Finite Element

Procedures

Klaus-Jiirgen Bathe
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

PRENTICE HALL, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458

 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
BATHE, KLAUS-JURGEN.
Finite element procedures / Klaus-JUrgeu Bathe.
p. cm.
Revision of: Finite element procedures in engineering analysis.
1982.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-13-301458-4
1. Finite element method. 2. Engineering mathematics. I. Bathe,
KJaus-JUrgen. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis.
II. Title.
TA347.F5B36 1996
620' .00 I '5 I 535-<lc20 95-1231
CIP

Acquisitions editor: William Stenquist

Production editor: Merrill Peterson
Cover designer: Marianne Frasco
Buyer: William Scazzero
Editorial assistant: Meg Weist

The author and publisher of this book have used their best efforts in preparing
this book. These efforts include the development, research, and testing of the
theories and educational computer programs given .in the book. The author and
publisher make no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, with regard to
any text and the programs contained in this book. The author and publisher
shall not be liable in any event for incidental or consequential damages in
connection with, or arising out of, the furnishing, performance, or use of this
text and these programs.

1996 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Simon & Schuster / A Viacom Company
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, in any form or by any means,
without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

ISBN 0-13-301458-4

PRENTICEHALL iNTERNATIONAL (UK) LIMITED, London

PRENTICE-HALL OF AUSTRALIA PrY. LIMITED, Sydney
PRENTICE-HALL CANADA INC., Toronto
PRENTICE-HALL HISPANOAMERICANA, S.A., Mexico
PRENTICEHALL OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, New Delhi
Tokyo
PRENTICE-HALL OF JAPAN, iNc.,
Singapore
SIMON & SCHUSTER ASIA PrE. LTD.,
EDITORA PRENTICEHALL DO BRASIL, LTDA., Rio de Janeiro
tJN~RSIT-Y o'F
W.A.
L1BRARV
_ CHAPTER ONE

An Introduction
to the Use of Finite
Elemellt Procedures

1.1 INTRODUCTIOI\l

Finite element procedures are at present very widely used in engineering analysis, and we
can expect this use to increase significantly in the years to come. The procedures are
employed extensively in the analysis of solids and structures and of heat transfer and fluids,
and indeed, finite element methods are useful in virtually every field of engineering analysis.
The development of finite element methods for the solution of practical engineering
problems began with the advent of the digital computer. That is, the essence of a finite
element solution of an engineering problem is that a set of governing algebraic equations is
established and solved, and it was only through the use of the digital computer that this
process could be rendered effective and given general applicability. These two properties-
effectiveness and general applicability in engineering analysis-are inherent in the theory
used and have been developed to a high degree for practical computations, so that finite
element methods have found wide appeal in engineering practice.
As is often the case with original developments, it is rather difficult to quote an exact
"date of invention," but the roots of the finite element method can be traced back to three
separate research groups: applied mathematicians-see R. Courant [A]; physicists-see
1. L. Synge [A]; and engineers-see 1. H. Argyris and S. Kelsey [A]. Although in principle
published already, the finite element method obtained its real impetus from the develop-
ments of engineers. The original contributions appeared in the papers by J. H. Argyris and
S. Kelsey [A]; M. 1. Turner, R. W. Clough, H. C. Martin, and L. 1. Topp [A]; and R. W.
Clough [A]. The name "finite element" was coined in the paper by R. W. Clough [A].
Important early contributions were those of 1. H. Argyris [A] and O. C. Zienkiewicz and
Y. K. Cheung [A]. Since the early 1960s, a large amount of research has been devoted to
the technique, and a very large number of publications on the finite element method is

1
 2 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

available (see, for example, the compilation of references by A. K. Noor [A] and the Finite
Element Handbook edited by H. Kardestuncer and D. H. Norrie [A]).
The finite element method in engineering was initially developed on a physical basis
for the analysis of problems in structural mechanics. However, it was soon recognized that
the technique could be applied equally well to the solution of many other classes of
problems. The objective of this book is to present finite element procedures comprehen-
sively and in a broad context for solids and structures, field problems (specifically heat
transfer), and fluid flows.
To introduce the topics of this book we consider three important items in the following
sections of this chapter. First, we discuss the important point thaUn any- analysis we always
e a a hemat 'cal model of a p,hy~ical problem, and then we sol~e that model ~ The finite
element method is ~mplo~d to solve very~m lex m~t]1emiltical !!lod~ls, but it is important
to realize that the finite element solution can never give more information than that
contained in the mathematical model.
Then we discuss the importance of finite element analysis in the complete process of
computer-aided design (CAD). This is where finite element analysis procedures have their
greatest utility and where an engineer is most likely to encounter the use of finite element
methods.
In the last section of this chapter we address the question of how to study finite element
methods. Since a voluminous amount of information has been published on these tech-
niques, it can be rather difficult for an engineer to identify and concentrate on the most
important principles and procedures. Our aim in this section is to give the reader some
guidance in studying finite element analysis procedures and of course also in studying the
various topics discussed in this book.

1.2 PHYSICAL PROBLEMS, MATHEMATICAL MODELS,

AND THE FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION

The finite element method is used to solve physical problems in engineering analysis and
design. Figure 1.1 summarizes the process of finite element analysis. The physical problem
typically involves an actual structure or structural component subjected to certain loads.
'The idealization of the physical problem to a mathema~ca mode reqUIres certain assump-
tions that together lead to differential equations governing the mathematical model (see
Chapter 3). The finite element a.!!:alysis solves this mathematical model. Sinc~ the finite
element solution technigue is a numerifaLp1:9_C_edll[~Jt~~c_e~~<!ry to assess the solution
accuracy. If the accuracy criteria are not met, the numerical (i.e., finite element) solution
has to be re eatecCwith refined
- - - , - -....._-- - - - - -(s~ch
sOlution para meters - asfiner meshes) until a sufficient
.~~~ is reacll~.<i
It is clear that the finite element solution will solve only the selected mathematical
model and that all assumptions in this model will be reflected in the predicted response. We
cannot expect any more information in the prediction of physical phenomena than the
information contained in the mathematical model. Hence the choice of an appropriate
mathematical model is crucial and completely determines the insight into the actual physical
problem that we can obtain by the analysis.
 Sec. 1.2 Physical Problems, Mathematical Models, the Finite Element Solution 3

Change of
I
I Physical problem
I
physical
problem

Mathematical model
Governed by differential equations
Assumptions on
Geometry Improve
Kinematics f--- mathematical ~
Material law model
Loading
Boundary conditions
Etc.
,- ------------------ ----------------------------------1

T
I
I I
I
I
I Finite element solution
I
I Choice of
I
I Finite elements
I
I Mesh density
I
Finite I Solution parameters
element
solution
of
I
I
I
I
I
I
Representation of
Loading
Boundary conditions
I
Refine mesh,
I
mathematical I Etc. solution parameters,
I
model I etc.
I

}---l
I

l
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ielement
'",,,moot oh"",,,VO"O;"
solution of mathematical model
I
I
I
I
,- ------------------ ----------------------------------

I Refine I
I Interpretation of results analysis I

I Design improvements I
l Structural optimization I
Figure 1.1 The process of finite element analysis

Let us emphasize that, by our analysis, we can of course only obtain insight into the
physical problem considered: we cannot predict the response of the physical problem
exactly because it is impossible to reproduce even in the most refined mathematical model
all the information that is present in nature and therefore contained in the physical problem.
'* Qnce a roa.tbe.matical model has been solved accurately and the results have been
interpreted, we may well decide to consider next a refined mathematical model in order to
increase our insigb.t into the response of the physical _problem. Furthermore, a change in the
physical problem may be necessary, and this in turn will also lead to additional mathemat-
ical models and finite element solutions (see Fig. 1.1).
The key step in engineering analysis is therefore choosing appropriate mathematical
models. These models will clearly be selected depending on what phenomena are to be
 4 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

predicted, and it is most important to select mathematical models that are reliable and
effective in predicting the quantities sought.
To define the reliability and effectiveness of a chosen model we think of a very-
comprehensive mathematical model of the physical problem and measure the response of
our chosen model against the response of the comprehensive model. In general, the very-
, comprehensive mathematical model is a fully three-dimensional description that also in-
cludes nonlinear effects.

Effectiveness of a mathematical model

The most effective mathematical model for the analysis is surely that one which yields
the required response to a sufficient accuracy and -at least cost.
Reliability of a mathematical model
The chosen mathematical model is reliable if the required response is known to be
predicted within a selected level of accuracy measured on the response of the very-
comprehensive mathematical model.

Hence to assess the results obtained by the solution of a chosen mathematical model,
it may be necessary to also solve higher-order mathematical models, and we may well think
of (but of course not necessarily solve) a sequence of mathematical models that include
increasingly more complex effects. For example, a beam structure (using engineering termi-
nology) may first be analyzed using Bernoulli beam theory, then Timoshenko beam theory,
then two-dimensional plane stress theory, and finally using a fully three-dimensional
continuum model, and in each case nonlinear effects may be included. Such a sequence of
models is referred to as a hierarchy of models (see K. 1. Bathe, N. S. Lee, and M. L. Bucalem
[AJ). Clearly, with these hierarchical models the analysis will include ever more complex
response effects but will also lead to increasingly more costly solutions, As is well known,
a fully three-dimensional analysis is about an order of magnitude more expensive (in
computer resources and engineering time used) thana two-dimensional solution.
Let us consider a simple example to illustrate these ideas',
Figure 1.2(a) shows a bracket used to support a vertical load. For the analysis, we need
to choose a mathematical model. This choice must clearly depend on what phenomena are
to be predicted and on the geometry, material properties, loading, and support conditions
of the bracket.
We have indicated in Fig. I .2(a) that the bracket is fastened to a very thick steel
column. The description "very thick" is of course rlative to the thickness t and the height
h of the bracket. We translate this statement into the assumption that the bracket is fastened
to a (practically) rigid column. Hence we can focus our attention on the bracket by applying
a "rigid column boundary condition" to it. (Of course, at a later time, an analysis of the
column may be required, and then the loads carried by the two bolts, as a consequence of
the load W, will need to be applied to the column.)
We also assume that the load W is applied very slowly. The condition of time "very
slowly" is relative to the largest natural period of the bracket; that is, the time span over
which the load W is increased from zero to its full value is mu~h longer than the fundamen-
tal period of the bracket. We translate this statement into requiring a static analysis (and not
a dynamic analysis).
Sec. 1.2 Physical Problems, Mathematical Models, the Finite Element Solution 5

With these preliminary considerations we can now establish an appropriate mathe-

matical model for the analysis of the bracket-depending on what phenomena are to be
predicted. Let us assume, in the first instance, that only the total bending moment at section
AA in the bracket and the deflection at the load application are sought. To predict these
quantities, we consider a beam mathematical model including shear deformations [see
Fig. 1.2(b)] and obtain
M = WL
(1.1)
= 27,500 N cm

81 - 1 W(L + rNP W(L + rN)

alioadW - :3 EI
.
+ ~AG
6
(1.2)
= 0.053 cm

Uniform
thickness t w= 1000 N
L = 27.5 cm
rN= 0.5 cm
E =2x10 7 N/cm 2
v = 0.3
h h = 6.0 cm
t = 0.4 cm

,!1 ....
I
rN
t------ L ----~ Pin
:A w

Very thick steel column

(a) Physical problem of steel bracket

/
w= 1000 N

x-----
--------1
h=6cm

:A L+ rN = 28 cm

(b) Beam model

Figure 1.2 Bracket to be analyzed and two mathematical models

6 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

Areas with imposed zero displacements u, v

y, v
Hole
w
Load applied
at point B

z, w x, u
Equilibrium equations (see Example 4.2)

aT
xx
ax
+ aT
xy
ay
= o} . .
In domam of bracket
aTyx + aTyy = 0
ax ay

Tnn =
0, Til/ = on surfaces except at point B
and at imposed zero displacements
Stress-strain relation (see Table 4.3) :

Tn]
[TyyTxy
= _E
1 _ v2
[1 V 1
V
o o ][EXX ]
Eyy

0 0 (1 - v)/2 I'xy
E = Young's modulus, v = Poisson's ratio
Strain-displacement relations (see Section 4.2):
au =-;
av au av
Exx = ax; f yy
ay I'xy = ay + ax
(c) Plane stress model

Figure 1.2 (continued)

where Land rN are given in Fig. 1.2(a) , E is the Young's modulus of the steel used, G is the
shear modulus, I is the moment of inertia of the bracket arm (I = 12 h 3 t), A is the cross-
sectional area (A = ht), and the factor ~ is a shear correction factor (see Section 5.4.1).
Of course, the relations in (1 .t) and (1 .2) assume linear elastic infinitesimal displace-
ment conditions, and hence the load must not be so large as to cause yielding of the material
and/or large displacements.
Let us now ask whether the mathematical model used in Fig. 1.2(b) was reliable and
effective. To answer this question, strictly, we should consider a very-comprehensive math-
ematical model, which in this case would be a fully three-dimensional representation of the
Sec. 1.2 Physical Problems, Mathematical Models, the Finite Element Solution 7

full bracket. This model should include the two bolts fastening the bracket to the (assumed
rigid) column as well as the pin through which the load W is applied. The three-dimensional
solution of this model using the appropriate geometry and material data would give the
numbers against which we would compare the answers given in 0.1) and 0.2). Note that
this three-dimensional mathematical model contains contact conditions (the contact is
between the bolts, the bracket, and the column, and between the pin carrying the load and
the bracket) and stress concentrations in the fillets and at the holes. Also, if the stresses
are high. nonlinear material conditions should be included in the model. Of course, an
analytical solution of this mathematical model is not available, and all we can obtain is a
numerical solution. We describe in this book how such solutions can be calculated using
finite element procedures, but we may note here already that the solution would be rela-
tively expensive in terms of computer resources and engineering time used.
Since the three-dimensional comprehensive mathematical model is very likely too
comprehensive a model (for the analysis questions we have posed), we instead may consider
a linear elastic two-dimensional plane stress model as shown in Fig. I.2(c). This mathemat-
ical model represents the geometry of the bracket more accurately than the beam model and
assumes a two-dimensional stress situation in the bracket (see Section 4.2). The bending
moment at section AA and deflection under the load calculated with this model can be
expected to be quite close to those calculated with the very-comprehensive three-
dimensional model, and certainly this two-dimensional model represents a higher-order
model against which we can measure the adequacy of the results given in (1.1) and 0.2).
Of course, an analytical solution of the model is not available, and a numerical solution must
be sought.
Figures 1.3(a) to (e) show the geometry and the finite element discretization used in
the solution of the plane stress mathematical model and sume stress and displacement
results obtained with this discretization. Let us note the various assumptions of this math-
ematical model when compared to the more comprehensive three-dimensional model dis-
cussed earlier. Since a plane stress condition is assumed, the only n5mzero stresses are Txx,
Tyy, and Txy. Hence we assume that the stresses T", Ty" and T,x are zero. Also, the actual bolt
fastening and contact conditions between the steel column and the bracket are not included

o
(a) Geometry of bracket as obtained from a CAD program

Figure 1.3 Plane stress analysis of bracket in Fig. 1.2. AutoCAD was used to create the
geometry, and ADINA was used for the finite element analysis.
 (b) Mesh of nine-node elements used in finite element dis-
cretization

(c) Deflected shape. Deflections are drawn with a magnifi-

cation factor of 100 together with the original configura-
tion

(d) Maximum principal stress near notch. Un-
smoothed stress results are shown. The small
breaks in the bands indicate that a reasonably
accurate solution of the mathematical model
has been obtained (see Section 4.3.6)
(e) Maximum principal stress near notch.
Smoothed stress results. (The averages of
nodal point stresses are taken and interpo-
lated over the elements.)

Figure 1.3 (continued)

8
Sec. '.2 Physical Problems, lVIathematical lVIodels, the Finite Element Solution 9

in the model, and the pin carrying the load into the bracket-is not modeled. However, since
our objective is only to predict the bending moment at section AA and the deflection at point
B, these assumptions are deemed reasonable and of relatively little influence.
Let us assume that the results obtained in the finite element solution of the mathemat-
ical model are sufficiently accurate that we can refer to the solution given in Fig. 1.3. as the
solution of the plane stress mathematical model.
Figure 1.3(c) shows the calculated deformed configuration. The deflection at the point
of load application B as predicted in the plane stress solution is
lJ lal load W = 0.064 em (1.3)

Also, the total bending moment predicted at section AA is

M Ix~o = 27,500 N em (1.4)

Whereas the same magnitude of bending moment at section AA is predicted by the

beam model and the plane stress model,l the deflection of the beam model is considerably
less than that predicted by the plane stress model [because of the assumption that the beam
in Fig . 1.2(b) is supported rigidly at its left end, which neglects any deformation between
the beam end and the bolts].
Considering these results, we can say that the beam mathematical model in Fig. 1.2(b)
is reliable if the required bending moment is to be predicted within 1 percent and the
deflection is to be predicted only within 20 precent accuracy. The beam model is of course
also effective because the calculations are performed with very little effort.
On the other hand, if we next ask for the maximum stress in the bracket, then the
simple mathematical beam model in Fig. 1.2(b) will not yield a sufficiently accurate answer.
Specifically, the beam model totally neglects the stress increase due to the fillets.2 Hence a
plane stress solution including the fillets is necessary.
The important points to note here are the following .

1. The selection of the mathematical model must depend on the r'esponse to be predicted
(i.e., on the questions asked of nature).
2. The most effective mathematical model is that one which delivers the answers to the
questions in a reliable manner (i.e., within an acceptable error) with the least amount
of effort.
3. A finite element solution can solve accurately only the chosen mathematical model
(e.g., the beam model or the plane stress model in Fig. 1.2) and cannot predict any
more information than that contained in the model.
4. The notion of reliability of the mathematical model hinges upon an accuracy assess-
ment of the results obtained with the chosen mathematical model (in response to the
questions asked) against the results obtained with the very-comprehensive mathemat-
ical model. However, in practice the very-comprehensive mathematical model is
I The bending moment at section AA in the plane stress model is calculated here from the finite element

nodal point forces , and for this statically determinate analysis problem the internal resisting moment must be equal
to the externally applied moment (see Example 4.9).
2 Of course, the effect of the fillets could be estimated by the use of stress concentration factors tha t have
been established from plane stress solutions.
10 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

usually not solved, and instead engineering experience is used, or a more refined
mathematical model is solved, to judge whether the mathematical model used was
adequate (i.e., reliable) for the response to be predicted.

Finally, there is one further important general point. The chosen mathematical model
may contain extremely high stresses because of sharp corners, concentrated loads, or other
effects. These high stresses may be due solely to the simplifications used in the model when
compared with the very-comprehensive mathematical model (or with nature). For example,
the concentrated load in the plane stress model in Fig. 1.2(c) is an idealization of a pressure
load over a small area. (This pressure would in nature be transmitted by the pin carrying
the load into the bracket.) The exact solution of the mathematical model in Fig. 1.2(c) gives
an infinite stress at the point of load application, and we must therefore expect a very large
stress at point B as the finite element mesh is refined. Of course, this very large stress is an
artifice of the chosen model, and the concentrated load should be replaced by a pressure
load over a small area when a very fine discretization is used (see further discussion).
Furthermore, if the model then still predicts a very high stress, a nonlinear mathematical
model would be appropriate.
Note that the concentrated load in the beam model in Fig. 1.2(b) does not introduce
any solution difficulties. Also, the right-angled sharp corners at the support of the beam
model, of course, do not introduce any solution difficulties, whereas such corners in a plane
stress model would introduce infinite stresses. Hence, for the plane stress model, the corners
have to be rounded to more accurately represent the geometry of the actual physical bracket.
We thus realize that the solution of a mathematical model may result in artificial
difficulties that are easily removed by an appropriate change in the mathematical model to
more closely represent the actual physical situation. Furthermore, the choice of a more
encompassing mathematical model may result, in such cases, in a decrease in the required
solution effort.
While these observations are of a general nature, let .'us consider once again,
specifically, the use of concentrated loads. This idealization of load application is exten-
sively used in engineering practice. We now realize that in many mathematical models (and
therefore also in the finite element solutions of these models), such loads create stresses of
infinite value. Hence, we may ask under what conditions in engineering practice solution
difficulties may arise. We find that in practice solution difficulties usually arise only when
the finite element discretization is very fine, and for this reason the matter of infinite stresses
under concentrated loads is frequently ignored. As an e~ample, Fig. 1.4 gives finite element
results obtained in the analysis of a cantilever, modeled as a plane stress problem. The
cantilever is subjected to a concentrated tip load. In prac,tice, the 6 X 1 mesh is usually
considered sufficiently fine, and clearly, a much finer discretization would have to be used
to accurately show the effects of the stress singularities at the point of load application and
at the support. As already pointed out, if such a solution is pursued, it is necessary to change
the mathematical model to more accurately represent the actual physical sit,uation of the
structure. This change in the mathematical model may be important in self-adaptive finite
element analyses because in such analyses new meshes are generated automatically and
artificial stress singularities cause-artificially-extremely fine discretizations.
We refer to these considerations in Section 4.3.4 when we state the general elasticity
problem considered for finite element solution.
 Sec. 1.3 Finite Element Analysis as an Integral Part of Computer-Aided Design 11

W=0.1
/ -.~------------------20--------------------~-

E= 200,000
V=0.30
1.0 -~ :h ickness = 0.1
~----------------------------------------~
T
(a) Geometry, boundary conditions, and material data.
Bernoulli beam theory results: Ii = 0.16, "max = 120

/.
W

'"'"
.....,

>
'V"'"

t-: X

(b) Typical finite element discretization,

6 x 1 mesh of 9-node elements;
results are: b = 0.16, 't max = 116

Figure 1.4 Analysis of a cantilever as a plane stress problem

In summary, we should keep firmly in mind that the crucial step in any finite element
analysis is always choosing an appropriate mathematical model since a finite element
solution solves only this model. Furthermore, the mathematical model must depend on the
analysis questions asked and should be reliable and effective (as defined earlier). In the (
process of analysis, the engineer has to judge whether the chosen mathematical model has
been solved to a sufficient accuracy and whether the chosen mathematical model was
appropriate (i.e., reliable) for the questions asked. Choosing the mathematical model,
solving the model by appropriate finite element procedures, and judging the results are the
fundamental ingredients of an engineering analysis using finite element methods.

1.3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AS AN INTEGRAL PART

OF COIVIPUTER-AIDED DESIGN

Although a most exciting field of activity, engineering analysis is clearly only a support
activity in the larger field of engineering design. The analysis process helps to identify good
new designs and can be used to improve a design with respect to performance and cost.
In the early use of finite element methods, only specific structures were analyzed,
mainly in the aerospace and civil engineering industries. However, once the full potential
of finite element methods was realized and the use of computers increased in engineering
design environments, emphasis in research and develop merit was placed upon making the
use of finite element methods an integral part of the design process in mechanical, civil, and
aeronautical engineering.
12 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

CAD CAM

~
Geometry generation
Numerical control

Robotics

Interactive use
of software
~~"'~.""
Assemblage process
w" ..,'

~ ::.-:
....
Management of process

Figure 1.5 The field of CAD/CAM viewed schematically

Figure 1.5 gives an overview of the steps in a typical computer-aided design process.
Finite element analysis is only a small part of the complete process, but it is an important
part. .
We note that the first step in Figure 1.5 is the creation of a geometric representation
of the design part. Many different computer programs can be employed (e.g., a typical and
popular program is AutoCAD). In this step, the material properties, the applied loading and
boundary conditions on the geometry 'also need to be defined. Given this information, a
finite element analysis may proceed. Since the geometry and other data of the actual
physical part may be quite complex, it is usmilly necessary to simplify the geometry and
loading in order to reach a tractable mathematical model. Of course, the mathematical
model should be reliable and effective for the analysis questions posed, as discussed in the
preceding section. The finite element analysis solves the chosen mathematical model, which
may be changed and evolve depending on the purpose of the analysis (see Fig. 1.1).
Considering tills process-willch generally is and should be performed by engineer-
ing designers and not only specialists in analysis-we recognize that the finite element
methods must be very reliable and robust. By reliability of the finite element methods we
now 3 mean that in the solution of a well-posed mathematical model, the finite element
procedures should always for a reasonable finite element mesh give a reasonable solution,
3 Note that this meaning of "reliability of finite element methods" is different from that of "reliability of a

mathematical model" defined in the previous section.

Sec. 1.3 Finite Element Analysis as an Integral Part of Computer-Aided Design 13

and if the mesh is reasonably fine, an accurate solution should always be obtained. By
robustness of the finite element methods we mean that the performance of the finite element
procedures should not be unduly sensitive to the material data, the boundary conditions,
and the 100lding conditions used . Therefore, finite element procedures that are not robust
will also not be reliable.
For example, assume that in the plane stress solution of the mathematical model in
Fig. 1.2(c), any reasonable finite element discretization using a certain element type is
employed. Then the solution obtained from any such analysis should not be hugely in error,
that is, an order of magnitude larger (or smaller) than the exact solution. Using an unreliable
finite element for the discretization would typically lead to good solutions for some mesh
topologies, whereas with other mesh topologies it would lead to bad solutions. Elements
based on reduced integration with spurious zero energy modes can show this unreliable
behavior (see Section 5.5.6) . .
Similarly, assume that a certain finite element discretization of a mathematical model
gives accurate results for one set of material parameters and that a small change in the
parameters corresponds to a small change in the exact solution of the mathematical model.
Then the same finite element discretization should also give accurate results for the math-
ematical model with the small change in material parameters and not yield results that are
very much in error.
These considerations regarding effective finite element discretizations are very im-
portant and are discussed in the presentation of finite element discretizations and their
stability and convergence properties (see Chapters 4 to 7). For use in engineering design,
it is of utmost importance that the finite element methods be reliable, robust, and of course
efficient. Reliability and robustness are important because a designer has relatively little
time for the process of analysis and must be able to obtain an accurate solution of the chosen
mathematical model quickly and without "trial and error." The use of unreliable finite
element methods is simply unacceptable in engineering practice.
An important ingredient of a finite element analysis is the qlculation of error esti-
mates, that is, estimates of how closely the finite elemeht solution approximates the exact
solution of the mathematical model (see Section 4.3.6). These estimates indicate whether a
specific finite element discretization has indeed yielded an accurate response prediction, and
a designer can then rationally dec~de whether the given results should be used. In the case
that unacceptable results have been obtained using unreliable finite element methods, the
difficulty is of course how to obtain accurate results.
Finally, we venture to comment on the future of finite element methods in computer-
aided design. Surely, many engineering designers do not have time to study finite element
methods in depth or finite element procedures in general. Their sole objective is to use these
techniques to enhance the design product. Hence the integrated use of finite element meth-
ods in CAD in the future will probably involve to an increasingly smaller degree the scrutiny
of finite element meshes during the analysis process. Instead, we expect that in linear elastic
static analysis the finite element solution process will be automatized such that, given a
mathematical model to be solved, the finite element meshes will be automatically created,
the solution will be calculated with error estimates, and depending on the estimated errors
and the desired solution accuracy, the finite element discretization will be automatically
refined (without the analyst or the designer ever seeing a finite element mesh) until the
required solution accuracy has been attained. In this automatic analysis process-in which
 14 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

of course the engineer must still choose the appropriate mathematical model for analysis-
the engineer can concentrate on the design aspects while using analysis tools with great
efficiency and benefit. While this design and analysis environment will be commonly
available for linear elastic static analysis, the dynamic or nonlinear analysis of structures
and fluids will probably still require from the engineer a greater degree of involvement and
expertise in finite element methods for many years to come.
With these remarks we do not wish to suggest overconfidence but to express a realistic
outlook with respect to the valuable and exciting future use of finite element procedures. For
some remarks on overconfidence in regard to finite element methods (which are still
pertinent after almost two decades), see the article "A Commentary on Computational
Mechanics" by 1. T. Oden and K. 1. Bathe [A].

1.4 A PROPOSAL 01\1 HOW TO STUDY FII\IITE ELEMENT METHODS

With a voluminous number of publications available on the use and development of finite
element procedures, it may be rather difficult for a student or teacher to identify an effective
plan of study. Of course, such a plan must depend on the objectives of the study and the time
available.
In very general terms, there are two different objectives:

1. To learn the proper use of finite element methods for the solution of complex prob-
lems, and
2. To understand finite element methods in depth so as to be able to pursue research on
finite element methods.

This book has been written to serve students with either objective, recognizing that
the population of students with objective 1 is the much larger one and that frequently a
student may first study finite element methods with objective 1 and then develop an increas-
ing interest in the methods and also pursue objective 2. While a student with objective 2 will
need to delve still much deeper into the subject matter than we do in this book, it is hoped
that this book will provide a strong basis for such further study and that the "philosophy"
of this text (see Section 1.3) with respect to the use of and research into finite element
methods will be valued.
Since this book has not been written to provide a broad survey of finite element
methods-indeed, for a survey, a much more comprehensive volume would be necessary-
it is clearly biased toward a particular way of introducing finite element procedures and
toward only certain finite element procedures.
The finite element methods that we concentrate on in this text are deemed to be
effective techniques that can be used (and indeed are abundantly used) in engineering
practice. The methods are also considered basic and important and will probably be em-
ployed for a long time to come.
The issue of what methods should be used, and can be best used in engineering
practice, is important in that only reliable techniques should be employed (see Section 1.3),
and this book concentrates on the discussion of only such methods.
Sec. 1.4 A Proposal on How to Study Finite Element Methods 15

In introducing finite element procedures we endeavor to explain the basic concepts

and equations with emphasis on physical explanations. Also, short examples are given to
demonstrate the basic concepts used, and exercises are provided for hand calculations and
the use of a finite element computer program.
The preceding thoughts lead to our proposal for the study of finite element procedures.
If objective 1 is being pursued, the reader will be mostly interested in the basic formulations,
the properties of the finite elements and solution algorithms, and issues of convergence and
efficiency.
An important point to keep in mind is that numerical finite element procedures are
used to solve a mathematical model (with some reasonably small solution errors) (see
Section 1.2). Hence, it is important for the user of a finite element computer program to
always be able to judge the quality of the finite element results obtained in a solution. We
demonstrate in this book how such judging is properly performed.
However, if objective 2 is being pursued, much more depth in the formulations and
numerical algorithms must be acquired. This text provides a broad basis for such study (but
of course does not give all details of derivations and implementations).
In either case, we believe that for a study of finite element methods, it is effective to
use a finite element computer program while learning about the theory and numerical
procedures. Then, at the same time as the theoretical concepts are being studied on paper,
it will be possible to test and demonstrate these concepts on a computer.
Based on this book, various courses can be taught depending on the aim of the
instruction. A first course would be "Introduction to Finite Element Analysis," which could
be based on Sections 1.1 to 1.4,2.1 to 2.3,3.1 to 3.4, 4.1 to 4.3,5.1 to 5.3, and 8.1 to 8.2.2.
A more advanced course would be "Finite Element Procedures," based on Sec-
tions 1.1. to 1.4,3.1,3.3,4.1 to 4.4,5.1 to 5.6, and 8.1 to 8.3.
A course on finite element methods for dynamic analysis would be "Computer Meth-
ods in Dynamics" and could be based on Sections 1.1 to 1.4,2.1 to 2.7,3.1,3.3,4.1,4.2,
5.1 to 5.3, 8.1 to 8.2.2, 9.1 to 9.4, 10.1, 10.2, 11.1,11.2.1, 11.3.1, and 11.6.
A course emphasizing the continuum mechanics principles for linear and nonlinear
finite element analysis would be "Theory and Practice of Continuum Mechanics," which
could be based on Sections 1.1 to 1.4,3.1,3.3,4.1,4.2.1,4.2.2,5.1,5.2,5.3.1,5.3.3,5.3.5,
6.1,6.2,6.3.1,6.3.2,6.4.1,6.6, 7.1, and 7.4.
A course on the analysis of field problems and fluid flows would be "Finite Element
Analysis of Heat Transfer, Field Problems, and Fluid Flows," based on Sections 1.1 to 1.4,
3.1,3.3,7.1 to 7.4,5.3,5.5, and 4.5.1 to 4.5.6. Note that the presentation in this course
would first provide the finite element formulations (Sections 7.1 to 7.4) and then numerical
procedures and mathematical results.
A course on nonlinear finite element analysis of solids and structures would be
"Nonlinear Analysis of Solids and Structures" and could be based on Sections 1.1 to 1.4,
6.1 to 6.8, 8.1, and 8.4.
A course on the numerical methods used in finite element analysis would be
"Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis," which could be based on Sections 1.1 to
1.4,2.1 to 2.7, 4.1, 4.2.1, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 8.1 to 8.4, 9.1 to 9.6,10.1 to 10.3, and 11.1 to 11.6.
And, finally, a course on more theoretical aspects of finite element analysis could be
offered, entitled "Theoretical Concepts of Finite Element Analysis," based on Sections 1.1
to 1.4,4.1 to 4.5, and 5.1 to 5.5.
16 An Introduction to the Use of Finite Element Procedures Chap. 1

In addition, in most of these courses, the material in Chapter 12 would be useful.

In general, such courses are best taught with homework that includes problem solu-
tions, as suggested in the exercise sections of this book, as well as the completion of a
project in which a finite element computer program is used.
Various projects are proposed in the exercise sections of this book. One type of project
requires the student to use the program STAP and to modify this program for certain new
capabilities as suggested in Section 12.5. Such a project would be of value to students
interested in learning about the actual detailed implementation of finite element methods.
The other type of project is based on the use of a standard (commercial) finite element
program-as it might be employed in engineering practice-to analyze an interesting
physical problem. A valuable way to then proceed is to first solve a mathematical model for
which an analytical exact solution is known and then introduce complicating features in the
mathematical model that require a numerical solution. In this way, studies using different
finite element discretizations and solution procedures in which the results are evaluated
against a known exact solution can first be performed, which establishes confidence in the
use of the methods. The required expertise and confidence then become valuable assets in
the finite element solution of more complicated mathematical models.
It is of particular importance during the study of finite element procedures that good
judgment be developed and exercised concerning the quality of any finite element solution
and of any mathematical model considered. Of course, exercising such judgments requires
that the analyst be sufficiently familiar with possible mathematical models and available
finite element procedures, and this aspect stimulates learning about mathematical models
and methods of solution. The value of using a finite element computer code-the program
STAP or a commercial finite element program as previously mentioned-is clearly in
stimulating the process of learning and in reinforcing the understanding of what has been
learned in class and from homework problem solutions. Using a powerful analysis program,
in particular, also adds to the excitement of actually solving complicated analysis problems
that heretofore could not be tackled.