Finite Element Modeling and Analysis

CE 595: Course Part 2

Amit H. Varma
 Discussion of planar elements
• Constant Strain Triangle (CST) - easiest and simplest finite
element
 Displacement field in terms of generalized coordinates

 Resulting strain field is

 Strains do not vary within the element. Hence, the name constant
strain triangle (CST)
 Other elements are not so lucky.
 Can also be called linear triangle because displacement field is linear in
x and y - sides remain straight.
 Constant Strain Triangle
• The strain field from the shape functions looks like:

 Where, xi and yi are nodal coordinates (i=1, 2, 3)

 xij = xi - xj and yij=yi - yj
 2A is twice the area of the triangle, 2A = x21y31-x31y21
• Node numbering is arbitrary except that the sequence 123 must go
clockwise around the element if A is to be positive.
 Constant Strain Triangle
• Stiffness matrix for element k =BTEB tA
• The CST gives good results in regions of the FE model where
there is little strain gradient
 Otherwise it does not work well.
If you use CST to
model bending.
See the stress
along the x-axis - it
should be zero.
The predictions of
deflection and
stress are poor
Spurious shear
stress when bent
Mesh refinement
will help.
 Linear Strain Triangle
• Changes the shape functions and results in quadratic displacement
distributions and linear strain distributions within the element.
 Linear Strain Triangle

• Will this element work better for the problem?

 Example Problem
• Consider the problem we were looking at:

1k

1 in.

1k
5 in.
0.1 in.

I  0.113 / 12  0.008333 in 4
M c 1 0.5
   60 ksi
I 0.008333

   0.00207
E
ML2 25
   0.0517 in.
2EI 2  29000  0.008333
 Bilinear Quadratic
• The Q4 element is a quadrilateral element that has four nodes. In
terms of generalized coordinates, its displacement field is:
 Bilinear Quadratic
• Shape functions and strain-displacement matrix
 Bilinear Quadratic
• The element stiffness matrix is obtained the same way
• A big challenge with this element is that the displacement field
has a bilinear approximation, which means that the strains vary
linearly in the two directions. But, the linear variation does not
change along the length of the element.

y, v
y

x, u
y
x varies with y but not with x
x x x
y varies with x but not with y
y
 Bilinear Quadratic
• So, this element will struggle to model the behavior of a beam
with moment varying along the length.
 Inspite of the fact that it has linearly varying strains - it will struggle
to model when M varies along the length.
• Another big challenge with this element is that the displacement
functions force the edges to remain straight - no curving during
deformation.
 Bilinear Quadratic
• The sides of the element remain straight - as a result the angle
between the sides changes.
 Even for the case of pure bending, the element will develop a change
in angle between the sides - which corresponds to the development
of a spurious shear stress.
 The Q4 element will resist even pure bending by developing both
normal and shear stresses. This makes it too stiff in bending.
• The element converges properly with mesh refinement and in
most problems works better than the CST element.
 Example Problem
• Consider the problem we were looking at:

0.1k

1 in.
0.1k

5 in.
0.1 in.

I  0.1  13 / 12  0.008333in 4
M c 1  0. 5
   60ksi
I 0.008333

   0.00207
E
PL3 0.2  125
   0.0345in.
3 EI 3  29000  0.008333
 Quadratic Quadrilateral Element
• The 8 noded quadratic quadrilateral element uses quadratic
functions for the displacements
 Quadratic Quadrilateral Element
• Shape function examples:

• Strain distribution within the element

 Quadratic Quadrilateral Element
• Should we try to use this element to solve our problem?

• Or try fixing the Q4 element for our purposes.

 Hmm… tough choice.
 Improved Bilinear Quadratic (Q6)
• The principal defect of the Q4 element is its overstiffness in bending.
 For the situation shown below, you can use the strain displacement
relations, stress-strain relations, and stress resultant equation to
determine the relationship between M 1 and M2

y
4 3
M2 M1
1  1 1 a  
2
b
x M2      M1
1  1  2 b  
1 2

 M2 increases infinitely as the element aspect ratio (a/b) becomes larger.

This phenomenon is known as locking.
 It is recommended to not use the Q4 element with too large aspect ratios
- as it will have infinite stiffness
 Improved bilinear quadratic (Q6)
• One approach is to fix the problem by making a simple
modification, which results in an element referred sometimes as a
Q6 element
 Its displacement functions for u and v contain six shape functions
instead of four.

 The displacement field is augmented by modes that describe the state

of constant curvature.
 Consider the modes associated with degrees of freedom g2 and g3.
Improved Bilinear Quadratic
• These corrections allow the elements to
curve between the nodes and model
bending with x or y axis as the neutral
axis.
• In pure bending the shear stress in the
element will be

• The negative terms balance out the

positive terms.

 The error in the shear strain is

minimized.
 Improved Bilinear Quadratic
• The additional degrees of freedom g1 - g4 are condensed out before
the element stiffness matrix is developed. Static condensation is
one of the ways.
 The element can model pure bending exactly, if it is rectangular in
shape.
 This element has become very popular and in many softwares, they
don’t even tell you that the Q4 element is actually a modified (or
tweaked) Q4 element that will work better.
 Important to note that g1-g4 are internal degrees of freedom and
unlike nodal d.o.f. they are not connected to to other elements.
 Modes associated with d.o.f. gi are incompatible or non-conforming.
 Improved bilinear quadratic
• Under some loading, on overlap
or gap may be present between
elements
 Not all but some loading
conditions this will happen.
 This is different from the
original Q4 element and is a
violation of physical continuum
laws. Elements approach a state
 Then why is it acceptable? Of cons
No numbers!

What happened here?

Discontinuity! Discontinuity!

Discontinuity!
Q6 or Q4 with Why is it stepped? LST elements Note the
incompatible modes discontinuities

Q4 elements Q8 elements
Why is it stepped?
Small discontinuities?
Values are too low
Q6 or Q4 with LST elements
incompatible modes

Q4 elements Q8 elements
Q6 or Q4 with LST elements
incompatible modes
Accurate shear stress? Discontinuities

Q4 elements Q8 elements

Some issues!
Lets refine the Q8 model. Quadruple the number Fix the boundary conditions to include
of elements - replace 1 by 4 (keeping the same additional nodes as shown
aspect ratio but finer mesh). Define boundary on the edge!

Black
The contours look great!
So, why is it over-predicting??

The principal stresses look great

Is there a problem here?
Shear stresses look good Why is there S22 at the supports?
But, what is going on at the support

Is my model wrong?
 Reading assignment
• Section 3.8
• Figure 3.10-2 and associated text
• Mechanical loads consist of concentrated loads at nodes, surface
tractions, and body forces.
 Traction and body forces cannot be applied directly to the FE model.
Nodal loads can be applied.
 They must be converted to equivalent nodal loads. Consider the case
of plane stress with translational d.o.f at the nodes.
 A surface traction can act on boundaries of the FE mesh. Of course,
it can also be applied to the interior.
 Equivalent Nodal Loads
• Traction has arbitrary orientation with respect to the boundary but
is usually expressed in terms of the components normal and
tangent to the boundary.
 Principal of equivalent work
• The boundary tractions (and body forces) acting on the element
sides are converted into equivalent nodal loads.
 The work done by the nodal loads going through the nodal
displacements is equal to the work done by the the tractions (or body
forces) undergoing the side displacements
 Body Forces
• Body force (weight) converted to equivalent nodal loads.
Interesting results for LST and Q8
 Important Limitation
• These elements have displacement degrees of freedom only. So
what is wrong with the picture below?

Is this the way to fix it?

 Stress Analysis
y
• Stress tensor  xx  xy  xz  Y

 
 xy  yy  yz  z
x

 xz  yz  zz 

z
X
• If you consider two coordinate systems (xyz) and (XYZ) with the
same origin
 The cosines of the angles between the coordinate axes (x,y,z) and the
axes (X, Y, Z) are as follows
 Each entry is the cosine of the angle between the coordinate axes
designated at the top of the column and to the left of the row.
(Example, l1=cos xX, l2=cos xY)
x y z
X l1 m1 n1
Y l2 m2 n2
Z l m n
 Stress Analysis
• The direction cosines follow the equations:
 For the row elements: li2+mi2+ni2=1 for I=1..3
l1l2+m1m2+n1n2=0
l1l3+m1m3+n1n3=0
l3l2+m3m2+n3n2=0
 For the column elements: l12+l22+l32=1
Similarly, sum (mi2)=1 and sum(ni2)=1
l1m1+l2m2+l3m3=0
l1n1+l2n2+l3n3=0
n1m1+n2m2+n3m3=0
 The stresses in the coordinates XYZ will be:
 Stress Analysis
 XX  l12 xx  m12 yy  n12 zz  2m1n1 yz  2n1l1 zx  2l1m1 xy
Equations A
2 2 2
 YY  l  xx  m  yy  n  zz  2m2 n 2 yz  2n 2 l2 zx  2l2 m2 xy
2 2 2

 ZZ  l32 xx  m 32 yy  n 32 zz  2m3 n 3 yz  2n 3 l3 zx  2l3 m 3 xy

 XY  l1l2 xx  m1m 2 yy  n1n 2 zz  (m1n 2  m 2 n1 ) yz  (l1n 2  l2 n1 ) xz  (l1m2  l2 m1 ) xy
 Xz  l1l3 xx  m1m3 yy  n1n 3 zz  (m1n 3  m 3 n1 ) yz  (l1n 3  l3 n1 ) xz  (l1m3  l3 m1 ) xy
 YZ  l3 l2 xx  m3 m 2 yy  n 3 n 2 zz  (m2 n 3  m3 n 2 ) yz  (l2 n 3  l3 n 2 ) xz  (l3 m2  l2 m 3 ) xy

• Principal stresses are the normal stresses on the principal planes

where the shear stresses become zero
 P=N where  is the magnitude and N is unit
normal to the principal plane
 Let N = l i + m j +n k (direction cosines)
 Projections of P along x, y, z axes are Px= l, Py= m,
Pz= n
 Stress Analysis
• Force equilibrium requires that:
l (xx-) + m xy +n xz=0
Equations B
l xy + m (yy-) + n yz = 0
l xz + m yz + n (zz-) = 0
• Therefore,  xx    xy  xz
 xy  yy    yz  0
 xz  yz  zz  
  3  I1 2  I2  I3  0 Equation C
where,
I1   xx   yy   zz
 xx  xy  xx  xz  yy  yz
I2      xx yy   xx zz   yy zz   xy 2   xz 2   yz 2
 xy  yy  xz  zz  yz  zz
 xx  xy  xz
I3   xy  yy  yz
 xz  yz  zz
 Stress Analysis
• The three roots of the equation are the principal stresses (3). The
three terms I1, I2, and I3 are stress invariants.
 That means, any xyz direction, the stress components will be
different but I1, I2, and I3 will be the same.
 Why? --- Hmm….
 In terms of principal stresses, the stress invariants are:
I1= p1+p2+p3 ;
I2=p1p2+p2p3+p1p3 ;
I3 = p1p2p3
In case you were wondering, the directions of the principal
stresses are calculated by substituting =p1 and calculating the
corresponding l, m, n using Equations (B).
 Stress Analysis
• The stress tensor can be discretized into two parts:
 xx  xy  xz   m 0 0   xx   m  xy  xz 
     

 xy  yy  
yz   0  m 0 
  xy  yy   m  yz 

 xz  yz  zz 
 
 0  
0  m    xz  yz  zz   m 

   yy   zz I1
where,  m  xx 
3 3
Stress Tensor  Mean Stress Tensor  Deviatoric Stress Tensor

= +



Original element Volume change Distortion only

- no volume change

m is referred as the mean stress, or hydostatic pressure, or just pressure (PRESS)

 Stress Analysis
• In terms of principal stresses
 p1 0 0   m 0 0   p1   m 0 0 
     
 0  p2 0 
  0  m 0 
  0  p2   m 0 

 0 0  p 3 
 
 0 0  m   
 0 0  p 3   m 

   p 2   p 3 I1
where,  m  p1 
3 3
2 p1   p 2   p 3 
 0 0 
 3 
2 p 2   p1   p 3
 Deviatoric Stress Tensor   0 0 
 3 
 2 p 3   p1   p 2 
 0 0 
 3 
The stress in var iants of deviatoric stress tensor
J1  0
1
6 2 2

J 2    p1   p 2    p 2   p 3    p 3   p1   I2 
2 I12
3
2 p1   p 2   p 3  2 p 2   p1   p 3  2 p 3   p1   p 2  I1I2 2I13
J 3        I3  
 3   3   3  3 27
 Stress Analysis
• The Von-mises stress is 3 J 2

• The Tresca stress is max {(p1-p2), (p1-p3), (p2-p3)}



• Why did we obtain this? Why is this important? And what does it
mean?
 Hmmm….
 Isoparametric Elements and Solution
• Biggest breakthrough in the implementation of the finite element
method is the development of an isoparametric element with
capabilities to model structure (problem) geometries of any shape
and size.
• The whole idea works on mapping.
 The element in the real structure is mapped to an ‘imaginary’
element in an ideal coordinate system
 The solution to the stress analysis problem is easy and known for the
‘imaginary’ element
 These solutions are mapped back to the element in the real structure.
 All the loads and boundary conditions are also mapped from the real
to the ‘imaginary’ element in this approach
 Isoparametric Element

3

4 (x3, y3)
(x4, y4) 4 3
(-1, 1) (1, 1)

1 2
Y,v 2 (-1, -1) (1, -1)
1
(x2, y2)
(x1, y1)

X, u
 Isoparametric element
• The mapping functions are quite simple:
x1 
 
x 2 
x 3 
X  N1 N 2  
N3 N4 0 0 0 0 x 4 
    
Y  0 0 0 0 N1 N 2 N3 N 4 y1 
y 2 
 
y 3 

y 4 

1 Basically, the x and y coordinates of any point
N1  (1  )(1  )
4 in the element are interpolations of the nodal
1 (corner) coordinates.
N 2  (1  )(1  )
4
1 From the Q4 element, the bilinear shape
N 3  (1  )(1  )
4 functions are borrowed to be used as the
1 interpolation functions. They readily satisfy the
N 4  (1  )(1  )
4 boundary values too.
 Isoparametric element
• Nodal shape functions for displacements
u1 
 
u 2 
u3 
u N1 N 2  
N3 N4 0 0 0 0 u4 
    
v  0 0 0 0 N1 N 2 N3 N 4 v1 
v 2 
 
v 3 

v 4 

1
N1  (1  )(1  )
4
1
N 2  (1  )(1  )
4
1
N 3  (1  )(1  )
4
1
N 4  (1  )(1  )
4
• The displacement strain relationships:
u u  u 
x     
X  X  X
v v  v 
y     
Y  Y  Y
u 
   
 u    0 0   
X X
x   X      u 
   v   0 0   

y    Y Y  v 
Y 
     
 xy  u v        
 Y Y X X   
Y X   
  v 

 
 
But,it is too difficult to obtain and
X X
 Isoparametric Element
Hence we will do it another way
u u X u Y
   
 X  Y 
u u X u Y
   
 X  Y 
X N Y N
u  X Y  u    i Xi   i Yi
    
 
    X 
      X N Y N
 u
    X Y  u    i Xi   i Yi
    
 
 
    Y 
X Y
It is easier to obtain and u  u 
   
X  1  
X Y     J   
   u  u 
J    Jacobian Y  
 


 X  Y 

   
defines coordinate transformation

 Isoparametric Element
u u u
x   J11*  J12*
X  
where J11* and J12* are coefficientsin the first row of
J 
1 The remaining strains
y and xy are
u N u N
and   i ui and   i ui computed similarly
   

The element stiffness matrix


T 1 1 T
k    B E BdV    B E B t J d d
11

dX dY=|J| dd

 Gauss Quadrature
• The mapping approach requires us to be able to evaluate the
integrations within the domain (-1…1) of the functions shown.
• Integration can be done analytically by using closed-form
formulas from a table of integrals (Nah..)
 Or numerical integration can be performed
• Gauss quadrature is the more common form of numerical
integration - better suited for numerical analysis and finite element
method.
• It evaluated the integral of a function as a sum of a finite number
of terms

1 n
I    d becomes I   W i i
1 i 1
 Gauss Quadrature
• Wi is the ‘weight’ and i is the value of f(=i)
 Gauss Quadrature
• If  is a polynomial function, then n-point Gauss quadrature
yields the exact integral if  is of degree 2n-1 or less.
 The form =c1+c2 is integrated exactly by the one point rule
 The form =c1+c2c2 is integrated exactly by the two point rule
 And so on…
 Use of an excessive number of points (more than that required) still
yields the exact result
• If  is not a polynomial, Gauss quadrature yields an approximate
result.
 Accuracy improves as more Gauss points are used.
 Convergence toward the exact result may not be monotonic
 Gauss Quadrature
• In two dimensions, integration is over a quadrilateral and a Gauss
rule of order n uses n2 points

• Where, WiWj is the product of one-dimensional weights. Usually

m=n.
 If m = n = 1,  is evaluated at  and =0 and I=41
 For Gauss rule of order 2 - need 22=4 points
 For Gauss rule of order 3 - need 32=9 points
 Gauss Quadrature

I  1   2   3   4 for rule of order  2

25 40 64
I ( 1   3   7   9 )  ( 2   4   6   8 )   5
81 81 81
 Number of Integration Points
• All the isoparametric solid elements are integrated numerically. Two schemes
are offered: “full” integration and “reduced” integration.
 For the second-order elements Gauss integration is always used because it
is efficient and it is especially suited to the polynomial product
interpolations used in these elements.
 For the first-order elements the single-point reduced-integration scheme is
based on the “uniform strain formulation”: the strains are not obtained at
the first-order Gauss point but are obtained as the (analytically calculated)
average strain over the element volume.
 The uniform strain method, first published by Flanagan and Belytschko
(1981), ensures that the first-order reduced-integration elements pass the
patch test and attain the accuracy when elements are skewed.
 Alternatively, the “centroidal strain formulation,” which uses 1-point Gauss
integration to obtain the strains at the element center, is also available for
the 8-node brick elements in ABAQUS/Explicit for improved
computational efficiency.
 Number of Integration Points
• The differences between the uniform strain formulation and the centroidal
strain formulation can be shown as follows:
Number of Integration Points
 Number of integration points
• Numerical integration is simpler than analytical, but it is not
exact. [k] is only approximately integrated regardless of the
number of integration points
 Should we use fewer integration points for quick computation
 Or more integration points to improve the accuracy of calculations.
 Hmm….
 Reduced Integration
• A FE model is usually inexact, and usually it errs by being too stiff.
Overstiffness is usually made worse by using more Gauss points to integrate
element stiffness matrices because additional points capture more higher order
terms in [k]
• These terms resist some deformation modes that lower order tems do not and
therefore act to stiffen an element.
• On the other hand, use of too few Gauss points produces an even worse
situation known as: instability, spurious singular mode, mechanics, zero-
energy, or hourglass mode.
 Instability occurs if one of more deformation modes happen to display zero
strain at all Gauss points.
 If Gauss points sense no strain under a certain deformation mode, the
resulting [k] will have no resistance to that deformation mode.
 Reduced Integration
• Reduced integration usually means that an integration scheme one order less
than the full scheme is used to integrate the element's internal forces and
stiffness.
 Superficially this appears to be a poor approximation, but it has proved to
offer significant advantages.
 For second-order elements in which the isoparametric coordinate lines
remain orthogonal in the physical space, the reduced-integration points
have the Barlow point property (Barlow, 1976): the strains are calculated
from the interpolation functions with higher accuracy at these points than
anywhere else in the element.
 For first-order elements the uniform strain method yields the exact average
strain over the element volume. Not only is this important with respect to
the values available for output, it is also significant when the constitutive
model is nonlinear, since the strains passed into the constitutive routines
are a better representation of the actual strains.
 Reduced Integration
• Reduced integration decreases the number of constraints introduced by an
element when there are internal constraints in the continuum theory being
modeled, such as incompressibility, or the Kirchhoff transverse shear
constraints if solid elements are used to analyze bending problems.
• In such applications fully integrated elements will “lock”—they will exhibit
response that is orders of magnitude too stiff, so the results they provide are
quite unusable. The reduced-integration version of the same element will often
work well in such cases.
• Reduced integration lowers the cost of forming an element. The deficiency of
reduced integration is that the element stiffness matrix will be rank deficient.
• This most commonly exhibits itself in the appearance of singular modes
(“hourglass modes”) in the response. These are nonphysical response modes
that can grow in an unbounded way unless they are controlled.
 Reduced Integration
• The reduced-integration second-order serendipity interpolation elements in two
dimensions—the 8-node quadrilaterals—have one such mode, but it is benign
because it cannot propagate in a mesh with more than one element.
• The second-order three-dimensional elements with reduced integration have
modes that can propagate in a single stack of elements. Because these modes
rarely cause trouble in the second-order elements, no special techniques are used
in ABAQUS to control them.
• In contrast, when reduced integration is used in the first-order elements (the 4-
node quadrilateral and the 8-node brick), hourglassing can often make the
elements unusable unless it is controlled.
• In ABAQUS the artificial stiffness method given in Flanagan and Belytschko
(1981) is used to control the hourglass modes in these elements.
 Reduced Integration

The FE model will have no resistance to loads that activate these modes.
The stiffness matrix will be singular.
 Reduced Integration
• Hourglass mode for 8-node element with reduced integration to
four points

• This mode is typically non-communicable and will not occur in a

set of elements.
 Reduced Integration
• The hourglass control methods of Flanagan and Belytschko (1981) are
generally successful for linear and mildly nonlinear problems but may break
down in strongly nonlinear problems and, therefore, may not yield reasonable
results.
• Success in controlling hourglassing also depends on the loads applied to the
structure. For example, a point load is much more likely to trigger hourglassing
than a distributed load.
• Hourglassing can be particularly troublesome in eigenvalue extraction
problems: the low stiffness of the hourglass modes may create many unrealistic
modes with low eigenfrequencies.
• Experience suggests that the reduced-integration, second-order isoparametric
elements are the most cost-effective elements in ABAQUS for problems in
which the solution can be expected to be smooth.
 Solving Linear Equations
• Time independent FE analysis requires that the global equations
[K]{D}={R} be solved for {D}
• This can be done by direct or iterative methods
• The direct method is usually some form of Gauss elimination.
• The number of operations required is dictated by the number of
d.o.f. and the topology of [K]
• An iterative method requires an uncertain number of operations;
calculations are halted when convergence criteria are satisfied or
an iteration limit is reached.
 Solving Linear Equations
• If a Gauss elimination is driven by node numbering, forward
reduction proceeds in node number order and back substitution in
reverse order, so that numerical values of d.o.f at first numbered
node are determined last.
• If Gauss elimination is driven by element numbering, assembly of
element matrices may alternate with steps of forward reduction.
 Some eliminations are carried out as soon as enough information has
been assembled, then more assembly is carried out, then more
eliminations, and so on…
 The assembly-reduction process is like a ‘wave’ that moves over the
structure.
 A solver that works this way is called a wavefront or ‘frontal’
equation solver.
 Solving Linear Equations
• The computation time of a direct solution is roughly proportional
to nb2, where n is the order of [K] and b is the bandwidth.
 For 3D structures, the computation time becomes large because b
becomes large.
 Large b indicates higher connectivity between the degrees of
freedom.
 For such a case, an iterative solver may be better because
connectivity speeds convergence.
 Solving Linear Equations
• In most cases, the structure must be analyzed to determine the
effects of several different load vectors {R}.
 This is done more effectively by direct solvers because most of the
effort is expended to reduce the [K] matrix.
 As long as the structure [K] does not change, the displacements for
the new load vectors can be estimated easily.
 This will be more difficult for iterative solvers, because the complete
set of equations need to be re-solved for the new load vector.
 Iterative solvers may be best for parallel processing computers and
nonlinear problems where the [K] matrix changes from step i to i+1.
Particularly because the solution at step i will be a good initial
estimate.
 Symmetry conditions
• Types of symmetry include reflective, skew, axial and cyclic. If
symmetry can be recognized and used, then the models can be
made smaller.
 The problem is that not only the structure, but the boundary
conditions and the loading needs to be symmetric too.
 The problem can be anti-symmetric
 If the problem is symmetric
 Translations have no component normal to a plane of symmetry
 Rotation vectors have no component parallel to a plane of symmetry.
 Symmetry conditions

Plane of Plane of
Symmetry Anti-symmetry

(Restrained (Restrained
Motions) Motions)
Symmetry Conditions
 Constraints
• Special conditions for the finite element model.
 A constraint equation has the general form [C]{D}-{Q}=0
 Where [C] is an mxn matrix; m is the number of constraint equation, and n
is the number of d.o.f. in the global vector {D}
 {Q} is a vector of constants and it is usually zero.
 There are two ways to impose the constraint equations on the global
equation [K]{D}={R}
• Lagrange Multiplier Method
 Introduce additional variables known as Lagrange multipliers ={1 2 3
… m}T
 Each constraint equation is written in homogenous form and multiplied by
the corresponding I which yields the equation 
 C]{D} - {Q}}=0
 Final Form K C T D R
    
C 0   Q
Solved by Gaussian E lim ination
 Constraints
• Penalty Method
 t=[C]{D}-{Q}
 t=0 implies that the constraints have been satisfied
 =[1 2 1 … m] is the diagonal matrix of “penalty numbers.”
 Final form {[K]+[C]T[][C]}{D}={R}+[C]T[]{Q}
 [C]T[][C] is called the penalty matrix
 If a is zero, the constraints are ignored
 As a becomes large, the constraints are very nearly satisfied
 Penalty numbers that are too large produce numerical ill-conditioning,
which may make the computed results unreliable and may “lock” the
mesh.
 The penalty numbers must be large enough to be effective but not so
large as to cause numerical difficulties
 3D Solids and Solids of Revolution
• 3D solid - three-dimensional solid that is unrestricted as to the
shape, loading, material properties, and boundary conditions.
• All six possible stresses (three normal and three shear) must be
taken into account.
 The displacement field involves all three components (u, v, and w)
 Typical finite elements for 3D solids are tetrahedra and hexahedra,
with three translational d.o.f. per node.
3D Solids
 3D Solids
• Problems of beam bending, plane stress, plates and so on can all
be regarded as special cases of 3D solids.
 Does this mean we can model everything using 3D finite element
models?
 Can we just generalize everything as 3D and model using 3D finite
elements.
• Not true! 3D models are very demanding in terms of
computational time, and difficult to converge.
 They can be very stiff for several cases.
 More importantly, the 3D finite elements do not have rotational
degrees of freedom, which are very important for situations like
plates, shells, beams etc.
 3D Solids
• Strain-displacement relationships
 3D Solids
• Stress-strain-temperature relations
 3D Solids
• The process for assembling the element stiffness matrix is the
same as before.
 {u}=[N] {d}
 Where, [N] is the matrix of shape functions
 The nodes have three translational degrees of freedom.
 If n is the number of nodes, then [N] has 3n columns
 3D Solids
• Substitution of {u}=[N]{d} into the strain-displacement relation
yields the strain-displacement matrix [B]
• The element stiffness matrix takes the form:
 3D Solid Elements
• Solid elements are direct extensions of plane elements discussed
earlier. The extensions consist of adding another coordinate and
displacement component.
 The behavior and limitations of specific 3D elements largely parallel
those of their 2D counterparts.
• For example:
 Constant strain tetrahedron
 Linear strain tetrahedron
 Trilinear hexahedron
 Quadratic hexahedron
• Hmm…
 Can you follow the names and relate them back to the planar
elements
 3D Solids
• Pictures of solid elements

CST Q8
LST Q4
 3D Solids
• Constant Strain Tetrahedron. The element has three translational
d.o.f. at each of its four nodes.
 A total of 12 d.o.f.
 In terms of generalized coordinates i its displacement field is given
by.

 Like the constant strain triangle, the constant strain tetrahedron is

accurate only when strains are almost constant over the span of the
element.
 The element is poor for bending and twisting specially if the axis
passes through the element of close to it.
 3D Solids
• Linear strain tetrahedron - This element has 10 nodes, each with 3
d.o.f., which is a total of 30 d.o.f.
 Its displacement field includes quadratic terms.
 Like the 6-node LST element, the 10-node tetrahedron element has
linear strain distributions
• Trilinear tetrahedron - The element is also called an eight-node
brick or continuum element.

 Each of three displacement expressions contains all modes in

the expression (c1+c2x)(c3+c4y)(c5+c6z), which is the product of
three linear polynomials
 3D Solids
• The hexahedral element can be of arbitrary shape if it is
formulated as an isoparametric element.
 3D Solids
• The determinant |J| can be regarded as a scale factor. Here it
expresses the volume ratio of the differential element dX dY dZ to
the d d d
• The integration is performed numerically, usually by 2 x 2 x 2
Gauss quadrature rule.
• Like the bilinear quadrilateral (Q4) element, the trilinear
tetrahedron does not model beam action well because the sides
remain straight as the element deforms.
• If elongated it suffers from shear locking when bent.
• Remedy from locking - use incompatible modes - additional
degress of freedom for the sides that allow them to curve
 3D Solids
• Quadratic Hexahedron
 Direct extension of the quadratic quadrilateral Q8 element presented
earlier.
 [B] is now a 6 x 60 rectangular matrix.
 If [k] is integrated by a 2 x 2 Gauss Quadrature rule, three
“hourglass” instabilities will be possible.
 These hourglass instabilities can be communicated in 3D element
models.
 Stabilization techniques are used in commercial FE packages. Their
discussion is beyond the scope.
 Example - Axisymmetric elements

123in.
9 in.

1 ksi
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example