Popper and a Proper FEA

Gangan Prathap
C-MMACS & JNCASR
Bangalore 560037 and 560064

E:\popper\popper2002

Popper and a Proper FEA

Gangan Prathap
C-MMACS & JNCASR
Bangalore 560037 and 560064
Abstract
FEA is now the most versatile and powerful method of engineering
analysis as it is ideal to be implemented as a computational scheme
on powerful digital computers and also seamlessly integrates with
the rest of CAD/CAM/CAE software.
However, it also lends itself supremely to elegant scientific
and mathematical analysis. In this lecture, one examines how
patterns from FEA computations can be unravelled as
mathematical games and how from this the underlying
metamagical themas can be induced. The final step is to submit
this to a Popperian straight-jacket. It is shown that it is possible to
use a priori procedures that can be used to develop singular
predictions that can then be falsified using cleverly constructed
numerical experiments.
This is another instance where one is amazed and intrigued
by the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, but now in the
study of computational representations of reality.

Plan of lecture:

Mathematical Games
1. Convergence of deflections in Timoshenko beam model
2. Errors in stress from classical beam model
3. Locking problem

Metamagical Themas
1. The least action principle and the correspondence theorem
2. The consistency-completeness strange loop

The Popperian Straight-jacket

1. Derive from 1st principles
2. Falsify using tests

Mathematical Games

1. Convergence of deflections in Timoshenko beam model

P

Problem definition in a routine production run (in vivo)

L=124.6, b =1.5, d =15, E = 7400, P = 15.34
(units in kg, mm, etc)

Theoretical prediction of tip deflection

w= 3.17
Computed results from finite element model using Timoshenko beam theory
(in silico), w(fe)

N
1 element
2 element
4 element

Is there a pattern?

Tip deflections
2.3775
2.9719
3.1205

Mathematical Games

Convergence of deflections in Timoshenko beam model (contd.)

Problem definition in a lab model (in vitro)
L=100, b =1, d =1, E = 100000, P = 1
Theoretical prediction of tip deflection
w = 4.0
Computed results from finite element model using Timoshenko beam theory
(in silico), w(fe)

N
1 element
2 element
4 element

Tip deflections
3.0000
3.7500
3.9375

Is there a pattern?
Very difficult to see the pattern if results are presented this way.

Mathematical Games

Convergence of deflections in Timoshenko beam model (contd.)

A better picture emerges if we plot errors, w w(fe)

N
1 element
2 element
4 element

w-w(fe)
1.0000
0.2500
0.0625

It is not difficult to see a pattern emerging. In fact, it is:

{w w( fe )}/ w = 1 / 4 N 2
A phenomenological law has been established. This is only one half of the
scientific challenge.
The second half of the challenge is to establish Proof. The process of Proof
will be completed only if one can show that this is true from first principles.
What are the first principles as far as finite element modelling is concerned?
What are the procedures (analytical quantification) that must be followed,
starting with these first principles, to establish that this formula can be
predicted even before the actual fem computation is performed?
Epistemologically, the observation of the numerically computed law came
first, in 1980 (Prathap and Bhashyam).
The prediction based on analytical quantification came later, in 1988
(Prathap). Before that could be done, the first principle had to be identified.

Mathematical Games

2. Errors in stress from classical beam model of a uniformly

loaded cantilever
P

Displacements and rotations at nodes are exact. There is nothing meaningful

we can learn from this.
One never learns from ones successes.
One can learn only from ones mistakes.

Let us look at the stress predictions carefully.

Mathematical Games

2. Errors in stress from classical beam model of a uniformly

loaded cantilever (contd.)
Values of Bending moment M at nodal points
Distance
on beam
0
0.125
0.125
0.250
0.250
0.375
0.375
0.500
0.500
0.625
0.625
0.750
0.750
0.875
0.875
1.000

Analytical
solution
0.5
0.3828182
0.3828182
0.28125
0.28125
0.195312
0.195312
0.125
0.125
0.0703125
0.0703125
0.03125
0.03125
0.0078125
0.0078125
0

1 element
0.41667

2 elements
0.479167

0.02083

0.494792

0.276042
0.276042

0.104167
0.104167

0.119792
0.119792

0.026042
0.026042

-0.08333

-0.02083

Note how the errors diminish:

0.08333

4 elements

0.00521

0.0013

-0.00521

8 elements
0.498698
0.38151
0.38151
0.279948
0.279948
0.19401
0.19401
0.123698
0.123698
0.06901
0.06901
0.029948
0.029948
0.00651
0.00651
-0.0013

Mathematical Games

2. Errors in stress from classical beam model of a uniformly

loaded cantilever (contd.)

Values of Shear force V at nodal points

Distance
on beam
0
0.125
0.125
0.250
0.250
0.375
0.375
0.500
0.500
0.625
0.625
0.750
0.750
0.875
0.875
1.000

Analytical
solution

1 element

-1
-0.875
-0.875
-0.75
-0.75
-0.625
-0.625
-0.5
-0.5
-0.375
-0.375
-0.25
-0.25
-0.125
-0.125
0

-0.5

0.25

0.125

-0.75

4 elements
-0.875

-0.875
-0.625

-0.75
-0.25
-

-0.625
-0.625

-0.375
-0.125

-0.5

Note how the errors diminish:

0.5

2 elements

0.0625

-0.125

8 elements
-0.9375
-0.9375
-0.8125
-0.8125
-0.6875
-0.6875
-0.5625
-0.5625
-0.4375
-0.4375
-0.3125
-0.3125
-0.1875
-0.1875
-0.0625
-0.0625

Mathematical Games

3. The locking problem poor convergence of the exactly

formulated Timoshenko beam element
P

The Timoshenko beam element we used in Case 1 was a specially

formulated element. Had we used a conventional formulation, we would
have found dramatically erroneous results.
Displacements and rotations at nodes are practically zero, although we have
formulated the element exactly as the rules tell us we must do. Is there
anything meaningful we can learn from this self-contradiction?
Let us look at the displacement predictions carefully.
Normalised tip deflections for a thin beam cantilever
Number of elements Hughes et al.
Prathap and Bhashyam
1977
1982
1
0.000020
0.000020
2
0.000080
0.000080
4
0.000320
0.000320
8
0.000128
0.001280
16
0.000512
0.005120
Note that we are presenting normalised displacements. An error-free element
should have produced answers close to 1.0. Instead, we get answers that are
several orders of magnitude away. We call this locking!

Mathematical Games

3. The locking problem poor convergence of the exactly

formulated Timoshenko beam element (contd.)
P

Let us look at the patterns of displacement predictions carefully.

Normalised tip deflections for a thin beam cantilever
Number of elements Hughes et al.
Prathap and Bhashyam
1977
1982
1
0.000020
0.000020
2
0.000080
0.000080
4
0.000320
0.000320
8
0.000128
0.001280
16
0.000512
0.005120

When the results were originally reported in Hughes et al. in 1977, there was
a mistake that was overlooked by them. It was very clear to us that there was
a logical sequence and that this was not reflected in the numbers displayed in
their paper. We there repeated their complete analysis by formulating the
element again. The results show dramatically that there is a logical rule.
These are:
1. predictions are inversely related to square of N, the number of elements.
2. this is surprising because we expect errors to be so related and not the
actual numerical predictions!
3. these errors are not the usual discretisation errors
4. the errors depend on element length
5. further studies showed that the element thickness caused errors to change
Can all these be predicted a priori?

Metamagical Themas

1. The least action principle and the correspondence theorem

BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS

Theory
Theory

FEM

1 element
3.0

3.0002

3.75

3.7502

3.9375

3.9377

2 element

4 element

The Popperian Straight-jacket

W Wfem
W

4N

Metamagical Themas

2. The consistency-completeness strange loop

The Godelian strange loop
the Godelian strange loop that arises in formal systems in
mathematics (i.e., collection of rules for churning out an endless
series of mathematical truths solely by mechanical symbolshunting without any regard to meanings or ideas hidden in the
shapes being manipulated) is a loop that allows such a system to
perceive itself, to take stock about itself, to become selfaware, and in a sense it would not be going too far to say that by
virtue of having such a loop, a formal system acquires a self.

Self-reference:
Russell believed that for a mathematical system to be able to talk
about itself in any way whatsoever was the kiss of death, for selfreference would so he thought necessarily open the door to
self-contradiction, and thereby send all of mathematics crashing to
the ground.
Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid
Douglas R Hofstatder
Lessons from FEA: self-contradiction opens the door to selfreference and self-awareness!

The Popperian Straight-jacket

THE SHEAR FLEXIBLE BEAM ELEMENT

U =1 2

2
L
EI ( , x ) dx + 1 2 kGA

Until 1977, no record of this element appeared.

REDUCED INTEGRATION a trick?
Experiments with the conventional formulation (EXACT INTEGRATION)
were obviously so disastrous that it was too embarrassing to record in the
literature.
The conventional formulation

(1 2 EI T + 1 2 kGA T ) dx
where

= ,x
= W, x

Discretisation
functions

with

COMPLETE and

w = w1N1 + w 2 N 2

= 1N1 + 2 N 2
N1 = (1 ) 2

N 2 = (1 + ) 2

CONTINUOUS displacement

An exact integration of the strain energy terms leads to an FI element

Hughes, Taylor and Kanoknukulchai (1JNME 1977)

The reduced integration approach

U = U B + US

UB -needs only a 1 pt. Gaussian integration rule

US -a mathematically exact evaluation demands a 2pt Gaussian rule. This
result in a non-singular shear stiffness matrix that locks.
HUGHES et al. experimented with a 1pt rule. The shear related stiffness
matrix changes to a singular one and there is now no locking. The
performance of the element (FC) was extremely good!
Explanatory paradigms
1. over-stiffness shear stiffness too high. R.I. reduces stiffness
2. rank of the shear stiffness matrix must not be too high. R.I. helps to
reduce this rank
3. constraint counting number of constraints contained in the shear
stiffness matrix. R.I lowers the constraint count no. of counts directly
linked to the constrained strain energy
4. Spectral condition number
These are all heuristic arguments, if not specious, more in the nature of a
myth or superstition than a scientifically rigorous paradigm. Again, these
are conditions that reflect the symptoms of the problem (locking is seen
where is a non-singular constrained matrix, or where the rank is too high
etc.) and not really the cause to the problem. Only the consistency paradigm
traces the problem to the root and then argues forward to a falsifiable error
estimate.
Occams razor
A renowed theorem in the Philosophy of Science. Stated very simply, it
recommends that the simplest explanation (i.e. the one making the least
assumptions) is usually the best. The field-consistency paradigm makes
only one requirement, namely that the constrained strain field must be
consistently interpolated.

DERIVE FROM 1ST PRINCIPLES

U = U B + US

2
2
= 1 2 0L EI 1x dx + 1 2 0L kGA( w, x ) dx

Isolate an element of length 2l, discretise the energy on the basis of linear
interpolation for and w.

2
e = 1 2 EI 2l ,2x + 1 2 kGA 2l ( - w, x ) + 1 2 kGAl2 2l , x 2 3
trueconstrained
spuriousconstrained
unconstrained

Thus, an idealisation of a beam region of length 2l into a linear finite

element would produce a modified strain-energy density within that region

2
e = 1 2 EI + kGAl2 3 , 2x + 1 2 kGA ( - w, x )

The re-constituted functional for the whole beam is

2
= 1 2 0L EI 1 + kGAl2 3 EI , 2x dx + 1 2 0L kGA ( w, x ) dx

additional stiffness factor

where

and

I I

I
= 1 + kGAl2 3EI
I
kGAl2
I
e = 1 =
3EI
I

Prathap and Bhashyam (IJNME 1982) show that this error estimate is exact for
both static and dynamic f.e.m. models using the exactly integrated linear element.

_____________

Error prediction from 1st Principles

Points from numerical tests to establish straight line

Points from numerical tests to falsify straight line

Closure?
or Unending Quest?
P roblem
O bserve
P ropose
P redict
E xperiment
R efute