Advanced Finite Element Technology

Stefanie Reese

Department of Civil Engineering, Ruhr University Bochum

Part I Part II Part III

Introduction Linear element technology Non-linear element technology
• Locking • Enhanced strain method • Enhanced strain method
• Overview: • B-Bar method • Reduced integration
element technology • Reduced integration • Stability
• Examples

COMMAS Summer School 2001 on “Computational Mechanics of Materials and Structures”

Stuttgart, Germany, October 10, 2001
Introduction

• State of the art: isoparametric element formulations

here: example for a linear isoparametric element formulation

2 ξ x eI
y
2
x e
x eI = X I + u eI

in general:
nnode nnode
X X
e
X = NI (ξ, η) X eI , e
u = NI (ξ, η) ueI , x e = X e + ue (1)
I=1 I=1
• Important question: how should the shape functions NI (ξ, η) be chosen?

(1) efficiency
(2) good convergence behaviour
(3) robustness of the resulting element
(4) simple coding
(5) simple implementation of material modelling
point (1)

discretization with element types

linear (4-node) quadratic (9-node) serendipity (8-node)

same number of unknowns (N = 50) N = 42

21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 17
18 19 20 21

16 17 18 19 20 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16

11 9
11 12 13 14 15 12 13 14 15 10 11 12 13

6
6 7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
   

  

  

 

  

      

          

  

 

    

 

      

          

 
    

 
   

          

        
         

        

      

          

  

 

   

          
        
         
        

  

 

     ! ! !

      
      

          
        
         

        

     , , ,

    - -

  & & &

   ' '

 
     ! ! !

          
  

      
      

     2 2 2

    3 3 3

     , , ,

    - -

  & & &

   ' '

          

        

  

          
  

      
      

     2 2 2
    3 3 3

     , , ,
    - -

$ $ $ $

          

        
      
        

          
  

$ $ $

     2 2 2
    3 3 3

   " " "

   # # # %$ %$ %$ %$

          
        
      
     

( ( ( * * * > > >

) ) ) + + ? ? ?

$ $ $ $
" " " 8 8 8
# # # %$ %$ %$ 9 9

   " " "

   # # # % % % %

          
        

0 0 0 . . . D D D
1 1 / / E E E

( ( ( * * * > > >

) ) ) + + ? ? ?

$ $ $ $
" " " 8 8 8
# # # % % % 9 9

           * * * *

           + + + % % % %
          & & & ( ( ( (
         ' ' ' ) ) ) )

0 0 0 . . . D D D
1 1 / / E E E

( ( ( * * * > > >

) ) ) + + ? ? ?

& & & & " " " " 6 6 6 6

! ! ! ' ' ' # # # 7 7 7 $ 7 $ $
$


       6 6 6 8 8 8 8
   ! ! !     7 7 7 9 9 9

           * * * *
           + + + % % % %
          & & & ( ( ( (
         ' ' ' ) ) ) )

6 6 6 4 4 4 J J J

7 7 5 5 5 K K

0 0 0 . . . D D D

1 1 / / E E E

& & & & " " " " 6 6 6 6

! ! ! ' ' ' # # # 7 7 7 7



       6 6 6 8 8 8 8
   ! ! !     7 7 7 9 9 9

           * * * *
           + + + % % % %
          & & & ( ( ( (

         ' ' ' ) ) ) )

: : : < < <

; ; ; = = Q Q Q

6 6 6 4 4 4 J J J
7 7 5 5 5 K K

& & & & " " " " 6 6 6 6

! ! ! ' ' ' # # # 7 7 7 7

       6 6 6 8 8 8 8
   ! ! !     7 7 7 9 9 9

P P P

: : : < < <

; ; ; = = Q Q Q

, , , , ( ( ( ( 2 2 2 2
- - - - ) ) ) 3 3 3 3
. . . . 4 4 4 4
/ / / 3 3 3 5 5 5 5

& & & & " " " " 6 6 6 6

! ! ! ' ' ' # # # 7 7 7 7



       6 6 6 8 8 8 8
   ! ! !     7 7 7 9 9 9

P P P

B B B @ @ @ V V V
2 2 2
C C A A A W W W

: : : < < <

; ; ; = = Q Q Q

B B B B @ @ @ @
C C C C


A A A

, , , , ( ( ( ( 2 2 2 2
- - - - ) ) ) 3 3 3 3
. . . . 4 4 4 4
/ / / 3 3 3 5 5 5 5

N N N L L L d d d
O O O M P M P P e e

H H H F F F b b b
I I G G G c c

B B B @ @ @ V V V
2 2 2
C C A A A W W W

B B B B @ @ @ @
C C C C


A A A

, , , , ( ( ( ( 2 2 2 2

- - - - ) ) ) 3 3 3 3
. . . . 4 4 4 4
/ / / 3 3 3 5 5 5 5

N N N L L L d d d
O O O M M e e

H H H F F F b b b
I I G G G c c

0 0 0 0 , , , * * * *
1 1 1 2- 2- 2- + + + +

8 8 8 8 : : : : < < < <

9 9 9 ; ; ; ; = = =

B B B B @ @ @ @

C C C C


A A A

, , , , ( ( ( ( 2 2 2 2
- - - - ) ) ) 3 3 3 3

T T T

N N N L L L d d d
O O O M M e e

0 0 0 0 , , , * * * *
1 1 1 - - - + + + +

8 8 8 8 : : : : < < < <

9 9 9 ; ; ; ; = = =

\ \ \

R R R
S S UT UT UT

0 0 0 0 , , , * * * *
1 1 1 - - - + + + +

8 8 8 8 : : : : < < < <

9 9 9 ; ; ; ; = = =

d
Z Z Z ^ ^ ^
[ [ [ \ \ _ \ _

X X X
Y Y Y ] ] ]

R R R
S S U U U

. . . . 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4
/ / / / 1 1 1 5 5 5 5
< < < < > > > : : : :

= = = = ? ? ? ; ; ;

0 0 0 0 , , , * * * *
1 1 1 - - - + + + +

f f f ` ` `
g g a a

Z Z Z ^ ^ ^
[ [ [ _ _

X X X

Y Y Y ] ] ]

> > > > @ @ @ @ B B B B

? ? ? A A A A C C C

. . . . 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4
/ / / / 1 1 1 5 5 5 5
< < < < > > > : : : :
= = = = ? ? ? ; ; ;

f f f ` ` `
g g a a

Z Z Z ^ ^ ^

[ [ [ _ _

> > > > @ @ @ @ B B B B

? ? ? A A A A C C C

. . . . 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

/ / / / 1 1 1 5 5 5 5
< < < < > > > : : : :

= = = = ? ? ? ; ; ;

f f f ` ` `

g g a a

> > > > @ @ @ @ B B B B

? ? ? A A A A C C C

> > > > @ @ @ @ B B B B

? ? ? A A A A C C C

bandwidth d = 7 d = 13 d = 11

◦ computational effort for LU factorization of stiffness matrix proportional to 12 N d2

◦ thus: linear formulation more efficient (here: 1:3.45)

◦ improvement: serendipity formulation (here: 1:2.07)
Bäcklund [1978], Lee & Bathe [1993]
general literature:
Strang & Fix [1973], Bathe [1986], Zienkiewicz & Taylor [1989, 1991]

Conclusion: the linear formulation is the most efficient

from the computational point of view

point (2)

consider a linear element formulation with

1
NI (ξ, η) = (1 + ξ ξI + η ηI + ξ ξI η ηI ) (2)
4

and the one-element examples

 incompressibility

3 bending
4
4 3

1 1 2
2

left example

◦ from (2) we get with u = u1 e1 + u2 e2 + u3 e3

4
X 1
u1 = NI (ξ, η) uI 1 = (1 + ξ + η + ξ η) u3 1 (3)
4
I=1
 4
X 1
u2 = NI (ξ, η) uI 2 = (1 + ξ + η + ξ η) u3 2 with u3 2 = −u3 1 (4)
4
I=1

◦ requirement of incompressibility
u1,1 + u2,2 + u3,3 = 0 (5)

here: x1 = ξ l, x2 = η l
∂(...) ∂(...) 1 ∂(...) ∂(...) 1
= , = (6)
∂x1 ∂ξ l ∂x2 ∂η l

(5) leads to
u3 1
(η − ξ) =0 ⇒ u3 1 = 0 (7)
l

classical example for volumetric locking!

 p

rubber-like material: Λ/µ → ∞

no locking locking
 Study of convergence (almost incompressible block)
70
compression [%] in point A
Q1SP: nu=20
60 Q1SP: nu=40
Q1SP: nu=60
50 Q1/P0: nu=20
Q1/P0: nu=40
40 Q1/P0: nu=60
30 Q1: nu=20
Q1: nu=40
20 Q1: nu=60
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
number of elements
right example

◦ from (2) we get with u = u1 e1 + u2 e2 + u3 e3

X4
u1 = NI (ξ, η) uI 1
I=1
1 1
= (1 − ξ − η + ξ η) u1 1 + (1 + ξ − η − ξ η) (−u1 1)
4 4
1 1
+ (1 + ξ + η + ξ η) u1 1 + (1 − ξ + η − ξ η) (−u1 1)
4 4
= ξ η u1 1 = ξ η u3 1 (8)

◦ pure bending (constant bending moment) u1,2 = 0 (9)

(9) leads here to u3 1

ξ =0 ⇒ u3 1 = 0 (10)
l

classical example for shear locking!

 p=1800 kN/cm
A


X2


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

          
 

        

          
 

        
        

X3
        

        

X1

r=3m
t = 0.3 m

L=5m

steel:
µ = 6000 kN/cm2
Λ = 24000 kN/cm2
 Shell: study of convergence
displacement in point A [m] 6

2 Q1SP
Q1/E12
1 Q1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
number of elements in circumferential direction [-]
element eigenmodes and values
Λ
◦ for = 5000 (ν = 0.4999) and l/h = 2 “stiffnesses”
µ

shear ω = 2.5 µ

vol. strain ω = 1.25 . 104 µ

stretch ω = 1.6 µ

bending x ω = 8.33 . 102 µ

bending y ω = 3.33 . 103 µ

 Λ
◦ for = 3 and l/h = 1000
µ
eigenmode eigenvalue ω
shear 1 · 103 µ
vol. strain 5 · 103 µ
stretch 3.2 · 10−3 µ
bending x 3.33 · 103 µ
bending y 1.67 · 103 µ

without derivation:

◦ shear locking noticeably reduced in quadratic formulation

◦ volumetric locking is still visible for isoparametric formulations of fourth order!

 Q1 Q2 or Q3
(1) efficiency ⊕
(2a) convergence 
(incompr.)
(2b) convergence ⊕
(bending)
(3) robustness ⊕ 
(4) coding ⊕ 
(5) material modelling ⊕ ⊕

Q1 formulations would be preferable, if the locking effect could be circumvented!

Overview: element technology (methods against locking)

• Two major strategies

◦ reduced integration ◦ method of incompatible modes

   

 
 

         

 
 

         

    

  

   
  

  

  
 

◦ selective reduced integration ◦ “B-Bar” method

• Literature overview

Q1 : standard formulation

”Q1/P0” : “B-Bar” method

Oden & Key [1970], Nagtegaal, Parks & Rice [1974], Hughes [1980]
Simo, Taylor & Pister [1985], Sussman & Bathe [1987], ...

Q1/E4 : “enhanced strain” formulation

Wilson et al. [1973], Taylor, Beresford & Wilson [1976]
Simo & Rifai [1990], Simo & Armero [1992]
Andelfinger & Ramm [1993], Simo, Armero & Taylor [1993], ...

Q1/R : reduced integration

Kosloff & Frazier [1978], Malkus & Hughes [1978]
Flanagan & Belytschko [1981], Belytschko & Bachrach [1986]
Hueck & Wriggers [1995], Freischläger & Schweizerhof [1996]
Reese, Küssner & Reddy [1999], ...
 Q1 Q1/P0 Q1/E4 Q1/R
convergence (incompressibility) ⊕ ⊕ ⊕
convergence (bending) ⊕ 
stability ⊕  
coding effort ⊕  ⊕
efficiency ⊕ ⊕
material modelling ⊕   

 
 convergence behaviour of Q1/E4 
goal: coding effort and efficiency of Q1/R
stability of Q1
 

equivalence between Q1/E4, Q1/P0 and Q1/R?

Mixed variational formulations

• Continuous problem
◦ field equations (valid in domain B0 ⊂ R3)

Div P + f = 0 (11)

∂ W̄ (H)
P= =0 (12)
∂H

H − Grad u = 0 (13)
◦ boundary conditions

u = ū on ∂B0 u (14)
t = P · N = t̄ on ∂B0 t (15)

∂B0 = ∂B0u ∪ ∂B0t, ∂B0u ∩ ∂B0t = ∅ (16)

◦ “enhanced strain”
Henh := H − Grad u. (17)
◦ spaces
U = {u | ui ∈ H 1 (B0), u = ū on ∂B0u}
V = {v | vi ∈ H 1 (B0), v = 0 on ∂B0u}
S = {Q | Qij ∈ L2 (B0)}
E = {M | Mij ∈ L2 (B0)} (18)

◦ construction of variational formulation:

– take the scalar product of the three equations (11)–(13) with test functions in
v ∈ V, M ∈ E and Q ∈ S, respectively
– integrate over B0
– find u ∈ U, H ∈ E and P ∈ S that satisfy
 Z Z Z
P : Grad v dV − f · v dV − t̄ · v dA = 0
B0 B0 ∂B0t
Z
∂W
(P − ) : M dV = 0
B0 ∂H
Z
Henh : Q dV = 0 (19)
B0

for all v ∈ V, M ∈ E and Q ∈ S

independent unknowns: u, H, P

◦ if the data is smooth enough, (19)1−3 is equivalent of the one-field formulation

Z Z Z
∂W
: Grad v dV − f · v dV − t̄ · v dV = 0, (20)
B0 ∂H B0 B0

only independent unknown: u

• Discrete problem
◦ define finite-dimensional subspaces

U h ⊂ U, V h ⊂ V, S h ⊂ S, E h ⊂ E (21)

◦ find uh ∈ U h, Hh ∈ E h, and Ph ∈ S h which fulfill

Z Z Z
Ph : Grad vh dV − f · vh dV − t̄ · vh dA = 0
B0h B0h h
∂B0t

∂ W̄ (Hh)
Z
h h
(P − h
) : M dV = 0
B0h ∂H
Z
Hhenh : Qh dV = 0 (22)
B0h

does not require the equations Ph − ∂W/∂Hh = 0 and Hhenh = 0 to be fulfilled

pointwise!
◦ further step: L2-orthogonality
S h ⊥ Ẽ h, (23)

with the space of enhanced strains

Ẽ h = {Mhenh | (Mij )henh ∈ L2 (B h)} = E h − ∇V h (24)
(∇V h space of the displacement gradients Grad vh)
and
Mhenh = Mh − Grad vh (25)

implies Z
Qh : Hhenh dV h = 0 (26)
B0h
and Z
Ph : Mhenh dV h = 0 (27)
B0h
 three-field formulation reduces to two-field formulation
(independent unknowns: u, H):
Z h Z Z
∂ W̄ (H )
g1 (uh, Hhenh, vh) = h
: Grad v h
dV − f · v h
dV − t̄ · vh dA = 0
B0h ∂H B0h ∂B0h t

∂ W̄ (Hh)
Z
h h h h
g2 (u , Henh, Menh) = h
: M enh dV = 0
B0h ∂H

reduction to linear elasticity:

Z
ε h Z Z
∂ Ŵ (ε )
g1 (uh, εhenh, δuh) = h
: δεε h
comp dV − f · δu h
dV − t̄ · δu h
dA = 0
h
B0 ∂εε h
B0 h
∂B0 t
Z
ε h
h h h ∂ Ŵ (ε ) h
ε ε
g2 (u , enh, δεenh) = h
: δεε enh dV = 0
B0h ∂εε
Interpolation

• Displacement field uh = uhi ei

uh1 = N T U e1, uh2 = N T U e2 (28)

◦ shape function vector

       

 1 
 1  
 −1 
 
 1 

1 
1
 1 
−1
 1 
−1
 1 
−1

N = +ξ +η +ξη
4  1 4  −1  4  1  4  1 
       
1 1 1 −1
      

= r + ξ gξ + η gη + ξ η h (29)
◦ compatible strain vector
 h

 ∂u 1 

∂


 
 0

 ∂X1 
  ∂X1   e
T
  T
∂uh2 ∂  N 0 U1
   
h
ε̂εcomp := =  0

T T e
∂X 0 N U


 ∂X2 
  2  2
 ∂ ∂
∂uh1 ∂uh2

 
 
 

 + 

∂X2 ∂X1
∂X2 ∂X1
= B Ue (30)

◦ split of N into linear and hourglass parts


∂N 
N = N |ξ =0 + (X − X 0) + N hg
∂X ξ =0

∂N −1
= N0 + J  (X − X 0) + N hg
∂ξξ ξ =0
 = r + g ξ g η J −1
 
(X − X 0) + N hg (31)
| {z 0 }
N lin
 
N hg = (1 − b1 b2 X node) ξ η h := ξ η γ (32)

γ often termed stabilization vector

◦ split of B

B = B lin + B hg = Llin M lin + j Lhg M hg (33)

T T
 
r 0
 bT 0T 
   1
0 1 0 0 0 0

 bT 0T 
Llin =  0 0 0 0 0 1  , M lin =  2T (34)
 
0 rT

0 0 1 0 1 0

bT1
 T 
0 
0T bT2
  
∂ξ ∂η
0 0   
 ∂X
1 ∂X1 η 0
∂ξ ∂η 
   T T
ξ 0
 , M hg = γ T 0T

j= 0 0  , Lhg = 

 ∂X2 ∂X2 

0 η 0 γ
 ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η  0 ξ
∂X2 ∂X2 ∂X1 ∂X1
(35)
• Enhanced strain field

◦ L2-orthogonality
Z ne Z
X
Mhenh : Qh dV = Mhenh : Qh det J dξ dη t = 0 (36)
B0h e=1 2

◦ S h assumed to consist of only piecewise constant functions

→ sufficient to require
Z
Mhenh det J dξ dη t = 0 (37)
2
◦ enhanced strain vector

∂
 
 h
(ε )
 0
 11 enh   ∂X 1   e
T
  T
   ∂  W

0 P1
ε̂εhenh := (εh22)enh =  0

T
∂X 0T
W P e2


 
  2 
2 (εh12)enh
   ∂ ∂ 
∂X2 ∂X1

= G P e = j Lenh P e (38)
 
( ) ξ 0 0 0
1 2
2 (ξ − 1)
0 η 0 0
W = 1 2 , Lenh =  0
 (39)
2 (η − 1)
0 ξ 0
0 0 0 η

◦ orthogonality condition (37) should be fulfilled for arbitary element geometries

j Lenh in (38) replaced by
det J 0
j0 Lenh (40)
det J
Element stiffness matrix

• Classical enhanced strain formulation

◦ inserting interpolation into two-field variational formulation

ne
X Z
g1 = δ(U e)T ( B T Ĉ B det J dξ dη t U e
e=1 2
Z
+ B T Ĉ G det J dξ dη t P e − F e)= 0
2
(41)
ne
X Z
g2 = δ(P e)T ( GT Ĉ B det J dξ dη t U e
e=1 2
Z
+ GT Ĉ G det J dξ dη t P e)= 0
2
 ◦ second equation to be fulfilled elementwise
(no interelement continuity required for εhenh, i. e. δP e arbitrary)

K̄ P U U e + K̄ P P P e = 0 (42)

−1
⇒ P e = −K̄ P P K̄ P U U e (43)
◦ inserting into (41)1
ne
−1
X
δ(U e)T ((K̄ U U − K̄ U P K̄ P P K̄ P U ) U e − F e)= 0 (44)
| {z }
e=1 e
K̄

e
K̄ element stiffness matrix of enhanced strain method
−1
K̄ lock = K̄ U P K̄ P P K̄ P U subtracted!

• Further simplification: one Gauss point formulation

◦ we use in general

J = J 0 ⇒ j = j 0, det J = det J 0 (45)

“equivalent parallelogram”

⇓
Z Z
B T Ĉ B det J 0 dξ dη t = B TlinĈ B lin det J 0 dξ dη t
2 2
Z
+ B Thg Ĉ B hg det J 0 dξ dη t (46)
2
Z Z
B T Ĉ G det J 0 dξ dη t = B Thg Ĉ G det J 0 dξ dη t (47)
2 2

split of stiffness matrix in linear and hourglass parts!

 Z
K e = 4 B Tlin Ĉ B lin det J 0 t + B Tred Ĉ B red det J 0 dξ dη t = K e0 + K estab
2

• : one Gauss point contribution

• : hourglass part

B red = j 0 (Lhg − Lenh K −1

P P K̂ P U ) M hg (48)

M hg includes stabilization vectors

Z
K̂ U P = LThg j T0 Ĉ j 0 Lenh det J 0 dξ dη t (49)
Z2
KP P = LTenh j T0 Ĉ j 0 Lenh det J 0 dξ dη t (50)
2
B-Bar method

• Classical form

◦ three-field variational formulation

Z Z
2 µ dev εhcomp : dev δεεhcomp dV h + ph tr δεεhcomp dV h − gah = 0
B0h B0h
Z
(ph − K tr εh) tr δεεh dV h = 0
B0h
Z
tr εhenh δph dV h = 0 (51)
B0h
◦ idea of B-Bar method

– before (method of incompatible modes):

additional modes had been introduced in order to make the element more flexible

– now:
we follow just the opposite strategy and remove the disturbing (locking) terms

tr εh = T e (constant) (52)

what does this assumption mean?

◦ interpolation

 h  1 h h

 (ε11)comp 
   2 ((ε11)comp − (ε22)comp) 
 
ε̂εhcomp = (εh22)comp = 1
2 ((εh22)comp − (εh11)comp)
 h
  h

2 (ε12)comp (2 ε12)comp
   
| {z }
ε̂εhcomp
dev

1 h h

 2 ((ε11)comp + (ε22)comp) 
 
1 h h
+ 2 ((ε 22 ) comp + (ε 11 )comp ) (53)
 
0
 
| {z }
ε̂εhcomp
vol

ε̂εhcomp
dev
= (B dev dev e
lin + B hg ) U = B
dev
Ue (54)
ε̂εhcomp
vol
= (B vol vol e
lin + B hg ) U = B
vol
Ue (55)
 vol
tr εhcomp = (εh11)comp + (εh22)comp = B̄ Ue (56)

tr εhenh = tr εh − tr εhcomp
vol vol
= T e − B̄ lin U e − B̄ hg U e (57)

◦ “L2”-orthogonality
Z
tr εhenh dV h = 0 (58)
B0h

⇒ constant part of tr εhenh must vanish

vol
T e − B̄ lin U e = 0 (59)

vol vol
⇒ tr εhenh = −B̄ hg U e, tr εh = B̄ lin U e (60)
 the quantities T e and tr εhenh are expressed in terms of U e!

Z
h h
2 µ dev εcomp : dev δεεcomp + K tr ε tr δεε dV − gah = 0
h h h h
 
g (u , δu ) =
B0h

◦ inserting interpolation → element stiffness matrix

ne Z
vol vol
X
δ(U e)T ( ((B dev )T 2 µ 1̂ B dev + (B̄ lin )T K B̄ lin ) det J dξ dη t U e−F e)= 0
e=1 |2 {z }
¯ e
K
 
1 0 0
1̂ =  0 1 0  (61)
0 0 0.5
 ◦ alternative representation

Z Z
e
K̄ = B Tlin Ĉ B lin det J dξ dη t + (B dev
hg ) T
2 µ 1̂ B dev
hg det J dξ dη t
2 2

• Further simplification: one Gauss point formulation

Z
K e = 4 B Tlin Ĉ B lin det J 0 t + B Tred Ĉ B red det J 0 dξ dη t (62)
2

• : one Gauss point contribution

• : hourglass part

B red = (j 0 − j vol
0 ) Lhg M hg (63)
 ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η
   
∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η
 ∂X1 ∂X1 − ∂X2 − ∂X2   ∂X
   1 ∂X1 ∂X2 ∂X2 

1  ∂ξ
 ∂η ∂ξ ∂η  1 
 
j=  − − +  ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η  (64)
2  ∂X2 ∂X2 ∂X1 ∂X1  2   
  ∂X2 ∂X2 ∂X1 ∂X1 
 ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η 
 
2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
| ∂X 2 ∂X 2
{z ∂X 1 ∂X 1 } | {z }
j dev j vol
Summary

• Equation system to be solved with the finite element program

KU =F (65)

• Stiffness matrix assembled from element contributions

Z
K e = 4 B Tlin Ĉ B lin det J 0 t + B Tred Ĉ B red det J 0 dξ dη t (66)
| {z }
K0 e |2 {z }
e
K stab

Q1 : B red = B hg
Q1/E4 : B red = B hg − Lenh K −1
P P K̂ P U M hg (67)
Q1/P0 : B red = B hg − j vol
0 Lhg M hg
Introduction into non-linear finite element technology

Locking-free and stable element behaviour

Locking! Hourglassing!
Basic equations

• Two-field variational functional (Q1/E4)

Z
g1 = P (H) : Grad δu dV − ga = 0
B0
Z
g2 = P (H) : δHenh dV = 0
B0

F = 1 + H = 1 + Grad u + Henh, Grad u = Hcomp

• Two-field variational functional (“Q1/P0”)

Z
g1 = (dev τ (F?) + p (J) 1) : sym (F−T · Grad δu) dV − gM a = 0
B0
Z
g2 = p (J) δJenh dV = 0
B0
1 1 1 1 1
3 3
F = J F? = J (F?)comp, J = Jcomp + Jenh
3 3 3
• Interpolation
det J 0
H = (B lin + j Lhg M hg ) U e + j 0 Lenh P e
| {z } |det J {z
H comp = H lin + H hg
}
H enh
   
η 0 ξ 0 0 0
γT 0
 
ξ 0 0 η 0 0
Lhg = , M hg = , Lenh = 
0 η 0 γT 0 0 ξ 0
0 ξ 0 0 0 η

• Non-linear equation system

RU (U , (P e, e = 1, ..., ne)) − ν F 0 = 0
ReP (U e, P e) = 0

static condensation of P e at the element level

New stabilization technique

• Taylor expansion of P
 
∂P  ∂P 
P ≈ P 0 (H lin) + (ξ − 0) + (η − 0)
∂ξ ξ =0 ∂η ξ =0

= P 0 (H lin) + A0 (H lin) (j 0 Lhg M hg U e + j| 0 L{z e

enh P })
| {z }
≈ H hg ≈ H enh

n
∂P X ∂P ∂X i
• Tangent matrix A= +
∂H i=1 ∂X i ∂H

• Non-linear equation system (J = J 0)

RU 0 (U ) + K stab (U ) U − ν F 0 = 0

mid-point contribution + hourglass stabilization

• Stabilization matrix

Z
K estab = B Tred A0 B red dVe 0
B0 e

B red = j 0 (Lhg − Lenh K −1

P P K̂ P U ) M hg
= B hg − B lock

Z Z
with K P P = LTenh j T0 A0 j 0 Lenh dVe 0, K̂ P U = LTenh j T0 A0 j 0 Lhg dVe 0
B0 e B0 e
Special cases

• Linear elasticity A0 = C 0 = const. ⇒ K estab = const.

• Finite elasticity and viscoelasticity

A0 varies smoothly
⇒ assumed to be constant within [tn, tn+1] (K estab = const.)

• Finite elasto-plasticity
A0 changes majorly (cannot be assumed to be constant)
⇒ simplified version (K estab = const.)

?
 
µ 0 0 0
µ? 0

 0 0  ? se µ in elasticity 0.5 < se < 5
A0 = 
 0 ?
 µ =
0 0.5 µ 0  sp H in plasticity 10 < sp < 300
0 0 0 0.5 µ?
Q1SP class of elements

⊕ computationally extremely efficient!

– one Gauss point integration
– stabilization part computed analytically

⊕ no storage of internal element variables necessary

⊕ coding extremely simple

⊕ stability check possible

Alternative concepts:
Korelc & Wriggers [1996], Glaser & Armero [1997]
Schweizerhof et al. [1998], Crisfield et al. [1999]
Klaas et al. [1999], Dvorkin & Assanelli [2000]
Liu et al. [1998], Armero [2000]
Kasper & Taylor [2000], Wall et al. [2000], ...
• Standard formulation “Q1”

Henh = 0 ⇒ B red = B hg − 0 = j 0 Lhg M hg

• B-Bar method “Q1/P0”

Jenh 6= 0 ⇒ B red = B hg − j vol

0 Lhg M hg

• Reduced integration without hourglass stabilization “Q1/R”

B red = B hg − B hg = 0

• “Enhanced Strain” method “Q1/E4”

H enh 6= 0 ⇒ B red = B hg − j 0 Lenh K −1

P P K̂ P U M hg
 p
Cook’s membrane

16 mm
A

44 mm

44 mm

48 mm
 Finite elasticity, dependence of factor s_e

vertical displacement in point A [mm] 16

14
12
Q1SP, s_e=4
10 Q1SP, s_e=2
8 Q1SP, s_e=1
Q1SP, s_e=0.5
6 Q1SP, s_e=0.25
Q1SP, s_e=0.125
4 Q1/E4, Q1SP orig
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
number of elements
 Finite plasticity, dependence of factor s_p

vertical displacement in point A [mm]

20
15
10
Q1SP, s_p=620
5 Q1SP, s_p=310
Q1SP, s_p=155
0 Q1SP, s_p=77
Q1SP, s_p=38
-5 Q1SP, s_p=19
-10 Q1SP, s_p=10
Q1/E4
-15

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

number of elements
 Acc. plastic strain
Accumulated plastic strain
0.00E+00
3.33E-02
6.67E-02
1.00E-01
1.33E-01
1.67E-01
2.00E-01
2.33E-01

Min = 0.00E+00
Max = 2.33E-01

Acc. plastic strain Acc. plastic strain

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
3.43E-02 3.58E-02
6.86E-02 7.16E-02
1.03E-01 1.07E-01
1.37E-01 1.43E-01
1.71E-01 1.79E-01
2.06E-01 2.15E-01
2.40E-01 2.50E-01

Min = 0.00E+00 Min = 0.00E+00

Max = 2.40E-01 Max = 2.50E-01
Elastoplastic block p

point A

10 mm

5 mm 10 mm 5 mm
 Study of convergence (finite plasticity)

maximum level of compression [%]

80
70
60
50
40 nu=0.10
nu=0.14
30 nu=0.18
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 90010001100
number of elements

8-Q1/E4-S1 8-Q1/E4-S2 8-Q1SP-H 8-Q1SP-S1 8-Q1SP-S2 8-Q1SP-H

16-Q1/E4-S1 16-Q1/E4-S2 16-Q1SP-H 16-Q1SP-S1 16-Q1SP-S2 16-Q1SP-H
Stability investigation

Number of elements → ∞:
• Element level
ε (U e) → constant ⇒ K estab U e → 0
• Weak form
R0 (U ) + K {z U} − P = 0
| stab
→0
e e
• Singular solution (physical): K estab Ū → 0 with Ū = U e + β ϕe

⇒ ε (ϕe) → constant

       

 1  −1   −1   1 
       
1 1 −1 −1
      
ϕex = ar + aξ + aη + |{z}
ah , ϕe = ϕelin + ϕehg
 1   1   1   1 

      →0
  
1 −1 1 −1
     
finite number of elements:

ϕelin)T K e0 ϕelin + (ϕ
ω e = (ϕ ϕehg )T K estab ϕehg
ω
e = ω0e + e
ωhg

e
avoid change of sign of ωhg :
e
ω0

requirement:
e
ωhg ≥ 0!
physical instability
e
ne
(Kstab positive definite)

e
ω hg

Wriggers & Reese [1996]

Crisfield et al. [1995], De Souza Neto et al. [1995]
hourglass instability
Korelc & Wriggers [1996], Glaser & Armero [1997]
Armero [2000], Reese & Wriggers [2000]
Necking and localization
Neck-S1 Neck-H

Plane strain localization

4.5
Total load (half system)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2 10x20 elements
1.5 20x40 elements
40x80 elements
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Top displacement
Moderately thick shell

p=1800 kN/cm
A

r=3m
t = 0.3 m

L=5m
 Shell: study of convergence
6
displacement in point A [m]
5

2 Q1SP
Q1/E12
1 Q1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
number of elements in circumferential direction [-]
Acc. plastic strain
Acc. plastic strain

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
2.08E-04 2.08E-04
4.06E-04 4.06E-04
6.04E-04 6.04E-04
8.02E-04 8.02E-04
1.00E-03 1.00E-03
3.52E-02 7.01E-02

Min = 0.00E+00 Min = 0.00E+00

Max = 3.52E-02 Max = 7.01E-02
Time = 3.50E-03 Time = 4.00E-03

Acc. plastic strain

0.00E+00
1.00E-05
2.08E-04
4.06E-04
6.04E-04
8.02E-04
1.00E-03
1.35E-01

Min = 0.00E+00
Max = 1.35E-01
Time = 4.50E-03
Thermo-mechanical coupling

• Weak form of the energy balance (H = Hcomp)

Z Z
g3 (u, Θ, u̇, Θ̇) = Q · Grad δΘ dV + (wint + wext − c Θ̇) δΘ dV − gT a = 0
B0h B0h
n
X ∂e ∂ττ
wint = : Ẋi and wext = Θ :d
i=1
∂Xi ∂Θ

• Taylor expansions of Q, wint, wext and c Θ̇

– with respect to temperature → K Tstab
T

– [with respect to deformation → K Tstab

M
]

( ) " # ( )
RM KM M
FM
  
U 0 (U , T ) stab (U , T ) 0 U 0 0
+ −ν =
RT0 (U , T ) 0 K Tstab
T
(U , T ) T F T0 0
 Q1SP without thermal stabilization

Q1SP with thermal stabilization Q1

Bearing

u
w

h = 66 mm
r max = 43 mm
Stress state STRESS 3

-1.73E+02
-7.58E+01
-5.77E+01
-3.96E+01
-2.15E+01
-3.40E+00
1.47E+01
5.96E+01

STRESS 2

-1.50E+01
-8.58E+00
-6.62E+00
-4.67E+00
-2.71E+00
-7.56E-01
1.20E+00
3.23E+00
 TEMPERATUR
Heat conduction
-1.04E-01
0.00E+00
2.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.00E-01
8.00E-01
1.00E+00
2.00E+01

TEMPERATUR

-3.97E-03
0.00E+00
2.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.00E-01
8.00E-01
1.00E+00
2.00E+01
TEMPERATUR

-2.89E-02
0.00E+00
2.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.00E-01
8.00E-01
1.00E+00
2.00E+01

TEMPERATUR

-1.17E-01
0.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.00E+00
3.00E+00
4.00E+00
5.00E+00
2.00E+01
Thank you for your attention!