Method of Finite Elements I

PhD Candidate - Charilaos Mylonas

HIL H33.1
Quadrature and Boundary Conditions, 26 March, 2018

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 1

 Quadrature
Boundary conditions

Outline

1 Quadrature
Integration in 1D
Integration in 2D and 3D

2 Boundary conditions
Penalty method
Lagrange multiplier method

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 2

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Outline

1 Quadrature
Integration in 1D
Integration in 2D and 3D

2 Boundary conditions
Penalty method
Lagrange multiplier method

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 3

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Integration

Basic numerical integration

Riemann sum

Comments:
Both simple but inefficient!

useful techniques in other contexts

we use many more points than needed

Trapezoidal rule
in order to achieve good accuracy

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 4

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Numerical Integration in 1D

example: Euler-Bernoulli beam

We are going to apply the Galerkin method to the Euler Bernoulli beam, but with the basis
2 3 4
N1 (x) = x N2 (x) = x N3 (x) = x ···

Instead of the Hermite basis functions, and discretize only displacements! Strong form:

d2  d2 w 
EI(x) = f (x)
dx2 dx2

a
multiply with test function u(x) and integrate by parts twice

1 d2 w(x) d2 u(x) 1
Z Z
EI(x) dx = f (x)u(x)dx
0 dx2 dx2 0

a
boundary terms [·]1
0 zero by basis selection

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 5

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Numerical integration - Galerkin method

code
The full commented code of the following demo will be made available to you in case you would like
to play around. This code is a comparisson between analytical and numerical evaluation of integrals
needed in the implementation of the Galerkin procedure. In the following slides the most important
parts of the code are highlighted. Namely:

The definition of the load

the assembly of the system with analytical integration (symbolic integration)

the assembly of the system with numerical integration (Gauss-Legendre)

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 6

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Numerical Integration in 1D results

1 syms x % C o o r d i n a t e a x i s
2 syms q ( x )
3 % The l o a d i n g o f t h e beam :
4 q( x ) = x .ˆ2 − 0.3∗ x .ˆ4
5 NBASIS = 4 ;
6 f o r i = 1 : NBASIS
7 P h i ( i ) = x . ˆ ( i +1) ;
8 end
9 % Compute t h e i n t e g r a l s n e e d e d f o r t h e s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x :
10 f o r i =1:NBASIS
11 f o r j = 1 : NBASIS
12 K( i , j )= . . .
13 i n t ( EI∗ d i f f ( Phi ( i ) ,2) ∗ d i f f ( Phi ( j ) ,2) ,0 , L ) ;
14 end
15 % A n a l y t i c a l computation of the load v e c t o r :
16 f ( i ) = i n t ( q ( x ) ∗ Phi ( i ) ,0 , L ) ;
17 end

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 7

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Numerical integration for LHS

1 q u a d r o r d e r = QUAD ORD ;
2
3 %L o a d i n g t h e Gauss−L e g e n d r e q u a d r a t u r e n o d e s
4 % and w e i g h t s f o r a f i l e :
5 n o d e s w e i g h t s = W{ q u a d r o r d e r −1};
6 n o d e s = ( n o d e s w e i g h t s . n o d e s +1)∗L / 2 ;
7 w e i g h t s = W{ q u a d r o r d e r −1}. w e i g h t s ;
8
9 for i =1: N b a s i s
10 f o r j =1: N b a s i s
11 V = e v a l ( subs ( EI ∗ d i f f ( Phi ( i ) ,2) ∗ d i f f ( Phi ( j ) ,2) , nodes ) ) ;
12 K approx ( i , j ) = V’ ∗ w e i g h t s ;
13 % Note t h a t we don ’ t i n t e g r a t e a n a l y t i c a l l y !
14 % we can g e t EXACT r e s u l t s w i t h o u t d o i n g s o
15 end
16
17 f a p p r o x ( i ) = e v a l ( s u b s ( P h i ( i ) ∗q ( x ) , n o d e s ) ) ’∗ w e i g h t s ;
18 end

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 8

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Numerical Results

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 9

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Conclussions

Notice the errors in the approximation (1.7e−13 for quadrature of order 4!). This is close to
machine precission (the ”eps” command in matlab).

1D Quadrature order ”N” means we evaluate the function inside the integral ”N” times, and
we sum the results according to some weight (see next slide).

Instead of integrating analytically a function, we can get EXACT results by carefully selecting
points of evaluation (instead of regular intervals as in trapezoidal and Riemann sums).

The accuracy of the approximation depends on the Gaussian quadrature order

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 10

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Optimal points and weights integration for polynomials:

Quadrature - Optimal weights given the nodes

For a polynomial f (x) = a0 + a1 x + · · · + an xn , the integral is approximated as
Z 1 N
X
f (x)dx ' wi f (xi )
−1 i=1

Assume xi are given. Also, for simplicity, f (x) = a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + a3 x3 . Then,

Z 1 Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
2 3
a0 dx + a1 xdx + a2 x dx + a3 x dx =
−1 −1 −1 −1
4
X 2 3
wi (a0 + a1 xi + a2 xi + a3 xi )
i=1

We equate all the terms, for every ai term. we arrive at the following linear system:
 R1 
 dx
 
1 1 1 1  w1  
 −1 

 x1
   R 1 xdx
 
x2 x3 x4  w2
  
−1
 2  = R1 2
 x1 x22 x23 x42 

 w3 
   −1
x dx 

x31 x32 x33 x34 w4  R1 3
   
x dx

| {z } −1
Vandermonde matrix

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 11

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Non-Gaussian Quadrature

Numerical computation of weights

N-point quadrature, extact for polynomials up to degree N-1

Weights can be negative, in practice they have values of very different scales and solution of
the system for high order quadrature is numerically unstable!

The technique will approximate well integrals of functions that are approximated well with the
corresponding polynomials.

Lower order quadrature works, but as we will see it is far from the best we can do! (half as
good).

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 12

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Legendre polynomials

In the following, we will see how the Legendre polynomials are important for quadrature in 1D. We
are to use xi such that this integral is exact for every polynomial f (x) with degree n < 2N − 1. For
a given N , solution xi are roots of the Legendre orthogonal polynomial of degree N

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 13

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Orthogonal polynomials
Legendre orthogonal polynomials Ln satisfy (by construction)a :
Z 1 2
hLk , Lm i = Lk (x)Lm (x)dx = δmk
−1 2m + 1

From now on this integral is going to be refered to as L2 inner product. Formulas for the first few
polynomials areb ,

L0 (x) = 1
L1 (x) = x
1 2
L2 (x) = (3x − 1)
2
1 3
L3 (x) = (5x − 3x)
8
1 4 2
L4 (x) = (35x − 30x + 3)
8
a
There are
R more general definitions of orthogonality and Gaussian quadrature where
hf, giw = Ω f (x)g(x)w(x)dx. The resulting polynomials are useful in other important contexts (stochastic
finite elements!)
b
They are computed with a process known as Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 14

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Legendre orthogonal polynomials and quadrature

The roots of Legendre polynomials of degree N , used as integration nodes, yield the exact integral
for f polynomial of maximum degree 2N − 1.

Outline of proof:

1 consider a polynomial f2N −1 (x) = a0 + a1 x + · · · + a2N −1 x2N −1

2 Apply polynomial divission with Legendre polynomial of degree N :

f2N −1 (x) = g(x) LN (x) + r(x)

|{z} |{z}
degree≤N −1 degree≤N −1

(N ) (N )
3 {x1 , · · · , xN } are the N roots of the Legendre polynomial of degree N . For brevity, we
(N )
ommit the superscript xi = xi . Chose the quadrature nodes to be these exact points:

Z 1  0Z 1 N :0 N
g(x)L
:
n (x)dx + r(x)dx =
X
w
i g(x
 X wi r(xi )
i )Ln (xi ) +
−1 −1  
i=1 i=1

4 Since Ln (xi ) = 0, the first term of the RHS vanishes. Moreover, since the degree of g(x) is
lower than N , the first integral term on the left is also zero! That is, through orthogonality
and the abillity to express polynomials of order N − 1 with a polynomial basis that contains
all the monomials (such as the Legendre basis order N )!

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 15

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Considering again that we are evaluating the quadrature rule on the roots of Legendre polynomial of
degree N , the term LN becomes zero

f2N −1 (xi ) = g(xi )

LN
:0

(x
i ) + r(xi ) = r(xi )

Finally we are left with

Z 1 Z 1 N
X
f2N −1 (x)dx = r(x) = wi f2N −1 (xi )
−1 −1 i=1

And we are left with the task of determining the weights as in the non-gaussian case. Therefore,
surprizingly, a N -point gauss quadrature rule is exact for polynomials up to degree 2N − 1.
In practice, the computational determination of weights wi and nodes xi of 1D Gaussian quadrature
rules happens through the so-called Golub-Welsch algorithm.

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 16

 Quadrature Integration in 1D
Boundary conditions Integration in 2D and 3D

Quadrilaterals

Tensor-product Quadrature
Take tensor product of the 1D rules. Example: Quadrature in x:
(ξ) (ξ) (ξ) (ξ) (ξ)
wi = {w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 }
ξi = {ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 , ξ4 }

Quadrature in y
(η) (η) (η) (η) (η)
wi = {w1 , w2 , w3 , x4 }
ηi = {η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 }

Quadrature rule for quadrilateral:

Z 1 Z 1 4 X
X 4
(η) (ξ)
f (ξ, η)dxdy = wi wj f (ξi , ηj )
−1 −1 i=1 j=1

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 17

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Outline

1 Quadrature
Integration in 1D
Integration in 2D and 3D

2 Boundary conditions
Penalty method
Lagrange multiplier method

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 18

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Homogeneous constraints

Linear system from FE discretization

Consider a linear system from a FE discretization:

[K]{u} = {f }
    
K11 ... K1N  u1 f 
 1 
 
 

 . .. .  .  
.
 . . .   ..
 = .
 . .  
 
 . 

KN 1 ... KN N
 u   f 
N N

Homogeneous constraints
the constraint un = 0, in a matrix form consistent with our FE linear system reads,

N
X
vi u i = 0
i=0
 
 u1 
 

 . 

 .
 
 .
 

 
0 ... 1 ... 0 un =0
.

 

.

 




 . 



uN

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 19

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Imposing homogeneous constr. with the Penalty method

Imposing the constraint

The constraint vector should be in a form consistent with the matrix (a bilinear form that
corresponds to a matrix).
In order to impose the constraint, we simply multiply with a large number p >> tr([K]) and add
that to our linear system.

[V] = Vij = vi vj
T
[V] = {v} {v}
 
0 ... 0
 .. 

 . 

 
 . . 
[V] =  . . 
 . 1 . 
 
 .. 
 . 
0 ... 0

This forces the degrees of freedom in the system to satisfy the constraint numerically (not explicitly).

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 20

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Adding to the linear system

Adding the constraint

Simply set,

[K] ← [K]pen

with

[K]pen = [K] + [V] · p

with p >> tr([K]) and solve

−1
{u} = [K]pen {f }

Inhomogeneous constraints and MFC:

What if, we need to set a displacement to a given value (inhomogeneous constraint), or a
displacement the same as another displacement (multi-DOF constraints)?

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 21

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Multi- degree of freedom constraints

Equation for a multi-DOF constraint

Consider we have a constraint of the form 2u5 + 3u7 − 2u10 = 0. Again, written as an equation,
 
 u1 
 

 . 

 . 
.

 


 

u
 
5

 

 
u6

 


 

u7
  
0 ... 2 0 3 0 0 −2 ... 0 =0

 u8 

u9

 


 

u10

 


 

.

 

.

 

 .

 

 

uN

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 22

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Penalty, multi-DOF constraints

Application of the constraints

Not much change when being systematic about the application!
T
[V] ={v} {v}
 
0 ... 0
 
 
 .. 

 . 

4 0 6 0 0 −4
 
 
0 0 0 0 0 0
 
 
6 0 9 0 0 −6
 
 
[V] =  .
 
. 
 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0
. 
. 

0 0 0 0 0 0
 
 
−4 0 −6 0 0 4
 
 
 
 .. 

 . 

 
0 ... 0

The rest are the same! (multiply by a large number and add to [K] before solution).

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 23

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Non-homogeneous constraints with the Penalty method and multiple

constraints

Non-zero RHS
Say, we want to constrain u3 − 2u5 = 3 and at the same time u2 − u3 = 0. In matrix form, the
constraints read:

u1
 
 
u2

 


 

 u3

 

 
0 0 1 0 −2 ... u4 = 3
|{z}
} u5
| {z  

  a1
{v1 }

 

 ..

 


.

u1
 
 
u2

 


 

 u3

 

 
0 1 −1 0 0 ... u4 = 0
|{z}
} u5
| {z  

  a2
{v2 }

 

 ..

 


.

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 24

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Application of BC and solution

Application of BC on system
In order to impose the constraint on the system, we proceed as such: Multiplying both equations with
the corresponding {vi }T and summing up the constraints for the left-hand side we get,

2
X T
[V ] = {vi } {vi }
i=1

and for the right-hand-side:

2
X T
{A} = {vi } ai
i=1

[Kpen ] = [K] + [V ] · p
{fpen } = {f } + {A} · p

What changes, is that we also have a right-hand-side due to the non-homogeneous constraints!

Solution
Simply compute
−1
{u} = [Kpen ] {fpen }

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 25

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Lagrange multipliers

constraints for LHS

Another method, just as general and simple to implement, is the Lagrange multiplier method: given
the constraint matrix [v] from the previous slide, set

[v]T
 
[K]
[KLagr ] =
[v] 0
K11 ... K1N v11 v21
 
. .. . . .
. . . .
 
 . . . . .

[KLagr ] = 
 
 KN 1 ... KN N v1N v2N


 v ... v1N 0 0 
11
v21 ... v2N 0 0

Constraints at RHS
Instead of adding, we are again appending.
 
{f }
{fLagr } =
{P }

Where, {P } is a vector containing

  the values of the non-homogeneous constraints. From the
3
previous example, {P } = .
0

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 26

 Quadrature Penalty method
Boundary conditions Lagrange multiplier method

Comparisson

The clear advantage of Lagr. Multiplier method over penalty is accuracy.

Penalty has the advantage that does not introduce degrees of freedom to the linear system.
However, this rarely becomes a real problem with modern hardware.

Some linear system solvers rely on the matrix being positive definite for fast convergence -
Lagrange multipliers may not work with some linear system solvers

Lagrange multiplier method provides directly the constraint forces (as the values corresponding
to the rows and columns of the constraints).

When constraints are linearly dependent (a constraint vector can be expressed as linear
combination of other constraints in the same system) iterative solvers (i.e. GMRES) have to
be used. Linear independence of constraints is hard to judge in some cases (however, there are
linear algebra techniques one can perform to remedy that).

The multi-freedom homogeneous case for the Master-slave elimination method, is described
partially in the project description. This method is also exact (as Lagr. Multipliers).

Institute of Structural Engineering Method of Finite Elements I 27