Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2u 2u 2u
f ( x, y , z )
x 2
y 2
z 2 On region R
u 0 on boundary S
Strong Form Lu = f
(Lu f ) w d V 0
R
Weak Form for 2-D Poisson’s Equation
2u 2u
f ( x, y )
x 2
y 2 On region S
u0 on boundary C
Weak form
2u 2u
2 2 w d xdy f w d xdy
S x y S
Integrate by parts
0 0
u w u w u u
S x x y y
d xd y C y w d x C x w d y S f w d xdy
1 N i 1 N i
1 x
U ... U N
x x
U1
y
... U N
y y
d xdy
S
f i dxdy
s
K ij U j Fi
j
Galerkin’s Method for 2-D Poisson’s Equation
[K]U = F
i j i j
K ij d xd y K ji
S
x x y y
Fi f i dxdy
S
[K] is symmetric and positive definite
Comments on Galerkin’s Method
• Galerkin is more general than Rayleigh-Ritz. If we add u/x, symmetry
& the variational principle are lost, but Galerkin still works
• If w is chosen as Dirac delta functions at N points, weighted residuals
reduces to the collocation method
• If w is chosen as the residual functions Lu-f, weighted residuals reduces
to the least squares method
• By choosing w to be the approximating functions, Galerkin’s method
requires the error (residual) in the solution to be orthogonal to the
approximating space.
• The integration by parts (Green-Gauss theorem) automatically
introduces the Neumann (natural) boundary conditions
• The Dirichlet (essential) boundary conditions must be satisifed explicitly
when solving [K]U=F
• Since discretized integrals are sums, contributions from many elements
are assembled into the global stiffness matrix by addition.
• The Ritz-Galerkin FEM finds the approximate solution that minimizes the
error in the energy
V-5-1 Approximate Methods
L[u ] in 0 D
+homo. b.c’s in B
Assume approx. solution
n
u un Cii
i 1
where each trial function i satisfies the b.c’s
The residual
Rn L[un ]
In this
method (MWR), Ci are chosen such that Rn is forced to be zero in an average
sense.
Galerkin method force the residual to be zero w.r.t. an orthogonal complete set.
2 2
0 on x a , y a
(i) one – term approximation
1 c1 ( x 2 a 2 )( y 2 a 2 )
Ri 2 1 2 2c1[( x a)2 ( y a)2 ] 2
1 ( x 2 a 2 )( y 2 a 2 )
9
a a
From
a a
R11dxdy 0
5 1
c1
8 a2
therefore
5
1 2
( x 2
a 2
)( y 2
a 2
)
8a
the torsional rigidity
Da 0.1406G (2a) 4
the error is only -1.2%
10
(ii) two – term approximation
2 ( x 2 a 2 )( y 2 a 2 )[c1 c2 ( x 2 y 2 )]
By symmetry → even functions
R2 2 2
1 ( x 2 a 2 )( y 2 a 2 )
2 ( x 2 a 2 )( y 2 a 2 )( x 2 y 2 )
From
R
R21dxdy 0
and
R
R22 dxdy 0
we obtain
1295 1 525 1
c1 , c2
2216 a 2 4432 a 2
therefore
12
Assuming that
y x 1 x c1 c 2 x c3 x 2
(1)One-term approx
y c1 x 1 x c1 x x 2 y c1 1 2 x
1 2 x 2 2 2
Then, 1 0 1 1 1
1
I c c 1 4 x 4 x 2
c x 2 x 3
x 4
c x x x dx
2 2
c12 4 c12 1 2 1 1 1 19 c 2 c1
1 2 c1 1
2 3 2 4 5 6 3 4 120 12
I 19 1
0 c1 0 c1 0.263 y (1) 0.263x(1 x)
c1 60 12
(2)Two-term approx
y x(1 x)(c1 c2 x) c1 ( x x 2 ) c2 ( x 2 x3 )
13
Then y c1 (1 2 x) c2 (2 x 3x 2 )
1 2
I (c1 , c2 ) [ c1 1 4 x 4 x 2 2c1c2 2 x 7 x 2 6 x 3
1
0 2
1 2 3
2 2 3 4
2
c3 (4x 12x 9x ) c1 x 2x4 x5 2c1c2 x4 2x5 x6
c2 2 ( x 5 2 x 6 x 7 ) c1 x 2 x3 c2 x3 x 4 ]dx
c12 4 1 2 1 7 3 1 1 1
1 2 c1c2 1
2 3 4 5 6 3 2 5 3 7
c12 4 9 1 2 9 c c
3 1 2
2 3 5 6 7 8 12 20
19 2 11 107 2 c1 c2
c1 c1c2 c2
120 70 1680 12 20
14
I 19 11 1
0 c1 c2
c1 60 70 12
I 11 109 1
0 c1 c2
c2 70 840 20
0.317 c1 + 0.127 c2 = 0.05 c = 0.177 , c
1 2 = 0.173
( It is noted that the deviation between the successive approxs. y(1) and y(2) is
found to be smaller in magnitude than 0.009 over (0,1) )
15