Computers & Structures Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 565-581, 1984 0045-7949/u $3.00 + .

cQ
Printed in the U.S.A. Pergamon Press Ltd.

MIXED FINITE ELEMENT MODELS FOR

PLATE BENDING ANALYSIS:
A NEW ELEMENT AND ITS APPLICATIONS

DIMITRISKARAMANLIDIS~
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, U.S.A.

HUNG LE THE$
Technical University of Berlin, Berlin (West), F.R.G.

SATYA N. ATLURI~
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.

(Received 16 August 1983; receivedfor publication26 October 1983)

Abstract-With a few exceptions, finite element packages available in today’s commercial software
environment contain in their libraries displacement-type elements only. The present paper aims to
demonstrate the feasibility that properly formulated mixed-type elements compete most favorably with
displacement-type elements and should, therefore, be considered as potential candidates for inclusion in
general purpose finite element packages. In doing so, the development of a new triangular doubly-curved
mixed-hvbrid shallow shell element and its extensive testing in carefully chosen example problems are
reported on.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate

Thin plates supporting transverse loading are of such
common occurrence in engineering practice that the
analysis of the stresses and deformations in these has
attracted a considerable amount of attention over a
very long period, with Refs.[21,23,24] providing
much valuable information. The mathematics of the
situation is so complex, however, that analytical
solutions leading to formulae for stresses or
deflections are only available for a few simple situ-
ations of geometry, boundary conditions, and load-
ing. In general, progress in design work can thus only
be accomplished if some approximation solution
technique is used. The most versatile approach in a
long list is the finite element method, which has been
extensively developed, applied to many problems,
and been widely discussed in the relevant literature.
Several different formulations for finite element anal-
ysis of plate bending problems have been put forward
and applied with success. On the other hand, how-
ever, an examination of the documentation manuals
of commercial packages available on today’s software
market reveals that almost exclusively a single type of
element, namely the so-called assumed-displacement
element, is included in their libraries. In a recently
published paper by Batoz et al.[S], a comparative
evaluation of several well-known thin-plate elements
has been carried out. In light of the obtained numer-
ical results, the major conclusion in Ref. [5] was that
a plate element developed in the sixties on the basis
of the so-called assumed stress hybrid finite element
model competes most favorably with a series of
elements included in commercial packages.
TAssistant Professor (formerly post-doctoral
GIT-CACM).
IResearch Scientist I.
$Regent’s Professor of Mechanics.
once again the practical relevance of properly formu-
lated mixed finite elements. A newly developed mixed
hybrid shallow shell element serves as the vehicle to
carry out extensive numerical studies on well-selected
examples. Whenever possible, the attempt is made to
compare the present results with those produced by
commercial-package elements. Moreover, a com-
parison with recently developed mixed plate elements
is also made.
FORMULATION OF A NEW ELEMENT
Variational equation
Customarily, mixed finite element models are for-
mulated on the basis of variational principles of the
so-called Reissner type, wherein stress and displace-
ment variables represent independent (primal) vari-
ables.
In their recent publication[l6], the authors have
shown that in a mixed variational equation, choosing
the stress field interpolants so as to fulfill a priori the
“linear part” of equilibrium equations in the interior
of each individual element leads not only to a me-
chanically correct but also an easily implementable
discrete scheme.
In the following, the theoretical ingredients of a
newly developed shallow shell element based on such
a mixed formulation will be outlined. Further docu-
mentation can be found in Ref.[21].
We consider now a free-form shell divided into (n)
shallow curved triangular elements and denote by A
the area, by aA the total boundary, by C, and C, the
parts of the boundary over which displacement and
fellow, tractions, respectively, are specified, while
C, = aA - C, - Co represents the “inter-element
boundary” of a single element. Furthermore, D,,, and
D, are the membrane and bending parts of the

565
566 D. KARAMANLIDIS et al.

strain-stress matrices, respectively. The vectors tor at a generic point (x, y, z) in the interior of an
a,,, = [N,,, N,, N,,lT and ab5 [M,,, IV,,,,,MxJTare the element.
shell stress resultants at a generic point in the interior On the other hand, taking the variation of the
of an element, while z “z(x,yj describes the ele- functional in eqn (1) with respect to the primal
ment’s curved geometry with respect to its base plane variables ti, a,,,, and ab gives as Euler/Lagrange equa-
(x and y are local Cartesian coordinates). In the tions (“natural constraints”)
standard vector notation, the variational equation (i) compatibility conditions
employed within the new element’s formulation
reads? D,a,-y, =O in A

D,a, - yb = 0

(ii) traction reciprocity conditions

T,’ + T,- =0
T3++T,-=0 o”C,
M;+M,=O 1
(iii) C’ continuity conditions

+ (T, . ii, + T3. E

+ -
w,, - w,, = 0 on C,’
- = 0
W,, - w,, on C,-
+ M,, . KJ,,)dS where

u 9.x

I
+ (WEF) = stationary (1)
Ym = U,Y +
where (WEF) stands for the work of external forces i u,y + u,x
exclusive of element distributed loading and
T, = N,,+v,;
M, = M,,v,
T3 = M,,,p + Ncgz,&vol;

(a, /3 = 1, 2). (2)

--
2
1
1 W,X
W,Y

2w,x.w,y
2
2

Implementation
Moreover, w and ii = [a, 6, C ] T are independent dis- Considerable effort has been expended in the past
placement fields introduced in the interior element in developing curved shell element models. The devel-
domain A and on its boundary aA, respectively. opment of such an element for thin free-form shell
In eqn (l), the primal variables are subject to the analysis demands that attention be paid to the follow-
subsidiary conditions listed below: ing aspects of the formulation. First, one has to select
(i) C’ displacement continuity a consistent shell theory from the numerous theories
that have been proposed so far. Secondly, represent-
u, +_ L&=0; w+ -3=O on C,+ ation of elemental rigid body and constant strain
_ modes as well as satisfaction of interelement displace-
4 - u, = 0; w - - 3=0 onC,-
ment compatibility is more difficult for the curved
‘+ -_
WY,- WY, =0 on C, case since the in-plane and transverse displacements
are coupled due to the curvature. Thirdly, the prob-
(ii) displacement boundary conditions lem of describing the geometry of the element in a
proper way is encountered.
$-$,=O
I&- Ii, = 0; _
w,, - I,, = 0 1
on C,
In the past, several authors, for instance
Boland [8] and Wolf [28], advocated an element geom-
etry description approach as described next. The
(iii) domain equilibrium conditions three comer nodes of an arbitrary triangular element
are chosen on the middle surface of the shell. A
N,,, + 15,= 0 reference plane through these nodes is associated with
in A
M airy + (NW,. Q),. + h = 0

where F3 = j3(x, y); (i = 1,2,3) stands for the distrib-

uted loading acting on the element’s area A; (. . .)’
and (. . .)- refer, arbitrarily, to the “left-hand” and
“right-hand” sides of C,, respectively; (. Y.) is the
symbol for prescribed quantities; and
u = Lu, U, w JT z Lu,, u2, w2 JT is the displacement vec-

tNote that in the geometrically linear case, eqn (1)

degenerates to the variational basis for what one custom-
arily calls the “assumed stress hybrid finite element method” Fig. 1. Improper shell geometry approximation using
(e.g. [51). curved elements.
 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis 567

Table 1. Trial functions for a new mixed hybrid shallow shell element

2 (a and 0 . . . . . . . . . . . linear in s

cubic in s

2o Nyy and NV . . . . . . constantplus particular solution

f due to distributed loading

E
:M xx'
Myy andM
xy
. . . . . . weakly parabolic plus particular

::
\ solution due to distributed loading

c
0
2
0
( Z.............. parabolic in x and y

each element. The shell element forms a shallow
surface with respect to this “base-plane”. The normal
projection of the element on the reference “base-
plane” consists of a triangle passing through the
corner nodes. Triangular elements defined this way
do not cover the shell completely, as illustrated by
Fig. 1. Often (see Refs. [8,28]) it has been assumed,
however, that omission of the region between the
elements does not affect the results in any serious
way.
From the above-mentioned difficulties stems our
motivation to develop a new shell element such that
(i) exact representation of rigid body as well as
constant strain modes is achieved, (ii) C’ interelement
displacement continuity is enforced a priori, and (iii)
no gaps of the aforementioned kind do occur in the
element assembly. Table 1 summarizes the trial func-
tions used within the new element’s development
which comply with the subsidiary conditions of eqn
(1).
NUMERICAL RESULTS
Numerical results are given in this section for a
series of relevant problems representing a broad
range of circumstances encountered in linear thin
plate analysis. Further publications presenting results
for linear and nonlinear analyses are now under
preparation and will appear soon.
The problems under consideration are those for
which either (i) alternative solutions, especially those
obtained by commercial-type elements or, in some
cases, (ii) classical solutions are available.
The first two test problems are intended to demon-
strate the new element’s ability to represent exactly
constant strain deformation modes. For the third
example (triangular cantilever plate strip under end
loading), a simple beam theory solution as well as a
numerical one produced by means of a commercial
element are available. The fourth class of problems
deals with rectangular plates under various loading
and boundary conditions. In the literature, analytical
as well as numerical reference solutions are available
for this type of problem. Finally, a sector plate under
uniform loading is analyzed by means of the new
element,
Rectangular cantilever plate strip
The primary goal in this investigation was to study
the element’s performance under “single element
test” situations. The plate (length L, thickness
t = 0.05, width = 1.0, E = 10.0 x 106, v = 0) is di-
vided into four elements as shown in Fig. 2. In order
to study the interrelationship between the element’s
aspect ratio and its performance, the length parame-
ter L was increased step-wise while the other geo-
metric data were held constant. The obtained numer-
ical results for L = l-20, as summarized in Table 2,
demonstrate the ability of the new element to repre-
sent exactly constant strain deformation modes
(patch test!).
Even in the case of end force loading, the cor-
relation between finite element and simple beam
solution is very good (rel. displ. error ca. 1.3x, rel.
bending moment error ca. 2.1%). It is worth noticing
that the error increases as both ends of the strip are
approached, and it is equal to zero in the middle of
the strip. This phenomenon is well known in FEM
applications and is due to the fact that in the finite
element mesh used the singularities of the structure
under investigation have not been taken into consid-
eration. Further results for this example are shown in
Fig. 3, in comparison with those due to Spilker and
Munir[24]. A comparison between the present ele-
ment and the element LH4 of Ref.[24] seems to be
worthwhile for mainly three reasons. First of all, in
both cases a mixed-hybrid formulation is employed.
Second of all, in[24] several quadrilateral elements
Fig. 2. Cantilever plate strip-problem description.
 568 D. KARAMANLIDIS et al.

Table 2. Cantibver plate st~p#mpa~soR between numerical and analytical results

End Moment End Force

WA* ---$ AU
MA0 _@_
Ei
-- Mt 2 M:
1 -0.0096 0.0192 0.0064 0.0064 -0.0096 - 1.67 - 1.56 - 1.00 -0.33 -0.44

2 -0.0384 0.0384 0.0512 0.0505 -0.0384 - 3.33 _ 3.22 - 2.00 -0.67 -0.78

4 -0.1536 0.0768 0.4096 0.404c -0.1536 ” 6.67 - 6.58 - 4.00 -1.33 -1.49

5 -0.3456 0.1152 1.3824 1.3646: -0.3456 -10.00 - 9.78 - 6.00 -2.00 -2.22

a -0.6144 a. 1536 3.2768 3.2331 -0.6144 -13.33 -13.04 - 8.00 -2.67 -2.96

,= 10 -0.9600 0.1920 6.4000 6.3151 -0.9600 -16.67 -16.31 -10.00 -3.33 -3.70

12 -1.3824 0.2304 1.0592 .0.9129 -3.. 3824 -20.00 -19.57 -12 .oo -4.00 -4.43

14 -1.8816 0.2688 7.5615 .7.3291 -1.8816 -23.33 -22.84 -14 .oo -4.67 -5.16

16 -2.4576 0.3072 6.2144 15.8678 -2.4576 -26.67 -26.09 -16.00 -5.33 -5.90

18 -3.1104 0.3456 7.3248 r6.83fB -3.1104 -30.00 -29.36 -18.00 -6.00 -6.64

20 -3.8400 0.3840 1.20aa aO.5242 -3.8400 -33.33 -32.62 -20.00 -6.67 -7.31

A tt))load I present
,.I” - endmoment i
FEM solutfon

,,,’
,.1’

i’

t&,/Pi.
,. A)
1.0 _ Beam theory and 1.0 ._--1 L_$“__._
‘g.. . . ..__. -.. *c....
,I._
present FEM solution15 elements)

75 _ seamtheory and
9 prascnt FEM solw~on (2 elements)

25

5 75 0 25 5 75

Fig. 3. Numerical results for cantilever plate strip.

 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis
Fig. 4. Anticlastic plate problem: finite element meshes.
have been proposed; and the one labeled LH4 was
found to be the best among them.?
Anticlastic plate problem
Like its predecessor, this problem, too, aims to
evaluate the new element’s ability of exact represent-
ation of constant strain deformation modes. Besides
the analytical solution given in[26], several FEM
reference solutions are available in the literature.
Particular emphasis is placed here in comparing the
present results with those (i) presented in[24] and (ii)
obtained by finite elements included in commercial
general purpose packages.
tFinally, several authors, i.e. Wunderlich[30], have
claimed in the past that rectangular mixed elements perform
much better than triangular ones. It will be seen that the
obtained numerical results for a series of examples do by no
means support this conclusion. Moreover, the superiority of
the element presented here over the element LH4 of Ref. [24]
is seen from Fig. 3 and will be supported by the test studies
to be presented in the remainder of the paper.
Table 3. Anticlastic plate problem-comparison
ey _ 03,*o ( .... ...... ( __...................... ( ............ ( ............ ............
Mu o 1, 00’ -- . ..-.... --
f
2
s .. .. ..._.... ._.......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..._.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ..___...._
5 st
I I
, ------------, .. .. .. . .. , . .. .. _____, .. .. .. .. .. .. , .. .. . .. .. .. , .. .. .. .. .. .. ,._____....__
569
A description of the problem is given in Fig. 4
together with the finite element meshes considered.
For the comparison of the present results with those
presented in Refs. [2,5], the following data were used:
E = 104, t = 1, v = 0.3, and P = 5. Table 5 shows
that, for all the meshes used, the new element pro-
duces the exact solution, as does the element (labeled
DKT) based on the so-called discrete Kirchhoff
hypothesis[5]. This element has been implemented
recently into the ADINA general purpose
program[4].
Moreover, Table 3 makes clear that even upon the
use of a very fine mesh (e), the solutions produced by
plate elements included in STARDYNE [2] are rather
inaccurate.
Further results for this case study are shown in Fig.
5 and lead again to the conclusion that the mixed-
hybrid element presented here is superior to the one
proposed by Spilker and Munir[24].
Triangular cantilever plate strip
For this problem shown in Fig. 6, a simple beam
theory as well as a finite element solution obtained by
means of the element STIF6 in ANSYS general
purpose program[9] are available. Remarkably,
STIF6 and the mixed-hybrid element presented here
give identical results provided the same element mesh
has been used. The slight difference with respect to
the calculated values for the tip deflection should be
attributed to the fact that unlike the present in-
vestigation, the symmetry of the problem was im-
posed in [9].
Rectangular plate problems
A series of rectangular plates with aspect ratios
ranging from 1 to 0.5 under various loading and
support conditions have been analyzed by means of
the mixed-hybrid plate element presented in this
paper. In addition to the standard cases of a simply
supported or clamped plate under uniform or concen-
trated loading, the following five problems have been
between numerical and analytical results
_.____
__
.___
1__._._._____
. . . . - ..-... _ . . . . . . . . .._. .- . . . . . . . . . . ________ ____ __.____ _____ ____. _______ i o.
“g
00
_
,”El *5m ,
 D. KARAMANLILXS et al.

Plate theory and I Uniform Mq 50

present FEM solution 12 elements) 1

WLKER /MUNlR I
wthln 2 % wIthIn 3 % ’
(16 element 51

Fig. 5. Comparison of numerical results for the anticlastic plate problem.

Beam theory -.0126666 200.0

ANSYS - ,012 666 8 200.0

present solution -.OL26678 200.0

Fig. 6. Triangular cantilever plate strip.

 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis

CASE I

l------T T------
CASE IL? CASE P

LL---________J -------_-_

- : clamped

-__- : simply supported

El ’ point support

Fig. 7. Rectangular plate under uniform loading-cases I-V.

investigated (see Fig. 7):
(i) two opposite sides clamped and the remaining
simply supported,
(ii) two opposite sides simply supported and the
remaining free,
(iii) point supports at the corners,
(iv) two adjacent sides simply supported and point
support at the fourth corner, and
(v) one side simply supported and point supports
at the opposite comers.
We consider first the cases of a simply supported
or clamped rectangular plate under concentrated or
uniform loading. Tables 5-9 and Figs. 8-10 show the
numerical results for a square plate predicted by the
new element as well as by other well-established
elements. Similarly, Tables 10 and 11 summarize
results for the case of a plate with an aspect ratio of
1:2. On the basis of these results, the following
conclusions can be made:
(i) In all cases, only a relatively coarse mesh
(4 x 4) is needed in order to achieve, by the new
element, a solution accuracy which is sufficient for
practical purposes. This is not only true for the
displacement but also (and most importantly) for the
bending moment field.
(ii) It can be argued that other elements, too,
produce results of comparable or even better accu-
racy than the element presented in this paper. It
seems, however, that the following facts favor the
latter one: (a) Application of element B-21 on prac-
tical situations is prohibited by the large number of
DOF per element as well as by the superfluously
imposed C2 compatibility; (b) Element Z is irrelevant
due to its mathematical deficiencies; (c) Hybrid dis-
placement elements (like HK and KA) can under
certain (realistic) circumstances become numerically
unstable; (d) The number of DOF per element in the
cases of KDKT and EQT is relatively large; (e) The

Table 4. List of elements considered in square plate analysis problems

Notation FEM Approach Number of DOF Author

?I displacement 9 Martin (STARDYNE)

E’?T force 16 de &&eke/Sander

HCT displacement 12 Bsieh/Clough/Tocher (STARDYNE)

KDKT displacement 12 Kikuchi

(pseudo mixed)

BDKT displacement 9 BatOz/Bathe/nO (ADINA)

KA hybrid displacement 9 Kikuchi/Ando

HK hybrid displacement 9 Harvey/Kelsey

7. displacement 9 Bazeley et al. (ASAS)

B-21 displacement 21 Bell

512 D KAIMfANLIDIS et al.

Table 5. Simply supported square plate under concentrated load

PRESENT WORK KDKT BDKT EQT HK B-21

-I---+
Mesh A

9.83796
1x1
(-16.2%)

(-0.9%) (+0.295%) (+3.44%) (+0.6%) (-2.5%) (-0.6%)

INALYTICAL
11.6008
I

MULTIPLIER ( P.(2d2 / D ).103

I

Table 6. Clamped square plate under concentrated load

KDKT BDKT EQT HCT z

PRESENT WORK

Mesh A Mesh B Mesh A Mesh B Mesh A Mesh B Mesh B Mesh B Mesh B

2.604167 1.736111 2.285192 2.285192 5.699 6.219 8.2565 1.0 5.21

1X1
(-53.5%) (-69.0%) (-59.23%) (-59.23%) (+ 1.23%) (+11.05%) (+47.31%) (-82.16%) (-7.05%)

5.022159 4.685122 5.080605 5.041774 5.855 6.360 6.1939 4.2400 5.89

2x2
g (-10.4%) (-16.4%) (-9.36%) (-10.05%) (+4.56%) (+13.57%) (+10.51%) (-24.35%) (+5.09%)
k!
":
w 5.440736 5.348003 5.517820 5.498133 5.707 5.911 5.7551 5.192 5.72
4x4
(-2.93%) (-4.59%) (-1.56%) (-1.90%) (+1.92%) (+5.54%) (+2.69%) (-7.37%) (+z.os%)

ANALYTICAL
SOLUTION 5.605

MULTIPLIER
I ( P.(2d2 / D ).103
 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis 573

Table 7. Simply supported square plate under uniform loading

- _ _ _ _ _ _ __
/-- /
/
// /
/
/I /q p
/I
~~~/

L__.____:___~
I-+---- 2a ----I
I

1
PRESENT WORK KDKT BKDT HK KA

Mesh A Mesh B Mesh A Mesh B Mesh A Mesh A Mesh A Mesh B

3.279321 1.591435 4.166667 3.703768 4.161 4.407 3.627

1x1
(-19.28%) (-60.82%) (+2.57%) (-8.83%) (+2.49%) (+8.48%) (-10.72%)

3.862935 3.426549 4.073719 4.019489 4.056 4.10 4.092 4.081

(-0.1%) (0.93 %) (+0.73%1 (+0.46%)

--
~~ 4.065 4.06 4.069 4.074

(+0.12%) (-0.06%) (+U.16%) (+0.29%)

ANALYTICAL
ISOLUTION I
4.062353

MULTIPLIER ( q.(2aJ4 / D )*103

disadvantages of BDKT when compared with the
element presented here are a less accurate stress field
prediction combined with its sensitivity with respect
to mesh orientation.
(iii) The superiority of the new element when
compared with the recently developed rectangular
mixed-hybrid element LH4 of Ref. [24] as well as with
the element M included in the STARDYNE general
purpose finite element program[2] is evidenced once
again by the results presented in Figs. 9, 10, 12 and
13.
In Table 12, numerical and analytical results for a
square plate under uniform loading and subject to
boundary conditions corresponding to the afore-
mentioned cases I-III are summarized. Again, excel-
lent agreement between the results predicted by the
new element and the analytical or numerical results
of Refs.[l4,21] is demonstrated. Figures 1416 aim
to show how a square plate subject to the afore-
mentioned boundary conditions deforms upon the
action of uniform loading.
In the final part of this study, several rectangular
plates having an aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 0.5
and subject to boundary conditions corresponding to
the aforementioned cases III-V have been analyzed
by means of the new mixed-hybrid element. In all
cases, uniform loading has been considered and an
(8 x 8)A finite element mesh (Fig. 8) has been used
Again, very good agreement between the present
FEM results and the analytical ones is demonstrated.
Sector plate under uniform loading
The sector plate under uniform loading with two
adjacent sides fixed and the other ones left free (see
Fig. 17) has been analyzed previously by Knothe [2 11.
In that paper, a rectangular element was developed
on the basis of the classical force method. The
predicted numerical solution by the element
presented in this paper is in very good agreement with
the one reported in[25]. This is remarkable due to the
fact that in[25] a specially tailored procedure (incor-
poration of the boundary and interelement traction
continuity conditions in the elemental trial functions,
symmetry with respect to the diagonal, etc.) was
adopted, while in this paper the problem was treated
without taking advantage of its special features.
Moreover, a uniform (6 x 6)A mesh was used, which,
obviously, is by no means the most appropriate mesh
to treat this problem (singularities!).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A triangular shallow curved element for the elastic
analysis of thin free-form plates and shells has been
presented. The new element’s formulation is based on
a mixed variational equation wherein stress and
displacement variables represent the independent
(primal) variables. Efficiency, reliability, and accu-
racy of the new element have been demonstrated by
a series of well-selected examples covering a broad
range of thin plate analysis. Despite what is custom-
arily believed, the obtained numerical results lead to
574 Table 8. Clamped square plate under uniform loading

PRESENT WORK KDKT BDKT KA

Mesh A Mesh B Mesh A Mesh B Mesh A Mesh A Mesh B

0.868056 0.289352 0.723644 0.418951 1.889 1.042 0.372

1x1
(-31.4%) (-77.1%) (-42.81%) (-66.89%) (+49.97%) (-17.65%) (-70.6%)
B
P 1.317030 0.987463 1.212608 1.162063 1.547 1.288 1.113

ANALYTICAL
SOLUTION 1.26532

MULTIPLIER ( q.(2d4 / D ).103

Table 9. Square plate under uniform loading-evaluation of bending moments

SIMPLY SUPPORTED CLAMPED

M:, M& di MfY &'x Mty M,cx Miy

0.0604 0.0539 0.0551 0.0198 0.0344 0.0344

0.2315E-3 1.46~-2
+26.15%) (+12.58%) (-15.23%) (-14.32%) (+48.81%) (-33.0%)

0.0409 0.0447 0.0809 0.0314 0.0316 0.0473

0.20463-3 0.9123-3
l-14.72%) (-6.79%) (+24.46%) (+35.93%) (+36.80%) (-7.75%)

0.0487 0.0482 0.0641 0.0250 0.0247 0.0495

0.04043-3 0.258E-3
:+1.62%) (+0.68%) (-1.46%) (+8.06%) (+6.52%) (-3.46%)
I
ANALYTICAL
0.0479 0.0479 0. 0.065 0.0231 0.0231 0.0513 0.
SOLUTION

MULTIPLIER ¶.(2d2
 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis 575

mesh A mesh B

Fig. 8. Finite element meshes used for the analysis of various rectangular plate problems.

*MO-

-rc.-. -.-._
-““---e...-” . .. . . .._..“._.-.*

6 7 8 tlel

.. .. .....* simply supper t ed

present solution

a,r : Spllker/Munir
Fig. 9. Square plate under concentrated loading: error in deflection at center.

Fig. 10. Square plate under uniform loading: error in deflection at center.
576 D. KARAMANLIDIS et al.

Table 10. Simply supported rectangular plate under concentrated load

__----_--
/r---- IYP

16.5239
SOLUTION

MULTIPLIER ( P.(2aj2 / D ). lo3

Table 1I. Clamped rectangular plate under concentrated load

ANALYTICAL
7.215
SOLUTION

MULTIPLIER ( P-G-d2 / D ).103

 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis

Fig. 11. Bending moment distribution for a square plate under uniform loading.

f ‘17
t40.0 i\
\t

+30.0 ,. 4.
_ ‘..
!”
! ‘\

t2O.c

tKx

C)-
I

-10.0

simply supported
-20.

8,B mesh A
pesent rolutiwl
-30. O,+ mesh 8

A,V 8 mesh Martin

0,. mesh 8 de Veubeke/Sandsr

-40.

-50 0 ii
Fig. 12. Rectangular plate under concentrated loading: error in deflection at center.
 Y
cm

f ‘I %I
+40x I Table 12. Square plate under uniform loading-numerical results for cases I-III

+3clo
‘\
\.
\
\ f = wfe;;x~cyxac~
+2m ,
\.
k.... . 1.
. .
+10.0 ‘\.
a-........__.._.
*, 1. L 20 A
L.
~~‘V_..__
“‘...,, =-v
.‘X.,_
fi-..-.-.. . . . . . . . . . ...” . . . . . . ..__.__....._._......... _ __,,,,_ o
0 e

0.33613-2
case I
-10.0 analytical
solution

0.8505E-2

-2o.c -.- clamped case II

Kant

q U mesh A
present solution
-3o.c 0 + mesh B
Case III
Knothe b
D V mesh B Martin

-4o.c
1. d : i multiplier
I
( . ..) a (4 x 4)A (
b Finite Element Mesh (Quadrant)
C...) (6 x 6) i
-5o.c).

Fig. 13. Rectangular plate under uniform loading: error in deflection at center.

-_ .- .- .- .,-- _ . . . . ..- .-
 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis 579

Table 13. Rectangular plate under uniform loading (cases III-V)

b/a 1.0 0.9 0.8 1 0.7 7 0.6 1 0.5 1

/ I I I I , I

cl I* 0.0263 0.0218 0.0180 0.0158 0.0148 0.0140

iA 0.0256 0.0212 0.0180 0.0145 0.0137

q 4

I
a /rL..for cases (iii) & (iv)
;=
5
q a /D...for case (v)

( ).: present FEM solution

undeformed state

undeformed state

deformed state

Fig. 14. Square plate under uniform loading: case I. Fig. 16. Square plate under uniform loading: case III.

undeformed state

v\

undeformed state

eformed state

eformed stote

Fig. 17. Deformed and undeformed geometry of an angular

Fig. 15. Square plate under uniform loading: case II. plate.
 580
Fig. 18. Sector plate under uniform loading: bending moment distribution.
the illusion that the new mixed-hybrid element
competes most favorably when compared with bath
commercial package elements and rectangular mixed
elements. It is believed, therefore, that properly for-
mulated mixed-hybrid elements deserve a better treat-
ment by general purpose program developers and
should be considered as potential candidates for
inclusion in the same.
Acknowledgements-This work was carried out with
financial assistances from the Research Council of the
Technical University of Berlin (FNK) and the German
Science Foundation (DFG) to the first author under’Grants
FPS 9/2 and Ka 487/3. The authors also acknowledge
partial support provided by the Georgia fnstitute of Tech-
noiogy. Last but not least thanks are extended to Ms. J.
Webb for her assistance in preparing the manuscript.
RRPBRgNCES
f * Anonymous, PAFEC IS-Theory, Results.Nottingham
University (1975).
2. contour M~/STA~~E -finite eIement
d~~s~t~~n problems. Control Data Corporation,
Minnesota (1973).
3. S. N. Atluri and T. H. H. Pian, Theoretical formulation
of finite-element methods in linear-elastic analysis of
genera1 shells. J. Strucr. Mech. 1, 1-41 (1972).
4. K. f. Bathe, ADINA-a finite element program for
automatic dynamic incrementi nonlinear analysis,
Acoustics and Vib~tion Lab. RePort82448-l. Dept. of
Mechanical Engineering, M&T., Sept. 1975 (revised
May 1977).
5, J.-L. Batoz, K.-J. Bathe and L.-W. Ho. A study of
three-node triangular plate bending elements. Znt. 1.
Numor. Meth. Engng 25, 1771-1812 (1980)
6. G. P. Bazeley, Y. K. Cheung, B. M. Irons and 0. C,
zienkiewicz, Trianguhtr etements in plate bending-
confo~ng and non~nfo~ng solutions. Proc. Co@
on MatrixMethodsin StrucitiralMechanics, pp. 399-440.
WPAFB, Ohio, (1968).
7. K. Bell, A refined triangular plate bending finite ele-
ment. In?. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 1, 101-122 (1969).
8. P. L. Boland, Large deflection analysis of thin elastic
structures by the assumed stress hybrid finite element
method. Thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute
of T~hno~o~, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1975,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of -Doctor of Philasophy. _ Numerical Methuds). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
9. C. J. DeSalvo. ANSYS enaineerine analysis svstem
verification manual. Swanso~Analy& Systems (i976).
10. B. F. DeVeubeke, Displacement and equilibrium mod-
els in the finite element method. Stress An&@ (Edited
by
_. _0.. C. Eienkiewfcz and G. S. Holster). Wiley,
Chichester (1966).
11. R. H. Gatfagher, Problems and progress in thin shelf
finite element analysis. Bite Bements for TIdn Shells
and Curved Members (Edited by D. G. Ashwell and R.
H. Gallagher). Wiley, New York (1976).
12, J. W. Harvey and S. Kelsey, Triangular plate bending
elements with enforced compatib’llity. ‘AZAA J. 9;
102~1026 (1971).
k3. G. Ho&&toe, Finite efement instabihtv am&is of
free-form shells. Report No. 77-2, Unive&ty of Tron-
heim (1977).
14. T. Kant, Numerical analysis of thick plates. Comput.
Meth. Appl. Me&. Engng 31, l-18 (1982).
15 D. Karamanhdis, Beitragzur Iinearen und nichtlinearen
Elastokinetik der Systeme und Kontinua (Theorie-
~r~hnung~~~i~An~~~i$piele). Habihta-
tion thesis, Tech&a1 University of Berlin (1983).
16. D. Karamanlidis, A new mixed hybrid finite element
model for static and dynamic analysis of thin plates in
bending. Proc. ASCE EMD Specialty Conf. West La-
fayette, 23-25 May (1983).
17. D. Karamanlidis and S. N. Atluri, Mixed finite element
models for plate bending analysis: theory. Paper sub-
mitted for publication (May 1983).
18. F. Kiuchi and Y. Ando, A new variationai functiord
for the finite element method and its application to plate
and shell problems. Nucl. Engng Lh.@n 21, 95-113
(19721.
19. F. ckuchi and Y. Ando, Some finite element solutions
for plate bending problems by simplified hybrid dis-
placement method. Natal. Engng Design 23, 155-178
(1972).
20. F. Kikuchi On a mixed method related to the discrete
Kirchhoff assumption. Hybrid and Mixed Finite Ele-
ment Models (Edited by S. N. Atluri et al.). Wiley, New
York (1983).
21. K. Knothe, Plattenberechnung nach dem Kraftgriissen-
verfahren. Der Stah~b~u 36. 202-214 and 234-254
f1%7j.
22. H. Le The, ~~nung diinnez Schalen mit Hilb e&s
aemischt-hvbriden Fi~te-~~~t-M~al~s. DimnIoma
Thesis (unpublished), Technical University of ‘Berlin
(1980).
23. R. J. Roark and W. C. Young, Formulasfor Stress and
Strain, 5th l?.dn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1975).
24. R. L. Spilker and N. I. Munir, The hybrid stress model
for thin plates. ZRt. J. Nmer. Me&. Engng 15,
12391260 (1930).
25. R. Szilard, Theory and Analysisof PlatesfClassictdattd
New Jersey (1974).
26. S. P. Timoshenko and S. Woiaowsky-Krieger, Theory
of Plates and Shells, 2nd Edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
(1959).
27. U. Wakier, FLASH-A simple tool for complicated
problems. Adurmces Engng Ssftwure 1, 137-140 (1979).
 Mixed finite element models for plate bending analysis
28. J. P. Wolf, Generalized stress models for finite element
analysis. Report No. 77-ETH, Ziirich (1977).
29. J. P. Wolf, Das Fllchentragwerksprogramm von
STRIP. Schweizerische Bauzeitung 90,41-52 (1972).
30. W. Wunderlich, Mixed models for plates and shells:
minciples-elements-examnles, Hybrid and Mixed Pi-
kite .t?lement Methods (Edited by S. N. Atluri et al.).
Wiley, New York (1983).
APPENDIX
On Kikuchi’s “mixed” model
In a recent pubhcation[20], Kikuchi proposed a triangular
thin plate element with 12 DOF which is based on the so-called
discrete Kirchhoff hypothesis. As it should become apparent
from the discussion to follow, despite Kikuchi’s choice to label
his element “mixed”, it seems, however, that the theoretical
concept of this element is very closely related to the standard
assumed displacement finite element approach. As a matter
of fact, the variational equation employed in[20]
1
dA
-lb.w.dA+~“~~~.(w,,+e~)
+ A,. 6$ + e,)] dA
I contradiction with the Kirchhoff thin plate theory.
= stationary (3)
is nothing other than a modified principle of stationary
potential energy. This formulation can be obtained from the
standard one, see eqn (30) of Ref. [17], by replacing in the
functional the lateral displacement derivatives w,, and w,~by
the rotations 0, and t?,, respectively, and relaxing the
kinematic (so-called KirchhoB) constraints
w,, + e, = 0; w,~ + e, = 0
by means of the Lagrangian multipliers AXand A,.
581
Taking the variation of the functional in eqn (3) with respect
to its primal variables, we obtain the natural constraints
se,:- D 4, + e,,, + q (e,, + + 2x = 0 (4a)
60,: - D e,, + exFy + 7 ce,., + + 5 = 0 (4b)
2x,X+ 5, + p = 0 (4c)
w,, + e, = 0 (4d)
w,~ + e, = 0. (4e)
By means of eqns (4a)-(4c), the Lagrangian multipliers AX
and Aycan be identified as the plate shear forces. Using eqns
(4a) and (4b) in order to eliminate A, and A? from eqn (3)
leads to the variational equation employed by Batoz et
al. [S]. Instead of doing so, in [20] A, and 1, have been treated
as independent variables. Thus, at that point an element
developed on the basis of eqn (3) is indeed a mixed one.
When compared, however, with “standard” mixed elements
based on Reissner-type variational principles, the following
oerolexitv
. I
of Kikuchi’s element (called KDKT in the follow-
&g) becomes apparent. Within‘this element concept, shear
forces are treated as independent variables, while the ben-
ding moments M,, Myy and Mv are dependent variables.
Certainly, this feature of the KDKT element stands in
In[20] an error estimation of the proposed finite element
model was presented and the major conclusion made that
the accuracy of the KDKT element is comparable to that of
the conforming HCT element. It should be pointed out,
however, that only the results for displacement quantities
but not for stress resultants have been proposed. (Note that
within KDKT the bending moments are calculated in
exactly the same way as within a displacement-type ele-
ment.) Therefore, in our opinion there is no evidence that
the “mixed” KDKT element with 12 DOF has to offer any
advantage when compared with its displacement-type coun-
terpart BDKT element (20) with nine DOF.