expressing stresses as functions of
nodal displacements and the analysis relating to consistent equivalent matrices are further
examples of this.
In the author's opinion, the broader domain of applied mechanics and mathematics will soon
come to be influenced by these tools, and then the amount of straightforward symbolic
manipulation will not be such a limiting factor on the calculations performed.

APPENDIX I

/* ANALYTICAL EXPRESSIONS FOR FINITE ELEMENT STIFFNESSES

STIFF: PROCEDURE OPTIONS (MAIN); FORMAC-OPTIONS; OPTSET (EXPND); *I
DCL NUM(3) CHAR(1) INITIAL ('l',
'2', '3');
CALL INPUT (10,ID, NEL, NKI);
CALL VOL-INT (10,ID);

/* THE DIRECTIONAL SUBMATRICES ARE DETERMINED SUCCESSIVELY */

DO IS=l TO ID; DO JS=IS TO ID;
CALL MU-ATBC ('F'l INUM(IS), NEL, NKI, 'EL',
'F'IINUM(JS), NEL, NKI, 'G', 'KEEP');
CALL SUB-INT (10,ID, 'GI, NKI, NKI);
CALL MU-ATBC ('KI', NKI, NKI, 'G', 'KI', NKI, NKI,
'SY'I INUM(IS)(I'Y'IINUM(JS), 'SCRA');

END; END;

END STIFF;

/* VOLUME-INTEGRATIONOF THE TERMS OF A POLYNOMIUM *I

VOL-INT: PROCEDURE (10.ID); FORMAC-OPTIONS;

/* LOOP OVER INTEGRANDS *

IOM=IO; IF ID=2 THEN IOM=O;
DO K=O TO 10; DO L=O TO 10; DO M=O TO IOM;
KLM=K+L+M; IF KLM> 10 THEN GO TO END-LOOP;
LET (K="K"; L="L"; M="M"; INGR=Y(l)**K*Y(2)**L*Y(3)**M);

/* VOLUME INTEGRATION BY SUCCESSIVELY LINE INTEGRATIONS */

DO J=l TO iD;
LET (J="J"; INVA=Y(J); LIL=IL(J, 1); UIL=IL(J, 2));
CALL LIN-INT;
LET (INGR=RES);
END;

IF KLM=O THEN LET (VOL=RES);

PRINT-OUT (VI(K,L,M)=RES; VI(K, L, M)=VI(K,L,M)/VOL);
END-LOOP: END; END; END;
END VOL-INT;

/* LINE-INTEGRATION */
LIN-INT: PROCEDURE; FORMAC-OPTIONS;
LET (ZEROPzO; ZERON=-0; RES=O; NU=HIGHPOW (INGR, INVA));
NU=INTEGER (NU);
618 PAUL1 PEDERSEN

/* LOOP OVER POWERS OF THE INTEGRATION VARIABLE

DO N=OTO NU; LET (N="N");

LET (FA=COEFF (INGRA, INVA**N));
IF N=O THEN LET (FA=COEFF (INGR*INVA, INVA));
IF IDENT (FA;ZEROP)IlDENT (FA;ZERON) THEN GO TO LOOP-END;
LET (RES=RES+FA*(UIL**(N+l)-LIL**(N+l))/(N+l));
LOOP-END: END;
END LIN-INT;
/* CALCULATIONOF IRI=IA(T*IBI*ICI,WHERE IAl IS OF THE ORDER
NAR, NAC AND lC1 IS OF THE ORDER NCR, NCC

MU-ATBC: PROCEDURE (A, NAR, NAC, B, C, NCR, NCC, R, KESC);

FORMAC-OPTIONS;
DCL (A, B, C, R, KESC) CHAR(10) VARYING;
DCL (BIBJB, CJBJC, AIAJA, RJAJC) CHAR(17) VARYING;

DO JC=I TO NCC; LET (JC="JC");

DO IB=1 TO NAR; LET (IB="IB"; BC(IB)=O);

DO J B = l TO NCR; LET(JB="JB");
LET(BC(IB) = BC(IB)+ "BI BJB"*"CJ BJC");
END;

END;

DO JA= 1 TO NAC; LET(JA= "JA"; "RJAJC" = 0);

DO IA = 1 TO NAR: LET(IA = "IA");

LET("RJAJC" = "RJAJC" + "AIAJA"*BC(IA));
END;

PRINT-OUT ("RJAJC");
IF KESC = 'SCRA' THEN ATOMIZE ("RJAJC");
END;
END;
END MU-ATBC;

/* SUBSTITUTIONOF TERMS*Y
: Yl*Y," BY APPROPRIATE INTEGRALS

SUB-INT: PROCEDURE (10, ID, A, NAR, NAC); FORMAC-OPTIONS;

DCL A CHAR(10) VARYING; DCL AIJ CHAR(l5) VARYING;
AIJ=AI l'(l, J)';

/* LOOP OVER INTEGRANDS

IOM=IO; IF ID=2 THEN IOM=O;

DO K = 10 to 0 BY -1; DOL=IO TO 0 BY -1; DO M=IOM TO 0 BY -1;
KLM=K+L+M; IF KLM> IOIKLM=O THEN GO TO END-LOOP;
LET (K="K'; L="L"; M="M"; INGR=Y(I)**K*Y(2)**L*Y(3)**M);

/* LOOP OVER ELEMENTS

DO I=1 TO NAR; LET (I="I");

DO J = 1 TO NAC; LET (J= "J");
Let ("A,,"= REPLACE ("AIJ", INGR, VI(K, L, M)));
END; END;

END-LOOP: END; END; END;

 COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYTIC ELEMENT ANALYSIS 619

/* COMMON FACTOR */
DO J =l TO NAC; LET (J="J");
DO I = 1 TO NAR; LET (I = "I");
LET ("AIJ"="AIJ"*4/H**2); PRINT OUT ("AIJ");
END; END;
END SUB-INT;

APPENDIX I1

NOTE ON DEFINITE POLYNOMIAL INTEGRALS

Below is shown some explicit results with applications to a Cartesian formulation of the finite
element method. Although less elegant than the corresponding results based on area (volume)
co-ordinates, we have found the present results most useful for practical purposes.
Results parallel to Equation (9) can be found in Kabaila," which calls for the solution of the
three-dimensional case given here, although only presented in the local reference frame.

ITtiangular domain
Specifying a triangular domain as shown in Figure 3, we find the results

I, hk+l+2ak+1k!k (I+n)!
Y:Y; dA = ( k + I + 2 ) ! nI-
=O n! P",

h
"1
(0 ,O.OM
Figure 3. Geometrical description of a two-dimensional triangular domain and a three-dimensional tetrahedron
domain

and

1 x f x i dA =
hk+'+*k!I!
c ( - l ) p f: ( k - p + I - q ) !
(k +I+2)!p=O ( k - p ) ! p ! q - 0 (I-q)!q!
(COSe)k--p+q

Evaluating equation (9) for 8 = 0 the only non-zero term corresponds to (p = 0,4= I), and thus
results in equation (8).
Received 2 February 1976
620 PAUL1 PEDERSEN

Tetrahedron domain
We specify a tetrahedron domain as shown also in Figure 3, and then find the result
hk+l+m+3 a k + l y 1+1 k ! l ! k ijPk-ppr i
~~(k-p+l-q+2)!(m+p+q)!k-~-r+l
k
YlYZY3
l m
dV=
(k+l+m+3)!
c - c - c -
p = ~ p ! r! 4 = ~ q !
r = ~ U-q)!
c n=O

t- 1)"
n!(k - p - r - n + 1)!(1-q + r + n + 1)

Proofs. In Gradshteyn and Ryzhik'' we find

assuming i a n d j to be non-negative integers. This assumption is in fact valid for all powers in the
present note. Using this result after initial polynomial integrations we find

k+l k!m!(k+l+2)!k+' (- 1)"

b
=c
c
(k + l + m +3)! n=O n!(k + 1 - n ) ! ( l + 1 + n ) (13)

By equation (12) we can now show equation (8), which according to Figure 3 and the variable
substitution

i.e. terms equal to equation (12). Then equation (8) follows directly by polynomial multiplica-
tion and applications of equation (12).
Equation (9) follows from equation (8) when inserting

x1= (yl cos e - yz sin e), xz = (yl sin e +yz cos e). (16)

Next, equation (10) is shown by equation (13). From Figure 3 and the variable substitution
 COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYTIC ELEMENT ANALYSIS 62 1

we have

Then by polynomial multiplication, and application of equation (13), the result of equation (10)
follows.

Example on application
The consistent mass matrix of a ten nodal tetrahedron element (linear stress element) is to the
best of my knowledge unknown. This is partly due to the fact, that its determination necessitates
integrations of the type

1" y:y:y'jtdV for O s k + l + m s 4

which are almost impossible to carry out without a simple explicit expression like equation (10).
The resulting mass matrix is
r

6,1,1,1, -4, -4, -6, -4, -6, -6

6,1,1, -4, -6, -4, -6, -4, - 6
6,1, -6, -4, -4, -6, -6, -4
6, -6, -6, -6, -4, -4, -4
rn
[MI=420
32, 16, 16, 16, 16, 8
32, 16, 16, 8, 16,
32, 8, 16, 16
32, 16, 16
32, 16
Symmetric 32
i

where rn is the total mass of the element. Note the dominance of the six midside nodes compared
to the four corner nodes. The submatrix of negative numbers gives the mutual influence of
corner nodes to midside nodes, and instead of pointing out the specific nodal numbering, it can
be stated that (- 4) corresponds to the corners of the actual side and (- 6) to the two remaining
corners.
622 PAUL1 PEDERSEN

REFERENCES

1. R. Tobey et al: PL/I FORMAC Symbolic Mathematics Interpreter, IBM, 360D-03.3.004, 1969, pp. 164.
2. P. Pedersen, ‘Someproperties of linear strain triangles and optimal finite element models’, Znt. J. num. Meth. Engng,
7,415-429 (1973).
3. P. Pedersen and M. M. Megahed, ‘Axisymmetric element analysis using analytical computing’, cOmpu&rs and
Struct., 5,241-247 (1975).
4. H. D. Knoble, ‘Solution of simultaneous linear equations involving matrices whose elements are symbolic
multivariate (complex) polynomials’, The Computer Center, The Pennsylvania State University, 1971, pp. 14.
5. J. D. Lipson, ‘PL/I-FORMAC routines for computation with symbolic matrices’, Dept. of Computer Science,
University of Toronto, 1969.
6. S. R. Petrick, (Ed.), P r c . Second Symp. on Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation, Acc. for Computing Machinery,
New York, 464 (1971).
7. J. H. Argyris, D. W. Scharpf, and J. B. Spooner, ‘The elasto-plastic calculation of general structures and continua’,
P r c . 3rd Conf. on Dimensioning, Budapest, 344 (1968).
8. S. A. Fjeld, ‘Three-dimensional theory of elasticity’, in (Ed. Holand and Bell) Finite Element Methods in Sfress
Analysis, Tapir, Norway, 1969, p. 333.
9. E. S. Kristensen and N. F. Madsen, ‘On the optimum shape of fillets in plates subjected to multiple in-plane loading
cases, Znt. J. num. Meth. Engng, 10, 1007-1019 (1976).
10. A. P. Kabaila, ‘Computer integration for finite elements’, in Theory and Practice in Finite Element Structural
Analysis (Ed. Yamada and Gallagher), University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo 1973, p. 499.
11. I. S. Gradshteyn and M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals Series and Products, Academic Press, 1965, p. 1086.