MIXED FINITE ELEMENTS FOR PLATES. Ricardo G. Durán Universidad de Buenos Aires

Similar documents
Some New Elements for the Reissner Mindlin Plate Model

Two Nonconforming Quadrilateral Elements for the Reissner-Mindlin Plate

ANALYSIS OF A MIXED-SHEAR-PROJECTED QUADRILATERAL ELEMENT METHOD FOR REISSNER-MINDLIN PLATES

Locking phenomena in Computational Mechanics: nearly incompressible materials and plate problems

PREPRINT 2010:23. A nonconforming rotated Q 1 approximation on tetrahedra PETER HANSBO

Finite Elements for Elastic Shell Models in

ANALYSIS OF A LINEAR LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT FOR THE REISSNER MINDLIN PLATE MODEL

ANALYSIS OF SOME LOW ORDER QUADRILATERAL REISSNER-MINDLIN PLATE ELEMENTS

ANALYSIS OF MIXED FINITE ELEMENTS FOR LAMINATED COMPOSITE PLATES

ERROR ESTIMATES FOR LOW-ORDER ISOPARAMETRIC QUADRILATERAL FINITE ELEMENTS FOR PLATES

Mixed Finite Element Methods. Douglas N. Arnold, University of Minnesota The 41st Woudschoten Conference 5 October 2016

ABHELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

A NEW CLASS OF MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR REISSNER MINDLIN PLATES

ENERGY NORM A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

A-priori and a-posteriori error estimates for a family of Reissner-Mindlin plate elements

QUADRILATERAL H(DIV) FINITE ELEMENTS

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

A Mixed Nonconforming Finite Element for Linear Elasticity

INNOVATIVE FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR PLATES* DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD

Dominique Chapelle 1, Anca Ferent 1 and Patrick Le Tallec 2

b i (x) u + c(x)u = f in Ω,

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

ENERGY NORM A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

A UNIFORMLY ACCURATE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR THE REISSNER MINDLIN PLATE*

Least-squares Finite Element Approximations for the Reissner Mindlin Plate

Numerical analysis of a locking-free mixed finite element method for a bending moment formulation of Reissner-Mindlin plate model

A primer on Numerical methods for elasticity

LECTURE # 0 BASIC NOTATIONS AND CONCEPTS IN THE THEORY OF PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS (PDES)

Basic Principles of Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for PDEs

A multipoint flux mixed finite element method on hexahedra

MULTIGRID PRECONDITIONING IN H(div) ON NON-CONVEX POLYGONS* Dedicated to Professor Jim Douglas, Jr. on the occasion of his seventieth birthday.

On the Justification of Plate Models

NONCONFORMING MIXED ELEMENTS FOR ELASTICITY

Geometry-dependent MITC method for a 2-node iso-beam element

Some Remarks on the Reissner Mindlin Plate Model

Finite Element Method in Geotechnical Engineering

Numerische Mathematik

Bilinear Quadrilateral (Q4): CQUAD4 in GENESIS

arxiv: v1 [math.na] 27 Jan 2016

MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR PROBLEMS WITH ROBIN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

A Locking-Free MHM Method for Elasticity

Mathematical modelling and numerical analysis of thin elastic shells

Uniform inf-sup condition for the Brinkman problem in highly heterogeneous media

Questions (And some Answers) (And lots of Opinions) On Shell Theory

Finite Element Approximation of Piezoelectric Plates

GEOMETRIC NONLINEAR ANALYSIS

arxiv: v1 [math.na] 2 Nov 2018

ICES REPORT A Generalized Mimetic Finite Difference Method and Two-Point Flux Schemes over Voronoi Diagrams

3D-SHELL ELEMENTS AND THEIR UNDERLYING MATHEMATICAL MODEL

THE PATCH RECOVERY FOR FINITE ELEMENT APPROXIMATION OF ELASTICITY PROBLEMS UNDER QUADRILATERAL MESHES. Zhong-Ci Shi and Xuejun Xu.

ME FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FORMULAS

Yongdeok Kim and Seki Kim

A DECOMPOSITION RESULT FOR BIHARMONIC PROBLEMS AND THE HELLAN-HERRMANN-JOHNSON METHOD

On the characterization of drilling rotation in the 6 parameter resultant shell theory

A Robust Approach to Minimizing H(div)-Dominated Functionals in an H 1 -Conforming Finite Element Space

Constitutive models. Constitutive model: determines P in terms of deformation

A u + b u + cu = f in Ω, (1.1)

Solutions of Selected Problems

Lecture Note III: Least-Squares Method

AMS subject classifications. Primary, 65N15, 65N30, 76D07; Secondary, 35B45, 35J50

Chapter 5 A priori error estimates for nonconforming finite element approximations 5.1 Strang s first lemma

c 2008 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL-TYPE A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR LINEAR PROBLEMS IN SOLID MECHANICS. Maksim Frolov

MORTAR MULTISCALE FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR STOKES-DARCY FLOWS

Chapter 6 2D Elements Plate Elements

Tangential-Displacement and Normal-Normal-Stress Continuous Mixed Finite Elements for Elasticity

An a posteriori error estimate and a Comparison Theorem for the nonconforming P 1 element

Finite element approximation on quadrilateral meshes

MIXED FINITE ELEMENTS, COMPATIBILITY CONDITIONS AND APPLICATIONS

Discontinuous Petrov-Galerkin Methods

A WEAK GALERKIN MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR BIHARMONIC EQUATIONS

HEXAHEDRAL H(DIV) AND H(CURL) FINITE ELEMENTS

A HIGHER-ORDER BEAM THEORY FOR COMPOSITE BOX BEAMS

Simple Examples on Rectangular Domains

A NOTE ON THE LADYŽENSKAJA-BABUŠKA-BREZZI CONDITION

Optimal thickness of a cylindrical shell under dynamical loading

INTRODUCTION TO STRAIN

A posteriori error estimates for non conforming approximation of eigenvalue problems

A NEW STABILIZED ONE POINT INTEGRATED SHEAR ELASTIC PLATE ELEMENT

A posteriori error estimation in the FEM

Error estimates for the Raviart-Thomas interpolation under the maximum angle condition

SUPERCONVERGENCE PROPERTIES FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS DISCRETIZED BY PIECEWISE LINEAR AND DISCONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS

WEAK GALERKIN FINITE ELEMENT METHODS ON POLYTOPAL MESHES

Basic Concepts of Adaptive Finite Element Methods for Elliptic Boundary Value Problems

ENHANCED STRAIN METHODS FOR ELASTICITY PROBLEMS

Advances in Engineering Software

A super convergent hybridisable discontinuous Galerkin method for linear elasticity

Chapter 5 Structural Elements: The truss & beam elements

UNCONVENTIONAL FINITE ELEMENT MODELS FOR NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF BEAMS AND PLATES

Virtual Element Methods for general second order elliptic problems

A Subspace Correction Method for Discontinuous Galerkin Discretizations of Linear Elasticity Equations

Introduction to finite element exterior calculus

A SECOND ELASTICITY ELEMENT USING THE MATRIX BUBBLE WITH TIGHTENED STRESS SYMMETRY

Scientific Computing WS 2018/2019. Lecture 15. Jürgen Fuhrmann Lecture 15 Slide 1

A DELTA-REGULARIZATION FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR A DOUBLE CURL PROBLEM WITH DIVERGENCE-FREE CONSTRAINT

Adaptive Finite Element Methods Lecture Notes Winter Term 2017/18. R. Verfürth. Fakultät für Mathematik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Overview. A Posteriori Error Estimates for the Biharmonic Equation. Variational Formulation and Discretization. The Biharmonic Equation

A Stable Mixed Finite Element Scheme for the Second Order Elliptic Problems

ABHELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Steps in the Finite Element Method. Chung Hua University Department of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Ching I Chen

Transcription:

MIXED FINITE ELEMENTS FOR PLATES Ricardo G. Durán Universidad de Buenos Aires - Necessity of 2D models. - Reissner-Mindlin Equations. - Finite Element Approximations. - Locking. - Mixed interpolation or reduced integration. - General Error Analysis. - L 2 Error estimates - Examples. 1

2 Why do we need to use 2D models if 3D elasticity can be solved by FE? 3D ELASTICITY EQUATIONS D IR 3 Initial configuration of elastic solid. u = (u 1, u 2, u 3 ) Displacement. ε ij (u) = 2( 1 ui x + u ) j j x Strain tensor. i 2µ D ε(u) : ε(v)+λ D div udiv v = v V H 1 (D) 3 D f v+ g v Γ Coercivity of this bilinear form follows from Korn s inequality : u 1 K ε(u) 0 Under appropriate boundary conditions.

3 Remark 1. : The constant K depends on the geometry of D. RECALL CEA S LEMMA: If u is the exact solution and u h the FE approximation then, u u h 1 M α u v h 1 v h V h where M and α are the continuity and coercivity constants of the bilinear form. In our problem α depends on the Korn s constant K. If K is too large then α is too small and the constant in Cea s Lemma is large.

Consider a PLATE of thickness t: 4 D = Ω ( t/2, t/2) where Ω IR 2 and t > 0, with t small in comparison with the dimensions of Ω. In this case: CONSEQUENCE: K = O(t 1 ) THE METHOD IS NOT EFFICIENT: VERY SMALL MESH SIZE WILL BE NEEDED! This is a serious computational drawback specially in 3D. SOLUTION: USE 2D MODELS!

REISSNER-MINDLIN EQUATIONS 5 Ω IR 2 D = Ω ( t/2, t/2) Displacements are approximated by u 1 (x, y, z) zθ 1 (x, y) u 2 (x, y, z) zθ 2 (x, y) u 3 (x, y, z) w(x, y) θ 1, θ 2 rotations, w transverse displacement. Assuming a transverse load of the form t 3 f(x, y) and a that the plate is clamped, θ = (θ 1, θ 2 ) and w satisfy the system of equations:

6 a(θ, η) + κt 2 ( w θ, v η) = (f, v) η H 1 0 (Ω)2, v H 1 0 (Ω). E a(θ, η) := 12(1 ν 2 [(1 ν)ε(θ)ε(η) ) Ω +νdiv θdiv η], E Young modulus, ν Poisson ratio, κ := Ek/2(1 + ν) shear modulus, k correction factor usually taken as 5/6. We change notation and keep only the parameter t. So, our equations are a(θ, η) + t 2 ( w θ, v η) = (f, v) For our purposes, the only important fact about a is that it is coercive in H0 1 (which follows from the 2D Korn inequality). We will not make other use of the explicit form o a.

The deformation energy is given by 1 t 2 a(θ, θ) + w θ 2 fw 2 2 Ω Ω It can be shown that the second term remains bounded when t 0. In particular, 7 t 0 w θ 0 For the limit problem: w = θ Kirchkoff constraint THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR THE NUMER- ICAL SOLUTION! If t is small the problem is close to a constrained minimization problem. FOR EXAMPLE: If we use standard P 1 finite elements for θ and w, the restriction of the limit problem is too strong.

Indeed, if 8 w h = θ h then, w h piecewise constant and continuous But, w h constant θ h H 1 0 (Ω)2 w h = θ h = 0 CONSEQUENCE: For t small θ h, w h 0. This is called LOCKING Remark 2. : Indeed, now the continuity constant of the bilinear form is too large. It seems that we have a problem similar to the original 3D problem! AND SO, WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF USING THE 2D MODEL?

9 SOLUTION: Mixed Interpolation or Reduced Integration. IDEA: Relax the restriction of the limit problem. w θ = 0 replaced by Π( w θ) = 0 Π is some interpolation or projection onto some space Γ h. So, in the discrete problem, the restriction is verified only at some points or in some average sense. FINITE ELEMENT APPROXIMATION: θ h H h H0 1 (Ω)2, w h W h H0 1 (Ω) are such that a(θ h, η)+t 2 (Π( w h θ h ), Π( v η)) = (f, v) η H h, v W h

In the usual methods 10 So, W h Γ h a(θ h, η)+t 2 ( w h Πθ h, v Πη) = (f, v) η H h, v W h MIXED FORM: Introducing the shear stress γ = t 2 ( w θ) { a(θh, η) + (γ h, v Πη) = (f, v) γ h = t 2 ( w h Πθ h ) η H h, v W h

11 MAIN PROBLEM: How to choose the spaces H h, W h, Γ h and the operator Π? EXAMPLE: The Bathe-Dvorkin MITC4 rectangular elements (Mixed Interpolation Tensorial Components). H h and W h are the standard Q 1 elements and Γ h is locally defined by (a + by, c + dx) (is a rotated Raviart-Thomas space). The operator Π is defined by Πη t l = η t l l for all side l of an element, where t l is the unit tangent vector on l. l

GENERAL ERROR ANALYSIS Continuous problem: 12 { a(θ, η) + (γ, v Πη) = (f, v) + (γ, η Πη) γ = t 2 ( w θ) η H 1 0 (Ω)2, v H 1 0 (Ω) Discrete Problem: { a(θh, η) + (γ h, v Πη) = (f, v) γ h = t 2 ( w h Πθ h ) η H h, v W h Error equation: a(θ θ h, η) + (γ γ h, v Πη) = (γ, η Πη) η H h, v W h

13 Lemma 1. Let θ I H h, w I W h and γ I = t 2 ( w I Πθ I ) Γ h. Suppose and γ Πγ 0 Ch γ 1 (γ Πγ, η) = 0 η P 2 k 2 Let P be the L 2 projection into P 2 k 2. Then, θ θ h 1 + t γ γ h 0 C( θ I θ 1 +t γ I γ 0 +h γ Pγ 0 Proof. a(θ I θ h, η) + (γ I γ h, v Πη) = a(θ I θ, η)+(γ I γ, v Πη)+(γ, η Πη) η H h, v W h Take η = θ I θ h and v = w I w h. So, γ I γ h = t 2 ( v Πη) Using the coercivity of a we obtain θ I θ h 2 1 + t2 γ I γ h 2 0

= a(θ I θ, θ I θ h ) + t 2 (γ I γ, γ I γ h ) +(γ P γ, θ I θ h Π(θ I θ h )) and the lemma follows. To apply the Lemma we need to find approximations θ I and w I such that the associated γ I be also a good approximation. This will follow from the existence of approximations satisfying the following property 14 and w I Πθ I = Π( w θ) θ θ I 1 Ch k θ k+1 γ Πγ 0 Ch k γ k This property can be seen as a generalization of the known Fortin property basic in the analysis of mixed methods. In fact, introducing the operators I(θ, w) = (θ I, w I ) B(θ, w) = w θ

and B h (θ h, w h ) = w h Πθ the property can be summarized by the following commutative diagram: 15 (H0 1)2 H0 1 I B (L 2 ) 2 Π H h W h B h Γ h When Π is an L 2 projection, this is exactly the Fortin property, which is known to be equivalent to the inf-sup condition. This will be the case in one of our examples (the Arnold-Falk elements). In that case error estimates for the shear stress γ can also be obtained. Remark 3. Indeed it is enough to have the commutative diagram with Π replaced by some operator with good approximation properties.

16 If approximations satisfying the properties above (i.e, commutative diagram + approximation properties) exist, then it follows from the Lemma: ERROR ESTIMATES θ θ h 1 + t γ γ h 0 + w w h 1 Ch k ( θ k+1 + t γ k + γ k 1 ) With constant C independent of h and t. EXAMPLES Example 1: MITC3 or DL element: H h : P 2 1 {λ 2λ 3 t 1, λ 3 λ 1 t 2, λ 1 λ 2 t 3 }, C 0 Degrees of freedom: θ(v i ), l i θ t i W h : P 1 C 0 Γ h : (a by, c + bx) C 0 t. c. Degrees of freedom: l i γ t i Π defined by

17 l Πγ t = l γ t Example 2: Arnold-Falk element: H h : P1 2 {λ 1λ 2 λ 3 }, C 0 Degrees of freedom: θ(v i ), T θ W h : P 1 Non Conforming Degrees of freedom: l w Γ h : P 2 0 Π defined by L 2 -projection! T Πγ = T γ Error estimates for Examples 1 and 2: θ θ h 1 + w w h 1 Ch Example 3: Bathe-Brezzi second order rectangular elements:

H h : Q 2, C 0 W h : Q r 2 : {1, x, y, xy, x2, y 2, x 2 y, xy 2 }, C 0 Γ h : {1, x, y, xy, y 2 } {1, x, y, xy, x 2 } Π defined by { l Πγ tp 1 = l γ tp 1 R Πγ = R γ Error estimates: 18 θ θ h 1 + w w h 1 Ch 2 Remark 4. Here the constant C is NOT independent of t because the right hand side involves higher order norms of the solution which depend on t.

L 2 - ERROR ESTIMATES 19 θ θ h 0 + w w h 0 Ch 2 Recall the error equation a(θ θ h, η)+(γ γ h, v Rη) = (γ, η Rη) (η, v) H h W h, Duality argument: (ϕ, u) H 1 0 (Ω)2 H 1 0 (Ω) solution of a(η, ϕ) + ( v η, δ) = (v, w w h ) + (η, θ θ h ) δ = t 2 ( u ϕ). (η, v) H 1 0 (Ω)2 H 1 0 (Ω), A priori estimate (we assume Ω is convex) ϕ 2 + u 2 + δ 0 + t δ 1 C( θ θ h 0 + w w h 0 ),

20 Take v = w w h and η = θ θ h in the dual problem and use the error equation with (η, v) = (ϕ I, u I ): w w h 2 0 + θ θ h 2 0 = a(θ θ h, ϕ ϕ I ) + t 2 (γ γ h, δ Πδ) + (θ h Rθ h, δ) + (γ, ϕ I Πϕ I ), where we have used the commutative diagram property Πδ = t 2 ( u I Πϕ I ). PROBLEM: The last two terms. For the MITC3 elements we have: Lemma 2. If γ H(div, Ω), ψ H 1 0 (Ω) and ψ A is a piecewise-linear average interpolant: (γ, ψ A Πψ A ) Ch 2 div γ 0 ψ 1

ISOPARAMETRIC ELEMENTS 21 F K : ˆK K ˆK = (0, 1) (0, 1): reference element K: shape regular quadrilateral F K : Q 2 1 transformation W h : Standard isoparametric Q 1 elements: v F K = (a + bˆx + cŷ + dˆxŷ) Γ h : Rotated Raviart-Thomas elements: η F K = DF T K (a + bŷ, c + dˆx) The operator Π is defined by Πη t l = η t l l for all side l of an element, where t l is the unit tangent vector on l. For H h we consider two cases: l

MITC4: Standard Q 2 1 isoparametric elements DL4: Q 2 1 p 1, p 2, p 3, p 4 p i = (ˆp i F 1 K )t i ˆp i is a cubic polynomial vanishing on ˆl j, j i. ERROR ESTIMATES 22 θ θ h 1 + t γ γ h 0 + w w h 1 Ch( θ 2 + t γ 1 + γ 0 ) ASSUMPTIONS: For DL4 general shape regular meshes. For MITC4 the mesh T h is a refinement of a coarser T 2h obtained by joining the edge midpoints and T 2h is obtained in the same way from T 4h. L 2 - ERROR ESTIMATES θ θ h 0 + w w h 0 Ch 2 ASSUMPTION: Asymptotically parallelogram meshes.