PSU-UNS International Conference on Engineering and

Environment - ICEE-2007, Phuket May10-11, 2007

Prince of Songkla University, Faculty of Engineering
Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand 90112

Abstract: Finite element method (FEM) posses a

status of one unique technology for numerical modeling
in civil engineering structural analysis. The basic
approach considers the FEM structural modeling in
simplify sense: after FE mesh generation i.e. system
topology definition follows modeling the FE stiffness and
theoretic boundary/interface conditions. Advanced
approach, proposed in this paper, takes into account real
boundary and interface conditions and some particular
phenomena modeling. This paper is a short review about
the possibilities for numerical modeling of boundary
(support) and interface (connection) conditions in
structural analysis by application of so-called link finite
elements (FE).
Key Words: FEM Modeling, link FE, AxisVM
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to numerical efficiency and simple software
implementation FEM has become a dominant method of
a numerical modeling of structural behavior. FEM
modeling is the creation of idealized and simplified
representation of structural behavior by FEM application.
Errors and inadequacies in FEM modeling may cause
serious design defects and difficulties. FEM modeling
process basically comprehends discretization phase and
approximation phase.
User of FEM software disposes of wide range of
different FE shape and type, Fig. 1. FE shape choice is
relevant in discretization phase. In approximation phase
of FEM modeling choice of FE type substantially
determine the quality of FEM solution.
Discretization (geometrical modeling i.e. generation
of a FE mesh) is the initial phase of FEM modeling.
Errors of discretization occur due difference between real
geometry of a structure and FE system topology
(application of unsuitable FE shape or insufficient
number of FE). It is clear that discretization errors
(except if they are coarse) belong to a category which
does not essentially change the character of the FEM
solution. The proof for this might also be the fact that in
the CAA software the generating of FE mesh is entrusted
to so-called pre-processor. Namely, this operation is
possible algorithmic describe, which is usual for
procedures which do not require extremely creative and
intuitive approach.

Figure 1. Different FE shape and type
Consequences of unsuitable discretization can be
easy observed even by inexperienced FEM software user
without high level of theoretic knowledge. Fig. 2. shows
some types of discretization errors.
MODELING OF BOUNDARY AND
INTERFACE CONDITIONS BY LINK
FINITE ELEMENTS
Duan Kovaevi
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Civil Engineering Department, Novi Sad, Serbia
dusan@uns.ns.ac.yu


ICEE2007044-140
On contrary, problems that can appear due to errors
in approximation (numerical modeling, in strict sense),
are much more complex.
This is especially noticeable by modeling of real
boundary conditions, specific interface conditions and
some particular shear stiffness phenomena. In this review
of mentioned problems one short theoretic introduction
and few illustrative examples are given. Detailed
description with wide theoretic statement is given in
references of this paper.

Figure 2. Adequate () and inadequate () FE mesh
2. MODELING OF SPECIFIC BOUNDARY AND
INTERFACE CONDITIONS
Modeling of boundary and interface conditions is the
important step in FEM approximation phase, because
that the real behavior of structural system strongly
depends of real supports and connections state. In FEM
software not yet implemented automatic modeling of
support and connection behavior and therefore structural
designer must approve well know of FEM technology
and his software implementation.
Two ways exist in numerical modeling of the
boundary conditions, i.e. setting of specific degrees of
freedom (DOF) of FE system:
numerical modeling by "skip" and
numerical modeling by "restraint".
Approach by "skip" is applicable primary for zero
value DOF in support and it is not universal. This
approach implies "deletion" of row and column of global
stiffness matrix of FE system for zero DOF.
Approach by "restraint" is more comprehensive than
previous and demand numerical forbidding or permission
of specific DOF by transformation of global stiffness
matrix of FE system.
Result is same in both cases: FE system global
stiffness matrix is regular because the so-called "rigid
body" DOF of FE system are eliminated. If boundary
condition is not "standard" (inclined support, for
example, Fig. 3) "restraint" approach demand
transformation of global stiffness matrix, see [2].

Figure 3. Standard and inclined by "" support
Modeling of nonstandard boundary conditions is
possible too by application of corresponding stiffness
elements for arbitrary DOF. In some cases this maybe
generates errors in FEM solution, due to so-called "ill-
conditioned" global stiffness matrix, Fig. 4, for very
small stiffness "K
B
" in regard to stiffness "K
A
".

Figure 4. "Well-" and "ill-conditioned" solution scheme
The term "single-joint restraint" is often in use for
boundary condition, because the restraint is applied to
joint of FE system regard to support. So-called "multi-
joint restraint" is in use for definition of restraint
between two or more FE system joints (interface
condition). Apparent example for a "multi-joint restraint"
is modeling the slab-beam connection, Fig. 5.

Figure 5. Example of "multi-joint restraint"
In this connection axis of beam FE and axis of plate
FE are not coincident. Eccentricity (i.e. "offset") in local
element axis direction are "e
x
" and "e
y
". In numerical
sense here is necessity to equalize corresponding
displacement of beam FE and plate FE.
Matrix relation between corresponding beam DOF "i"
("master" joint) and plate DOF "j" ("slave" joint) is:

(
(
(

j
j
j
x
y
i
i
i

v
u
1 0 0
e 1 0
e 0 1

v
u
(1)
ICEE2007044-141
Assembling of a global stiffness matrix of FE system
demand two transformations: between "slave" and
"master" joint DOF and between DOF in local and global
coordinate system. "Slave" joint DOF not appear in
global stiffness matrix explicitly. "Slave" joint DOF
compute in a postprocesing phase of analysis, according
to (1).
Interface condition modeling in above described
approach (so-called "master-slave elimination") performs
before assembling of global stiffness matrix. The
alternative approach in modeling of the interface
condition demand modification on global FEM
equilibrium equation after assembling procedure. Two
methods are used in FEM software:
Lagrange multiplier adjunction and
penalty augmentation.
For both methods the equation of restraint has the
form:
} 0 { } Q { } u { ] C [ = (2)
where: [C] - matrix with "m" as number of restraint and
"n" as number of DOF,
{u} - vector of DOF in a global system and
[Q] - vector of constants.
Lagrange multiplier and penalty method impose
equation (2) on the global equilibrium [K]{u}={R} by
different way.
Lagrange method introduces additional variables -
Lagrange multipliers:

[ ]
T
m 2 1
] [ =
(3)
Each restraint equation is in homogeneous form and
multiplied by the corresponding "
i
":
( ) 0 } Q { } u { ] C [ ] [
T
= (4)
Total energy expression is obtained when the left side
of (4) is added to the typical energy terms:

( ) } Q { } u { ] C [ } {
} R { } u { } u { ] K [ } u {
2
1

T
T T
p
+
+ =
(5)
If derivatives of "
p
" by {u} and {} are equalize to
zero, it is obtain:

)
`

=
)
`

} Q {
} R {
} {
} u {
0 ] C [
] C [ ] K [
T
(6)
Penalty method is based on equation:

0 } Q { } u { ] C [ ] t [ = =
(7)
which implies that restraints are fulfilled. Similar as (5)
an energy expression is:

] t [ ] [ ] t [
2
1
} R { } u {
} u { ] K [ } u {
2
1

T T
T
p
+
=
(8)
where: [] = [
1

2 ...

m
] - diagonal matrix with "m"
penalty numbers.
If derivatives of "
p
" by {u} are equalize to zero, it is
obtain:

( )
} Q { ] [ ] C [ } R {
} u { ] C [ ] [ ] C [ ] K [
T
T T
+ =
= +
(9)
where: [C]
T
[][C] - penalty matrix.
Penalty numbers must be not too large and not too
small, otherwise will appear ill-condition of FE system
matrix.
3. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
As an illustration of these considerations some
numerical examples, using FEM software AxisVM

, are
given.
First example show possibility of modeling the
composite beam, Fig. 6.

Figure 6. Composite "steel-concrete" beam
Large difference in calculated displacements (even
w280%), Fig. 7-8, indicates the necessity of modeling
a real connection between steel girder and concrete plate,
especially for beam with dowel in steel-concrete
connection.

Figure 7. Displacement of composite beam modeled by
link FE without bond

Figure 8. Displacement of composite beam modeled by
link FE with bond
Second example, Fig. 9, show differences in plate
behavior if:
connection is align regard to axes (beam axis is in
midplane of plate, diagrams on the left side) and
connection is align regard to top surface (top
surface of plate coincide to top surface of a beam,
diagrams on the right side).
ICEE2007044-142





Figure 9. Displacement "w", flexural moment "M
x
" and
torsional moment "M
xy
" for square plate supported on
differently located beam
Differences in maximal displacement values
(w40%), maximal moment values (M
x
25%) and
maximal torsional moments values (even M
xy
250%)
indicate the necessity of modeling real connection
between plate and beam especially for beam FE with
high shear stiffness influence and plate FE according to
Reissner-Mindlin model.
4. FINAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper emphasizes the importance of modeling the
boundary and interface conditions in FEM structural
analysis. Usual way to modeling these phenomena is
application of link FE. By convenient choice of link FE
stiffness parameters it is possible to obtain most different
behavior of modeled structural system (with/without
shear stiffness, with/without flexural stiffness, etc.).
Link FE are successfully available in modeling of
reinforced concrete structural elements, eccentrically
connected structural elements, cross-section created by
different materials, composite plates, etc.
Good implementation of link FE in FEM software
make possible that advances of application be expressed.
In this paper for numerical examples AxisVM

was
used. Besides "node-to-node" link FE AxisVM

apply
the "line-to-line" link FE, for modeling the "wall-plate",
"wall-wall" and "plate-plate" connection.
5. REFERENCES
[1] K.J. Bathe: Finite Element Procedures in Engineering
Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1982.
[2] R.D. Cook: Finite Element Modeling for Stress
Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.
[3] E. Hinton & D.R.Owen: Finite Element
Programming, Academic Press, London, 1977.
[4] D. Kovaevi: FEM Modeling in Structural Analysis
(in Serbian), Graevinska knjiga, Belgrade, 2006.
[5] J.S. Przemieniecki: Theory of Matrix Structural
Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.

ICEE2007044-143