Comprtrcrs

&Structures, Press1974.Printed
Vol.4, PP.1207-1222.Pergamon in Great Britain

ERROR ESTIMATES FOR CONFORMING

FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTIONS

GEORGEE. RAMEY~ and NATARAJANKRISHNAMURTHY$

Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830, U.S.A.

Abstract-A method for determining realistic error estimates for conforming finite element solutions is
presented. The method requires solution of the problem by at least two, and preferably three mesh schemes
that yield monotonic solution covergence. This in turn will automatically yield one solution bound, upper
or lower. The paper describes a simple and practical scheme for obtaining the other bound by utilizing
the solutions from the multiple mesh schemes. These bounds bracket the exact solution within relatively
narrow limits and provide the basis of the error estimate. The solution quantities considered are the system
energy quantities; and for eigenvalue problems these correspond to the eigenvalues themselves. As in
convergence proofs, it is expected that the displacement and stress quantities will follow the behavior of the
energy quantities. The proposed bounding method is applicable to eigenvalue and static problems devoid
of stress singularities, and considers only the discretization error of conforming finite element models. The
validity of the proposed bounding method has not been proved mathematically; however, extensive mrmer-
ical applications of the method indicate its workability in every case tested. Results of some applications
are included in this article.

NOMENCLATURE
-4 B half width and half depth of rectangular bar
b beam width
D flexural rigidity of plate, Eh3/12( 1 - v2)
E modulus of elasticity
EO exact solution
F.E. finite element
G shearing rigidity
12 plate thickness; mesh size parameter
6 j integer subscripts
I strain energy
k buckling coefficient
k, torsional rigidity parameter
K constant
L length of plate
L.B., U.B. lower bound, upper bound
Mt twisting moment
integer number denoting mesh subdivision
; plate in-plane force per unit length
NO maximum (central) value of parabolic load
Y number which designates the rate of convergence

t Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering.

$ Professor of Civil Engineering.
1207
1208 GEORGE E. RAMEYand NATARAJANKRISHNAMURTHY

P total end load acting on cantilever beam

uniform load
s.s4 simply-supported
u*, v*, w*, e*, (P* finite element displacement functions
.y, y two-dimensional coordinates
*(superscript) finite element solution quantity designation
ui undetermined parameters
strain energy parameter
;: line segment (ordinate difference) defined in Fig. 4
e angle of twist
1 frequency parameter
rth eigenvalue
&: rth finite element eigenvalue obtained from nth trial
displacement family
(a” generated lower bound eigenvalue
V Poisson’s ratio
7r potential energy

P mass density per unit plate area

w circular frequency.

1. INTRODUCTION
UTILIZATION of the finite element method began shortly after the advent of the digital
computer, and today it is probably the most effective and widely used approximate solution
method. If one reviews the major requirements of an approximate solution method he finds
them to be as follows [I] :
(1) Provide convergence to the exact solution (preferably at a rapid rate),
(2) Provide a means of improving the approximate solution, and
(3) Provide an error estimate of the approximate solution.
Requirements (1) and (2) above can be accomplished in the finite element method by
the use of conforming displacement elements. For these elements, mathematical proofs
(based on variational principles) of convergence, rates of convergence, and conditions for
monotonic convergence may be found in recent literature. It is requirement (3) which
proves most difficult, yet is probably the most important. That is, since we can only work
with some finite mesh size, we are more concerned about the resulting solution error than
we are with eventual convergence as the element size goes to zero.
One method of estimating the error is to bracket the exact solution between two
approximate solutions, i.e. determine upper and lower bound solutions, and this is the
approach used in this paper. Although displacement and equilibrium models can bound the
exact solution from opposite sides, it is highly desirable from practical considerations that
both solution bounds be obtained through the use of one finite element model.
A simple and practical method of determining both solution bounds, by utilizing con-
forming elements, is presented in this paper. By using conforming elements, one solution
bound is obtained immediately from the finite element numerical solution. The other bound
is generated by using solution results from two mesh sizes. The validity of this other bound,
which may be referred to as the “generated bound”, cannot be proved mathematically and
hence the method should be viewed as a practical rather than theoretical means of deter-
mining a realistic error estimate. The method is applicable to eigenvalue and static problems
 Error Estimates for Conforming Finite Element Solutions 1209

where stress singularities are not present and considers only the discretization error of the
finite element approximations. The solution quantities bounded are the system energy
quantities which correspond to the eigenvalues for eigenvalue problems.
The proposed method of determining the generated bound will be described in detail in
the following section and this will be followed by illustrative numerical applications.

2. THE GENEXATBD SOLUTION BOUND

As mentioned in the previous section, theoretical proofs of convergence for conforming
finite elements are available [l-7] and the solution asymptotic convergence rate may be
regarded as Knep, with p being an integer greater than or equal to two, and n being a
measure of the number of elements. A theoretical determination of the value of p may be
made for each conforming finite element model [3,7-91. Also, it can be shown theoretically
that if n takes on a sequence such that iti+ 1 equals 2ni, (e.g. 2,4, 8, . . . ) the convergence is
monotonic [5, 9, lo]. Graphically, the convergence of the approximate solution to the
exact value can be illustrated as in Fig. 1 in which the bounding curve (Knsp) bounds the

r 1

Exoct=X,

I I I I
I/2 l/4 I/a I /I6 I/O 3

n-1 scale

FIG. 1. Convergence of approximate eigenvalue solution, J.*r.

approximate curve from above. The generated bound will be discussed with particular
reference to eigenvalue solutions 1, although they would be equally applicable to the
potential energy IT,and, in a modified form, to the strain energy I. For practical purposes,
it may be assumed that procedures for bounding the energy quantities would be applicable
to bounding displacements and stresses also.

2.1. Some properties of curves of the form Kn-P

Let us now consider some properties of bounding curves of the form Knep. We observe
that these curves will theoretically converge to the exact value (i.e. KnBp+O as n+co) for
positive p. Specimen plots of such bounding curves are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 for an
arbitrary K value and different values of p. The figures differ only in their abscissa scales.
1210 GEORGEE. RAMEY and NATARAJANKRISHNAMURTHY

Exact = E,,
I I
1234567
I I I I I I
ss9
I I
IO
F-J
/m
n scale
Fro. 2. Error bounding curves, Kn -P, plotted on normal n scale.

n’ scale
FIG. 3. Error bounding curves, Kn -p, plotted on n -1 scale.

In Fig. 2 the scale is tbe normal arithmetic n scale which increases from left to right; whereas
in Fig. 3 we use an n-l scale which increases from right to left. These are the two scales
commonly used in presenting results from finite element solutions in graphical form.
Note the difference in appearance of the convergence curves in the two figures. For the
arithmetic n scale all the curves are of one concavity; however, for the n-l scale the con-
cavity changes depending on the value ofp. For example, for a p of 1 the curve reduces to a
straight line which converges to the exact value at an n of co, or n-l of 0; for p less than
unity the bounding curve is concave downward; for p greater than unity it is concave
upward.
If we use an n sequence such that ni+ 1 equals 2n,, it can be shown mathematically for
p greater than unity (independent of the K value) that when the difference between two
successive points on the error bounding curve, i.e. (Kn, -P- Knlypl), is subtracted from
Kni+‘l the results will be an error term of sign opposite from that of Kn;;i. Mathematically
we have

(1)
 Error Estimates for Conforming Finite Element Solutions 1211

which reduces to

A+&+ K
np c 2p
cz -1
1
, (2)

where 2: denotes a lower bound to 5. Hence, for p greater than unity, equation (2) gives
a lower bound solution for any value of K or n. (Note that when p is unity, the lower bound
is the exact solution.) It must be emphasized that the lower bound generated above is the
lower bound for the upper bound curve which we know in a qualitative sense only and hence
is of no value in arriving at a numerical bound. However, we can determine values of
approximating finite element solutions in a quantitative sense; and we now look to these in
order to generate the other numerical solution bound.

2.2. Development of generated bound

The development of the generated bounds using numerical solutions will be demon-
strated by the use of finite element approximate eigenvalue solutions. From theory we
know that
(;L:),+&, from above as n+oo, (3)

provided the problem strain energy quantity remains bounded [I.

Let us consider the (A:) curve as shown in Fig. 4, where three consecutive approximate
eigenvalues to i, are shown as (l:)j, (;ll*)zj and (12,*),,. We now construct the lower
bound (~~),j by subtracting the difference of (Iz,*)j and (&, from (c)z,, and the lower
bound (& by subtracting the difference of (q)zj and (3L:)4jfrom (n,*),j. Mathematically
we have,

where the inequalities result from equation (4). To show that the bounds (AF)mjare indeed
lower bounds, we form the difference from equation (5), i.e.

or
<~f->,j-<~~),j=C(;I+*>j-(~),*)4jl-33(~~*)Zj-(Izr*)4jl. (7)

The right hand expression in equation (7) can be shown to be greater than or equal to zero
on the basis of the upward concavity of the (12:)” curve. By referring to the similar
triangles (broken lines) in Fig. 4, we note that

(J,*jj-(;I,*),j=36, (8)
1212 GEORGEE. RAMEY and NATARAJANKRISHNAMURTHY

J i I f I

JfJ r/zj l/41 If@3

6 scale
Fro. 4. Generation of lower bound for lr.

and hence, from equation (7),

where A is the length of the line segment indicated in Fig. 4. The upward concavity of the
($), curve implies that
A~($),j-(G’)4jr (10)
and hence, from equation (9),
(*Ih.j-faf)2j20* (10

Equations (5) and (11) imply that the generated lower bound (A:), curve is mono-
tonically increasing, and it can never be higher than the upper bound (;I:), curve. Since
the finite element upper bound solutions (g), converge monotonic~y from above, the
(A:)-,,values obtained in this manner are indeed the corresponding lower bound solutions.
This means then, as an example, that

or

Hence, two confo~ing finite element approximate solutions are needed to generate
the lower bound. When more than two finite element solutions are available, it is possible
to construct a sequence of lower bound solutions. It must be emphasized however, that the
generated lower bounds discussed above are based on the assumption that the (A:), curve
is concave upward. The justifications and requirements for the validity of this assumption
wit1 now be considered.
 Error Estimatesfor Conforming Finite Elemmt Solutions 1213

2.3. Justifications and validation of bounding assumption

Mathematical proof of single concavity convergence cannot be given and the justi-
fications must be limited to those given in the following paragraphs.
For large and intermediate values of n, finite element solutions follow the error
bounding curve (h-3 quite closely. This is because for such values of n the error
bounding curve is quite close to the exact solution, and the finite element solution curve is
between the two, as shown graphically in Fig. 1. Therefore, the assumption that the finite
element solution curve has the same upward concavity as the bounding curve for these n
values appears perfectly valid. Hence, the exact solution may be easily bracketed for these
cases by the proposed method of equation (5).
For small values of n, the (A:),, curve exhibits more deviation from the error bounding
curve, KnBp (see Fig. 1). This is analogous to the behavior exhibited by Taylor series
approximations to exact solutions, where for small values of n the first error terms are not
so dominating. For these small values of n, three consecutive (A,*)”values (in the n-
sequence stated earlier) may be obtained to numerically co&m the upward concavity of
the finite element solution curve. If these three solutions (with n of 2,4, 8 or n of 3,6, 12)
do not show an adequate convergence rate, i.e. concave upward convergence on the n-l
scale, then a fourth numerical solution is determined. This procedure should be con-
tinued, with finer meshes, until the prerequisite concave upward convergence is obtained.
It is assumed that further increments in n will continue to exhibit concave upward
convergence. This assumption should be valid since we should now be working with n
values sufficiently large such that the (A:), curve closely follows the KneP curve.
Upon obtaining sufficient consecutive numerical solutions showing, or otherwise
knowing of, concave upward convergence, the proposed bounding method of equation (5)
is employed. This equation indicates that, when the difference between two successive
finite element solutions (in the n-sequence ni+l =2n,) is subtracted from the solution
obtained from the higher n value, the result is the generated lower bound to the exact
solution. Obviously, the bound generated from the finest and next to the tiest meshes will
be closer to the asymptotic value than the bound generated from any other two coarser
meshes. While the use of three (or possibly more) numerical solutions is not desirable
(tbe minimum needed to generate the lower bound, namely two, would be preferred), this
undesirable feature is somewhat compensated for by the adaptability of the proposed
method to automated mesh generation and successive refinement. The check for single
concavity convergence of three successive solutions along with application of the proposed
bounding method is easily automated. Also the solution bracket size (upper bound minus
lower bound) along with a check for solution tolerance criterion can be easily automated.
The preceding discussion and development have been based on the convergence
characteristics of eigenvalues (It), and potential energy (z), which converge to the
asymptotic value from above; the generated bound for this case is a lower bound, as stated.
However, the arguments are equally valid for values of strain energy (Z) which converge
to the asymptotic value from below with mesh refinement; the generated bound in this case
becomes an upper bound. As in convergence proofs, it is expected that the displacement
and stress quantities will follow the behavior of the energy quantities.

2.4. Extrapolation of results to the continuum

Extrapolation of finite element results from two or more mesh schemes to the con-
tinuum by the classical method of Richardson’s extrapolation is a fairly common technique
1214 GEORGE E. RAMEY and NATARAJAN KRISHNAMURTHY

of improving the accuracy of finite element solutions. If a quantity y is known as yi and yj

from two meshes with mesh sizes hi and h, and degrees-of-freedom ni and nj, then the
extrapolated value y for the continuum is given by the expression

(Yj-YJ (Yj-Yi>
Y=Yj+ (14)
(h,lh,Y’-’ = yj+ (nj/ni)P- 1

where p is the order (exponent) of the error term.

The effectiveness of this extrapolation technique has been demonstrated by Ramstad [ 1l]
among others.
To justify the need for more than two solutions, whether for the proposed generated
bound method or otherwise, it needs to be emphasized that the extrapolation expression of
equation (15) is predicated upon a knowledge of the error order p. Although mathematical
proofs for orders of errors for various conforming finite elements are available in the
literature, these proofs are based on many simplifying assumptions such as uniform mesh
size and smooth geometry and stress flow, which are frequently not obtainable in practical
problems. In most practical problems, three or more solutions would be needed to
co&m-or alternatively to determine-the value of p in equation (14), which would yield
a straight line in a y versus n- p plot so as to be suitable for extrapolation. Without such
evidence, application of Richardson’s extrapolation may result in a larger error than
inherent in the finer of the two meshes analyzed.
This situation is thus analogous to the need for three (or more) meshes in the proposed
bounding procedure to demonstrate the desired concavity of the convergence curve, if the
shape is unknown. Thus, the proposed bounding method is not considered to be unduly
demanding in effort. On the other hand, it is suggested that with the same effort as with
other techniques of improvement of finite element results, the proposed method yields a
second bound from the opposite side, effectively bracketing the error in the answer. It may
be conceded however, that extrapolation procedures may be applied to both bounds with
even greater advantage than demonstrated in the paper.

2.5. Summary of proposed bounding method

By utilizing conforming finite elements, upper bound solutions for z.* and (J:). or
lower bound solutions for strain energy are obtained directly. However, practical values
of n used in finite element solutions are small; and hence, three consecutive numerical
solutions (in the n-sequence, ni+ r =2nj) may need to be utilized in an attempt to numerically
validate the single concavity of the solution convergence curve. After obtaining consecutive
solutions exhibiting single concavity convergence, the lower bound is generated from the
finest and next to the finest meshes as follows:

(154
or,
Wb)
or,
(154

in which superscriptsj and 2j refer to the finest and next to the finest meshes.
 Error Estimates for Conforming Finite Jknent Solutions 1215

The proposed method has been successiully tested on a broad class of problems, and
in every case, the validity of the method has been demons~a~d. In these test problems,
only rarely was it found necessary to solve for more than three meshes to assure upward
concavity of the convergence curve. Results of some of the applications of the proposed
bounding method are presented in the next section.

3. NUMERICAL APPLICATION OF PROPOSED BOUNDING METHOD

The bounding method proposed in the previous section has been applied to a broad
class of problems while utilizing many different conforming finite elements. (See the
Appendix for a brief description of the conforming elements used.) The results of all
applications indicate the workability of the method and further indicate a relatively tight
bracketing of the solution. The method has also been applied to many problems for which
insufficient numerical data were available to give all three points in the recommended
three-point sequence. The results of these applications were again favorable.
Specimen figures are presented in this section to illustrate the results of application of
the method to : (1) eigenvalue problems, (2) static plate problems, (3) plane stress problems,
and (4) Saint-Venant torsion problems. The relevant details of the problems, types of
finite elements used, and the dependent parameter plotted are all indicated on the figures.
The symbols are defined under Nomenclature.
As already described, solutions for three meshes are necessary to assure proper con-
cavity of the convergence curve. For a tight bracket of the solution, the mesh sequence
must be such that the solution from the finest mesh be.itself a good approximation to the
asymptotic value. The rapidly converging elements usually accomplish this with the
minimum 248 n-sequence. For slower converging elements, or for higher eignevalue
modes while using faster converging elements, the 3-6-12 n-sequence will probably be more
efficient if a tight bracket is required. This is because a value of n as high as six may be
required to get a good approximation; and, if this is the case, then the 6-12 combination
will yield a tight solution bracket.

3.1. Eigenvdue problems

Numerical results for this class of problems are available 18, 9, 12-151for plate free-
vibration frequencies and buckling coefficients, while employing R16, CFQ, Ti8, and LDT
plate bending elements (see Appendix). These data have all been successfully tested using
the proposed bounding method. Three examples are presented here.
Figure 5 represents the results from an analysis, with R16 elements, of a square plate
with two opposite edges simply supported and the other two edges clamped. The chain-
dotted line, connecting the results for n of 2,3,4, 5, . . . may be seen to violate the upward
concavity requirement for application of the generated bound pique, In fact, some
problems of this class will even show nonmonotonic convergence for this continuous
n-sequence. This possibility should of course be anticipated, since proof of monotonic
convergence, which is a necessary condition for single concavity convergence, cannot be
given for this n-sequence. However, the two full lines in the figure connecting the points
fornof2,4,8,...,andfornof3,6,12 ,..., do show single concavity convergence.
With the application of the proposed technique, various lower bounds are generated
as indicated in Fig. 5, leading to a good estimate of the exact solution value.
Comparison of the relative influences of the method on two di&rent element types
applied to the same problem is illustrated in Fig. 6, for the buckling coefficient of a simply
1216 GCORGEE. RAMEY and NATARAJAN KRISHNAMURTHY

t- U,VCfor n=2-3-4-5.. .
,” Q
$I
?=i 12,000-
x

L’
,o
---mv
E” ,9,00_ Exact (10446.2) using 5-10 data
e /
/
/
:: /
/ ous~ng 3-6 data
6
/
z
WOO- Generated LB /
z Using 2-4-edat&/
f!
IA.
k
I I
l/2 l/3 l/4 l/5 l/6 I/B l/IO I W

n-’ scale

FIG. 5. Frequency parameter for a square plate with two opposite edges simply supported and the
other two edges clamped, solved with RI6 elements.

399- Generated L Fl 3-6 doto

us,ng 2-4-e *o+a
3.96 -

3.97 - Generated LB /

396

n-’ scale
Ro. 6. Buckling cawcient for a simply supported square plate under &axial comprcusion, solved
with RI6 and CFQ elements.
 Error Estimates for Conforming Finite Element Solutions 1217

supported square plate under uniaxial compression. The 16 degree-of-freedom element

R16 is obviously faster in convergence than the 12 degree-of-freedom element CFQ, as
could have been anticipated from their theoretical convergence rates 1yne4 and 1yn”
respectively. The generated lower bounds are seen to reflect the same trends.
For the high degree-of-freedom T18 element which has very rapid (KnW6)convergence
characteristics, numerical results for eigenvalue problems are only available for n of 6 and
less. Hence, the three-point n-sequence of the proposed bounding method could not be
obtained; however, application of the method to the available 24 and 3-6 rrsequences
yielded the generated bound in every case. The case of a simply supported square plate,
shown in Fig. 7, is typical.

389.5

,FE solution

Exoct(38963636) 0
Usr ng 3-Sdot

389.6
I I I
‘2 l/3 l/4 116 fk
n-t stole

FIG. 7. Frequency parameter for a simply supported square plate, solved with Tl8 cleinults.

3.2. Static plate bending problems

Numerical data for this class of problems are available [8,9, 161for uniformly loaded
square or triangular plates. The elements utilized are the RI6 and Tl8 plate bending
elements, and the solution quantities considered are the plate strain energy quantities. An
illustration of the appli~~on of the proposed bounding method to a clamped square plate
under uniform load is shown in Fig. 8. It may be noted that the generated bound for the
strain energy parameter converges from above as discussed eark The Sgure also confirms
the superior convergence characteristics of the T18 element which is in agreement with
theory .
1218 GEORGE E. RAMEY and NATARAJAN KRISHNAMURTHY

(4x4 Shown)

I I i
l/4 l/6 l/8 l/l2 ‘0)

n-’ scale
Strain energy parameter for a clamped square plate under uniform load solved with T18
and R16 elements.

94 -‘. Generated U 6.

L\
Generated U.B. ‘~,.,(-‘(R6 elements)
92 (RP16 elements)
\ .x
\
,A&___
90

A,.
0’0
\
6.6 L- F.E. solutlan
(RPl6 elements)

64
I-

62

6.0 t
/‘ FE. solution
(R8 elements)

I./4 l/6 l/l6 I

t7-’ scale
Fro. 9. Strain energy parameter for an cantilever beam under uniform end load solved with R8
and RP16 elements.
 Error Estimates for Conforming Finite Element Solutions 1219

3.3. Plane strw problems

Results in this class are available f9, 171 for problems of various geometry and load
conditions, while utilizing T6, R8, RP26, and CT20 plane stress elements. All such available
results were successfully tested by the proposed bounding method. One of the cases
investigated is presented in Fig. 9 to illustrate the applicability of the method to this class of
problem. This figure depicts the case of a cantilever beam under uniform transverse end
load. Again, use of the strain energy parameter for the dependent variable leads to
generated upper bounds instead of lower bounds. Although the exact solution is not
available, the bracketing of the asymptotic solution within narrow limits is clearly evident.

3.4. Saint-Venarlt torsion problems

An interesting application of the generated bound technique was to the case of a
rectangular bar (see Fig. IO), previously analyzed by two different finite element models.

Di>plocement FE solut *on

Generated U B 2nxn mesh

(0x2 shown)

Exact (0 2290)
--------

l/8 l/l6 I Lo

FIG. IO. Torsional rigidity parameter for a rectangular bar, solved with ‘IT3 and ZEE elements
(A/B=2-0).

One was Herrmann’s [IS] linear triangular displacement element (TT3), and the other was
Zienkiewicz’s [ 191linear triangular equilibrium element (ZEE). On the basis of variational
principles of theory of elasticity, these elements should yield upper and lower bound
solutions respectively to the torsional rigidity of the bar [20], and both bounds are shown
in the figure by the solid lines bounding the exact solution obtained by Fourier series
analysis. The broken lines represent the generated lower and upper bounds determined
respectively from the displacement and equilibrium solutions. Although the generated
bounds are somewhat inferior to those directly obtained from the finite element solutions
themselves, the validity and adequate accuracy of the bounding technique proposed are
evident.
1220 GEORGEE. RAMEY and NATARAJANKRISHNAMURTHY

4. CONCLUSIONS
The bounding method proposed in this study requires two conforming finite element
solutions in an n-sequence, with n,, i being equal to 2ni, and provides a simple and pract,cal
means of determining a realistic error estimate. Additional solutions are needed only to
confirm the desired concavity of the convergence curve, if unknown. With this error estimate
a decision concerning the necessity for further mesh refinement may be mdde based on the
accuracy desired. The validity of the proposed bounding method has not been proved
mathematically; however, all numerical applications of the method yielded excellent results
and confirm its workability. These applications further indicate that for a tight bracket of
the exact solution it is desirable to use an n-sequence such that the finest mesh gives an
anticipated good approximation to the exact solution; and use the results of the finest and
next to the finest meshes to generate the other solution bound.
In utilizing the method, the decision on the finite element mesh sequence to be employed
in the analysis should be bared primarily on (1) the value of p (in Knmp) as determined
from a theoretical study, and (2) the criterion that the finest two meshes provide a good
approximate solution such that a tight bracket on the exact solution can be obtained. The
proposed method lends itself well to automation, including automated mesh refinement
techniques.

Acknowlcdgcmcnts-Much of the development and results reported in this paper formed the basis of the
first author’s doctoral work, conducted under the guidance of Professor P. P. Lynn of the University of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.

REFERENCES
[l] S. W. KEY, A convergence investigation of the direct stiffness method, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington (1966).
[2] M. W. JOHNSON,JR. and R. W. MCLAY, Convergence of the finite element method in the theory of
elasticity. J. Appl. Mech., ASME, 274-278 (1968).
[3] R. W. MCLAY, Completeness and convergence properties of tinite element displacement functions-
a general treatment. AIAA Paper No. 67-143, AIAA 5th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, New York
(1967).
[4] P. P. LYNN and A. P. BORESI,Kinds of convergence and improved convergence of conforming finite
element solutions in plate bending. Nuclear Engineering and Design 11, 159-176 (1970).
[fl P. P. LYNNand B. S. DHILLON,Convergence of eigenvahre solutions in conforming plate bending tinite
elements. Inr. J. Num. Met/t. Engng., 4, No. 2, 217-234 (1972).
[q P. Tout and T. I-LH. PIAN,The convergence of finite element method in solving linear elastic problems,
ht. J. solidr Struct. 3, 865-879 (1967).
[7j J. E. WALZ, R. E. FUL~N and N. Y. CYRUS.Accuracy and convergence of finite element approxi-
mations. Proc. 2nd Cot& on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics. Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, 9954025 (1968).
[8] G. R. COWPER, E. Kosrco, G. M. LINDBERGand M. D. OLSON, A high-precision triangular plate-
bending element. National Research Council of Canada Aeronautical Report LR-514, Ottawa (1968).
[9] G. E. RAMEY, A Study of the Convergence Characteristics and Accuracy of Conforming Finite
Blemcnt Solutions. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado (1972).
[lo] ~~.)MELosH, Basis for derivation of matrices for the direct stiffness method. AIAA J. 1, 1631-1637

[ll] H. R.&STAD, Convergence and numerical accuracy with special reference to plate bending. Finite
Efemetu Methoak in Stress Analysis, Edited by I. HOLANDand K. Bw, Tapir, Norway (1969).
[12] W. G. CARSONand R. E. NEV~TCN,Plate buckling analysis using a fully compatible finite element.
AIAA J. 7, 527-529 (1969).
[13] R. W. CLOUGHand C. A. FEL~PPA.A refined quadrilateral element for analysis of plate bending.
Proe. 2nd Con/ on Matrix MetW in Structural Mechanics, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
399-440 (19as).
 Error Estimates for Conforming Finite Element Solutions 1221

[14] B. S. DHILLON, Triangular finite elements for the bending analysis of thick elastic plates. Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engin- University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado (1970).
[IS] G. M. LINDBERG, M. D. OLSONand H. A. m, Closed form finite element solutions for plate
vibrations. National Research Council of Canada Aeronautical Report LR-518, Ottawa (1969).
[16] F. K. Boom, R. L. Fox and L. A. SCHMIT, JR, The generation of inter-element compatible stiffness
and mass matrices by the use of interpolation formulas. Conferenceon Matrix Merho& in Srrucrural
Mechanics. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 397-443 (1965).
[lT] G. R. COWPEFC, G. M. LINDBJZRG and M. D. OWN, A shallow shell finite element of triangular shape.
Znt. J. Solids Srruct. 6, 1133-1156 (1970).
[18] L. R. HWRMANN,Elastic torsional analysis of irregular shapes. J. &gng Mech. Div. ASCE 91,
No. EM6, 11-19 (1965).
[191 0. c. ZIENKEWICZ,The Finite Element Medwd in Structural and Continuum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill,
London (1967).
[20] S. H. CRANDALL, Engineering Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York (1956).
(Received 17 December 1973)

APPENDIX
Following is a listing of the code names and trial displacement functions for the con-
forming finite element models considered in this article.
RI 6: 16 degree-of-freedom rectangular thin plate element
A plate bending element reported on in [8, 12, 151, but generally credited to [16].

CFQ : Clough and Feiippa’s thin plate quadrilateral element

This is a plate bending element presented in [13]. Clough and Felippa first proposed the
LCCT-12 triangular element with 12 degrees-of-freedom, and employing a compatible
cubic displacement field. They further improved it to give the quadrilateral element
designated Q-19 (referred to as the CFQ element in this paper), retaining the 12 degrees-
of-freedom for the element, the explicit displacement functions for which are very com-
plicated and are not given here.

T18 : Cowper et al. thin plate triangular element

A plate bending element reported on in (81.

+ a205.
LDT: Lynn and Dhillon’s thick plate triangular element
A thick plate bending element presented in [5j and [14].
(w*)I=aI +a2x+a3y+a4x2+a,xy+r,y2

(8*)i=a,+ol~X+CtgJt
1222 GEORGEE. RAMEYand NATARAJANKRISHNAMURTHY

T6 : 6 degree-of-freedom triangular in-plane element

The classical two-dimensional constant strain element given in [19].
Wl=al +a,x+a,y
(r*)i=a,+a++Q_V.

RS : 8 degree-of-freedom rectangular in-plane element

The classical two-dimensional plane element given in [19].
(u*)j=a, +a,x+a,y+a,x~
(v*),=a,+a,x+a,y+a,xy.

RP16 : 16 degree-of-free&m rectangular in-plane element

A higher-order two-dimensional plane element given in [ 191.
(U*)i=ai +a2x+a3y+a4x2+a,xy+a,y2+a,x2yfa,xy2
(v*),=a~+a,,x+a,,y+a,2x2+a,3xy+a,,y2+a,,x2y+a,,s_~2.

lT3 : 3 degree-of-freedom triangular torsion element

A first order (for warping function W) torsion element reported on in [18].
(W*)i=ai + a,x+ a,y.

IT6 : 6 degree-of-freedom ttknguiar torsion element

A higher-order (for warping function w) torsion element given in [19].
(W*)i=a, +a2x+a3y+a4x2 +a,xy+aey’.

6’20: Modilfed Cowper et al. shallow shell element of triangular shape

In its unmodified form, the element is a curved triangular element designed for shell
analyses and is reported on in [17]. CT20 is the limiting case of a flat plate, or the plane
stress element contained within the total element.