2.9.3 Weak Form of Problems [Hughes Sect. 1.3] [Bathe P.

126-127]

Apparently there is equivalence between variational approach and MWR:

l ⎡
d ⎛ dy ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ dy dy ⎞ dy
δΠ = ∫ ⎢ − ⎜ T ⎟ − w⎥δydx + ⎜⎜ T − T ⎟⎟δy − T δy = 0 for any δy
0
⎣ dx ⎝ dx ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ dx dx ⎠
l
dx 0

⎡ d ⎛ d~
l y⎞ ⎤ ⎛ dy y⎞
d~
∫0 ⎢⎣ dx ⎝ dx ⎠ ⎥⎦ i ⎜⎝ dx dx ⎟⎟⎠Wi = 0 for arbitrary Weighting function Wi
⎜ ⎟ + + ⎜ − 1
T w W dx T T
l

δy ↔ Wi
δy = 0 at x = 0 ↔ Wi = 0 at x = 0

l ⎡ dy ⎛ dy ⎞ ⎤ dy
δΠ = ∫ ⎢T δ ⎜ ⎟ − wδy ⎥dx − T δ y = 0 for any δy
0
⎣ dx ⎝ dx ⎠ ⎦ dx l

⎛ d~
l y dWi ⎞ dy d~
y
∫0⎝ dx dx
⎜ T − wW i ⎟
⎠
dx − T W
dx l
i + T
dx
Wi
0
=0

Both approaches are nothing more than the solution procedure for the “Weak Form”
of the problem.

The strong form and weak form of the tight string problem can be stated, as an
illustration, as follows:

1
It may be noted that, in MWR, one can further relax the essential boundary condition
by introducing the residual of the essential boundary condition with an appropriate
weighting function. There will be no further discussion for this subject. Those who
are interested in this topic may refer to [Brebbia] for details.

© 2005 by T. H. Kwon 84
Strong Form (classical)

Find y such that

d ⎛ dy ⎞
⎜ T ⎟ + w = 0, 0< x<l
dx ⎝ dx ⎠
y=y at x = 0
dy dy
T =T at x = l
dx dx

Weak Form

Find y ∈℘ such that for all W ∈ ℑ

l ⎛ dy dWi ⎞ dy
∫ ⎜⎝ − T dx
0 dx
+ wWi ⎟dx + T Wi = 0
⎠ dx l

where
{
℘ = y | y ∈ H 1 , y (0) = y } : Trial function y
{
ℑ = W | W ∈ H 1 , W (0) = 0 } : Weighting function W

One can easily find that both the variational principle and Method of Weighted
Residual belong to the weak form of the problem.

Definition of Sobolev Space:

L 2 = L2 ( Ω ) = W | { l
∫W
0
2
dx < ∞ } : square integrable

H k = H k (Ω) = {W| W ∈ L2 ; W , x ∈ L2 ; W , xx ∈ L2 ; L; W , xxLx ∈ L2 } :Sobolev space

of degree k
k times

© 2005 by T. H. Kwon 85
2.9.4 Galerkin’s Method for 2nd Order Elliptic PDE

∂ ⎛ ∂φ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂φ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂φ ⎞
⎜kx ⎟ + ⎜ky ⎟ + ⎜kz ⎟ = f ( x, y , z ) in Ω (2.45)
∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎜⎝ ∂y ⎟⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠
B.C.
⎧ φ = φ ( x, y , z ) on S1
⎪
⎨ ∂φ ∂φ ∂φ
⎪⎩k x ∂x n x + k x ∂x n x + k x ∂x n x + g ( x, y, z ) + h( x, y, z )φ = 0 on S 2

Ω
S1

(I)
S2
3

(I) 2 i i = NODE(I,J) = global node No. of J-th node

for I-th element
1

~
φ e = N keφ ke for each element ( Wi = N Je for element e)

Appropriate form of Weighted Residual is as follows:

⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂φ~ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂φ~ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂φ~ ⎞ ⎤

∫Ω ⎢⎢ ∂x ⎜⎜⎝ k x ∂x ⎟⎟⎠ + ∂y ⎜⎜⎝ k y ∂y ⎟⎟⎠ + ∂z ⎜⎜⎝ k z ∂z ⎟⎟⎠ − f ⎥⎥Wi dΩ
⎣ ⎦
~ ~ ~ (2.46)
⎡ ∂φ ∂φ ∂φ ~⎤
- ∫ ⎢k x nx + k y ny + kz n z + g + hφ ⎥Wi dS = 0
S2 ⎣
∂x ∂y ∂z ⎦

Note that Wi = 0 on S1 for nodes which do not belong to S2. (One does not have to
introduce the weighted residual for nodes belonging to S1.)

Integral by parts results in

© 2005 by T. H. Kwon 86
 ~ ~ ~
⎛ ∂φ ∂Wi ∂φ ∂Wi ∂φ ∂Wi ⎞
− ∫ ⎜⎜ k x + ky + kz ⎟dΩ − ∫ fWi dΩ
Ω⎝
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ⎟⎠ Ω
~ ~ ~
⎛ ∂φ ∂φ ∂φ ⎞
+ ∫ ⎜⎜ k x nx + k y ny + kz n z ⎟Wi dS
S1 + S 2 ⎝
∂x ∂y ∂z ⎟⎠
~ ~ ~
⎛ ∂φ
− ∫ ⎜⎜ k x
∂x
nx + k y
∂φ
∂y
ny + kz
∂φ ⎞
∂z ⎠
( ~
)
n z ⎟⎟Wi dS − ∫ g + hφ Wi dS
S2 ⎝ S2

=0

(Wi =0 on S1.)

~ ~ ~
⎛ ∂φ ∂Wi ∂φ ∂Wi ∂φ ∂Wi ⎞
∫Ω ⎜⎝ k x ∂x ∂x + k y ∂y ∂y + k z ∂z ∂z ⎟⎟⎠dΩ + Ω∫ fWi dΩ
⎜

( )
~
+ ∫ g + hφ Wi dS
S2

=0

(Note that one can arrive at the same result with ∫R

Ω
D Wi dΩ = 0 and replacing

~ ~ ~
⎛ ∂φ
⎜kx
∂φ ∂φ ⎞
⎟ (~
)
⎜ ∂x n x + k y ∂y n y + k z ∂z n z ⎟ with − g + hφ after integral by parts.)
⎝ ⎠

(Note also that the above MWR expression is equal to δJ = 0 for the variational
approach when Wi is identified with δφ . In this regard, Wi = 0 on S1 is equivalent to
δφ = 0 on S1.)
When the domain is discretized, the volume integral is replaced with the summation
of integral over each element, and the surface integral on S2 is replaced with the
summation of surface integral over each element surface on S2, while Wi is replaced

with N ie with an appropriate connectivity information for the assembly procedure.

Then one obtains the following:

© 2005 by T. H. Kwon 87
 ~ ~ ~
⎛ ∂φ ∂N i ∂φ ∂N i ∂φ ∂N i ⎞
∑e ∫ ⎜⎜ k x ∂x ∂x + k y ∂y ∂y + k z ∂z ∂z ⎟⎟dΩ + ∑e ∫ fN i dΩ
Ωe ⎝ ⎠ Ωe
~
(
+ ∑ ∫ g + hφ N i dS = 0. )
e ∂Ω e ∩ S 2

~
where superscript e is omitted over φ , N i for brevity.

After this, the procedure is exactly the same as the variational approach. The final
result is

⎧ ∂N i ∂N j ∂N i ∂N j ∂N i ∂N j ⎫
e
K Cij = ∫ ⎨k x + ky + kz ⎬dV : stiffness matrix
Ωe ⎩
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ⎭

(due to conduction)
= ∫ hN
e
K Sij j N i dS : stiffness matrix
∂Ω e S 2

(due to convection)
R efi = ∫ fN dV
Ωe
i : forcing matrix

(due to distributed heat sink)

RSie = ∫ gN dS
∂Ω e S 2
i : forcing matrix

(due to distributed heat outflux)

© 2005 by T. H. Kwon 88
Notes on MWR:

1) Integral by parts reduces the order of derivative in the integrand.

→ lower the order of shape function required.
→ Easier representation of the appropriate solution
2) Integral by parts makes the stiffness matrix symmetric.

(This statement is valid only for self-adjoint operator: ∫ vL(u)dΩ = ∫ uL(v)dΩ)

3) Integral by parts generates the natural boundary condition terms
→ It becomes easy to introduce boundary condition by a simple substitution.
→ More rigorous mathematical interpretation of this substitution is that the
residual on the natural B.C. is incorporated into the weighted residual, i.e.

∫ [L(φ ) − f ]W dΩ − ∫ [B(φ ) − g]⋅ W dS = 0

~ ~ (
i i
Ω S2

Natural boundary condition terms:

Energy equation → energy flux on control volume surface
Static deformation → traction vector on control volume surface
Mass conservation → mass flux on control volume surface
(Such physical quantity appears due to integral by parts.)

)
4) ∫ i dS is not included in the MWR expression. Why?
R
S1
B W

→ φ i = φ i is imposed in the final global matrix equation by one of the methods

described earlier for the essential B.C.

→ Wi = 0 or δy = 0 on S1 .

5) Equivalent nodal force (heat flux) is derived naturally as opposed to the direct
method. (Variational approach has the same merit.)

6) When the variational principle exists, MWR can become exactly the same as the
variational approach. → Both approaches boil down to “Weak form” solution.

© 2005 by T. H. Kwon 89