Schur Reference

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

Published online 15 July 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/nme.4714
A physically and geometrically nonlinear scaled-boundary-based

finite element formulation for fracture in elastomers
R. Behnke1 , M. Mundil1 , C. Birk2 and M. Kaliske1,*,
1 Institut
fr Statik und Dynamik der Tragwerke, Fakultt Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universitt Dresden, 01062,
Dresden, Germany
2 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
SUMMARY
This paper is devoted to the formulation of a plane scaled boundary finite element with initially constant
thickness for physically and geometrically nonlinear material behavior. Special two-dimensional element
shape functions are derived by using the analytical displacement solution of the standard scaled boundary
finite element method, which is originally based on linear material behavior and small strains. These 2D
shape functions can be constructed for an arbitrary number of element nodes and allow to capture singularities (e.g., at a plane crack tip) analytically, without extensive mesh refinement. Mapping these proposed 2D
shape functions to the 3D case, a formulation that is compatible with standard finite elements is obtained. The
resulting physically and geometrically nonlinear scaled boundary finite element formulation is implemented
into the framework of the finite element method for bounded plane domains with and without geometrical
singularities. The numerical realization is shown in detail. To represent the physically and geometrically
nonlinear material and structural behavior of elastomer specimens, the extended tube model and the Yeoh
model are used. Numerical studies on the convergence behavior and comparisons with standard Q1P0 finite
elements demonstrate the correct implementation and the advantages of the developed scaled boundary finite
element. Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 14 February 2014; Revised 31 March 2014; Accepted 18 May 2014
KEY WORDS:
scaled boundary finite element method; finite element method; physical and geometrical
nonlinearity; singularities; elastomers; fracture
1. INTRODUCTION
The scaled boundary finite element method (SBFEM) is a semi-analytical technique, which has
been developed in the 1990s by Wolf and Song [1] from the so-called consistent infinitesimal finiteelement cell method [25]. Having originally been derived for the modeling of waves in the soil, a
main advantage of the SBFEM is that it satisfies the radiation condition at infinity rigorously. Other
methods that are suitable for the analysis of unbounded domains are the boundary element method,
see, for example, [6, 7], and the thin-layer method, see, for example, [8]. Although the SBFEM does
not require a fundamental solution, one similarity with the boundary element method is that only the
boundary of the domain is discretized. In the SBFEM, an analytical solution in the radial direction
is employed, similar to the thin-layer method.
Although its original development has been motivated by the challenges in modeling unbounded
domains, the SBFEM can be used for bounded domains as well. Here, it excels in handling singularities in an efficient and elegant way, because of its semi-analytical nature. Singularities occur at
edges, such as crack tips and notches, and are of special significance in fracture mechanics (Gross
*Correspondence to: Michael Kaliske, Institut fr Statik und Dynamik der Tragwerke, Fakultt Bauingenieurwesen,
Technische Universitt Dresden, 01062, Dresden, Germany.
E-mail: michael.kaliske@tu-dresden.de
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
967
and Seelig [9]), where one distinguishes basically between linear-elastic and elastic-plastic fracture
mechanics. The SBFEM in its original form, however, is derived for homogeneous, purely elastic
material behavior, where anisotropy can be included easily. Moreover, small strains are assumed,
that is, the geometry of the current configuration is identical to the geometry of the reference
configuration.
Because the SBFEM can capture stress singularities in a semi-analytical manner, it has been
widely used in linear-elastic fracture mechanics. Virtual work equations for the SBFEM that can
potentially be applied to linear-elastic fracture mechanics have been derived by Deeks and Wolf
[10] as well as by Wolf [11]. The advantages of FEM and SBFEM have been combined in a
hybrid method for crack propagation modeling for brittle and quasi-brittle materials in [12]. Further
developments of the SBFEM with respect to fracture mechanics are given by Yang and Ooi [13].
Especially the low mesh density combined with the discretization of only circumferential coordinate
directions render the SBFEM very interesting for fracture mechanical investigations. In this case,
the stresses are obtained as semi-analytical expressions, which can be directly used to compute the
stress intensity factors [1417]. Cohesive crack propagation has been analyzed using the SBFEM
by Yang and Deeks [18], Song [19] as well as by Ooi et al. [20], including predictions of the crack
path. Comparisons with finite element (FE) simulations based on traditional FE crack propagation
schemes show that the singularities around the crack tip can be well captured by the SBFEM with
less computational effort [21, 22].
Notation
a, A
a, A
A
A
e
scalar
vector
matrix or second order tensor
fourth order tensor
quantity associated with discretized element formulation
isochoric quantity or average of quantity
X: X , Y , Z
x: x, y,
: , ,
global Cartesian coordinates (reference configuration)

global Cartesian coordinates (current configuration)
scaled boundary coordinates (element parameter space)
rX
rx
D4
@
@4 D ;4
gradient operator with respect to the reference configuration

gradient operator with respect to the current configuration
directional derivative of with respect to 4
partial derivative of with respect to 4
A large group of materials (e.g., elastomers) show large deformations combined with large strains
at rupture (Behnke et al. [23]). Because of the semi-analytical approach of the SBFEM, analytical
solutions for physically or geometrically induced nonlinearities of the domain to be described are
difficult to derive. Recently, advances in modeling continuously varying material characteristics
have been made. Bazyar and Song [24] report a dynamic analysis of a foundation embedded in soil
with Youngs modulus varying as a function of depth. Here, it is assumed that the non-homogeneity
is described by one power function of the spatial Cartesian coordinates and the radial scaled boundary coordinate. Chiong et al. [25] proposed to use scaled boundary polygons for fracture analysis of
functionally graded materials. This is underpinned by the development of generalized scaled boundary shape functions valid for n-node elements and by approximating the material homogeneity in
each polygon by a polynomial surface in scaled boundary coordinates. A similar strategy has been
used by Ooi et al. in [26] for elasto-plastic analyses. An alternative idea to overcome the difficulties associated with nonlinearities has been presented by Lin and Liao [27], who used the homotopy
analysis method as a mathematical approach. The homotopy analysis method consists of the decomposition of the nonlinear differential equation into an infinite series of linear differential equations
that can be solved by the standard SBFEM approach. However, solution parameters are required to
be estimated in advance to obtain a convergent solution. Therefore, further studies are mandatory
for a feasible application to structural problems.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
968
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
(a) convex
(b) non-convex
Figure 1. Plane domains represented by polygons with scaling center S: (a) convex and (b) non-convex.
The objective of the present research work is to combine the advantages of the SBFEM and the
FEM within one novel element formulation. Using the standard SBFEM, scaled boundary finite
element (SBFE) shape functions for the degrees of freedom (in this case, displacements) of bounded
plane domains, for example, specimens with initially constant thickness under plane-stress state,
with and without cracks are derived, analogously to [20, 25, 26, 28]. In the reference configuration,
the domains are approximated by convex or non-convex polygons with an arbitrary number of
nodes as illustrated in Figure 1. An overview on polygonal elements and potential shape functions
is given by Sukumar and Malsch [29]. The semi-analytical 2D shape function is then mapped
to 3D and used in the standard FE framework. Advantages of this strategy are the use of the
FE concepts for physically and geometrically nonlinear tasks without the need to solve nonlinear
differential equations.
The further outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, SBFE shape functions for bounded
plane convex and non-convex polygonal FEs are derived. A Q1P0 FE formulation is developed in
Section 3 by exploiting these SBFE shape functions. In Section 4, an algorithm for the numerical
implementation is given, and significant developments are summarized. Finally, several numerical examples demonstrate the correct implementation and illustrate the accuracy of the developed
element for structural applications involving physical and geometrical nonlinearities.
2. SBFE SHAPE FUNCTIONS FOR BOUNDED PLANE CONVEX AND NON-CONVEX

POLYGONAL FINITE ELEMENTS
The SBFEM in its original form is detailed in [11]. In the following, the key steps necessary for the
development of the element to be used in a nonlinear FE context are summarized.
2.1. SBFE equations and solution for statics

Consider a typical polygonal domain as shown in Figure 2(a). Inside the polygonal domain, a
scaling center S is chosen. The complete boundary must be visible from that point. In Figure 2,
the global Cartesian coordinates are denoted as X -Y -Z and x-y- in the reference configuration and in the current configuration, respectively. In addition, a local Cartesian coordinate system
XO -YO -ZO and xO yO O is positioned with its origin at the scaling center S of each polygonal domain.
Each edge of the polygon is discretized using line elements. Scaling one edge toward the scaling
center yields a triangular domain, which is shown as a shaded area in Figure 2. Here, and in the following, such a sector of the polygon is referred to as a subdomain. The scaled boundary coordinates
and are introduced, where the complete circumferential boundary is parametrized with piecewise directions . The radial direction is pointing outwards from the scaling center. The volume in
each SBFE subdomain is spanned by 0 6 6 1, 1 6 6 1 and 1 6 6 1. Note that SBFE formulations based on other scaled boundary coordinate systems have also been derived in the past for
two-dimensional layered and three-dimensional prismatic geometries in [30] and [31], respectively,
as well as for three-dimensional layered media [32].

DOI: 10.1002/nme
969
(b) subdomain with scaled boundary coordinates
(a) bounded domain with subdomain
Figure 2. SBFE-discretized midplane ( D 0) of a polygonal domain of constant thickness t: (a) bounded

domain with subdomain and (b) subdomain with scaled boundary coordinates.
In the following, an SBFE subdomain with its midplane at D 0, as shown in Figure 2(b), is
considered. The local Cartesian coordinates of each point .XO ; YO / of the midplane are described by
the scaled boundary transformation (1),
Q
Q
XO .; / D X./
D N./ X;
(1a)
Q
YO .; / D YQ ./ D N./ Y;
(1b)
where XQ ./ and YQ ./ are the scaled boundary parametrizations of the discretized boundary at D 1.
Q denote the shape functions and nodal coorQ as well as Y
In Equation (1), the symbols N./ and X
dinates at the boundary D 1 measured in terms of the local Cartesian coordinate system XO -YO in
the reference configuration, respectively. Note that vectorial quantities and matrices or second-order
tensors are shown in bold notation throughout this paper, and vectorial quantities are additionally
identified by an underline. For the example two-node line element shown in Figure 2(b),

O
O
Q D X1 ; Y
Q D Y1
X
(2)
O
O
X2
Y2
and

N./ D
N1 ./ 0 N2 ./ 0
0 N1 ./ 0 N2 ./

with
N1 ./ D
1
.1 / ;
2
N2 ./ D
1
.1 C / (3)
2
applies.
The unknown in-plane displacement field is expressed in a semi-analytical way by a discretization
in the circumferential -direction and an analytical description in the radial -direction,
"
#
uL x .; /

Q
L / D
u.;
D N./
u./ with u./T D u1x ./ u1y ./ unx ./ uny ./ : (4)
uL y .; /
In Equation (4), u./ is the node-associated displacement vector for one subdomain with nk nodes.
Q
The interpolation matrix N./
for the displacements of one subdomain is defined as

0
N1 ./ 0 N2 ./ 0 Nnk ./
Q
N./
D
;
(5)
0 N1 ./ 0 N2 ./
0
Nnk ./
where the same shape functions Ni ./ as for the geometry are used.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
970
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
In the standard SBFEM, linear strain-displacement relations, that is, small strains, are assumed,
which can be compactly expressed as
2
3
"x
4 "y 5 D " D L uL :
xy
(6)
In Equation (6), L is the differential operator matrix with respect to the Cartesian coordinates,
2
3
@
0
6 @X
7
6
7
6
@ 7
6
7:
LD6 0
@Y 7
6
7
4 @ @ 5
@Y @X
(7)
Using the scaled boundary transformation (1) and applying standard concepts of coordinate transformations (see e.g. Bathe [33]), it can be expressed in terms of the scaled boundary coordinates ,
as
L D b1 ./
@
@
1
C b2 ./
;
@

@
(8)
with
2
b1 D
1 6
6
6
jJj 4
YQ ./;
0
XQ ./;
7
7
XQ ./; 7 ;
5
YQ ./;
2
b2 D
1 6
6
6
jJj 4
YQ ./
7
7
XQ ./ 7 ;
5
Q
X./
YQ ./
0
(9)
and
jJj D XQ ./ YQ ./; YQ ./ XQ ./; :
(10)
Having the strain-displacement relation available, stresses as a function of the strain field can be
derived from a constitutive relation. The standard SBFEM for bounded solids is based on linearelastic, homogeneously distributed material behavior. For the isotropic plane-stress state considered
here, the small strain stresses ,
3
3
2
x
"x
D 4 y 5 D D " D D 4 "y 5 ;
xy
xy
2
(11)
can be found using Hookes law with the elasticity tensor D,

2
DD
E
1 2
1
6
6 1 0
6
6
4
1
0 0
2
3
7
7
7;
7
5
(12)
where E and are Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, respectively. Note that D is independent
of and for the standard SBFEM. This means that only homogeneously distributed material

DOI: 10.1002/nme
971
characteristics are assumed for the whole domain considered. Substituting Equations (4), (6), and
(8) in Equation (11) yields
.; / D D ".; / D D B1 ./ u./; C
1
D B2 ./ u./ ;
(13)
where the matrices

Q
B1 ./ D b1 ./ N./
and
Q ;
B2 ./ D b2 ./ N./
(14)
have been introduced. The infinitesimal volume element

dV D jJj d d t
(15)
of the reference configuration with constant thickness t will be used in the following to integrate
over the volume of the bounded polygonal domain.
In the following, the derivation of the SBFE equation in statics is addressed. Assuming zero body
volume forces, the governing equations can be expressed as
LT D 0 :
(16)
Substituting Equations (8) and (13) into Equation (16) and applying the methods of weighted
residuals with respect to the circumferential coordinate only yields
2 E0 u./; C E1T E1 C E0 u./; E2 u./ C FC ./ D 0 :
(17)
Here, the coefficient matrices E0 , E1 , and E2 have been introduced,

ZC1
E0 D
B1 ./T D B1 ./ jJj d t ;
(18)
B2 ./T D B1 ./ jJj d t
(19)
B2 ./T D B2 ./ jJj d t :
(20)
D 1
ZC1
E1 D
D 1
ZC1
E2 D
D 1
The term
h
i D C1
Q T b T jJj t
FC ./ D N./
2
D 1
(21)
represents any external tractions acting on the boundaries S. D 1/ and S. D C1/ of the
subdomain. Note that for a convex domain, the terms FC ./ of individual subdomains cancel each
other. For non-convex domains (e.g., with crack faces S. D 1/), the terms are zero in case
of stress-free boundaries, that is, FC ./ D 0, which will be assumed in the following. For the
treatment of cohesive crack faces, where the terms FC ./ do not vanish, the reader is referred to,
for example, [1820]. The matrices E0 , E1 , and E2 have to be computed for each subdomain of
the polygonal SBFE domain as illustrated in Figure 2. Using standard FE assembling procedures,
the global coefficient matrices E0 , E1 , and E2 are obtained and used in the following solution

DOI: 10.1002/nme
972
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
process. Equation (17) is referred to as the SBFE equation in displacements for statics. In the case
of vanishing FC ./, it is a linear homogeneous second-order differential equation. As discussed in
detail, for example, in [1], internal nodal forces
Q./ D E0 u./; C E1T u./ ;
(22)
can be defined via the displacements u./ and the matrices given in Equations (18) and (19).
In Equations (17) and (22), the functions u./ and Q./ are unknown. A solution of the coupled solution quantities u./ and Q./ can be obtained by evaluating a series of transformations.
Equation (22) is differentiated with respect to and multiplied by ,
E0 2 u./; D Q./; E0 u./; E1T u./; :
(23)
Substituting Equation (23) in Equation (17) yields

Q./; E0 u./; E1T u./; C E0 C E1T E1 u./; E2 u./ D 0 :
(24)
Solving Equation (22) for u./; gives

u./; D E01 Q./ E1T u./ :
(25)
Equation (25) is substituted in Equation (24),

Q./; E1 E01 Q./ C E1 E01 E1T u./ E2 u./ D 0 :
(26)
According to [1], the reformulated Equations (22) and (26) yield a system of first-order ordinary
differential equations of the form
"
u./
Z
"
D
Q./
u./;
#
;
(27)
Q./;
with
2
ZD4
E01 E1T
E1 E01
E01
E1T E2 E1 E01
3
5:
(28)
The matrix function solution in statics requires the transformation of the matrix Z to a blockO
diagonal real Schur form S,
2
Sn
0
6
1
Z D SO D 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
3
0
0 7
:
0 5
Sp
(29)
Note that the transformation vectors have been sorted such that the upper diagonal block Sn
contains all eigenvalues with negative real part, whereas Sp corresponds to eigenvalues with positive
real part. The block

Brig D
0T
0 0

(30)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
973
corresponds to zero eigenvalues, that is, rigid body modes. The transformation matrix is
computed from the Schur vectors V of Z following the diagonalization procedure described in
detail in [34]. It is referred to as the base functions in [35] and can be used to express the
displacement solution.
To this end, the matrix is partitioned as follows,

u1 u2 u3 u4
D
;
(31)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
where the subscripts 1-4 conform with the block columns of SO in Equation (29). Note that the matrix
has 2N rows, where N is the total number of degrees of freedom used in the SBFE domain.
For a bounded domain, the analytical solution of the displacements u./ as a function of the radial
coordinate is finally expressed as
u./ D u1 Sn c1 C u2 c2 :
(32)
Here, the term u2 c2 represents the rigid body motions. The integration constants ci are determined
by evaluating the boundary conditions u. D 1/,

1
c1
D u1 u2
u. D 1/ :
(33)
c2
Equation (32) contains the matrix power function Sn , which has to be evaluated numerically. If
Sn is diagonal, the solution can be directly expressed as
Sn D diag. Sni i / :
(34)
O Sn is an upper triangular matrix.

In the general case of the block diagonalized Schur form S,
Different methods have been proposed to cope with this matrix type. Moler and Van Loan [36]
discussed several techniques. One of them is the combination of a Pad series development and the
scaling-squaring method, which is regarded as the best choice with respect to numerical stability
and efficiency, see Higham [37]. In MATLAB, the matrix exponential function is standardly computed via expm(). For the FORTRAN environment, the open source EXPOKIT-package constitutes
another option to carry out the exponentiation via the scaling-squaring method. For this purpose, the
subroutine DGPADM.f can be used, see Sidje [38], which requires the transformation of the power
function into a matrix exponential,
Sn D e Sn ln ;
> 0:
(35)
For D 0, the solution yields 0Sn D 0. Note that Sn never becomes the zero matrix.
The SBFE solution in displacements as expressed in Equation (32) analytically describes the
variation of the displacements with respect to the radial direction in an SBFE domain. Here,
singularities are automatically included and can be captured accurately by means of the power
function. The SBFE solution will be used in the following to construct 2D shape functions over
the polygonal domain, which facilitate the further development of a polygon-shaped FE with a
potentially in-built singularity.
2.2. Two-dimensional SBFE shape functions
Using Equations (32) and (33), the displacement solution is expressed as

1
u./ D u1 Sn u2 u1 u2
u. D 1/
(36)
D N ./ u. D 1/ :

DOI: 10.1002/nme
974
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
Figure 3. Domain of N k ./.
In Equation (36), a new matrix of shape functions N ./, which interpolates all discrete nodal
displacements u. D 1/ of the total polygonal SBFE domain, can be identified. For an n-node
plane polygonal element with two degrees of freedom per node, the matrix N ./ is of order
2 n 2 n. It contains submatrices of shape functions N k ./ for each subdomain k, as illustrated in
Figure 3,
2
::
:
6
7
7
N ./ D 6
4 N k ./ 5 :
::
:
(37)
These submatrices N k ./ are of order 2 nk 2 n, where nk is the number of nodes in the subdomain
k. Using Equation (4), the displacement field uL k .; / of one subdomain k can be expressed as

uL k .; / D
uL x .; /
uL y .; /
Q k ./ N k ./ u. D 1/

D N
D Nv k .; / u. D 1/ :
(38)
Analogously to Equation (37), Nv k .; / denotes the matrix of shape functions interpolating only
the discrete nodal displacements of one subdomain k of the polygonal domain in radial and cirQ k ./ corresponds only to the nodes of
cumferential direction. Note that the interpolation matrix N
the considered subdomain and, in consequence, is only piecewise valid for the considered total
domain. Therefore, the matrix of shape functions Nv k .; / has to be formulated and computed for
the specific subdomain considered, see Figure 3.
From the matrix N ./, only the rows corresponding to the nodes of the subdomain k are
selected in form of the submatrix N k ./ to construct the matrix of shape functions Nv k .; /. For
a two-node line element with nk D 2, for example, N k ./ is a matrix of order 4 2 n; and the
corresponding matrix of shape functions Nv k .; / is obtained as
Q k ./ N k ./
Nv k .; / D N

D
k
k
k
k
N11
./ N12
./ N13
./ N14
./
6 k
7
k
k
k
N1 ./ 0 N2 ./ 0
6 N21 ./ N22 ./ N23 ./ N24 ./ : : : 7
6 k
7;
0 N1 ./ 0 N2 ./ 4 N ./ N k ./ N k ./ N k ./
5
31
32
33
34
(39)
k
k
k
k
N41
./ N42
./ N43
./ N44
./

DOI: 10.1002/nme
975
Q k ./ is given in Equation (5). Evaluating the matrix product in Equation (39) finally yields
where N
the components of the matrix of shape functions Nv k .; / for a two-node line element,
"
Nv k .; / D
k
k
k
k
N1 ./ N11
./ C N2 ./ N31
./ N1 ./ N12
./ C N2 ./ N32
./ : : :
k
k
k
k
./ C N2 ./ N41
./ N1 ./ N22
./ C N2 ./ N42
./
N1 ./ N21
"
#
Nx1 .; / Nx2 .; / Nx3 .; / : : :
D
;
Ny1 .; / Ny2 .; / Ny3 .; /
#
(40)
where the superscript k is omitted for the sake of simplicity. At this stage, a comparison with standard FE formulations using shape functions hi .r; s/ for node i in terms of local element directions
r and s is interesting. The FE matrix of shape functions Nv FEM is expressed as

Nv FEM .r; s/ D

0
h2 .r; s/
0
h3 .r; s/ : : :
h1 .r; s/
:
0
h1 .r; s/
0
h2 .r; s/
0
(41)
In contrast to the FE matrix of shape functions given in Equation (41), Nv k .; / is not decoupled, and all entries are non-zero in general. Consequently, the interpolation of the displacements
in x-direction depends also on the displacements in y-direction. Using summation notation and the
definitions of Nxj and Nyj given in Equation (40), the in-plane displacements can be expressed as
uL x .; / D
2n
X
Nxj .; / uej
j D1
and
uL y .; / D
2n
X
Nyj .; / uej ;
(42)
j D1
where the summation involves all the 2 n degrees of freedom of the polygonal element. Therefore, uej is the j th component of the discrete nodal element displacement vector ue (degree of
freedom j ).
For different convex and non-convex n-node polygons, the shape functions are plotted in Figures 4
and 5, respectively. The graphs represent the value of Nx1 .; /, evaluated for one node, showing
the nodal values influence over the domain. In general, the shape functions are nonlinear, as can be
seen in Figure 5, where element nodes of the midplane are highlighted by white filled dots.
3. SBFEM-ELEMENT FORMULATION
The development of a plane FE based on the SBFE shape functions, which can be used in a physically and geometrically nonlinear FE analysis, is addressed in the following. For completeness, the
derivation of a three-dimensional Q1P0 FE formulation for rubber-like materials is summarized in
Section 3.1. The transition from 2D to 3D is explained in Section 3.2. In Sections 3.3 and 3.4, the
SBFE shape functions are incorporated into the Q1P0 framework using either an isoparametric or a
superparametric approach.
3.1. Q1P0 finite element formulation

Standard isoparametric FEs (Q1P1) suffer from locking in case of nearly incompressible material
behavior, for example, of rubber-like materials, as has been shown in previous studies by, for example, Doll et al. [39]. So-called Q1P0 FE formulations overcome locking problems by a kinematically
decoupled ansatz for volumetric and isochoric deformations. Although Q1P0 FE formulations have
been addressed by many authors (e.g., Bonet and Wood [40], Wriggers [41]), a Q1P0 FE formulation, which is suitable for incorporating the SBFE shape functions, is derived in the following for
completeness and to demonstrate differences to standard FE approaches.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
976
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
(a) 3-node, plane view
(b) 3-node
(c) 4-node, plane view
(d) 4-node
(e) 6-node, plane view
(f) 6-node
Figure 4. Shape function Nx1 .; / of different convex n-node polygons: (a) 3-node, plane view; (b) 3-node;
(c) 4-node, plane view; (d) 4-node; (e) 6-node, plane view; and (f) 6-node.
Let be the energy functional for a hyperelastic solid subjected to external loading at time t with
the trial solution u of the displacement field,
Z
Z
D int ext D int f0 u dV t0 u dA ;
V
@V
where f0 and t0 are the volume body forces and the surface tractions measured in the reference
configuration, respectively. The symbols V and @V D A denote the volume of the solid in its
reference configuration and its boundaries, respectively. By evaluating the directional derivative
D v of with respect to the increment in virtual velocity v,

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a) 6-node, plane view
(b) 6-node
(c) 8-node, plane view
(d) 8-node
977
Figure 5. Shape function Nx1 .; / of different non-convex notched n-node polygons: (a) 6-node, plane
view; (b) 6-node; (c) 8-node, plane view; (d) 8-node.
D v D D int ext D int
f0 v dV
V
t0 v dA D 0 ;
(43)
@V
the principle of virtual work in case of equilibrium is recovered. Linearization of Equation (43)
around the fixed trial configuration with the displacement field u subjected to the virtual velocity
field v leads to
D v C D.D v/ u D 0 ;
(44)
where the second directional derivative of D D v with respect to an increment in the displacement field u at fixed virtual velocity field v is required. Note that Equation (44) is a linear
equation in u, which will be solved in its discretized form using an iterative Newton-Raphson
scheme. In the following, the directional derivatives of the functional are considered in more
detail for an FE implementation.
For the considered case of hyperelastic material behavior, int is composed of a volumetric
free energy function U.J / and an isochoric free energy function .C/ defined per volume of the
reference configuration,
Z
int .u/ D
V
Z
.C/ dV C
U.J / dV ;
(45)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
978
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
with the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor C D FT F. J D det F is the determinant of the deformation gradient F D rX x, where x.X; t / is used to characterize the position of points in the current
configuration at time t occupying the position X in the reference configuration at time t D 0. rX
denotes the gradient operator with respect to the reference configuration, while the gradient operator with respect to the current configuration will be abbreviated by rx in the following. To consider
different kinematical approaches for volumetric and isochoric deformation parts, the kinematical
variable is introduced, and the inner potential is written as a Hu-Washizu functional
Z
int .u; ; p/ D
.C/ dV C
V
Z
p .J / dV ;
U. / dV C
V
(46)
where p is a penalty term. In case of the mean dilatation technique, and p are assumed as constant
over the element volume. To obtain an equilibrium state, the total potential has to become stationary,
D 0. First, directional differentiation with respect to a virtual velocity field v yields
Z
Dint v D
@
W DC v dV C
@C
Z
p DJ v dV ;
(47)
with isochoric and volumetric parts

Z
Z
@
@J
1
1
D int v D 2
W D C v dV C 2 p
W D C v dV
@C
2
@C
2
V
Z V
Z
1
D Siso W D E v dV C 2 p J C1 W DE v dV
2
V
V
Z
Z
D .Siso C Svol / W D E v dV D S W D E v dV D int :
V
(48)
In Equation (48), S denotes the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor and E stands for the GreenLagrange strain tensor. Furthermore, the following two second-order conditions have to be fulfilled,
Z
D int D

dU
p dV D 0 ;
d
(49)
.J / p dV D 0 :
(50)
Z
D int p D
V
Because Equations (49) and (50) have to be valid for arbitrary values of , p,
Z
dU
dV
d
p dV D 0
1
pD
V
J dV
dV D 0
V
dU
dV ;
d
(51)
v
:
V
(52)
Z
V
! D
1
V
Z
J dV D
V
Here, and p have been assumed as constant over the volume to rewrite the integral expressions.
In the following, the stationary functional is linearized with respect to a displacement increment u.
Directional differentiation with respect to u yields

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Z
@S
W D E u dV C S W D EP u dV
D int u D D E v W 2
@C
V
V
!
Z
1
@
J
C
@Siso
D D E v W 2
Cp
W DE u dV
@C
@C
V
Z

D E v W J C1 Dp u dV
C
979
(53)
P u dV :
S W D E
The directional derivative of p with respect to u is constant and can be written out of the integral
expression
Z
Z

D int u D D E v W Ciso C Cp W D E u dV C D E v W J C1 dV Dp u

V
i
T
S W rX u rX v dV ;
(54)
and yields
Z 2
Z
1
1
d2 U
d U
DJ u dV
D u dV D
dV
d d
V
d d
V
V
V
V
Z
1
d2 U
DJ u dV :
D
d d D v V
D p u D
1
V
(55)
The isochoric fourth order tangent tensor Ciso and the fourth order pressure tensor Cp have been
introduced in Equation (54) as abbreviations for their corresponding terms in Equation (53). Ciso and
Cp can be directly computed from the constitutive material law chosen by evaluating the derivatives
of the functions .C/ and U.J /. Using the relations

D J u D D .det F/ D F u D J FT W rX u D J tr F1 rX u

D J tr rx u D J div.u/ ;
(56)

taking into account of A W B D tr AT B and using the definition
div u D
1
v
Z
div u dv;
(57)
as well as
1 d2 U
V d d D v
Z
with
vD
Z
J dV D
dv ;
(58)
a compact form of the directional derivative given in Equation (55) is obtained,

D p u D
N v div u :
(59)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
980
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
The volumetric part defined in Equation (47) can be expressed using Equation (56) as
Z
Z
D J v dV D J C1 W DE v dV D v div v :
V
(60)
Finally, the linearized internal potential

Z

D int u D D E v W Ciso C Cp W D E u dV
V
C v
N v div v div u
Z
h
i
T
C S W rX u rX v dV
(61)
can be identified. In the following, the external volume body forces f0 and the external loading t0
are assumed to be conservative forces, that is, independent of the displacement field. This leads to
the simplification D.Dext v/ u D Dext u D 0. With this property, Equation (61) can be
numerically evaluated for an FE volume V e and v e of the reference and the current configuration,
respectively, as
T
D e u D D eint u D ve Ke ue
h
i
T
D ve Kem C Kep C Keg ue ;
(62)
and the contribution of the trial solution state yields

T
D e v D ve Re
(63)
D ve Te Fe :
As a result, Equation (44) can be rewritten for any arbitrary nodal velocity vector ve as
Ke ue D Re :
(64)
Equation (64) can be solved using a Newton-Raphson iteration scheme. The nodal element stiffness
matrices and the nodal element force vectors are
Z
Z
Kem D
BLT DC BL dV ; Keg D
BNL T SQ BNL dV
(65)
Ve
and
T D
BLT SO dV ;
Ve
Ve
F D
eT
N
Ve
Z
f0 dV C
Ne t0 dA ;
(66)
@V e
respectively. ue is the discrete nodal displacement vector of a 3D element consisting of 2 n nodes

with 3 degrees of freedom (displacements) per node. DC is the matrix equivalent in Voigt notation
of the sum Ciso C Cp . The matrices BL , BNL , and SQ as well as the vector SO are given in Appendix B.3
for completeness. Note that the computation significantly differs from the standard FEM due to the
special shape functions used. In the next section, the matrix of shape functions Ne .; ; / and its
derivatives are considered in more detail.
3.2. 2D to 3D transition
In Section 3.1, a 3D FE formulation has been considered. In Section 2, the SBFEM has been applied
to a plane problem, with only in-plane loading and initially constant thickness. This 2D plane SBFE

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a) 2D plane SBFEM-element with 3 degrees
981
(b) corresponding 3D plane element with 3 degrees of
of freedom per node
freedom per node
Figure 6. 2D to 3D transition: (a) 2D plane SBFEM-element with 3 degrees of freedom per node and (b)
corresponding 3D plane element with 3 degrees of freedom per node.
formulation is extended to 3D as illustrated in Figure 6(a). The link to the equivalent 3D plane
element depicted in Figure 6(b) is accomplished via reduction in form of the substitution
ue D R qe ;
(67)
where ue is the unknown element nodal displacement vector of the 3D plane element and qe is
its counterpart in the 2D case. Therefore, the reduction matrix R constitutes the relation between
the degrees of freedom. As a result, Equation (64) is expressed for the 2D plane SBFEMelement as
RT Ke R qe D RT Re
or
Se qe D re ;
(68)
with the reduced stiffness matrix Se D RT Ke R and the residuum vector re D RT Re . The
components of ue and qe as well as R are discussed in more detail in Appendix A.
3.3. Incorporation of the SBFE shape functions

In the following, an isoparametric (A1) and a superparametric approach (A2) for interpolating
displacements and element geometries via the SBFE shape functions are discussed. In the isoparametric approach A1, the displacement field is interpolated with a set of shape functions Nije .; ; /
corresponding to the global coordinate directions x, y, (i D 1; 2; 3) and the degrees of freedom
of the element j D 1; 2; : : : ; 3 2 n as
2
uL x .; ; /
e
e
.; ; / N12
.; ; /
N11
e
6
7 6 e
7
L ; / D 4 uL y .; ; / 5 D 4 N21 .; ; / N22 .; ; / : : : 5 ue D Ne .; ; / ue :
u.;
e
e
.; ; / N32
.; ; /
uL .; ; /
N31
(69)
Analogously, the geometry of convex polygons is described as

X D Ne .; ; / Xe
and x D Ne .; ; / Xe C Ne .; ; / ue :
(70)
Let d, dX; and dx be infinitesimal vector elements of the element space, the reference configuration
and the current configuration as illustrated in Figure 7. The mapping matrices Je and je between the
configurational settings can be identified as

DOI: 10.1002/nme
982
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
Figure 7. Configurations of a domain (4-node polygonal element).
6
6
7 6
6
7D6
dY
dX D 6
5 6
4
6
4
dZ
dX
@X
@
@Y
@
@Z
@
@X
@
@Y
@
@Z
@
@X
@
@Y
@
@Z
@
2 3
7 d
7
76 7
7 6 d 7
74 5
7
5 d
or
dX D Je d :
(71)
Analogously, dx D je d holds. Je and je are expressed using the components of the general matrix
of shape functions given in Equation (69),
2
Ne1; Xe Ne1; Xe Ne1; Xe
6
e
e
e7
Je D 4 Ne2; X Ne2; X Ne2; X 5 ;
Ne3; Xe
Ne3; Xe
(72)
Ne3; Xe
with the row matrices

e

.; ; / Nie2 .; ; / : : : Niem .; ; / ;
Nei D Ni1
i D 1; 2; 3 :
(73)
The notation ;4 is used to abbreviate the partial derivative of the quantity with respect to 4.
The FE discretized mapping matrix je from element space to the current configuration at t D t C t
is analogously expressed as
2
Ne1; xe Ne1; xe Ne1; xe
7
6
je D 4 Ne2; xe Ne2; xe Ne2; xe 5 :
Ne3; xe
Ne3; xe
(74)
Ne3; xe
Using the mapping matrices Je and je , the deformation gradient can be obtained numerically as
F D je Je1 ;
(75)
see, for example, [40, 41].

The initial or reference geometry of non-convex notched polygons cannot be captured by the
isoparametric approach A1 as illustrated in Figure 8. That is, the interpolation of the nodal reference
geometry Xe via the matrix of shape functions Ne .; ; / does not represent the reference geometry
(crack faces). Therefore, a superparametric approach A2 as given in Equation (76),
e
O C XS C Ne .; ; / ue ;
L ; / D NG e .; ; / X
x.; ; / D X.; ; / C u.;
(76)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a) specimen
(b) model SBFE A1
983
(c) model SBFE A2
Figure 8. Non-convex polygonal domain (specimen with an initial notch) and different representations of
its reference geometry (undeformed) via approach A1 (wrong) and A2 (correct) for SBFE shape function
parameters E D 100 N/mm2 and D 0:45: (a) specimen, (b) model SBFE A1, and (c) model SBFE A2.
is introduced as a second option, where the geometry is interpolated with a different set of shape
O ; /CXS
functions than the displacement field (see, for example, [33]). Note that X.; ; / D X.;
holds for the transformation between the two coordinate systems with the position vector XS to the
scaling center S of the element (see, for example, Figure 2(b)). For option A2, the mapping matrix
Je with respect to the reference configuration is now
2
e Oe
e Oe
Ge O e
NG
X NG
1; X N1; X
1;
6
7
Ge O e
Ge O e
Ge O e 7
Je D 6
4 N2; X N2; X N2; X 5 ;
e Oe
e Oe
Ge O e
X NG
NG
3; X N3; X
3;
(77)
with the row matrices

Ge
e
.; ; / NiG2 e .; ; / : : : NiGme .; ; / ;
NG
D Ni1
i
i D 1; 2; 3 :
(78)
Because of the additive composition of x.; ; / defined in Equation (76), the matrix je can be
expressed as a sum of two matrices,
2
Ne1; ue Ne1; ue Ne1; ue
6
7
je D Je C 4 Ne2; ue Ne2; ue Ne2; ue 5 ;
Ne3; ue
Ne3; ue
(79)
Ne3; ue
with Je from Equation (77). Finally, the deformation gradient can be computed according to
Equation (75) by using the mapping matrices of the superparametric approach A2 defined in
Equations (77) and (79). In Appendix B.1, the components of the matrices of shape functions
Ne .; ; / and NG e .; ; / are given. In addition, the evaluation of the derivatives of the shape
functions with respect to X and x is outlined in Appendix B.2. In Section 5, the isoparametric (A1)
and superparametric (A2) element formulations are further investigated.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
984
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
3.4. Element matrices

By introducing the gradient of average shape functions with respect to the current configuration,
3
2 e
e
e
e
N
N
N
N
11;x
12;x
13;x
1m;x
Z
7
6 e
1
e
e
e
e
(80)
rx Ne dv D 6
rx N D e
N 21;y N 22;y N 23;y : : : N 2m;y 7
5;
4
v
e
e
e
e
e
v
N 31; N 32; N 33;
N 3m;
the average divergence operator of the shape functions with respect to the current configuration,
h
i
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Ndiv D .N 11;x CN 21;y CN 31; / .N 12;x CN 22;y CN 32; / : : : .N 1m;x CN 2m;y CN 3m; / ;
(81)
e
can be computed. Note that Ndiv is the condensed row matrix to rx N . Its components are obtained
e
by summing all the components of a column of rx N . Using Equation (81), the expression defined
in Equation (57) can be evaluated numerically, and the pressure stiffness matrix of the mean
dilatation method can be expressed as
eT
Kep D v e
N v e Ndiv Ndiv :
(82)
Finally, the volume integration of the integral expressions is addressed. The volume integration
is performed numerically using Gaussian quadrature. For the triangular subdomains, for example,
np D 4 integration points in the midplane are computed at which the integration in -direction and
-direction is carried out (see, for example, the element integration carried out by Kraus et al. [42]).
In -direction, only one integration point at D 0 is used to integrate over the thickness of the
considered region. The SBFE domain, the subdomains, and the integration plane, which corresponds
to the midplane of the considered region, are illustrated in Figure 9. In addition, the integration point
coordinates p , p , p as well as the integration weights Wp are given for np D 4.
4. FINITE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL ALGORITHM
The derived SBFE formulation for a convex or non-convex plane n-node SBFEM-element has been
implemented into the Finite Element Analysis Program FEAP 8.3 [43] as a user element. Only
the midplane of the 3D specimens with initially constant thickness is discretized by 2D convex
or non-convex plane SBFEM-elements. The 3D element formulation given in Section 3.1 allows
to use standard material models for a 3D setting and does not require a plane-stress derivation.
The transition to a plane-stress problem is accomplished via the reduction method as outlined in
Section 3.2. At the same time, the numerical effort is decreased by reducing the global size of the
Figure 9. Gauss integration points.


DOI: 10.1002/nme
985
system of equations to be solved. The computational process is summarized in form of a numerical

algorithm for a user element subroutine:
(1) POSTPROCESSING to obtain SBFE shape functions if ishape = false
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
read initial, undeformed 2D geometry Xe 2D of the midplane element nodes

define coordinates XS of scaling center S
O
provide geometry of element nodes in terms of X
identify subdomains
DO for each subdomain k
(i) compute local matrices E0 k , E1 k , E2 k according to Equations (18) (20) and
(ii) assemble their components in global element matrices E0 , E1 , E2
(f) assemble Hamiltonian matrix Z defined in Equation (28) from global element matrices E0 , E1 , E2
(g) Schur decomposition of Z and block-diagonalization of Schur form to obtain Sn according to
Equation (29)
(h) compute base functions
(i) store u1 , u2 and Sn for later reuse in each iteration
(j) ishape = true
(2) DO for each iteration of the global solution process
e 3D
O
(a) provide initial, undeformed 3D geometry Xe 3D , X
of the element nodes by node doubling and
introduction of the thickness t in Z-direction
e 3D
e
3D
(b) provide deformed 3D geometry x
, xO
of the element nodes
(c) DO for each integration point l in subdomain k
(i) compute shape functions and their derivatives (see Equations (36), (40), (69) and
Appendix B.1)
(ii) compute je , Je according to Equations (72) or (77), (74) or (79)
(iii) compute F according to Equation (75)
e
(iv) compute contribution to matrix of average shape functions rx N using Equation (80) and
e
(v) assemble integration point contribution into global element matrix rx N
(d) compute Kep according to Equation (82)
(e) DO for each integration point l in subdomain k
(i) compute shape functions and their derivatives (see Equations (36), (40), (69) and
Appendix B.1)
(ii) compute je , Je according to Equations (72) or (77), (74) or (79)
(iii) compute F according to Equation (75)
(iv) call material subroutine to obtain Ciso and Cp as DC of the reference configuration with
second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses SO
(v) construct matrices BL , BNL (see Appendix B.3)
(vi) compute local matrices Kem k , Keg k as well as vectors Tek , Fek according to Equations (65)
and (66)
(vii) assemble their components in global element matrices Kem , Keg and vectors Te , Fe
(f) compute Ke D Kem C Kep C Keg and Re D Te Fe
(g) reduction Se D RT Ke R and re D RT Re according to Equation (68) (see also Appendix A)
(3) RETURN stiffness matrix Se and residual vector re to solve Se qe D re with respect to the increment
qe
As described in Section 2, the LAPACK-package [44] and the EXPOSIT-package [38] have been
used to efficiently perform the corresponding matrix operations.
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES AND VERIFICATION
In this section, the correct numerical realization of the SBFE formulation is demonstrated. The stress
response of an element patch test and the convergence of the iterative solution scheme are investigated. The influence of the isoparametric and the superparametric approach A1 and A2, respectively,
are highlighted. In the following, studies on notched rubber specimens are carried out to illustrate
the simulated deformation of the crack tip at large strain. In a structural example, a notched rubber

DOI: 10.1002/nme
986
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
specimen under tensile loading is analyzed. The derived SBFEM-element solution (2D discretized
midplane) is compared with a standard FEM-element solution (3D discretized specimen).
Rubber is a material with distinct physically and geometrically nonlinear characteristics (e.g.,
large extensibility, overall hyperelastic mechanical response, large deformation at rupture). In the
following examples, the Yeoh model and the extended tube model are used to represent the material
behavior of the rubber specimens investigated.
The Yeoh model [45] is a phenomenological material model to describe rubber-like materials, which has been derived from experimental observations. The equation for the isochoric strain
energy function

2
3
D C1 I 1 3 C C2 I 1 3 C C3 I 1 3 ;
(83)
involves three model parameters, C1 , C2 and C3 , and the first invariant of the isochoric right CauchyGreen strain tensor
T
CDF F
with I 1 D tr C ;
F D F Fvol ;
Fvol D J 3 I;
F D J 3 F :
(84)
In contrast to the Yeoh model, the extended tube model proposed by Kaliske and Heinrich [46] has
been derived from statistic mechanical observations and considers the topological constraints and
limited extensibility of network chains in filled rubbers. Its isochoric strain energy function is
Gc
D
2
"
#

3

I1 3
2 Ge X
2
I

3
C

1
;

C
ln
1
1
a
2 aD1
1 2 I 1 3
1 2
(85)
with the principal stretches a of the isochoric right Cauchy-Green strain tensor C D 2a Na Na ,
where Na denotes the eigenvector of C in the reference configuration corresponding to a . The
model parameter Gc takes into account contributions of the cross-links to the shear modulus, and Ge
considers the contributions stemming from topological tube constraints. is an empirical parameter,
normally bounded by 0 < 6 1, but other values can be used in the simulation to explore all
the features of the model. incorporates the limited chain extensibility of the network chains in
the model.
The volumetric behavior of the rubber is modeled via its volumetric strain energy function
U.J / D
.J ln J 1/ ;
(86)
with the model parameter

representing the bulk modulus, which is chosen high enough to act as a
penalty parameter in the simulation of the nearly incompressible rubber material.
The model parameters, which are used in the following for the numerical examples, are
summarized in Table I.
Table I. Identified model parameters for a filled rubber (see [46]).
Yeoh model parameters
[N/mm2 ] C1 [N/mm2 ]
100.0
0.1711
C2 [N/mm2 ]
C3 [N/mm2 ]
1:767 103
4:619 105
Extended tube model parameters
[N/mm2 ] Gc [N/mm2 ]
100.0
0.1867
[]
Ge [N/mm2 ]
[]
0.09693
0.2169
0.2

DOI: 10.1002/nme
987
5.1. Numerical stability and convergence

A patch test is carried out for the FE-discretized geometry shown in Figure 10(a). The rubber material is represented by the extended tube model with its model parameters given in Table I. The
quadratic rubber specimen has a side length of d D 10 mm, a thickness of t D 1 mm and is
subjected to a prescribed total displacement of u D 2:0 d via 20 displacement increments. The
boundary conditions are set in such a way that a uniaxial homogeneous tensile test is simulated.
Figure 10(b) shows the deformed mesh and a homogeneous stress distribution in the SBFEMelements used for the patch test. The numerical simulations with SBFEM-elements of type Q1P1,
Q1P0 as well as approach A1 and A2 showed that the deformed geometry as well as the reaction
force in tensile direction coincide with the analytical solution for the uniaxial tensile test (see e.g.
[46] for the analytical solution in case of incompressibility).
The patch test is repeated with changed boundary conditions and by using the Yeoh model
to represent the rubber material. The model parameters are given in Table I. The FE-discretized
geometry of the rubber specimen is shown in Figure 11(a) together with the boundary conditions
which have been adapted to represent an inhomogeneous tensile test. The results of the SBFEMelement formulation with isoparametric (A1) and superparametric (A2) shape functions (for convex
polygons) have been compared to the outcome of standard FE simulations with isoparametric Q1P0
(mean dilatation method) FEs. Again, the quadratic specimen has a side length of d D 10 mm, a
thickness of t D 1 mm and is subjected to a prescribed total displacement of u D 0:3 d via 20
displacement increments.
In Figure 11(b), the solution of a standard 3D Q1P0 FEM-element formulation is compared to
the results of the SBFEM-element formulation of type Q1P1 with isoparametric and superparametric shape functions. Both approaches (A1 and A2) show well known stiffening effects for nearly
incompressible material behavior which lead to numerical instabilities during the increase of the
prescribed displacement u. The convergence of the Newton-Raphson method has been investigated.
(a) model, mesh and
(b) deformed mesh
(c) reaction force in tensile direction
boundary conditions
Figure 10. SBFEM-element patch (Q1P1 A1/A2, Q1P0 A1/A2) to reveal homogeneous stress distribution
and deformed geometry for uniaxial homogeneous tensile test: (a) model, mesh, and boundary conditions;
(b) deformed mesh; and (c) reaction force in tensile direction.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
988
(a) model, mesh and boundary conditions
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
(b) deformed
mesh with
Q1P1 elements
(c) deformed mesh with Q1P0 elements
Figure 11. Element patch to reveal locking behavior and convergence of the SBFEM-elements: (a) model,
mesh, and boundary conditions; (b) deformed mesh with Q1P1 elements; and (c) deformed mesh with
Q1P0 elements.
(a) Q1P1 SBFEM-elements
(b) Q1P0 SBFEM-elements
Figure 12. Convergence rates at maximum displacement u D 0:3 d for inhomogeneous element patch test:
(a) Q1P1 SBFEM-elements and (b) Q1P0 SBFEM-elements.
Figure 12(a) shows the convergence for the last load step at u D 0:3 d . The residual jrj stands
for the absolute magnitude of the residual force vector. Near the solution point, quadratic convergence is observed for the Q1P1 SBFEM-element formulation which proves the correct derivation
and implementation of the novel SBFEM-element.
The test has been repeated for the Q1P0 SBFEM-elements. Figure 11(c) illustrates that the
artificial stiffening (locking) observed in Figure 11(b) has been overcome as well as the numerical
instabilities at large strain with u > 0:3 d . It can be observed that approach A1 and approach A2
yield an identical structural response for convex-shaped SBFEM-elements. This phenomenon does
not depend on the choice of E > 0 or 0 < < 0:5 for the construction of the SBFE shape functions, see Equation (12). In the present case, E D 100:0 N/mm2 and D 0:45 have been used. In
the numerical examples carried out, it has been observed that for convex-shaped SBFEM-elements
the number of integration points NGPX D 3, NGPY D 3 and NGPZ D 1 for the three local element directions per SBFEM-subdomain (see Figure 9) is sufficient to fully integrate the SBFE shape
functions of each subdomain.
5.2. Node-free crack tip SBFEM-element
The focus is now on a crack tip Q1P0 SBFEM-element with 8 nodes as depicted in Figure 13. The
rubber material is modeled with the help of the extended tube model and its parameters given in
Table I. For non-convex notched SBFEM-elements, only approach A2 yields meaningful results as
discussed in Section 3.3. Again, a quadratic rubber specimen with a side length of d D 10 mm and
a thickness of t D 1 mm is studied. The rubber specimen shows an initial notch with a length of

DOI: 10.1002/nme
989
Figure 13. Finite deformation of a notched quadratic rubber specimen: o D d=5, c D d=2.
c D d=2 and an opening of o D d=5. The specimen can freely contract in - and y-direction during
the loading which consists of a prescribed total displacement of u D d in form of 20 displacement
increments. The shape of the opening crack faces and the Cauchy stresses in x-direction (11 ) at
each integration point are plotted for different loading stages in Figure 13. For non-convex notched
SBFEM-domains, the number of integration points has been set to NGPX D 7, NGPY D 3 and
NGPZ D 1 per SBFEM-subdomain (see Figure 9). It is worth mentioning that the shape of the crack
tip and its crack faces depends on the choice of via the constructed SBFE shape functions. In
Figure 13, E D 100 N/mm2 and D 0:45 have been employed for the construction of the SBFE
shape functions. Figure 14(a) shows the resulting shape of the crack for different values of as given
in Equation (12). Again, the value of E has no influence on the resulting SBFE shape functions and,
in consequence, on the final shape of the deformed SBFEM-element. However, the reaction force in
tensile direction shows nearly no dependence on as well as E, see Figure 13(b). For comparison,
the reaction force of a corresponding unnotched rubber specimen is plotted.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
990
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
Figure 14. Influence of Poissons ratio on the shape of the crack tip and the reaction force: (a) crack tip
shape at u D d as function of and (b) reaction force in tensile direction for different values of .
(a) model and geometry
(b) deformed configuration
Figure 15. Quadratic rubber specimen with an inclined notch: o D d=5, c D d=2, e D d=4: (a) model and
geometry and (b) deformed configuration.
In Figure 15, the position of the scaling center and, in consequence, the position of the crack tip
have been modified. For a quadratic rubber specimen with an inclined initial notch, its deformed
geometry at the end of loading (u D d ) is depicted. It can be seen, that via the position of the scaling
center, different positions of the node-free crack tip can be captured with less computational effort,
i.e. without remeshing.
5.3. Structural example: notched rubber sample

In the final structural example, a notched rubber specimen is considered to highlight the use of the
SBFEM-element as crack tip element (non-convex polygon). The mechanical behavior of the rubber
material is modeled via the Yeoh model with its model parameters given in Table I.
An inhomogeneous tensile experiment has been simulated in order to compare the results of the
SBFEM-elements (plane convex: 8-node Q1P0 A1, plane non-convex notched: 8-node Q1P0 A2)
with the results of standard 3D 8-node Q1P0 FEs. The rubber specimen is completely clamped at
one side as depicted in Figure 16(a). Its dimensions are l D 150 mm, b D 100 mm and t D 10 mm.
The notch is characterized by the geometry parameters o D b=20 and c D b=4. The specimens
edge at x D l is subjected to a prescribed displacement of u D b D 100 mm which is applied in
form of 50 displacement steps in a static analysis.
In Figure 16(b), the reaction force in x-direction is plotted for comparison. The predicted force
response is nearly identical for both, the SBFEM-elements and the FEM-elements. Figure 16(c)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
991
Figure 16. Notched rubber specimen under inhomogeneous tensile loading: (a) model and geometry,
(b) reaction force Fx in x-direction, and (c) deformed mesh and stress plot (Cauchy stress 11 ) at
u D 1:0 b.
shows the deformed contour of the rubber specimen for the analysis with SBFEM-elements and
FEM-elements. For comparison, the Cauchy stress in x-direction (11 ) is plotted for both simulation
outcomes. A coarse SBFEM-element mesh including a crack tip element and a fine FE mesh have
been used to capture the deformed geometry of the crack tip. For the discretization using standard
FEs, it is obvious that the mesh size increases due to the required fine discretization of the crack
tip, which affects the discretization of the whole specimen. Using the SBFEM-element as crack
tip element, e.g. crack tips can be captured without intensive mesh refinement. In addition, full
compatibility with other standard FEs is conserved due to their numerically discretized boundary.
Although a relatively large crack tip element has been used in case of the SBFEM-analysis, the shape
of the deformed crack faces and the stress field around the crack tip have been captured compared
to the results of the FEM-analysis with a finer FE mesh.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
992
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
5.4. Advantages of the scaled-boundary-based finite element formulation

The previous examples have demonstrated the applicability of the proposed approach to elastomers
fracture, where large deformations combined with large strains at rupture occur. In this context,
the FEM is a universal method to assess stress and deformation states in an arbitrary body with
and without singularities (Zienkiewicz et al. [47]). However, stress concentrations at singularities
require intensive mesh refinement to yield reliable results.
By using the presented scaled-boundary-based FE formulation instead,
the advantages of the SBFEM applied to linear-elastic fracture mechanics are transferred to
the FE framework for geometrical and physical nonlinearities,
fracture mechanical quantities, e.g. stress intensity factors or the J -integral (contour integral
around the crack tip), can be easily evaluated due to scaled boundary coordinates with radial
and circumferential element directions,
crack tips are node-free and, in consequence, no discretized nodal quantity has to be provided
at such a singularity,
the size of the global equation system to be solved is decreased due to the applied reduction
(2D to 3D transition),
the technique of substructuring can be used due to a FE formulation which is fully compatible
with standard FEs,
hanging nodes on the boundary and elements with different number of nodes can be used in
one FE mesh due to shape functions constructed by the SBFEM,
no remeshing of the crack tip is necessary in case of inclined cracks since only the scaling
center has to be shifted,
the meshing of the crack tip does not affect the meshing of the rest of the specimen.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
This work presents the detailed derivation of a SBFE formulation for physical and geometrical nonlinearity. The element is derived from the standard SBFEM for plane linear-elastic solid problems
in statics. For convex and non-convex plane bounded domains with initially constant thickness, the
semi-analytical solution for the displacements is summarized. The key idea presented in this paper
is to extend the existing method to nonlinearity by deriving a novel type of shape functions and
by developing their incorporation into the standard FE framework, rather than by solving nonlinear
differential SBFE equations. Several numerical details are presented which facilitate the implementation of the proposed element formulation as user subroutines in standard FE programs. In the
present work, the programming language FORTRAN has been used to implement a user element in
the FE analysis program FEAP.
The arbitrary n-node convex SBFEM-elements can be advantageously used at singularities
of the FE mesh where several neighboring nodes have to be connected with each other. In addition,
non-convex notched SBFEM-elements offer the possibility to represent the crack tip geometry with
a minimum of elements. As so-called crack tip elements, the SBFEM-elements reduce the numerical
effort associated with mesh refinement. The SBFEM-elements can be combined with other standard FEs by applying the technique of substructuring. Further studies will focus on the evaluation
of fracture mechanical quantities for inelastic material under large deformation using the proposed
SBFEM-elements. In addition, their incorporation into crack propagation schemes for nonlinear
and inelastic material behavior with large geometrical changes at the crack tip is the subject of
current research.
APPENDIX A: REDUCTION MATRIX
The reduction matrix for the conversion of the 3D plane element to the 2D plane SBFEM-element
is addressed in the following. In Figure A.1, the node-to-node connections are illustrated for one

DOI: 10.1002/nme
993
Figure A.1. Node-to-node relation between 3D and 2D plane SBFEM-element sketched for one subdomain
of a 4-node polygonal domain.
subdomain (see also Figure 6). In consequence, the nodal values of the reference and current
geometry element vector Xe and xe are, e.g. for node 1 and 5 in the 3D element,
t
e
X13
D ;
2
t
e
D q13 ;
x13
2
e
DC
X53
t
2
and
(A.1)
t
e
x53
D C C q13 :
2
(A.2)
For a 4-node element as depicted in Figure 6, the 3D plane element displacement vector, the
reduction matrix and the unknown vector of the 2D plane SBFEM-element are
3
2
3
2
10 0 00 0 00 0 00 0
u11
60 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u12 7
7
6
7
6
6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6u 7
7
6
6 13 7
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u21 7
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6u 7
7
6
6 22 7
7
6
7
6
6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u23 7
7
6
7
6
3
2
60 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u31 7
q11
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
6 q12 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
6 u32 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
6 u33 7
6 q13 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
6u 7
6 q21 7
7
6
6 41 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
6q 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
6 u42 7
22
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
6u 7
6
q23 7
7
6
6 43 7
e
e
7:
6
(A.3)
u D6
7; q D 6
7; R D 6
61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u51 7
q31 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
60 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u52 7
6 q32 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
6 q33 7
60 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u53 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u61 7
q
7
6
41
7
6
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6u 7
4
q
7
6
6 62 7
42 5
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 u63 7
q43
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
6u 7
7
6
6 71 7
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
6 u72 7
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
6 u73 7
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
6 u81 7
7
6
7
6
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
4 u82 5
00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1
u83

DOI: 10.1002/nme
994
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
APPENDIX B: ELEMENT MATRICES

The derived SBFE shape functions and the resulting element matrices for a plane 3D setting are
given in the following and their components are discussed.
B.1. Shape functions
Based on Equation (40), the matrix of shape functions Nv .; / for the plane SBFEM-element is provided with a third direction. The new coordinate direction is introduced for the thickness direction.
The two linear shape functions
N1 D
1
.1 / ;
2
N2 D
1
.1 C / ;
2
(B.1)
are employed, where N1 and N2 weight the influence of points at D 1 and D C1, respectively. In the following, the shape functions N1 and N2 are multiplied to the components of the
matrix of shape functions Nv .; /. For the -direction, the average of the - and -shape functions
is used to interpolate the third degree of freedom over and . Note that if non-symmetric polygons
are used, the values of Nxi .; / and Nyi C1 .; / will be different. For the 3D 2 n-node element, the
matrix of shape functions Ne .; ; / can be constructed as
2
Nx1 .; / N1 ./ Nx2 .; / N1 ./

0
6 Ny1 .; / N1 ./ Ny2 .; / N1 ./
0
:::
N D4

1
0
0
Nx1 .; / C Ny2 .; / N1 ./
2
e
Nxn1 .; / N1 ./ Nxn .; / N1 ./

: : : Nyn1 .; / N1 ./ Nyn .; / N1 ./
0
0
0
7
5 (B.2)

1
Nx.n1/ .; / C Nyn .; / N1 ./

2
and
2
Nx1 .; / N2 ./ Nx2 .; / N2 ./

0
6 Ny1 .; / N2 ./ Ny2 .; / N2 ./
0
:::
N D4

1
0
0
Nx1 .; / C Ny2 .; / N2 ./
2
e
Nxn1 .; / N2 ./ Nxn .; / N2 ./

: : : Nyn1 .; / N2 ./ Nyn .; / N2 ./
0
0
0
7
5:

1
Nx.n1/ .; / C Nyn .; / N2 ./

2
(B.3)
with
Ne D
1

Ne 2 Ne :
(B.4)
The superparametric approach A2 uses the matrix of shape functions NG e .; ; / to interpolate the
initial geometry of the 3D element. The components of NG e .; ; / correspond to the scaled boundary transformation which is extended by the -direction. Note that an initially constant thickness

DOI: 10.1002/nme
995
is assumed. Thus, no interpolation over and is carried out for the third direction. The resulting
submatrices for the 3D 2 n-node element, evaluated for the nodes of the current subdomain k, are
2
0 N1 ./ N1 ./
0
0
1 Ge
4
:
:
:
0
0

N
./
N
./
0
N D
1
1
1
0
0
0
N ./
2 1
0
N2 ./ N1 ./
0
N2 ./ N1 ./
0
0
3
0
0 :::5;
1
N
./
0
2 1
(B.5)
3
0
0 :::5;
1
N ./ 0
2 2
(B.6)
0
0
and
2
0 N1 ./ N2 ./
0
0
N1 ./ N2 ./
NG e D 4 : : : 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
N2 ./
N2 ./ N2 ./
0
0
N2 ./ N2 ./
0
0
0
0
with zero entries for all the other nodes not belonging to the subdomain k. Finally, the submatrices
constitute NG e .; ; / as
NG e D
1

NG e 2 NG e :
(B.7)
B.2. Derivatives of shape functions

The partial derivatives of the shape function Nije .; ; / with respect to X or x in form of a row
matrix can be obtained by applying the chain rule,

@Nije T
@X
@Nije
!T
@
@X
@
!1
D
@Nije
!T
@
J1
e
(B.8)
j1
e :
(B.9)
and

@Nije T
@x
@Nije
@
!T
@x
@
!1
D
@Nije
@
!T
B.3. Finite element matrices

The directional derivative of the Green-Lagrange strain tensor E D 12 .FT F I/ with respect to u
or v from Equation (61) is
D E u D EL D

T
1 T
F rX u C rX u F :
2
(B.10)
The matrix of incremental strains EL is now expressed in vector form as a linear function of the
discrete nodal displacements ue of the element. Applying Voigt notation,
EL D BL ue D .BL0 C BL1 / ue
(B.11)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
996
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
holds, where the incremental strains can be subdivided into a linear part BL0 and an initial
part BL1 . The components of the matrices BL0 and BL1 are identified from Equation (B.10) and
Equation (B.11). For completeness, the matrices BL0 and BL1 are given as
2
BL0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
D6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
e
e
e
@N11
@N12
@N1m
@X
@X
@X
e
e
e
@N22
@N2m
@N21
@Y
@Y
@Y
e
e
e
@N32
@N3m
@N31
:::
@Z
@Z
@Z
e
e
e
e
e
e
@N21
@N12
@N22
@N1m
@N2m
@N11
C
C
C
@Y
@X
@Y
@X
@Y
@X
e
e
e
e
e
e
@N31
@N22
@N32
@N2m
@N3m
@N21
C
C
C
@Z
@Y
@Z
@Y
@Z
@Y
e
e
e
e
e
e
@N11
@N32
@N12
@N3m
@N1m
@N31
C
C
C
@X
@Z @X
@Z
@X
@Z
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7;
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
(B.12)
and
2
BL1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6:::
6
D6
6
6
H11
6
6
6
6
6
H12
6
6
4
H11
H11
H12
H13
e
@N1j
@Y
e
@N1j
@Z
e
@N1j
@Z
C H21
C H22
C H21
e
@N2j
@Y
e
@N2j
@Z
e
@N2j
@Z
e
@N1j
@X
e
@N1j
@Y
e
@N1j
@Z
C H21
C H22
C H23
C H31
C H32
C H31
e
@N3j
@Y
e
@N3j
@Z
e
@N3j
@Z
e
@N2j
@X
e
@N2j
@Y
e
@N2j
@Z
C H12
C H13
C H13
C H31
C H32
C H33
e
@N1j
@X
e
@N1j
@Y
e
@N1j
@X
e
@N3j
@X
e
@N3j
@Y
e
@N3j
@Z
C H22
C H23
C H23
e
@N2j
@X
e
@N2j
@Y
e
@N2j
@X
C H32
C H33
C H33
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
:::7
7
7;
e
7
@N3j
7
7
7
@X
7
e
7
@N3j
7
7
@Y
7
e
5
@N3j
@X
(B.13)
with linear contributions for each degree of freedom j . The derivatives of the increments in
displacements H can be obtained from the deformation gradient,
H D F I:
(B.14)
An alternative way to compute BL is the direct use of the deformation gradient,

2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
BL D 6
6
6F
6 11
6
6
6
6 F12
6
4
F11
e
e
e
@N11
@N21
@N31
C F21
C F31
@X
@X
@X
e
e
e
@N11
@N21
@N31
F12
C F22
C F32
@Y
@Y
@Y
e
e
e
@N11
@N21
@N31
F13
C F23
C F33
@Z
@Z
@Z
e
e
e
@N21
@N31
@N11
C F31
C F12
C F22
@Y
@Y
@X
e
e
e
@N21
@N31
@N11
C F32
C F13
C F23
@Z
@Z
@Y
e
e
@N21
@N11
@N31
C F31
C F13
C F23
@Z
@Z
@X
F11
e
@N11
C F21
@Y
e
@N11
C F22
@Z
e
@N11
C F21
@Z
e
@N21
C F32
@X
e
@N21
C F33
@Y
e
@N21
C F33
@X
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
:::7
7
7:
e
7
@N31
7
7
@Z
7
7
e
@N31
7
7
7
@Y
5
e
@N31
@X
(B.15)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
BNL is composed of the derivatives of the shape functions,

2
e
e
e
@N11
@N12
@N1m
6 @X
@X
@X
6
e
e
e
6 @N11
@N
@N
12
1m
6
6 @Y
@Y
@Y
6
e
6 @N e @N e
@N
11
12
1m
6
6 @Z @Z
@Z
6
6 @N e @N e
e
@N
6
21
22
2m
6
6 @X
@X
@X
6
e
e
e
@N22
@N2m
6 @N21
BNL D 6
:::
6 @Y
@Y
@Y
6
e
e
e
6 @N21
@N22
@N2m
6
6 @Z @Z
@Z
6
e
6 @N e @N e
@N
31
32
3m
6
6 @X
@X
@X
6
6 @N e @N e
e
@N
6
31
32
3m
6
6 @Y
@Y
@Y
4 @N e @N e
e
@N3m
31
32
@Z @Z
@Z
with the matrix and vector notation of the stresses
2
SN
QS D 4 0
0
3
0 0
SN 0 5 ;
0 SN
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7;
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
3
S11 S12 S13
SN D 4 S21 S22 S23 5
S31 S32 S33
997
and
(B.16)
3
S11
6 S22 7
7
6
6S 7
SO D 6 33 7 :
6 S12 7
4S 5
23
S13
2
(B.17)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this research work by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant KA 1163/16-1.
REFERENCES
1. Song C, Wolf JP. The scaled boundary finite-element method alias consistent infinitesimal finite-element cell
method for elastodynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1997; 147:329355.
2. Song C, Wolf JP. Consistent infinitesimal finite-element-cell method: out-of-plane motion. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 1995; 121:613619.
3. Wolf JP, Song C. Consistent infinitesimal finite-element-cell method: in-plane motion. Computational Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1995; 123:355370.
4. Song C, Wolf JP. Consistent infinitesimal finite-element cell method: three-dimensional vector wave equation.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1996; 39:21892208.
5. Wolf JP, Song C. Finite-Element Modelling of Unbounded Media. Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1996.
6. Beskos DE. Boundary element methods in dynamic analysis. Applied Mechanics Reviews 1987; 40:123.
7. Beskos DE. Boundary element methods in dynamic analysis: Part II (1986-1996). Applied Mechanics Reviews 1997;
50:149197.
8. Park J, Kausel E. Numerical dispersion in the thin-layer method. Computers and Structures 2004; 82:607625.
9. Gross D, Seelig T. Bruchmechanik mit einer Einfhrung in die Mikromechanik (3rd edn). Springer: Verlag, Berlin,
2001.
10. Deeks AJ, Wolf JP. A virtual work derivation of the scaled boundary finite-element method for elastostatics.
Computational Mechanics 2002; 28:489504.
11. Wolf JP. The Scaled Boundary Finite Element Method. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, 2003.
12. Ooi ET, Yang ZJ. A hybrid finite element-scaled boundary finite element method for crack propagation modelling.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2010; 199:11781192.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
998
R. BEHNKE ET AL.
13. Yang ZJ, Ooi ET. Recent progress in modeling crack propagation using the scaled boundary finite element method.
International Journal of Computational Methods 2012; 9:1240016.
14. Song C, Wolf JP. Semi-analytical representation of stress singularities as occurring in cracks in anisotropic multimaterials with the scaled boundary finite element method. Computers and Structures 2002; 80:183197.
15. Song C, Vrcelj Z. Evaluation of dynamic stress intensity factors and T-stress using the scaled boundary finite-element
method. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2008; 75:19601980.
16. Song C, Tin-Loi F, Gao W. A definition and evaluation procedure of generalized stress intensity factors at cracks and
multi-material wedges. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2010; 77:23162336.
17. Chiong I, Sun Z, Xiang T, Song C, Tin-Loi F. Evaluation of dynamic generalised stress intensity factors at cracks and
multi-material wedges using the scaled boundary finite element method. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
2012; 12:197210.
18. Yang ZJ, Deeks AJ. Fully-automatic modelling of cohesive crack growth using a finite element-scaled boundary
finite element coupled method. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2007; 74:25472573.
19. Song C. Analysis of singular stress fields at multi-material corners under thermal loading. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2006; 65:620652.
20. Ooi ET, Song C, Tin-Loi F, Yang Z. Polygon scaled boundary finite element for crack propagation modelling.
21. Ooi ET, Yang ZJ. Efficient prediction of deterministic size effects using the scaled boundary finite element method.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2010; 77:9851000.
22. Ooi ET, Yang ZJ. Modelling dynamic crack propagation using the scaled boundary finite element method.
23. Behnke R, Dal H, Geiler G, Nser B, Netzker C, Kaliske M. Macroscopical modeling and numerical simulation for
the characterization of crack and durability properties of particle-reinforced elastomers. In Fracture Mechanics and
Statistical Mechanics of Reinforced Elastomeric Blends Lecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics,
Vol. 70, Grellmann W, Heinrich G, Kaliske M, Klppel M, Schneider K, Vilgis T (eds). Springer-Verlag: Berlin,
2013; 167226.
24. Bazyar MH, Song C. Time-harmonic response of non-homogeneous elastic unbounded domains using the scaled
boundary finite-element method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:357383.
25. Chiong I, Ooi ET, Song C, Tin-Loi F. Scaled boundary polygons with application to fracture analysis of functionally
graded materials. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2014; 98:562589.
26. Ooi ET, Song C, Tin-Loi F. A scaled boundary polygon formulation for elasto-plastic analyses. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2014; 268:905937.
27. Lin Z, Liao S. The scaled boundary FEM for nonlinear problems. Communications in Nonlinear Science and
Numerical Simulation 2011; 16:6375.
28. Chiong I, Song C. Development of polygon elements based on the scaled boundary finite element method. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2010; 10:012226.
29. Sukumar N, Malsch EA. Recent advances in the construction of polygonal finite element interpolants. Archives of
Computational Methods in Engineering 2006; 13:129163.
30. Li B, Cheng L, Deeks AJ, Teng B. A modified scaled boundary finite-element method for problems with parallel
side-faces. Part I. Theoretical developments. Applied Ocean Research 2005; 27:216223.
31. Lin G, Du J, Hu Z. Dynamic dam-reservoir interaction analysis including effect of reservoir boundary absorption.
Science in China Series E: Technological Sciences 2007; 50:110.
32. Birk C, Behnke R. A modified scaled boundary finite element method for three-dimensional dynamic soil-structure
interaction in layered soil. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2012; 89:371402.
33. Bathe K-J. Finite Element Procedures. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1996.
34. Song C. A matrix function solution for the scaled boundary finite-element equation in statics. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2004; 193:23252356.
35. Song C. Dynamic analysis of unbounded domains by a reduced set of base functions. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 2006; 195:40754094.
36. Moler C, Van Loan C. Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix, Twenty-five years later. SIAM
Review 2003; 45:349.
37. Higham NJ. The scaling and squaring method for the matrix exponential revisited. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis
and Applications 2005; 26:11791193.
38. Sidje RB. EXPOKIT: Software Package for Computing Matrix Exponentials. University of Queensland: Brisbane,
1998.
39. Doll S, Schweizerhof K, Hauptmann R, Freischlger C. On volumetric locking of low-order solid and solid-shell elements for finite elastoviscoplastic deformations and selective reduced integration. Engineering Computations 2000;
17:874902.
40. Bonet J, Wood RD. Nonlinear Continuum Mechanics for Finite Element Analysis. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, 1997.
41. Wriggers P. Nichtlineare Finite-Element-Methoden. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2001.
42. Kraus M, Rajagopal A, Steinmann P. Investigations on the polygonal finite element method: Constrained adaptive
Delaunay tessellation and conformal interpolants. Computers and Structures 2013; 120:3346.
43. Taylor RL. FEAP A Finite Element Analysis Program. Version 8.3 User Manual. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720-1710, 2009.

DOI: 10.1002/nme
999
44. Anderson E, Bai Z, Bischof C, Blackford S, Demmel J, Dongarra J, Du Groz J, Greenbaum A, Hammarling S,
McKenney A, Sorensen D. Lapack Users Guide (3rd edn) Dongarra J.J. (ed.). SIAM Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics: Philadelphia, 1999.
45. Yeoh OH. Characterization of elastic properties of carbon-black-filled rubber vulcanizates. Rubber Chemistry and
Technology 1990; 63:792805.
46. Kaliske M, Heinrich G. An extended tube-model for rubber elasticity: Statistical-mechanical theory and finite element
implementation. Rubber Chemistry and Technology 1999; 72:602632.
47. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL, Zhu JZ. The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals (6th edn). Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, 2005.

DOI: 10.1002/nme

Schur Reference

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Schur Reference

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A physically and geometrically nonlinear scaled-boundary-based

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

global Cartesian coordinates (reference configuration)

gradient operator with respect to the reference configuration

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

2. SBFE SHAPE FUNCTIONS FOR BOUNDED PLANE CONVEX AND NON-CONVEX

2.1. SBFE equations and solution for statics

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

(b) subdomain with scaled boundary coordinates

(a) bounded domain with subdomain

Figure 2. SBFE-discretized midplane ( D 0) of a polygonal domain of constant thickness t: (a) bounded

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

can be found using Hookes law with the elasticity tensor D,

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

where the matrices

have been introduced. The infinitesimal volume element

2 E0 u./; C E1T E1 C E0 u./; E2 u./ C FC ./ D 0 :

Here, the coefficient matrices E0 , E1 , and E2 have been introduced,

B1 ./T D B1 ./ jJj d t ;

B2 ./T D B1 ./ jJj d t

B2 ./T D B2 ./ jJj d t :

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

Substituting Equation (23) in Equation (17) yields

Solving Equation (22) for u./; gives

Equation (25) is substituted in Equation (24),

E1T E2 E1 E01

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

O Sn is an upper triangular matrix.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

Figure 3. Domain of N k ./.

Q k ./ N k ./ u. D 1/

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

Nxj .; / uej

Nyj .; / uej ;

3.1. Q1P0 finite element formulation

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

(a) 3-node, plane view

(c) 4-node, plane view

(e) 6-node, plane view

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

(a) 6-node, plane view

(c) 8-node, plane view

D v D D int ext D int

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

with isochoric and volumetric parts

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

A NONLINEAR SCALED-BOUNDARY-BASED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

D int u D D E v W Ciso C Cp W D E u dV C D E v W J C1 dV Dp u

D J u D D .det F/ D F u D J FT W rX u D J tr F1 rX u

a compact form of the directional derivative given in Equation (55) is obtained,

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:966999

Finally, the linearized internal potential

and the contribution of the trial solution state yields

respectively. ue is the discrete nodal displacement vector of a 3D element consisting of 2 n nodes

D v D D int ext D int

D int u D D E v W Ciso C Cp W D E u dV C D E v W J C1 dV Dp u

D J u D D .det F/ D F u D J FT W rX u D J tr F1 rX u