226 ISOPARAMETRIC ELEMENTS TABLE 6.8-1 GAUSS QUADRATURE RULES AND SPURIOUS MODES ASSOCIATED [WITH THE RESULTING STIFFNESS MATRIX, Gause ‘Spurious modes quadrature rule from reduced quadrature Element type Pull Reduced Number Type 4mode plane 2X2 L-point = 2 En forwand » Bnode plane 3X3. 2X2 1 Fig. 68-34 Senode plane 3X3 2x2 3 Fig. 68-36, node solid 2X2x2 L-point «12S nla £& En for usw 20-node solid 3X3X3 -2x2x2 6 See [3.36.12] results are much better than results provided by four-node elements with one-point quadra~ ture or by nine-node elements with four-point quadrature (6.11). These results suggest that underintegration may be acceptable if it introduces only noncommunicable spurious modes. ‘The number of spurious modes in an underintegrated element can usually be counted in the following way. The number of strains sampled at a Gauss point is three in a plane ele- ‘ment and six in solid element. In a reduced but regulac rule, which uses the same number ‘of Gauss points in each direction, n-point integration provides 3n (plane element; PE) or 6n (solid element; SE) items of independent information. If, as usual, the rank of material property matrix (E) is equal to its order, then the rank of (k} is 3x (PE) or 6n (SE). There are 3 (PE) or 6 (SE) possible rigid-body motions. The number of spurious modes is equal to the order of (k] minus 3n + 3 (PE) or 6n + 6 (SB). If [kl is fully integrated so that there are no spurious modes, some items of information are redundant, and the rank of [k] is equal to its order minus the number of rigid-body modes. The foregoing way of counting may overestimate the rank of (K] if different numbers of Gauss points are used in different directions, or if another kind of quadrature is used. Table 6.8-1 provides selected results related to spurious modes of stiffness matrices integrated by reduced Gauss quadrature. Elements need not be rectangular for these modes to appear. One of the spurious modes of an unsupported 20-node solid element with 2 by 2 by 2 Gauss quadreture is shown in Fig. 6.8-4b, This is an “hourglass” mode like that in ® » Figure 6.8-4. (a) Cantilever beam modeled by 20-node solid elements. (b) Near-instability ‘is possible far from the fixed end when 2 by 2 by 2.Gauss quadrature is used.69° Load Considerations 27 Fig. 6.8-3d, and is communicable in certain meshes. In Fig. 6.8-4a this rode tends to ‘appear atthe loaded end, where restraint provided by the fixed support is not strongly felt. Software providers are obliged to make their products as foolproof as reasonably possi- ble. Therefore underintegration is not often used for stiffness matrices of plane and solid elements, except perhaps the eight-node plane element, whose spurious mode under 2 by 2 Gauss quadrature is noncommunicable. The dangers of underintegration appear to be greatest in dynamics, where “phantom” modes can be confused with physical modes and ‘can provoke substantial error. Selective Integration and Substitution. For the four-node plane element, an obvious ben- efit of one-point integration is that the resulting [k] is not stiffened by spurious shear strain because bending modes 7 and 8 of Fig. 6.8-1 produce zero shear strain a the element center. ‘To avoid the accompanying defect of spurious modes, one can adopt selective integration, Which inthis case involves use of one Gauss point at € = = Oto evaluate the contribu- tion of shear strain to (k] while using the usual four Gauss points to evaluate the contribution of normal strains to [k]. An alternative, called selective suastitution, uses the usual four Gauss points forall terms but substitutes shear strain at € = 7 = Oin place of actual shear strains at Gauss points. Both schemes, selective integration and selective substitution, pass patch tests, but they differ for an anisotropic material for which [E} is a full matrix, which couples all stresses to all strains [3.3]. A disadvantage of both schemes is that they produce clements that are not frame-invariant (discussed in Section 3.9). Frame invariance of sheer strain is guaranteed by consistent use of the same shape functions for all components of dis- placement [3.3]. Selective integration and selective substitution are inconsistent. To restore frame invariance, one can add coding to software that supplies a local xy coordinate system ‘whose orientation does not change, or changes by a multiple of 90°, when element nodes are renumbered. ‘Similac tricks can be applied to plane elements having more than four nodes and to solid elements, but the procedures become increasingly complicated [3.3]. Stabilization. Nonlinear solutions and explicitly integrated dynamic solutions are com- putationally expensive because they are solved by taking a sequence of many steps, with each step typically demanding the evaluation of element stiffness coefficients. Expense can be reduced substantially by reducing the number of Gauss points per element. Thus, numerical analysts have been prompted to use a minimal number of Gauss points per ele- ment and to restrain spurious modes by computationally inexpensive “stabilization” devices, Stabilization is often applied to four-node plane elements, four-node shell ele- rents, and eight-node solid elements, with one-point quadrature used in each case. A good stabilization scheme is computationally inexpensive, leaves rigid-body and constant-strain modes intact so that elements can pass patch tests, and requires no deci- sions by the software user. A great many papers have addressed the matter. Variational principles other than minimum potential energy are often used. References include (33,6.13-6.15} 69 LOAD CONSIDERATIONS Nodal loads due to force and pressure are discussed in Section 3.11 with restriction to straight edges, side nodes at midsides, and rectangular elements. In the present section