On the Variational Foundations of

J. C. Simo1
Assistant Professor.
T.J. R. Hughes
Professor and Chairman of
Applied Mechanics.
Division of Applied Mechanics,
Stanford University,
Stanford, Calif. 94305
Assumed Strain Methods
So-called assumed strain methods are based on the a-priori assumption of an inter-
polation for the discrete gradient operator, not necessarily derivable from the
displacement interpolation. It is shown that this class of methods falls within the
class of variational methods based on the Hu- Washizu principle. The essential point
of this equivalence lies in the statement of the appropriate stress recovery procedure
compatible with this variational structure. It is noted that most currently existing
assumed strain methods fail to perform the stress recovery in a manner consistent
with the variational structure discussed herein. Application is made to recently pro-
posed methods such as mode decomposition techniques.

1 Introduction
The denomination "assumed strain methods" is intended to
encompass a variety of finite element procedures, often pro-
posed on an ad-hoc basis, which are typically characterized by
an interpolation of the discrete gradient operator assumed a-
priori, independently of the interpolation adopted for the
displacement field. The often referred to "5-bar procedure",
proposed by Hughes [1], offers an example of an assumed
strain method which has proven successful in a variety of
situations, including widely used structural elements [3]. For
the finite strain incompressible problem, this method has
recently been precisely reformulated by Simo et al. [6] within
the context of the Hu-Washizu principle. The so-called mode
decomposition technique, proposed by Belytschko and co-
workers (e.g., [1, 7]), furnishes another example of a 5-bar
type of method that leads to the formulation of successful
structural elements.
The purpose of this paper is to show that assumed strain
methods can be systematically formulated within the varia-
tional framework furnished by the Hu-Washizu principle. A
crucial point in this development concerns the role played by
the stress field, now entering the formulation as a Lagrange
multiplier, and its recovery within the proposed variational
structure.
It is first noted that the Lagrange multipliers drop out from
the formulation leading to a generalized displacement model,
provided a certain orthogonality condition on the assumed
strain field is satisfied. In addition, as a result of the varia-
tional structure, the admissible stress field (Lagrange
multipliers) is constrained by an orthogonality condition aris-
ing from the Hu-Washizu principle as an Euler-Lagrange
equation. These orthogonality conditions result in a single
Formerly post-doctoral research engineer at U.C. Berkeley.
Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division for publication in the JOUR-
NAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS.
Discussion on this paper should be addressed to the Editorial Department,
ASME, United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N.Y.,
10017, and will be accepted until two months after final publication of the paper
itself in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received by ASME
Applied Mechanics Division, June 25, 1985; final revision, September 10, 1985.
constraint that, for a given form of assumed strain field,
restricts the form of admissible stress fields. Therefore, once
an assumed strain method has been formulated, the stress
recovery becomes the central issue. It is interesting to observe
that almost all of the stress recovery procedures employed in
the assumed strain methods we are aware of fail to meet this
condition, thus rendering the resulting method "nonvaria-
tional."
It should also be emphasized that the generality afforded by
the Hu-Washizu principle is essential for the variational
characterization of assumed strain methods discussed below.
In this sense, the Hellinger-Reissner principle provides too
narrow a variational framework in which this class of methods
generally do not fit. In fact within this framework, in a recent
paper [7], Stolarski and Belytschko conclude that the mode
decomposition technique, a particular instance of a B-bar pro-
cedure, generally lacks a variational justification. However, as
a particular example, we show below how to obtain this class
of methods within the variational framework outlined here, by
appropriately recovering the stress field.
For the sake of concreteness, we shall adopt the bending of
a Mindlin plate as a model problem in the context of which
our discussion is presented. The same ideas apply without
modification to other problems such as three-dimensional
elasticity.
2 Mindlin Plate Problem. Basic Notation.
Consider a Mindlin plate with mid-plane spanning QcIR2
and thickness h. Denote by xtti a typical point of the mid-
plane. Define the set of generalized displacements by
d(x)
xefi—u(x): = eiR3 (i)
w(x)
Here, &(x) is the (infinitesimal) rotation of a line (director),
perpendicular to fl through x, and w(x) the vertical deflection
at x€fi. Introduce the following differential operators

Journal of Applied Mechanics MARCH 1986, Vol. 53/51

Copyright © 1986 by ASME
Downloaded 20 Oct 2011 to 219.224.144.14. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 d The above equations hold for arbitrary variations ?j€ V, eeT,
0 and T € S .
"dx1"
d Approximation. Introduce a standard finite element
discretization Q = Uf = , Qe, and the finite dimensional approx-
0 ~dxr imating subspace
d
d
"bx2 'dxT Vh: = \uhi[Cd(Q,)}2\ uh\ =YtN'(x)uI=Neq} (10)

Here, qe = is the complete set of degrees of

d freedom of Qe. The discrete curvature a n d shear strain field
L,:-- ~dxr corresponding to (10) are given by
(2)
d
J
f l " ' l _n =
" "BW
Bqe,e . and
a u uL
^ ssu>'^
" L - "=B
S Vsqee 0 1
)
~dx2~
Then, the discrete approximation to the weak forms (9) are
so that the curvature, K(X) and shear strain, y(x) at x€Q are
given by
EXT n»
K:=LBU, y:=Lsu (3)
We assume an uncoupled bending/shear stored energy func- \dQ (12)
tion of the form
*(K,7)=*B(K) + *S(Y). (4)
so that the bending moment m and shear force s are given by Gl
\ A 'V ~^—(?
oy 1
dtl
+

dVB(K) d*s(y) where G 1 = Ef =1 G\. Consider now an assumed local strain

m=—; d/c ', s~ dy field generated by a given 5-bar operator, x — yh \a (x) =
We note that for the developments that follow it is not Bs(x)qe. That is, we assume (discontinuous) approximations
necessary to assume that contitutive equations (5) are linear. for the strain field of the form

r " : = {y"e[L2(Q)]2\yhe(x)=yh ' (*)

3 Variational Structure. H u - W a s h i z u Principle.
2 N
Consider the following partial Hu-Washizu principle = Bs(x)qe,v/hereqem e} (13)
Let us denote by Sh C [L2 (Q)] 2 the space of discrete admiss-
U(u,y,s):=\jitl^B(.LBu) + ^s{y)+s-(Lsu-y)]dQ + n EXT ible stress fields rh. Notice that in general Th ?s Sh. In fact, as
shown below and further elaborated upon in Section 4, this is
(6) the essential point in the variational stress recovery. By
where n E X T is the total potential energy of the external substitution of (13) into (12) 3 , we obtain
loading. The space of kinematically admissible variations
(generalized displacements) Kmay be defined as
^-^W-^+^>W=° (14)
V-.^U^OritWHm^ V „ =ol (7) for arbitrary variations eh\a = BspeeT''. It will be shown
V. oil,, J next that the stress field sh does not enter explicitly in the for-
where Hl (Q) denotes the usual Sobolev space of functions mulation provided certain orthogonality conditions are
possessing finite energy, and dQu is that part of the boundary satisfied.
where the generalized displacements are prescribed. In addi- Orthogonality Constraints on the Stress Field. First, we
tion, admissible shear strain and shear stress fields are defined observe that by making use of the identity Bs = Bs + [Bs —
according to Bs] along with variational equation (14), the second term in
the weak form of the momentum balance (12.1), m a y be
T:={y:Q~IR2\ yt[L2(Q)]2} rewritten for arbitrary variations t\h = NepedVh, as
(8)
S:=[s:n-IR2\ s£[L2(Q)]2}
where L2(Q) denotes the usual Hilbert space of square in-
pA Bis" dQ=pA Bl^(y>e)dSl
Js!„ a, J n, dy
t e g r a t e functions. By taking variations in the standard man-
ner, we obtain the following Euler-Lagrange equations
-Bs]Ts"
&(u,s): = [ (—±:LBri+s-LsV)da-GExr =0
+ Pe
•L[* dQ, (15)

Now assume that the second term in (15) vanishes. This condi-
(equilibrium) tion along with the weak form (12) 2 , yields the following two
orthogonality relations
G2(u,y):=\ T'[Lsu-y]dU =0 (strain-displacement) (9)
G
ML/ • [Bs-Bs]do)qe = 0for any ThtSh

0 -< W ):-J...[-^]--
37
(constitutive equation) JV[ [Bs-Bs] dQ, = 0 for any •qh =NepeZ Vh

Independent stress and strain fields are only assumed for the transverse shear (16)
strain and stress fields. This presupposes no real loss of generality and is suffi-
cient for the applications of interest [3j. where use has been made of (13). Note that for given Bs, con-

52/Vol. 53, MARCH 1986 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 20 Oct 2011 to 219.224.144.14. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
ditions (16) place a restriction on the choice of admissible
shear stress fields T''(X). In the next section, however, it is
shown that stress fields satisfying conditions (16) can always
be constructed. Substitution of (15) into (12)( yields, on ac-
count of (16)2, the following generalized displacement model
thogonal complement to the space Eb relative to usual L2 in-
ner product.
An Explicit Construction of Sh. We now show that given
Bs, a space of admissible stress fields Sh satisfying (21) may

Ge -pe •/<. — GB

(17)

-'••(U^ur^- 5 *
h
dy
(y e)]du) J
EXT

where Khe = BBqe and yhe = Bsqe. In addition, it readily always be explicitly constructed as follows. For simplicity,
follows from (17) that the element tangent stiffness matrix, Ke assume linear constitutive equations so that
is given by

DG\ 'U=pe>Keqe

(18)
WB(Khe) d2*s(yhe)
B ]dQ)t
-'••(L dK2 dy2

Therefore, the resulting discrete equations (17) and (18) are ex-
pressed exclusively in terms of BB and Bs. S
Ds:= d , =const. (22)
Remark 3.1. The assumed local strain field defined by Bs is
Hh
arbitrary. Formally, equations analogous to (17) and (18) Now consider the orthogonal complement E°b of the space
would also arise in the context of the procedure proposed by Eb relative to the inner product induced by Ds, that is
Hughes [2] and are often referred to as the 5-bar method. The
present development furnishes the appropriate variational Ey»:={y°b"(x)Z[L2(Q)]2\ <TvY£>=0), ( 23 )
framework. where we have set

Remark 3.2. Note that the Lagrange multipliers drop out

completely from the formulation, provided conditions (16)
hold. This fact was also noted in Simo, Taylor and Pister [6] in
<y^y°brI>-
-I a, Jb
\a.
'Dsyf< dQ (24)

Then, we define admissible stress fields as the stresses

the context of the fully nonlinear incompressible problem. For
this problem, an identical formulation in the context of the
Hu-Washizu principle can be carried out.
Now let us reverse our viewpoint. Assume we start with (17)
and (18) (i.e., the ZJ-bar method). The finite element
discretization is considered defined by these equations in-
dependently of the way in which stresses are to be computed.
Is this seemingly ad-hoc method variational^ consistent? The
exposition preceding (17) and (18) makes the answer manifest:
It is variational^ consistent if the stress field is constructed so
that conditions (16) are satisfied. Thus, the method of stress
calculation, or recovery, is the central issue. This is dealt with
in the following section.
4 Variational Stress Recovery
An equivalent characterization of the admissible stress
fields rh satisfying orthogonality conditions (16) is the follow-
ing: For simplicity in the notation, the superscript h will be
dropped. Let E be the set of discrete strain fields generated by
Bs; i.e.,
E:=[y(x)^[L2(Q)]2\ 7e = 7
associated with the projection of the strain fields E onto Ef'h,
that is
7-eS* if and only if T =Dsy%rt, where y%HZE°br<h (25)
Clearly, by virtue of (23) the local stress field T obtained in this
way satisfies constraint (21). The explicit form of the inter-
polation for T(LSH may be obtained by constructing a basis for
Ebr"'. This can always be accomplished by orthogonalizing the
columns of Bs against the columns of Bs — Bs in the < . , . >
inner product, according to the following generalized Gram-
Schmidt procedure.
Stress Interpolation. Suppose that E°b'h has dimension dim
£orm _ fj^ < pj^^ Then, the number of independent columns
of [Bs - Bs] is Ne. Let b'b, {I = 1, . . _. ,Ne) denote the col-
umn vectors of the matrix [Bs — Bs]. Without loss of
generality, assume that the first Ne columns are the indepen-
dent column vectors. We introduce the notation
Bb: = [bibj . . . bf], w h e r e ^ -Bs = [b\bl . . . bNbe] (26)
Associated with the independent column vectors Bb we define
(19) the Gram-Schmidt matrix Hb according to

In addition, introduce the notation Hb:=\a (Bb)TDsBbdQ (27)

Eb: = [yb(x)t[L2(a)]2\ ybe-yb\a = [BS-Bs]qe] (20) Note that by construction Hb is regular. We now define a
P. J modified stress interpolation operator Bs such that, for a
Conditions (16) then, may be re-stated simply as given set of generalized displacements qeZl_RNe, the admissible
stress fields r^Sh are defined in terms of Bs as
(VY6)L, : = r-ybdQ = 0, for any r € S \ and yb€Eb (21)
T = DsBsqe
(28)
Therefore, an assumed strain method is variational provided -Bs-BbHb-' \ (Bb)TBsdQ
Bx
the space of admissible stress fields Sh is contained in the or-

Journal of Applied Mechanics MARCH 1986, Vol. 53/53

Downloaded 20 Oct 2011 to 219.224.144.14. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
To see that (28) furnishes the appropriate stress interpolation,
simply observe that any yb£Eb may be expressed as yb = [Bs
- Bs]pe = Bbpe. Here, pe denote the nodal degrees of
freedom corresponding to the Ne independent columns of [Bs
— Bs]. From (28) it follows at once that
(r,Y6)L*=/v[{ (2s)TDsB„da]qe=0 (29)
Thus, the stress fields constructed according to (28) satisfies
the key orthogonality condition (21).
Remark 4.1. It should be noted that stress fields of the form
s\ =DsBsqe (30)
often used in applications, do not satisfy condition (21) in
general, thus rendering the method nonvariational.
Remark 4.2. The crucial role played by the Hu-Washizu
principle should be noted. In the more restrictive variational
framework furnished by the Hellinger-Reissner principle, once
the strains are assumed as y = Bsqe, the only possible choice
for the stress field is (30). By contrast, within the framework
outlined above, the stress field may be chosen as the or-
thogonal complement of Eb in L2.
Remark 4.3. The developments discussed so far yield no in-
formation regarding the structure of Bs. The stress recovery
(28) merely ensures that for a given Bs the method is varia-
tionally consistent. However, variational consistency is by no
means a guarantee of success. Issues concerning stability and
convergence of the method depend crucially on the form of Bs
and ultimately, as any mixed method, on a discrete LBB con-
dition (e.g., [5]).
An Example: Mode Decomposition Technique. As a par-
ticular example, consider the mode decomposition proposed
by Belytschko and co-workers. The idea is to introduce a pro-
jection on the nodal displacements qe so that
qe=PBqe + Psqe (31)
where PB and Ps are projection operators which, accordingly,
satisfy
PB+PS=I, PBoPB=PB, PsoPs=Ps, PBoPs=PsoPB = 0
(32)
Then, the procedure is based upon selecting a discrete gradient
operator Bs of the form
Bs:=BsoPs (33)
The methodology for constructing Ps is based on the concept
of a so-called equivalent Kirchhoff configuration, see, e.g.,
[1]. The essential purpose of the method is to eliminate the so-
called parasitic shear strains. Clearly, the procedure falls
within the class of 5-bar methods. Hence, the structure out-
lined in Section 3 entirely applies. In particular, the shear
strains are computed according to
54/Vol. 53, MARCH 1986
Downloaded 20 Oct 2011 to 219.224.144.14. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
71 =Bsqe = BsoPsqe, yb\ =BsoPBqe, (34)
l"e >"e
The shear stresses must be obtained so that condition (21) is
satisfied. For this purpose, the procedure leading to (28) is
applied.
Remark 4.4. It should be noted that the stress recovery in
the mode decomposition approach is usually performed ac-
cording to expression (31) which renders in general nonad-
missible stress fields violating orthogonality condition (21),
see, e.g., [7] and references therein. Other structural elements
employing a 5-bar type of approach, e.g., [3], have also
employed this stress recovery.
Remark 4.5. Zienkiewicz and Nakazawa [8], generalizing
results of Malkus and Hughes [4], have considered the
equivalence between numerically integrated displacement for-
mulations and mixed formulations based upon the Hu-
Washizu principle. They also consider the issue of a consistent
variational recovery of strain and stress fields, within the con-
text of smooth (continuous) interpolations for these fields. It
should be noted that numerically integrated displacement
methods and B-bai type of methods represent different classes
of generalized displacement methods, although in some in-
stances they may overlap. Thus, the results in [8] and those
reported herein may be considered complementary.
Acknowledgment
The authors are indebted to R. L. Taylor for helpful discus-
sions. Partial support for the first author was provided by a
grant from LLNL. The second author was supported by ONR
Grant N00014-84-K-060. This support is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1 Belytschko, T., Stolarski, H., and Carpenter, N., [1984], "A Triangular
Plate Element With One-Point Quadrature," Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., Vol.
20, pp. 787-802.
2 Hughes, T. J. R., [1980], "Generalization of Selective Integration Pro-
cedures to Anisotropic and Nonlinear Media," Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., Vol.
15, pp. 1413-1418.
3 Hughes, T. J. R., and Tezduyar, T. E., [1981], "Finite Elements Based
Upon Mindlin Plate Theory With Particular Reference to the Four Node
Bilinear Isoparametric Element," ASME JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS,
Vol. 48, pp. 587-596.
4 Malkus, D. S., and Hughes, T. J. R., [1978], "Mixed Finite Element
Methods - Reduced and Selective Integration Techniques: A Unification of Con-
cepts," Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., Vol. 15, pp. 63-81.
5 Oden, J. T., and Carey, G., [1983], Finite Elements: Mathematical
Aspects, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
6 Simo, J. C , Taylor, R. L., and Pister, K. S., [1984], "Variational and Pro-
jection Methods for the Volume Constraint in Finite Deformation
Elastoplasticity," Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., Vol. 51, pp. 177-208.
7 Stolarski, H., and Belytschko, T., "On the Equivalence of Mode Decom-
position and Mixed Finite Elements," Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng. (to
appear).
8 Zienkiewicz, O. C , and Nakazawa, S., [1984], "On Variational Formula-
tion and Its Modifications for Numerical Solution," Comp. Struct., Vol. 19, p.
303-313.
Transactions of the ASME