Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

COMMUNICATIONS IN NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393 (DOI: 10.1002/cnm.413)

Analysis of shear locking in Timoshenko beam elements using the function space approach

Somenath Mukherjee 1;; and Gangan Prathap 2;

1 Structures Division; National Aerospace Laboratories; Bangalore 560 017; India 2 Center for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation; Bangalore 560 037; India

SUMMARY

Elements based purely on completeness and continuity requirements perform erroneously in a certain class of problems. These are called the locking situations, and a variety of phenomena like shear locking, membrane locking, volumetric locking, etc., have been identi ed. Locking has been eliminated by many techniques, e.g. reduced integration, addition of bubble functions, use of assumed strain approaches, mixed and hybrid approaches, etc. In this paper, we review the eld consistency paradigm using a function space model, and propose a method to identify eld-inconsistent spaces for projections that show locking behaviour. The case of the Timoshenko beam serves as an illustrative example. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS:

eld-consistency; function spaces; projection theorems; locking; Timoshenko beam

1. INTRODUCTION

Locking is a pathological problem encountered in formulating a certain class of elements for structural analysis, although these elements satisfy completeness and continuity requirements. The problem occurs as shear locking in Timoshenko beams and Mindlin plates, as parasitic shear in two-dimensional elasticity elements, and as membrane locking in arch elements [1]. Various explanations have been proposed for locking. Tessler and Hughes [2] have ar- gued that locking is caused by ill conditioning of the sti ness matrix due to the very large magnitude of the shear sti ness terms as compared to those of bending sti ness. Carpenter et al. [3] have shown that locking occurs due to coupling between the shear deformation and bending deformation, and that it can be eliminated by adopting strain elds such that these are appropriately decoupled. Using the eld consistency paradigm, Prathap [4; 5] has shown that elements lock because they inadvertently enforce spurious constraints that arise from inconsistencies in the strains developed from the assumed displacement functions.

Correspondence to: S. Mukherjee, Structures Division, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore 560 017, India

E-mail:

somu@css.cmmacs.ernet.in

E-mail:

gp@css.cmmacs.ernet.in

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 27April 2000 Accepted 29 January 2001

386

S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

386 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP Figure 1. The two-noded Timoshenko beam element. this paper, we

Figure 1. The two-noded Timoshenko beam element.

this paper, we address the locking phenomena using a simple but mathematically rigorous

function space approach. This uni es the arguments forwarded by Carpenter et al. [3] with

the eld consistency paradigm of Prathap [4; 5]. The simple Timoshenko beam element is used to illustrate these concepts. The displacement eld for this beam element (Figure 1) is given by For transverse displacement

In

w =

2

i=1

N i w i

(1a)

For rotation of planes originally normal to the neutral axis

=

2

i=1

N i i

(1b)

where the linear Lagrangian shape functions are given by N 1 = (1 )=2 and N 2 = (1 + )=2. The non-dimensional co-ordinate is given by = 2x=L, where x is measured with element centre as origin, and L is the element length. The element strain vector is given by

( )=

dw=dx = 1=L

d

=dx

0

1=L

(1 )=2

0

1=L

1=L

(1 +

)=2 { e }=[B]{ e }

(2)

where { e } is the nodal displacement vector, given by { e }=[w 1 ; 1 ; w 2 ; 2 ] T . The shear strain in the element is

 

dw=dx = +

 

(3)

where

=( 2 + 1 )=2 (w 2 w 1 )=L

and

= ( 2 1 )=2

A

thin beam requires that shear strain energy term vanishes, leading to two constraints

 
 

0;

0

(4)

Of these, the rst is physically meaningful in terms of the equivalent Euler beam model, but the second constraint is a spurious one [4; 5]. The spurious term e ectively enhances the element’s bending sti ness to EI = EI + kGAL 2 =12, where EI and kGA are the bending and shear rigidities, respectively, of the actual beam, leading to locking. Here E is Young’s modulus, I is the sectional moment of inertia about the neutral axis, G is the shear modulus, A is the area of section and k is the shear correction factor. It can thus be shown, using the

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA

387

eld consistency paradigm [5], that if w LF and w L are the lock-free and locked values of the transverse displacement, respectively, then

w LF =w L = I =I =1+ kGAL 2 =(12EI )=1+ e (5)

with e = kGAL 2 =(12EI ) = K=n 2 , where K = kGAl 2 =(12EI ), (l is the total beam length and n the total number of elements). The parameter e becomes smaller for thicker beams, and ner discretization, which can be prohibitively uneconomical for reasonably accurate results. A reduced integration scheme uses a one-point rule, instead of the two-point rule necessary for accurate integration in the shear strain energy, thereby eliminating shear locking by ig- noring the spurious term , e ectively making the element lock-free. We shall now rederive this using the projection theorems and function space concepts.

2. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AS PROJECTION

Finite element analysis involves equations of the form [1]

[B] T [D][B] dx{ e }=
D

D

[B] T [D]{ } dx

(6)

where [D] is the symmetric, positive-de nite rigidity matrix and { } is the true (analytical) strain vector. The best- t nite element strain vector,

{ }=[B]{ e }

is the orthogonal projection [6] of the true (analytical) strain vector { } onto a function subspace B. The inner product of two vectors, {a} and {b}, each of r rows, is given by

a; b =

D {a} T [D]{b} dx

(7)

where the rigidity matrix [D] is essentially symmetric and positive de nite and is of size r × r. The norm of a vector {a} is given by

(8)

If {q} is the error in the strain vector having r components, {q} = { }−{ } then the error norm squared, also interpreted as the energy of the error, is given by

a = a; a

q 2 = q; q =

D {q} T [D]{q} dx

(9)

From the normal Equation (6) we have the projection theorem

q 2 = 2 2

(10a)

i.e. The error in the strain energy = strain energy of the error. It is also evident that

2 = ;

(10b)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

388

S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

The m-dimensional function subspace B is one in which the vectors {b i }, that are the columns of the matrix [B] lie, and is the space on which the true strain vector is orthogonally projected.

(11)

[B]=[{b 1 }; {b 2 };:::; {b N }]

Here m = total number of element degrees of freedomtotal number of element rigid body mo-

tion. This B space is a subspace of the (r × n)-dimensional space P ( ) of ordered r-tuples of polynomials in , denoted here by P ( ) upto degree n 1, bounded within the closed domain (1; 1). The space P ( ) is represented by

r

n

r

n

r

n

r

n

P

= {p}:{p}=

n

i=1

{a i } i1 ; 16 61; {a i }∈ R r

(12)

The m-dimensional B subspace (B P ( )) can be spanned by m linearly independent vec- tors. These can be chosen as orthogonal basis vectors, denoted by {u i }, (i.e. u i ; u j = 0 for i = j). The vectors {u i } can be determined by the Gram–Schmidt procedure [6] applied to the column vectors of the matrix [B]. The initial basis vector can be taken as any of column vectors of [B]

(13a)

The other (m 1) basis vectors can be obtained from the formula

r

n

{u 1 }={b 1 }

{u k+1 }={b k+1 } −

k

j=1

u j ; b k+1

u j ; u j

{u j }

(13b)

These basis vectors can be arbitrarily normalized. The nite element strain vector can be obtained as the orthogonal projection of the true strain vector onto the subspace B,

{ }=

m

j=1

u j ;

u j ; u j {u j }

(14)

3. LOCKED AND LOCK-FREE SOLUTIONS OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM

3.1. Locked projections

The function space approach will now be used to explain shear locking in the two-noded Timoshenko beam (Figure 1). The approximate, nite element strain vector for the element is given in Equation (2). The rigidity matrix for the Timoshenko beam is given by

[D]= EI

0

kGA

0

(15)

Employing the Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization process on the column vectors of [B], we get the normalized orthogonal basis vectors {u i } for the subspace B as

(16)

{u 1 } = [0; 1] T

and

{u 2 } = [2=L; ] T

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA

389

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 389 Figure 2. Cantilever beam analysis with single element for

Figure 2. Cantilever beam analysis with single element for two loads: (a) end moment; (b) end transverse load; (–×–) analytical; (––) locked; (––) lock-free; e = kGAL 2 =(12EI ).

The space B is evidently a subspace of the space P 2 2 (linear in ). The nite element strain vector can thus be expressed as

{ }= 0

1

2=L

( 2 + 1 )=2 (w 2 w 1 )=L

(

2 1 )=2

(17)

As an example, the cantilever beam can be analysed with a single-element discretization for two di erent loads. The nite element strain vector for locked case can be obtained as locked projection of the true strain vector { } onto the eld-inconsistent B subspace, using the basis vectors of Equation (16) in Equation (14). These are presented graphically in Figure 2 and their algebraic expressions are given in Table I. Interestingly, even for a locked solution, that shows spurious shear oscillations and bending sti ening, the rule

energy of the error = error of the energy

that follows from Equations (10a) and (10b), is satis ed, showing that a eld-inconsistent solution is variationally correct. The energy of the error, or the error norm squared values are presented in Table II.

3.2. Lock-free projections

which is

actually the space R 2 , and is also the subset of the space P 2 2 . The normalized orthogonal

basis vectors for subspace B are given by

(18)

We can de ne another function space B subspace as a subspace of the space P 2

1

{u } = [0; 1] T

1

and

{u

2

} = [2=L; 0] T

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

390

S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

Table I. Analytical strains and their locked and lock-free projections as nite element strains. e = kGAL 2 =(12EI ).

Cantilever with tip moment M 0 (Figure 2(a))

Cantilever with tip load P (Figure 2(b))

Analytical

strain vector

Locked

strain vector

Lock-free

strain vector

{ } = M 0 =EI

0

{ } =

(M 0 =EI )=(1 + e)

6e

M 0

(1 + e) LkGA

{ } = M 0 =EI

0

{ } = PL(1 + )=(2EI )

P=kGA

{ } =

(PL=2EI )=(1 + e)

3e 1 + e

kGA 1 +

P

{ } = PL=(2EI ) P=kGA


Table II. Error norm square for strain projections with the linear two-noded Timoshenko beam element. e = kGAL 2 =(12EI ).

1

q 2 = (L=2)

1

{q} T [D]{q} d

Case

Locked solution

Lock-free solution

Cantilever with tip moment, M 0 (Figure 2(a))

Cantilever with tip transverse load P (Figure 2(b))

2

0

(L=2) 2M EI

e=(1 + e)

(L=2)[(PL) 2 =2EI ](e=(1 +

e)+2=3)

0

(L=2)(PL) 2 =3EI

} di ers from {u 2 } in that it lacks the component and it can be normalized

} = [1; 0] T . Using these new basis vectors in Equation (18), and employing

Equation (14), we have the nite element strain vectors { } for the cantilever (Figure 2, Table I) that are the lock-free projections of the true strain vectors onto the new eld-consistent space B . Note that the spurious shear oscillations of the locked solutions are eliminated in

to the form {u

The vector {u

2

2

the lock-free solutions. Again, by virtue of the projection theorem, the condition, that follows from Equation (10), is satis ed, also for the lock-free solution. The error norm squared for the lock-free solution is always less than that of the locked solution (Table II).

4. LOCK-FREE ANISOPARAMETRIC FORMULATION

A three-noded beam element (Figure 3) can be formulated in an anisoparametric fashion

such that linear Lagrangian interpolation functions are used for rotations but quadratic

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA

391

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 391 Figure 3. The anisoparametric Timoshenko beam element. interpolation

Figure 3. The anisoparametric Timoshenko beam element.

interpolation functions are used for the transverse displacement

w =

3

i=1

N i w i

(19)

where the quadratic Lagrangian shape functions are given as

N 1 = (1 )=2;

N 2 = (1 + )=2;

N 3 = (1 2 )

The element strain vector can be expressed as

{ } =

=

dw=dx

0

(2 1)=L

d =dx

1=L

(1 )=2

0

(2 + 1)=L

1=L

(1 + )=2

0

4

=L

{ e }

(20)

where { e }=[w 1 ; 1 ; w 2 ; 2 ; w 3 ] T . Using the Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization procedure, the normalized orthogonal basis vectors for the B-subspace can be derived as

(21)

The problem of the cantilever beam with a tip moment M 0 can be solved by projecting the true strain vector onto the B-subspace. It is observed that the element does not lock, and does not show any spurious shear oscillations. Using Equation (14), the orthogonal projection of the true strain vector onto the B-subspace is

{u 1 } = [0; ] T ;

{u 2 } = [1; 0] T

and

{u 3 } = [0; 1] T

{ }= M 0 =EI

0

(22)

which is the same as the true strain vector { } for this problem.

5. PREDICTION AND ELIMINATION OF LOCKING

Standard orthogonal basis vectors, called the Legendre orthogonals span the (r × n)-

dimensional space P For the space P

(23)

2

2

r for a given degree (n 1) of the polynomial in .

n

(linear in ), the Legendre orthogonals are

{ L 2 } = [1; 0] T ;

{ L 3 } = [0; ] T ;

{

L 1 } = [0; 1] T ;

{ L 4 } = [ ; 0] T

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

392

S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

For the space P

2 (quadratic in ), the Legendre orthogonals are

3

{

L 1 } = [0; 1] T ;

{ L 2 } = [1; 0] T ;

{ L 3 } = [0; ] T ;

{ L 4 } = [ ; 0] T ;

{ L 5 } = [0; (3 2 1)] T ;

{ L 6 } = [(3 2 1); 0] T

(24)

It is now evident that the subspace B originating from the strain–displacement operators is

eld-consistent, and will yield lock-free strain projections, provided it can be spanned by the

r . This function space interpretation

corresponding Legendre orthogonals for the parent space P

n

of locking agrees closely with the explanation of Carpenter et al. [3]. If shear and bending

strains are completely decoupled, they contribute independently to shear and bending strain energies, respectively, without the incorporation of the spurious terms as de ned in the eld consistency paradigm of Prathap [4; 5] and therefore no locking is encountered. The anisoparametric element (Figure 3) is lock-free, because the subspace B can be spanned by the Legendre orthogonals as the basis vectors, as given by Equation (21). The isoparametric two-noded element locks since the set of the orthogonal basis vectors for B does not form a subset of the set of the Legendre orthogonals for the parent space

2 . This space B is therefore eld-inconsistent, and a strain projection onto it shows locking.

P

2

The strain vector can also be expressed as

{ }= 010

1

0

(25)

where = ( 2 + 1 )=2 (w 2 w 1 )=L, = ( 2 1 )=L and = ( 2 1 )=2. The Legendre orthogonals now form the basis vectors of this new space B # of dimension 3 which is higher than that of the original space B of dimension 2. However, since = 2 =L, i.e. the parameters and are not linearly independent, the strain vector { } still lies on the eld-inconsistent subspace B; (B B # ). To eliminate this problem two alternative methods are suggested here. Method I. Projection on the eld consistent B subspace (B B # ). This can be achieved either by constraining the parameter ( = 0) or ignoring the Legendre orthogonal { L 3 }= [0; ] T . This technique is e ectively implemented through reduced integration. Method II. Projection on the eld consistent B # subspace. We may make the parame- ters ; and completely independent of each other by making the provision that we use independent rotations for bending and shear strains, so that they can now be expressed as

(26)

Here the parameters and represent, respectively, independent rotations, each expressed by linear Lagrangian shape functions, so that they independently contribute to the shear strain

( dw=dx) and the bending strain (d =dx). This element is lock-free. Systems, like the axially loaded uniform bar element and the classical Euler beam element, in which the strain elds involve only one component, do not lock, since the strains can be always expressed as a linear combination of the Legendre polynomials. For uniform elements (constant section properties) and rectilinear geometry (constant Jacobian over the element), the standard basis vectors are the Legendre orthogonals, which are mutually orthogonal with any constant as the kernel function included in the integrand

=(

2

+

1

)=2 (w 2 w 1 )=L;

= ( 2 1 )=L

and

= (

2

1

)=2

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393

FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA

393

de ning the inner product. For non-uniform elements with complicated geometry, the char- acteristic standard basis vectors associated with the corresponding polynomial function space need not be equal to the Legendre orthogonals, for the associated kernel function is not nec- essarily constant over the element. In practice, determination of the basis vectors for such cases can be tedious. However, the principle behind locking discussed here remains the same. Locking occurs if the subspace originating from the strain–displacement relationship cannot be spanned by the corresponding standard basis vectors.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The projection theorems have been invoked to derive both locked and lock-free solutions of the Timoshenko beam element. A method based on the function space approach is employed to identify eld-consistent and eld-inconsistent spaces for projections. It can be employed to predict the possibility of locking for given formulations. The principle behind locking has been revealed. Here we have succeeded in deriving a priori error estimates for shear locking using a function space approach.

REFERENCES

1. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1991.

2. Tessler A, Hughes TJR. An improved treatment of transverse shear in the Mindlin type four node quadrilateral element. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1983; 39:311–335.

3. Carpenter N, Belytschko T, Stolarski H. Locking and shear scaling factors in C 0 bending elements. Computers and Structures 1986; 22:39–52.

4. Prathap G. Field-consistency and violent stress oscillations in the nite element method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1987; 24:2017–2033.

5. Prathap G. Reduced integration and the shear exible beam element. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1982; 18:195–210.

6. Edwards LH, Penny DE. Elementary Linear Algebra. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cli s, NJ, 1988.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385–393