11/16/2014

WELCOME TO ENGINEERS CADD CENTRE (P) LTD

Finite element analysis was first developed for use in the aerospace and nuclear industries where
the safety of structures is critical. Today, the growth in usage of the method is directly
attributable to the rapid advances in computer technology in recent years. As a result, commercial
finite element packages exist that are capable of solving the most sophisticated problems, not just
in structural analysis, but for a wide range of phenomena such as steady state and dynamic
temperature distributions, fluid flow and manufacturing processes such as injection molding and
metal forming.
FEA consists of a computer model of a material or design that is loaded and analyzed for specific
results. It is used in new product design, and existing product refinement. A company is able to
verify that a proposed design will be able to perform to the client's specifications prior to
manufacturing or construction. Modifying an existing product or structure is utilised to qualify the
product or structure for a new service condition. In case of structural failure, FEA may be used to
help determine the design modifications to meet the new condition.
Mathematically, the structure to be analyzed is subdivided into a mesh of finite sized elements of
simple shape. Within each element, the variation of displacement is assumed to be determined by
simple polynomial shape functions and nodal displacements. Equations for the strains and stresses
are developed in terms of the unknown nodal displacements. From this, the equations of
equilibrium are assembled in a matrix form which can be easily be programmed and solved on a
computer. After applying the appropriate boundary conditions, the nodal displacements are found
by solving the matrix stiffness equation. Once the nodal displacements are known, element stresses
and strains can be calculated
Within each of these modeling schemes, the programmer can insert numerous algorithms
(functions) which may make the system behave linearly or non-linearly. Linear systems are far less
complex and generally ignore many subtleties of model loading & behaviour. Non-linear systems
can account for more realistic behaviour such as plastic deformation, changing loads etc. and is
capable of testing a component all the way to failure.
Despite the proliferation and power of commercial software packages available, it is essential to
have an understanding of the technique & physical processes involved in the analysis. Only then can
an appropriate & accurate analysis model be selected, correctly defined and subsequently
interpreted.
History of FEM & FEA
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was first developed in 1943 by R. Courant, who utilized the Ritz
method of numerical analysis and minimization of variational calculus to obtain approximate
solutions to vibration systems. Shortly thereafter, a paper published in 1956 by Turner, Clough,
Martin, & Topp established a broader definition of numerical analysis. This paper centered on the
"stiffness and deflection of complex structures".
By the early 70's, FEA was limited to expensive mainframe computers generally owned by the
aeronautics, automotive, defense, and nuclear industries, and the scope of analyses were
considerably limited. Finite Element technology was further enhanced during the 70's by such
people as Zeinkiewicz & Cheung, when they applied the technology to general problems described
by Laplace & Poisson's equations. Mathematicians were developing better solution algorithms, the
Galerkin, Ritz & Rayleigh-Ritz methods emerged as the optimum solutions for certain categories of
general type problems. Later, considerable research was carried out into the modelling & solution
of non-linear problems, Hinton & Crisfield being major contributors.
While considerable strides were made in the development of the finite element method, other
areas did not remain static. Very powerful mesh generation algorithms have been developed.
http://www.eccindia.org/eccsite/htmls/whatisfea.html

1/6

11/16/2014

WELCOME TO ENGINEERS CADD CENTRE (P) LTD

Commercial generators have the capability of meshing all but the most difficult geometry.
Superior CAE concepts have also emerged, it is not unusual to have a single CAD model for
producing engineering drawings, carrying out kinematic & assembly analysis, as well as being used
for finite element modelling.
Due to the rapid decline in the cost of computers and the phenomenal increase in computing
power, present day desktop computers are capable of producing accurate results for all kinds of
parameters (standard PC's are over 10 times more powerful than the best supercomputers of the
early 90's).
The finite element method now has it's roots in many disciplines, the end result is a technology that
is so advanced that it is almost indinguishable from magic. The vast catalog of capability that
comprises FEA, will no doubt grow considerably larger in the future. CAE is here to stay, but in
order to harness it's true power, the user must be familiar with many concepts, including the
mechanics of the problem being modelled. All analyses require time, experience & most
importantly, careful planning.
What's the difference between FEM & FEA ??
This is a very contentious issue, one that academics love to debate over a cool longneck of a Friday
evening. I am going to stick my head on the block here & try to explain the difference, happy
chopping my academic friends.
The terms 'finite element method' & 'finite element analysis' seem to be used interchanably in most
documentation, so the question arises is there a difference between FEM & FEA ??
The answer is yes, there is a difference, albeit a subtle one that is not really important enough to
loose sleep over.
The finite element method is a mathematical method for solving ordinary & elliptic partial
differential equations via a piecewise polynomial interpolation scheme. Put simply, FEM evaluates
a differential equation curve by using a number of polynomial curves to follow the shape of the
underlying & more complex differential equation curve. Each polynomial in the solution can be
represented by a number of points and so FEM evaluates the solution at the points only. A linear
polynomial requires 2 points, while a quadratic requires 3. The points are known as node points or
nodes. There are essentially three mathematical ways that FEM can evaluate the values at the
nodes, there is the non-variational method (Ritz), the residual mehod (Galerkin) & the variational
method (Rayleigh-Ritz).
FEA is an implementation of FEM to solve a certain type of problem. For example if we were
intending to solve a 2D stress problem. For the FEM mathematical solution, we would probably use
the minimum potential energy principle, which is a variational solution. As part of this, we need to
generate a suitable element for our analysis. We may choose a plane stress, plane strain or an
axisymmetric type formulation, with linear or higher order polynomials. Using a piecewise
polynomial solution to solve the underlying differential equation is FEM, while applying the
specifics of element formulation is FEA, e.g. a plane strain triangular quadratic element.
Application Areas
In essence, the finite element is a mathematical method for solving ordinary & partial
differential equations. Because it is a numerical method, it has the ability to solve complex
problems that can be represented in differential equation form. As these types of equations
occur naturally in virtually all fields of the physical sciences, the applications of the finite element
method are limitless as regards the solution of practical design problems.
Due to the high cost of computing power of years gone by, FEA has a history of being used to
solve complex & cost critical problems. Classical methods alone usually cannot provide
adequate information to determine the safe working limits of a major civil engineering
construction. If a tall building, a large suspension bridge or a neuclear reactor failed
catastrophically, the economic & social costs would be unacceptably high.
http://www.eccindia.org/eccsite/htmls/whatisfea.html

2/6

11/16/2014

WELCOME TO ENGINEERS CADD CENTRE (P) LTD

In recent years, FEA has been used almost universally to solve structural engineering problems.
One discipline that has relied heavily on the technology is the aerospace industry. Due to the
extreme demands for faster, stronger, lighter & more efficient aircrafts, manufacturers have to
rely on the technique to stay competitive. But more importantly, due to safety, high
manufacturing costs of components & the high media coverage that the industry is exposed to,
aircraft companies need to ensure that none of their components fail, that is to cease providing the
service that the design intended.
FEA has been used routinely in high volume production & manufacturing industries for many
years, as to get a product design wrong would be detrimental. For example, if a large
manufacturer had to recall one model alone due to a piston design fault, they would end up
having to replace up to 10 million pistons. Similarly, if an oil platform had to shut down due to one
of the major components failing (platform frame, turrets, etc..), the cost of lost revenue is far
greater than the cost of fixing or replacing the components, not to mention the huge environmental
& safety costs that such an incident could incurr.
The finite element method is a very important tool for those involved in engineering design, it is
now used routinely to solve problems in the following areas:
Structural strength design
Structural interation with fluid flows
Analysis of Shock (underwater & in materials)
Acoustics
Thermal analysis
Vibrations
Crash simulations
Fluid flows
Electrical analyses
Mass diffusion
Buckling problems
Dynamic analyses
Electromagnetic evaluations
Metal forming
Coupled analyses
Nowadays, even the most simple of products rely on the finite element method for design
evaluation. This is because contemporary design problems usually cannot be solved as accurately &
cheaply using any other method that is currently available. Physical testing was the norm in years
gone by, but now it is simply too expensive.

What can go wrong with FEA?

As finite-element analysis spreads to designers who may lack formal training in numerical
procedures, practitioners must ask whether the most appropriate techniques are being usedand
whether they are producing accurate details.
Finite-element methods are in abundant use in today's engineering practice through various
general-purpose commercial computer programs and many special-purpose programs written for
specific applications. These techniques are, to an increasing extent, being used to help identify
good new designs and improve designs with respect to performance and cost.
Considering the important role that finite-element methods now play in various areas of
engineering, practitioners need to ask themselves whether their procedures are the most
appropriate techniques available and whether the methods will lead to accurate results. These
http://www.eccindia.org/eccsite/htmls/whatisfea.html

3/6

11/16/2014

WELCOME TO ENGINEERS CADD CENTRE (P) LTD

questions are particularly important because more and more design engineers who have not
necessarily been trained in numerical procedures are applying finite-element techniques in their
work.
A schematic plot of strain energies Eh of finiteelement solutions is given when the element
size h is decreased. The plot shows
convergence as the mesh is refined.
As the use of these methods expands to a larger
and more diverse group, users must address the
important question of what can go wrong in
finite-element analysis. This article is not
intended to resolve the question in the broadest
sense; rather, we shall focus on some aspects of the reliability of finite-element methods and their
accurate use. To illustrate, we will consider linear elastic solutions and assume that the algebraic
finite-element equations are solved exactly. For a more complex analysis, the same considerations
hold, but additional requirements need to be addressed as well.
Mathematical Models
First of all, engineers should recall that the finite-element method is used to solve a mathematical
model, which is the result of an idealization of the actual physical problem considered. The
mathematical model is based on assumptions made regarding the geometry, material conditions,
loading, and displacement boundary conditions. The governing equations of the mathematical
model are in general partial differential equations subjected to boundary conditions. These
equations cannot be solved in closed analytical form. Therefore, engineers resort to the finiteelement method to obtain a numerical solution.
Consider, for example, an analysis of a valve housing of axisymmetric geometry and axisymmetric
loading. In such a case, it is reasonable to assume axisymmetric conditions for analysis. The
complete mathematical model and thus the analysis problem is obtained by specifying the
geometry and dimensions, support conditions, material constants, and loading.
While engineers cannot, in general, obtain analytically the exact solution for the posed
mathematical model in closed form, the exact solution of the mathematical model does exist, the
solution is unique, and an approximation of this exact solution can be obtained with very high
accuracy using finite-element methods.
To quantify these observations, the notion of convergence must be introduced. Let E denote the
(unknown) exact strain energy of the mathematical model. Also, let Eh denote the strain energy
corresponding to the finite-element solution with a mesh of element size h. Then convergence
means:

The schematic plot on above shows how convergence is reached. As the mesh is refined (that is,
the element size h is decreased), the strain energy Eh approaches a value E. The rate at which the
error between E and Eh is reduced depends on the problem solved as well as on the element and
meshes used. Clearly, higher-order elements will reduce the error at a faster rate with mesh
refinement than lower-order elements.
The Question of Reliability
Reliability in finite-element methods means that in the solution of a well-posed mathematical
model, the finite-element procedures will have two attributes: The finite-element solutions will
converge to the exact solution of the mathematical model as h approaches 0 for any (physically
realistic) material data, displacement boundary conditions, and loading applied; and for a
reasonable finite- element mesh, a reasonable finite-element solution will be obtained.
Furthermore, the quality of the finite-element solution does not change drastically when the
http://www.eccindia.org/eccsite/htmls/whatisfea.html

4/6

11/16/2014

WELCOME TO ENGINEERS CADD CENTRE (P) LTD

material data (or thickness of a shell) are changed.

These conditions are of crucial importance. If the first condition (convergence) is violated, then
with mesh refinement a solution is approached that is not the exact solution of the mathematical
model. Such erroneous solutions could lead to wrong design decisions and disastrous consequences.
Of course, finite-element methods that violate the first condition should not be used.
To consider the second conditionobtaining a reasonable solution using a reasonable meshassume,
for example, that the valve housing is made of steel (Young's modulus is 200,000 megapascals;
Poisson's ratio, n, is 0.30). The analysis using a reasonable mesh has given acceptable results (that
is, the error |EEh| is acceptably small). Suppose that we now change the material to a plastic,
for which Poisson's ratio is 0.49close to the incompressible condition of 0.50. This change in
material condition might result in a relatively small change in the exact solution, and it should
then result only in the corresponding small change in the finite-element solution. Unfortunately,
finite-element formulations are still used that violate the second condition and yield a solution
grossly in error when Poisson's ratio is changed to 0.49.
This solution phenomenon is observed with displacement-based finite elements. The large errors are
present because the elements are much too stiff when v is close to 0.50, and cannot be used when
V=0.50. The underlying mechanical reason is that, considering the stresses, p=Kev, where p is
pressure, K is bulk modulus, and ev is volumetric strain. As n approaches 0.50, K becomes very
large and is infinite when V=0.50. Also, as n approaches 0.50, in the exact solution, ev becomes
very small and is zero when V= 0.50. Therefore, in an almost incompressible analysis, the pressure
is given by a very large number (the bulk modulus) multiplied by a very small number (the
volumetric strain), and must be accurately calculated to balance the applied surface tractions.
While the bulk modulus becomes very large, the pressure is always a finite number and usually does
not change much as n approaches 0.50.
As a remedy in displacement-based finite-element methods, "reduced integration" is employed. This
means that in the numerical integration of the element stiffness matrices, the exact matrices are
not evaluated. The method is simple to program and requires less computation time to establish the
matrices, and with experience acceptable results are frequently obtained. However, the technique
can also lead to very large errors.
Consider the frequency analysis of the bracket. In this case, using nine-node elements, 323 Gauss
integration corresponds to full numerical integration and 222 Gauss integration is "reduced
integration." Since no analytical closed-form solution exists for the frequencies of the bracket, a
very fine mesh (the 16264 element model) was used to obtain an accurate solution. Of interest are
the solutions obtained with the coarse 16-element mesh. As predicted by theory, using full
integration, the frequencies of the coarse 16-element mesh are larger than the accurate solution
frequencies. When reduced integration is used, some frequencies are better approximated than
when using full integration, but among those few listed is a phantom frequency. Phantom
frequencies do not physically exist but are only introduced by the reduced-integration scheme. If a
dynamic step-by-step solution is performed, such phantom frequencies are not noticed and absorb
energy, introducing large errors into the solution. Error measures would detect that the errors are
large, but they are frequently not available in dynamic analysis. Thus, reduced integration is
unreliable and should be avoided.
Instead, only reliable mixed finite-element formulations, which do not require reduced integration,
should be used. Such formulations satisfy the first and second conditions, are currently available,
and can be employed confidently for the solution of mathematical models with any material
properties, loading, and boundary conditions. A displacement/pressure-based formulation is
particularly attractive when incompressible materials are considered and was used to analyze a
plastic bracket with Poisson's ratio equal to 0.499 (see Analysis Clinic, March). The formulation is
also used effectively in nonlinear analysis, where almost incompressible conditions are widely
encountered. Inelastic conditions of plasticity and creep, and rubberlike conditions, give rise to
http://www.eccindia.org/eccsite/htmls/whatisfea.html

5/6

11/16/2014

WELCOME TO ENGINEERS CADD CENTRE (P) LTD

(almost) incompressible behavior.

Similar difficulties, as described for almost-incompressible analysis, are also encountered in the
analysis of plate and shell structures. Here, too, some finite-element technology still uses reduced
integration, and the results can be very much in error. Again, reliable formulations, which are now
available, should be used instead of such reduced-integration schemes.
To sum up, finite-element methods can now be employed with great confidence, but only the
methods considered reliable should be used. Earlier technology based on reduced integration should
not be used, or should at any rate be employed with great care. By proceeding in this way,
practitioners can have confidence that a finite-element analysis will be effective and will not go
wrong

http://www.eccindia.org/eccsite/htmls/whatisfea.html

6/6